Dispatches from the Creation Wars

Well, the column is stupid, but if you replace every instance of the word "soul" with "prefrontal cortex" then it's at least technically sound. Other than that it's just typical "atheists/scientists say this, but they're WRONG" boilerplate.

He did manage to take my favorite Founding Father and one of my favorite Roman Catholic philosophers and make me like them less. I guess that's an accomplishment.

Posted by: D Johnston | December 21, 2008 10:09 AM

I imagine that if I follow the link to the full article Ben Shapiro will explain the conflict between his notion and the fact that nearly all pre-19th century, and most 19th-century religions supported slavery.


Or not.

Posted by: llewelly | December 21, 2008 10:09 AM

Funny that those atheist, social democratic, evolution-believer countries in Europe do not practice the American version of social darwinism concerning private health care.

Posted by: Guido | December 21, 2008 10:17 AM

Ramel - ditto yoshi's statement. How is Schwarzenegger an idiot?

Posted by: Michael Heath | December 21, 2008 10:37 AM

Giving up being a popular and extremely well paid actor to become a politician? You need more?

Posted by: Ramel | December 21, 2008 11:01 AM

That's interesting, actually -- I've run into other arguments that were also centered on very basic confusions of language.

Because "human rights" is a concept that implies a universal application -- all humans must have these rights -- that must mean that a supernatural creator must exist to "manage" that status, or something. And because "human rights" by definition apply to all humans (it's right there in the name, "human" rights!) ...so abortion must be illegal because the fetus gets (from God) the same rights as the mother.

He had no understanding that language might come from us -- and we define "human rights" the way we do because we're trying to balance out a naturally very unbalanced world. And, uh, we're allowed to want more equality because it increases everyone's quality of life -- why would atheists be necessarily blind to all of the options of human society?

There was also Michael Enquist, who commented on this blog that "it is phenomenally inconsistent for those who claim to come to their atheism by way of hard-core rational thinking that the universe is "governed" by materialistic laws to be anything but a laissez-faire free marketeer". Why? I set up a page to argue the question but he disappeared... but I'll bet it was based on the same idea that without morals from God, we'd all become cutthroat social darwinists. No matter how miserable a life that might be -- we'd have to demand it because it was "natural" (as if empathy were unnatural, I guess?).

Crossing my fingers that he'll show up again someday... I still hope his argument was more sophisticated than that, but that's all I can think of.

Posted by: Rob W | December 21, 2008 11:27 AM

So if we use "equal" in the preposterously literal way that Shapiro does, then my wife is "equal" to... well, fill in whatever sex goddess you want.

You get the point.

Posted by: BaldApe | December 21, 2008 11:48 AM

Yeah, let us thank god that it gave us the modern technology that not only allowed Hawking to survive but to be able to express his intelligence. Why, if we lived in more godly times, Hawking would have died while still an infant.

Posted by: Janine | December 21, 2008 12:46 PM

By the way, Ed, you've been silent on the Rick-Warren-inaugural-address brouhaha. I'm curious what your thoughts are on the matter. I personally am leaning more towards Joan Walsh's take, although Andrew Sullivan does make some excellent points.

Posted by: Sadie Morrison | December 21, 2008 1:36 PM

Another difference between Hawking and Schwarzenegger is that Schwarzenegger is a corporate pawn and a part of the Republican scheme to eventually privatize everything under the sun, roads, schools, utilities, police and fire departments, the military, state parks, etc. In other words, government for corporations and to hell with the people.

Posted by: Rodney | December 21, 2008 2:01 PM

P.S. Reflecting on that, it strikes me as downright horrifying to think that Shapiro can't find a reason to believe that both Stephen Hawking and Arnold Schwarzenegger have the right to not be tortured, not to be enslaved, not to have their property taken from them, and all of the other things entailed in viewing humans as equal under the law unless they both have something called a "soul." How about the most basic moral rule, which is based on empathy-- do unto others as you would have them do unto you? Or its actual superior form, don't do unto others as you would not have them do unto you? I'm guessing that Shapiro knows what torture is, and doesn't care to be tortured. Presumably he also knows by extrapolation that the same is likely true of Hawking and Schwarzenegger (because, due to their biology, they are capable of knowing what torture is and fearing it). Look! I just made a perfectly coherent in viewing humans as equal without even mentioning a soul. Is Shapiro really incapable of doing the same? If so, then I have to wonder if he is empathy impaired....otherwise known as sociopathic.

Posted by: Gretchen | December 21, 2008 2:26 PM

That should say "perfectly coherent argument for viewing..." Okay, I'll shut up now.

Posted by: Gretchen | December 21, 2008 2:29 PM

from the site:

Ben Shapiro, 24, is a graduate of UCLA and Harvard Law School.

Awkward...

Posted by: cm | December 21, 2008 3:05 PM

What's the term for switching uses or senses of words?

