Michael Shermer, New Atheism and Hypocrisy

[I admit I am late to this topic. I am a busy person with little time to read People magazine. But I am addressing now only having recently found out about the indecent behavior of one of New Atheism’s ‘saints,’ Michael Shermer.]

If there is one thing you can count on people to be, it’s a hypocrite. It doesn’t matter if a person is Black, White, Asian, American, European, theist, agnostic or atheist. At some point, people turn their back on what they say they believe and demonstrate what they really think. Case in point: Noted author and founder of Skeptic magazine, Michael Shermer.

Although Michael Shermer is not one of the Four Horsemen of atheism, he is nonetheless highly respected among (most) New Atheists for his contributions to rational thought. But as any of us know who have ever had more alcohol to drink than we probably should have, rational thought and alcohol do not mix. Since mid-2008, Michael Shermer has been on the receiving end of numerous allegations of sexual misconduct (to put it politely) at several conventions across the U.S. While there is no hard evidence to hold Shermer legally accountable – no pun intended – there is enough testimony from several sources considered reliable to indicate that Michael Shermer has a problem with his libido. Along with the evidence, what is also missing is the outrage from the atheist community.

A timeline of Shermer’s misconduct can be found here on freethoughtblog.com. Note that in September 2008, another well-respect atheist DJ Grothe intervenes to stop Shermer from fondling a woman’s breasts. He had (apparently) recanted this sordid story many times before denying it in 2014. Why? Perhaps he is trying to protect a friend from allegations that didn’t go so far as to be out of hand, in Grothe’s estimation. But then note what the highly respected James Randi said about Shermer in late 2014: “Shermer has been a bad boy on occasion — I do know that[.] I have told him that if I get many more complaints from people I have reason to believe, that I am going to have to limit his attendance at the conference. His reply, […] is he had a bit too much to drink and he doesn’t remember. I don’t know — I’ve never been drunk in my life. It’s an unfortunate thing … I haven’t seen him doing that. But I get the word from people in the organization that he has to be under better control. If he had gotten violent, I’d have him out of there immediately. I’ve just heard that he misbehaved himself with the women, which I guess is what men do when they are drunk.”

There is something very strange about Randi’s statement and I don’t mean that it sounds untruthful; Randi recognizes that there is some kind of problem with Shermer at conferences but fails to ascent to the requisite outrage. Ah, but so does the New Atheist community who for so long has claimed the moral high ground over theistic institutions such as the Catholic Church that has for decades covered up sexual abuse by priests. I’m not drawing an analogy here, I’m making a direct comparison. Why is Shermer getting a pass, because he is ‘one of our own’ to atheists? That’s not rational and it is exactly the kind of behavior atheists have long rebuked the Catholic Church for. In other words, atheists that defend Shermer while believing in any kind of moral objectivity – as many New Atheists do – are hypocrites.

While Shermer has written about the evolutionary roots of our morality, I can’t be in Shermer’s head to know exactly his thoughts on morality. I do highly doubt he believes in moral objectivity himself. If he did, he must acknowledge that this morality becomes faulty in the presence of alcohol or is otherwise somehow able to conveniently justify his behavior. But what’s worse is that the rest of the New Atheist community ignores Shermer’s behavior as well and it’s not hard to tell why; if they do acknowledge Shermer’s conduct, then the argument from atheists about how terribly theists behave is weakened. If the New Atheist community really wants to be the paradigm of virtue and morality for the future, they need to have the strength of their alleged convictions. Shermer’s behavior is not okay. But it’s worse to ignore it altogether.

[Adam Lee wrote about The Wall of Silence Around Michael Shermer quite eloquently. Here is a link to that patheos.com article.]

Genetic Philosophy

As I mentioned in a previous blog, “A New Paradigm?,” philosophy in general rarely seems to go anywhere or solve any problems because there is no well-defined starting place from which philosophy begins nor do we know where it is supposed to end. It is often asked, “How should I (or we) live?” which seeks a moral foundation for living while completely ignoring both the beginning and ending points of our nature.

