Status Updates From Letter from a Christian Cit...

Wilson says that Darwinism lead inevitably to the Jewish holocaust in WWII. He cites one book that argues that the holocaust wouldn't have happened, or wouldn't have been as bad, if Darwinism were not ascendent. But I'm unsure what the point of this argument is. Was the holocaust not received with horror of historical proportions? Is it not regarded, even by secularists, as one of humankind's worst crimes?

After railing against Harris for asserting that some ideas are beyond question, Wilson then says that 'arguments with gravity are difficult to maintain'. Surely, Harris meant by his 'no question' refrain what Wilson means about gravity: not that some scientific dogmas are literally unquestionable (although Harris should be far more careful with his words), but that arguments against them are 'difficult to maintain'.

As Wilson points out, Sam keeps repeating the phrase, 'No question. No question. No question'. That's not a sceptical attitude, nor a scientific one. Kuhn recognises two types of scientist, the revolutionary & the normal. The revolutionary scientists, the ones responsible for its greatest advances, ask questions. The normals don't; they accept dogma & do (valuable) piecemeal work. Sam thinks all science is "normal".

Harris commits the No True Scotsman fallacy by saying that Christians with hard-science degrees, working on hard-science problems, aren't behaving like scientists. He also says that the theory of evolution 'no longer admits of intelligent dispute'. Disappointing: every theory can be intelligently questioned (see Einstein on quantum theory). It is the essence of science to try to undermine itself (falsification).

Apparently Harris claims that the core of science is intellectual honesty. This is stupid. Einstein himself destroyed his reputation in the latter part of his life by insisting against all evidence to the contrary that quantum mechanics was untrue and incorrect. What's true of Einstein is true of lesser scientists: science advances in spite of, often because of, our all-too-human failings, our pride, our spite, etc.

Chapter 8 has some good clapbacks from Wilson. It seems Harris has an incomplete understanding of some of the sociological milieu of the Jews who wrote the Old Testament. Harris asks why God didn't put a treatise on maths in the Bible; Wilson says the Hebrews didn't think it pertinent or more respectable a field of study than poetry. Harris also misunderstands ancient Hebrew norms of scholarly attribution.

Wilson's a Calvinist: 'during [hurricane] Katrina, God was laying waste to the city. Scriptural Christians do not feel in the least bit apologetic about how God governs the world. What He did to New Orleans was holy, righteous, just, good. Some of it may have been an obvious chastisement for those who would build a major city below sea level in hurricane country & then attempt to govern it through corruption & vice.'

In chapter 7, Wilson repeats for the umpteenth time the oversight which is his biggest failing. He asserts as though it were fact the idea that atheism implies, even necessitates, atheism and amorality. In this he reveals himself as ignorant (and I can only assume he is wilfully ignorant, because it's impossible not to know about it) of the thousands of years of discussions of secular ethics and the nature of value.

Chapter 6 discusses the problem of evil. Douglas resolves it by "embracing" the wrath of God, by seeing it as meaningful. This doesn't solve the problem of evil; it merely gives evil a purpose. By analogy, the suffering inherent in nature is good rather than malignantly useless because without it we would not be the creatures we are. But without it, we'd be different creatures. A reason isn't a justification.

Douglas closes by chapter 5 by responding to Sam Harris, who said that God is the most prolific abortionist of all. Douglas's response is, basically, that, yes, He is, but He's allowed to be, because He's God. To quote: "You do not appear to understand that if God is the giver of life (and He is), He may also take that life away." Is abortion bad? Yes. Is it bad when God does it? Apparently not!

Chapter 5 makes it clear that Mr Wilson has no understanding of the concept of empathy. He keeps referring to "nervous systems" as though they can only register orgasms and stab wounds and not vicarious joy, second-hand embarrassment, empathetic anger, and literally every other variation of emotional experience that our mirror neurons, among other things, permit us to experience. He is, simply, monstrously ignorant.

Douglas then compares the suffering of a bug to that of a late-term abortion. This is meant to make the reader believe that Sam Harris's position is that aborting a blastocyst is morally equivalent to aborting a late-state fetus. He does not believe this. It is also, again, unfair to the Jains, whose opposition to abortion is based on the belief that humans have souls. It has nothing to do with pain. More deceptions!

Chapter 4 opens with a discussion of abortion. Harris is quoted as discussing the abortion of 3-day-old, 150-cell blastocysts, which don't feel pain. Douglas then mentions the Jain ethic of nonviolence. But you cannot be violent towards something that does not feel pain. He then grossly misrepresents Jainism by saying Jains can't kill malarial mosquitos.

Douglas ends chapter three with a discussion of Jainism. Harris praises Jainism. Douglas gives examples of Jain practices, such as sweeping the path before them so that they don't step on bugs. Douglas then asks if Harris would also approve of people not taking antibiotics so as not to harm microorganisms. But most Jain teachings don't recommend this. It's a straight-up strawman. Such deception from Doug is common.

Douglas then says that incarcerated criminals are slaves in the same way that innocent people kidnapped by raiders and conquerors were in the pre-modern world. He responds to the obvious rebuttal, "but modern slaves are criminals", by drawing yet another false equivalence and saying that both slave-owning societies were merely protecting themselves from aggressors. Aggressors like the innocent and the kidnapped?

Chapter 3: Sam cites a Biblical atrocity. Douglas says it's not atrocious, actually, because it's better than what preceded it. By analogy, assaulting your wife is better than raping her, so laws that ban rape but permit assault ought to be welcomed. Better would be to outlaw both. Douglas then says that Old Testament atrocities are preferable to atheism because some atheists rape kids in Thailand. Holy strawman.

The first chapter was trash: "if it's not grounded in God, how can morality be objective? Checkmate, atheists!" is the juvenile tone of that chapter. Chapter two says something important: the common atheist retort, that they're atheist about one more god than the monotheists, is ridiculous. Theism is not atheism pus one god any more than atheism is just theism minus the last god standing & Harris is wrong to say so.