Equivocation

Posted by: BaldApe | December 21, 2008 4:06 PM

ConcernedJoe:

I've often suspected that the "evolution says we should all be heartless backstabbing bastards" argument is an unintended insight into the personality of the person making it.

Posted by: Martian Buddy | December 21, 2008 4:37 PM

What's the term for switching uses or senses of words?

Equivocation

Thanks. I've always referred to it as a form of "bait and switch". At least now I have the technical name.

Posted by: libarbarian | December 21, 2008 5:45 PM

Janine said:

"Why, if we lived in more godly times, Hawking would have died while still an infant."

Actually Hawking first showed signs of Lou Gehrig's disease when he was doing his PhD at Cambridge, not when he was born.

Posted by: Alex Deam | December 21, 2008 7:10 PM

A unique posting indeed from Mr. Shapiro, quasi-fascism with some cheesy theology thrown in for good measure. I wonder who this deep thinker thinks is 'superior', the bonehead with big biceps, or the man with the towering intellect but useless body? Not that it really matters.

Posted by: Raymond Minton | December 21, 2008 7:56 PM

If I get a vote Ed, those are mine to.

Posted by: Rhysz | December 21, 2008 8:14 PM

I hate quotes like this, because they are so hard to reply to. They are obviously wrong, but where to start? It's wrong in so many different ways, but most of all it's just plain and simple, stareing-you-in-the face, wrong. It's as if someone declared that two plus two equals eleventy-five, and you are expected to write a detailed explanation of the exact nature of their mathematical error.

Posted by: Suricou Raven | December 21, 2008 9:35 PM

@CHV: Ben's actually married. Has been for a month or two, at this point, thus putting the lie to the "getting laid will loosen him up" maxim. If anything, he's become more of a crank since then.

Gretchen pretty well laid out everything I wanted to say. Ben's argument rests pretty heavily not just on the provenance on the soul, but on knowing exactly what it does. And yes, arguing that certain people are soulless has fueled many atrocities - the slave trade and the pogroms of the Middle Ages spring to mind. Actually, this piece reminds me of some of Vox Day's more noxious screeds - and sure enough, a link to that specimen's book is available at the bottom of the article.

Posted by: D Johnston | December 22, 2008 12:44 AM

One immediate enormous problem here: WrongNutDaily. Having FoxTel is similar to having the local sewage plant daily emptying the shit in your loungeroom, but WND . . . isn't even that good!
As to the WND nutter li'l Ben, - cretinism at its most ineloquent.
Why bother, life is to short to dance with an ugly . . . in this case, dipstick.

Posted by: shonny | December 22, 2008 6:24 AM

Gretchen,

I'm not disagreeing with your analysis, but I wonder how it translates to the (OT) issue of human intelligence among the so-called races. Suppose there is a genetic basis for a perceived difference in intelligence in "races." Should we not still assume that all people have roughly the same potential, in spite of any evidence to the contrary, in order to preserve equality of opportunity?

Maybe I'm wrong (again) but I'd rather believe that tested intelligence differences between "races" are cultural artifacts, because it helps justify a commitment to equality under the law. Even if it means sticking my fingers in my ears, just this once, and saying "I can't hear you."

But again, for the record, I completely agree there are better reasons to preserve the dignity and freedom of individuals than the belief that they have a soul.

Posted by: BaldApe | December 22, 2008 11:22 AM

I really have to wonder, do they see their own hypocrisy and ignore it, or are they totally oblivious to it? We've already seen multiple comments pointing out the bizarre nature of his equality argument, soul = equality, science = inequality? But at the same time conservatives argue that some people are better than others, that's why you have rich and poor. A foundational argument, often unstated, is that rich = good, poor = bad/lazy, etc., and that is not only perfectly fine, but desirable, even celebrated.

I agree with the statement that Hawking and Schwarzenegger aren't equal, Hawking is obviously far superior to Arnold. I wouldn't go so far as to call Schwarzenegger an idiot except compared to Hawking, most of us are idiots.

But really, this piece points to the hypocrisy of believers for thousands of years. Today, we are all equal because we have a soul, therefore God exists. Now putting aside the obvious logical bankruptcy of that statement, let's look at the historical issue. For twenty years following the "discovery" of the Americas, the Church (the only one in western Europe at the time), couldn't decide if Native Americans had souls. Prior to that they argued that killing non-believers was okay because first, they didn't have souls, then, because their souls were going to hell anyway. Slaves didn't have souls, then they did but slavery was good for them because it saved their souls. Imperialism and colonialism was good because exploiting other people saved their souls ... they weren't equal of course, they just had souls.

Not only is Shapiro wrong logically, not only does he not establish "support" for his position based on his inability to imagine the alternative except in a negative light, the guy is historically revisionist.

Never trust a white man who wants to talk about your land or your "soul," you're likely to lose both in the end.