While we might say that we do philosophy for the sake of examining our own lives, pursuing the truth (whatever that means, nevermind what the truth is alleged to do for us), or inoculating ourselves against bad ideas, whatever reason any of us have for doing philosophy is ancillary to our very existence. So, might it be a good idea to at least begin philosophy from the question “How did I (or we) get here?” and end it by answering the question, “Where am I (or we) going?” At first glance, it may seem a bit arbitrary to pick these as starting and ending points for philosophy, but I do not think there are better points to begin working from, for doing philosophy from these points is at least based upon something concrete; our existence. [Or at least one’s own existence since we cannot prove others exist. But I digress…]

To once again paraphrase Richard Dawkins in The Selfish Gene, our genes use us, not the other way around. In the old Nature vs. Nurture debate (which shapes our lives more?), being nurtured is secondary to our Nature, our existence, so I don’t see how Nurture could shape our lives more than our Nature. Even the most rational person, nurtured to believe in logic and nothing else, is prone to bouts of irrationality. How could this be? Because we do not have conscious control over the entire world, much less ourselves, and this is due to the expression of our genes: Emotions are chemically driven and underwritten by the very way we are built. Realizing the power our genes have over us in attempting to get themselves into the next generation presents great explanatory power over otherwise seemingly irrational behavior. People who declare themselves rational constantly bicker over ideas because of the lack of a philosophical starting point and finishing line, but by agreeing with Dawkins about the goal of our genes gives philosophy a place to start from and finish. (And, of course, all rational people – or at least rational atheists – agree with Dawkins.)

Take, for example, how problematic devising an ethical system is. There is no flawless ethical system because there is no starting or ending point for ethical conundrums. In cases where those points are defined, such points betray what the person arguing for any given idea favors, revealing how they think the world should operate because it suits them. If an ethical system is, say, devised such that our actions should not cause physical harm to others, what is often revealed is that this is simply the preference of the person advocating such a position who, when pressed, can’t really express why they have taken such a position. What’s revealed is that the advocate’s position is actually rooted in their emotions and not so much in reason, with emotions being rooted in our biology to a greater degree than our capacity to be rational. Meta-ethics has failed to answer where ethics arise from because most meta-ethical hypotheses place ethical origins in some mythical, ethereal, or mental world and not in our own bodies. Meta-ethics has failed because it has failed to focus on the question “Why be ethical?” from the point of view of our genes’ survival (Evolutionary Psychology notwithstanding). Why ought we not physically harm others if it helps advance our genes or the best genes of our species into the next generation? [By ‘best,’ I mean two things: Genes that manifest the most favorable traits in a given environment and gives us the genetic variety necessary to withstand a disease that would otherwise wipe out the species.] Of course, maybe the belief that we shouldn’t physically harm others helps stabilize communities (read: tribes) which in turn gives us access to more mates and resources that aid survival.

These points considered, it is perhaps best to start philosophy from the point of “I (or we) exist” (having previously countered counters to Descartes’ initially false assertion). For now, since there are more pressing questions, we’ll have to regulate to the background how our parents genes got us where we are in order to focus on the question of how we’re going to live given that our genes are going to express themselves over the course of our lives. How will they make us behave? What problems will we encounter simply because we exist and how will we attempt to fix those problems?

Although not meant to be an exhaustive list, I have (as have others) identified several key obstacles regarding an individual’s existence. They are:

One is trying to overcome death (the most basic biological imperative).

One is trying not to be hungry (so as to overcome death and be fit for mating).

One is trying to avoid illness (so as to overcome death and be fit for mating).

One is trying to overcome fear (so they can take risks necessary to find food, mates, etc.).

One is trying to live without being controlled (so they can take risks necessary to find food, mates, etc.). 

One is trying to reproduce (or may have sexual urges based on a biological imperative…which is meant to overcome death through the passing on of genes.)

Now let’s attempt to ask a simple question – “How should I (or we) live?” – and see if Genetic Philosophy can give us a less complex answer and less hoops than traditional philosophy. Rationally, we know we cannot overcome death; our genes are programmed to die at some point. We have few options in overcoming death: either ensure that our name goes down in history (a short term solution, but potentially long if you’re a Greek philosopher or insane dictator), get our genes into the next generation through reproduction (potentially a long term solution so long as our offspring keep reproducing), or both. [Let’s rule out some mad scientist being able to manipulate our biology and make us live forever since none of us can outlive the universe. Would we even want to? Is immortality worth it? Ah, so many questions…]

Among our choices, trying to get your name to go down in history is fraught with difficulties; in fact, almost all of the most famous people in history weren’t even attempting to be famous and are instead famous because of others’ fascination with whatever they did. Moreover, assuming one rises to prominence does not mean they are going to enjoy their fame after they have died. I might also add that becoming a historical figure will only last as long as the species or the Earth is around. The only practical solution to overcoming death then is to get our genes into the next generation, and hope that our decedents pass the genes on, so on and so forth. This becomes our starting point in answering the question, “How should I (or we) live?” [Assuming one doesn’t want to have children, one can still examine the question from the ‘genetic’ point of view since our biology commands us in other ways.]

If it seems like the next logical thing to say once we’ve accepted the desire to get our genes into the next generation is that we should do whatever it takes to accomplish that goal, one is oversimplifying the situation. [While we are trying to have Genetic Philosophy give us simple answers, we mustn’t oversimplify.] If we thought clubbing a woman over the head and dragging her back to our home was the best way to get our genes into the next generation, we have to accept all the risks that go along with such behavior. The biggest problem is that we’d have to accept that violence may be done to us in competing for a mate which goes against our primary instincts to survive. Second, our offspring would be locked in a never-ending battle over resources which would reduce their chances of getting their genes (and ours) passed on. Collectively, we do not want that and how (Western) societies are set up reflects this.

Western society, as it has evolved (so to speak) appears to have unconsciously adopted genetic philosophy and created societies geared towards equality for all because that appears to offer everyone the best chance of accomplishing the goal of producing offspring. Certainly racial tensions and a tribal mindset still exist, but such base desires are really a manifestation of resource competitions. If recognized for what they are, racism and tribalism can become something of a vestigial appendix of the human mind. (I hope, anyway.) The problem entering the equation comes in when we do not consciously considered how our biology inclines us to act. Naturally, ancient Scandinavians and ancient Polynesians are going to differ wildly in their behaviors and values as the environment each evolved in has had a dramatic effect on their biology, and hence, also each one’s behavior and values.

So, when asking a question such as “How should I (or we) live?” should be answered every step of the way in accordance with our biological needs and desires. Or, supposing we don’t want a child for some reason undoubtedly based upon our biology, how our biology affects us. For example, I know that if I allow the slow driver in front of me to anger me, that raises the levels of cortisol (the stress hormone) in my bloodstream and elevated levels of cortisol in my bloodstream is damaging to my body over time. Being aware of my biology helps me become aware of my situation and allows me to take a moment to analyze the situation. That sure sounds deceptively simple but it is not: If I know the biological cost of anger, I might be inclined to find ways of managing my emotions so as to avoid anger.

Any good philosopher should have or be thinking of objections to my so-called Genetic Philosophy by now. For example, one might ask: Could Genetic Philosophy be used to enslave people, say, women? My answer would be, it shouldn’t, for two reasons. First, as a species we should seek genetic variety because this helps prevent a species from being wiped out by a single disease. Second, at least in part, genetic variety leads to a differing of cultures which may be a potential source of alternate or competing ideas when trying to problem-solve. Having different genders and cultures allows for different ideas, and a diversity of ideas is necessary for long-term survival. As you can see, a simple question with a simple answer (that I may have oversimplified).

I believe that Genetic Philosophy, as I like to call it, has the potential to solve ages old debates such as whether abortion or capital punishment should be permissible, how should I (or we) live, what the meaning of life is, and – due to the nature of doing philosophy from a genetic point of view – whether or not it is okay to be irrational. My hopes for Genetic Philosophy may be misplaced as I have yet to thorough test a single issue just mentioned using this new paradigm. But, I will get around to it as soon as my genes will allow.

My Beef With Boghossian

Does religion make people behave maliciously? Does religion make people evil? Do we need to rid the world of religion because it makes people malicious and evil? The answer to these questions is a resounding “yes,” or at least that is the answer rather strongly implied by the work of Portland State University’s Dr. Peter Boghossian. Boghossian’s new book, A Manual for Creating Atheists, is a rallying cry to what Boghossian calls “street epistemology;” basically atheist evangelicalism that seeks to divorce theists from their supernatural beliefs by attacking a theist’s theory of knowledge. In being a rational person, Boghossian says that there should not only be evidence to support beliefs but a proper chain of reasoning to come to certain conclusions. I certainly agree with Boghossian that faith is a failure of epistemology and I agree that the more outrageous a belief claim the more extraordinary evidence is required to make certain inferences. The problem is that if there should be evidence to support beliefs, whatever they may be, then Boghossian and his merry band of followers do not appear to be playing by their own rules. 

[Before going any further, I must disclose that I have never met, taken a class with, or otherwise talked to Dr. Boghossian. So, I cannot say how much of his beliefs or the beliefs of the presumably rational atheist community that I will now discredit they have personally examined or what rationalizing – different from rationale – they have used to come to certain conclusions.]

First, we have to understand what motivates the Boghossian and the current nu-atheist movement. (Hint: It’s the same as the old motivation.) What motivates a pseudo-militant atheist* like Boghossian is their belief that the world suffers, and has suffered throughout history, from the theistic beliefs that are rampant in almost every culture on Earth. Boghossian and his followers believe that if only people could be cured of their “faith virus” and turned towards atheism (which by-golly must be, by default, rational) the world would be a much better place. I know this is the premise these presumably rational atheists are working from because I used to think exactly the same thing a few years ago. And then I grew up.