Posted by: dogmeatib | December 22, 2008 12:36 PM

As a soulless person, I object to Mr. Shapiro's obvious bigotry. I would like him to explain why soulless people are not covered by the Bill of Rights or equally deserving of protection under the law.

Posted by: eric | December 22, 2008 4:50 PM

From his column:
"Nonetheless, our entire legal and moral system is based on the ghost in the machine...we routinely lock up kleptomaniacs and violent felons."
He doesn't seem to understand that "our entire legal and moral system" isn't just to punish bad people, free will or no.
Even if free will does not exist, removing members of the population from that population in prison or mental hospitals protects the rest from the "kleptomaniacs and violent felons", as well as providing an opportunity to modify the "program" in gooey gray of the imprisoned (rehabilitation).

"According to atheists, human beings are intensely complex machines."
But we are. I'm assuming he means brain/mind, but whether there is or isn't an undetectable and immaterial soul controlling the brain via undetectable means, wow, what a machine.

"Our actions are determined by our genetics and our environment."
As though that isn't enough already...and as though our morality hasn't "evolved" along with us.

"According to atheists, if we could somehow determine all the constituent material parts of the universe, we would be able to predict all human action, down to the exact moment at which Vice President-elect Joe Biden will pick his nose."
Good luck with that. I doubt that quantum particles agree with his statement. They might average out to "normal", but individually those particles are all quite mad, apparently.

"Since when does biology dictate a moral drive?"
Um, because it got us (a social, curious species lacking tooth and claw) here? Pragmatic solutions may not be the best solutions, but perfection and biology tend not to hang around together (and good luck getting the ponderers of "Why?" to agree on the best solution. Worse, the solution is found, then some cultural blindspot is noticed, like slavery, chicks wanting the vote, the civil rights movement, radio and the like, and they have to do it all over again).

"If it did, wouldn't man always get more rather than less moral - wouldn't history be a long upward climb?"
Because Man, in part, has two drives, I and We, which are in constant tension. What altruism builds, greed tears down. Also, it's a hell of a lot easier to destroy than to create. It takes a bunch of hours to make a gun, but it only takes a second to use it (terrible analogy, I know).

"What about the murderers, rapists, child molesters and genocidal dictators?"
Too much I, not enough We (and in the case of the typical dictator, too much Them). And where does God fit in here, if Hitler and most of his victims got sent to the same place (and Hitler could've got the good ending if He hadn't off'd himself and had repented)?
It's odd seeing a theist maligning the concept of justice when his own God's justice mangles the term to meaninglessness. But that's an aside, probably.

"But as a system of thought, atheism cannot be the basis for any functional state."
Fact-based governance may lead to a certain level of cold utilitarianism, but fact-based beat faith-based. The facts might not be what you want them to be, but believing them to be otherwise because of faith won't change them.

MartinM "I believe the typical fundie belief is that animals do not possess souls. I somehow doubt that Shapiro would argue that therefore torturing dogs for fun is just fine."
That's part of the logic that let vivisection off the hook that it put animals on. "It's only a convincing simulation of the pain reaction".
They also never argue that the few other self aware species have souls or even proto-souls. I assume that those animals just have a "convincing simulation of self-awareness". Ours must be really convincing, if it managed to fool us.

BaldApe "For instance, even if it is true that women have lower math ability on average than men (and that may not be true at all, of course), there certainly are plenty of women whose math skills are better then mine."
Since the variation within groups is bigger than the variation between them, the between is just noise. Of course, I say this while knowing that Asians can't drive. Broads, too. And white people mess everything up.

...
On a side note, Hegelian social Darwinism is bad, but laissez fair economics is good (even though the results are the same, as those who can't compete don't eat). The link between the Christian Right and the economic Right must make for some interesting mental gymnastics, as Jesus was for taking care of and protecting the worst off (as in the end of Matt25) while the economic Right is for using them as a cheap and disposable source of labour.

Posted by: Modusoperandi | December 23, 2008 8:00 AM

"If it did, wouldn't man always get more rather than less moral - wouldn't history be a long upward climb?"

History is one long upward "moral" climb. As Richard Dawkins points out in "The God Delusion," we as a species have constantly reexamined our morals and improved upon them.

40 years ago, black people in America were second class citizens. Before that they were slaves, a state of affairs which many religious leaders supported.

Now look, a black man is the new American president. And it's no thanks to religious "morality" that he got there. Quite the opposite, in fact: many religious leaders vehemently opposed an Obama presidency.

Religion has almost always slowed down the advance of moral evolution. Because their morals are fixed and unchanging, they can only reexamine and refine their morals by liberally reinterpreting their fixed moral code. this places limits and constraints on how much their code is able to adapt to changing social circumstances.

This situation also inevitably leads to moral declines, as the more hard line interpretations cyclically come back into mainstream religious dominance.

If anything has held the advancement of morality down, it's religion. Still, morality has advanced, despite all competing faith-based pressures.

Posted by: Kaose | December 23, 2008 12:31 PM