[*A pseudo-militant atheist seeks to engage you in conversation with a measure of compassion but has an ulterior motive. But, hey, theists do the same thing, so why not?]

As a true, bona-fide philosopher who is not a Scotsman – philosophical humor; move along – I had a belief that was open to revision. (All beliefs must be so, according to Boghossian, or you’re not rational; agreed.) I found that the more people I met throughout life, I would come to categorize an individual as a good person by about a 4-to-1 margin regardless of whether they were theistic or atheistic. [Meaning, for every 4 good theists or atheists I met, there was 1 bad theist or atheist. Certainly, we could argue over my criteria for what makes for a good or bad person, but let’s focus on the subject at hand right now.] I found that in dealing with people, religion or lack thereof seemingly had no bearing on whether or not someone was nice to me. Of course, my personal experiences with people are anecdotal evidence that religion plays no part in what makes a human moral, and anecdotal evidence is generally frowned upon in philosophy. (Nevermind that it is often admissible in a court of law, but, whatever.) So, in order to tear down the premise from which presumably rational atheists are working from, perhaps we should examine history.

The presumably rational atheist works from the premise that historically speaking, religion has been the spark for untold amounts of suffering. Problem is, is that if we examine, say, the deaths caused by religion throughout recorded history, what presumably rational atheists say about religion simply isn’t true. For example, noted historian and chronicler of atrocities, Matthew White, concludes in his latest book The Great Big Book of Horrible Things that of the worst 100 atrocities in recorded history, only 13 of them are the direct result of (or assumed to be the direct result of) one religious ideology pitted against another. If we do the math, that leaves 87 atrocities in which religion played a secondary or little to no role in armed conflict. Obviously then, the presumably rational atheist is wrong about religion in terms of the amount of violence theists inflict upon others due to their theistic beliefs, so what do they mean when they say religion is the cause of untold amounts of suffering? (More on that in a moment.) Quickly, a question arises: Why aren’t presumably rational atheists examining the evidence for their own beliefs? A lack of evidence is the point Boghossian is hammering theists on, but why isn’t he applying his methodology to the beliefs of the members of his own community? Isn’t the premise presumably rational atheists are working from “something they are pretending to know,” as Boghossian would put it?

It may be the case that the presumably rational atheist senses there is an amount of harm done by religion that is psychological. Although they rarely cite this as the meaning behind their basic assumption about religion, they still have no evidence that the psychological manipulations perpetrated by theists upon other people (shaming, for example) is caused by the theist’s religious beliefs as opposed to, say, Nietzsche’s Will to Power. Is there perhaps a biological imperative that drives people to try and control others through any means available? Where is the evidence pointing one way or the other? Despite the lack of evidence – which is required to rationally believe something – the presumably rational atheist typically clings to the premise they began with, that religion is bad and that a world full of rational atheists would be better. Even if this were true, look what happens when we take the second part of their premise to its logical conclusion.

Let’s imagine for a moment that the presumably rational atheist is right (because there is supporting evidence) and the world would be better if it were full of rational people, given that rational people are less violent and not quite the psychological terrorist theists are. If it is concluded that rational people are morally superior, might there be sub-categories of rational people who are less violent and less psychologically manipulative than the group as a whole? Woman are often regarded as less violent than men and rightly so because that’s what all available evidence indicates. Moreover, evidence indicates that homosexuals as a group are less violent than women. If we take the presumably rational atheist’s original premise to its logical conclusion, the world would be a whole lot better off not under the direction of rational people, but under the direction of rational, atheistic lesbians. But you’ll never hear the presumably rational atheist come to such a conclusion because they haven’t looked at the evidence. They haven’t played by their own rules. 

Nor do they apparently want to. I cannot relate to you how many times I walked the halls of Portland State University as a student and saw flyers for the latest meeting extoling the virtues of Communism. This, despite the fact that all historical evidence indicates that Communism is a complete failure in practice.

This is not so much an attack on Boghossian as it is an attack on the beliefs of the latest, growing crop of atheists in general. After all, although I noticed the failure of theistic epistemology over two decades ago, Boghossian has pointed out this flaw in theism with more wit and flair than I ever could. And I would fully support his endeavor to de-convert people from their faith if only the evidence indicated that religion corrupts individuals and has been a detriment throughout history. But the evidence isn’t there. And therein lies my beef; don’t require of others evidence for their beliefs if you’re not going to apply the same standards to your own.

I'd like to believe that no one likes a hypocrite. Unfortunately, the evidence suggests otherwise.