The best I could say about
The God Argument is that it is just another contribution to the singularly undistinguished tradition of the
thoroughly mediocre … utilitarian Englishmen who walk
clumsily and honorably in Benthams footsteps. It also has that
small-soul smell of the
socialist dolts and flatheads in their drive for the
animalization of man into the dwarf animal of equal rights and claims. Quotes thanks to Nietzsche
ACs method is a compilation of first-year philosophy lectures denying the existence of a God which are
glued onto a sort of self-help tract for college freshers although the latter would be better described as a self-destruction tract being as it is a call for sexual experimentation and a not so ambiguous suggestion that responsible drug use is no worse than smoking or drinking.
The method betrays a typical duality of the liberal mind. First they need to convince themselves that there is no such thing as God then they can indulge themselves in sexual clichs and the latest liberal trends. Of course they need the former to justify the latter otherwise their consciences may play tricks on them.
The argument is totally confused. Essentially it claims that there is no objective right and wrong and certainly not one ordained by any God and that humans can themselves construct a set of rights and wrongs for themselves. Well of course they can. In fact that is all the human race has ever done. Genghis Khan had his version as did Stalin and Hitler.
But no doubt AC would argue that
their reasoning was defective. The liberal/humanist/etc argument goes like this: if you reason in the right way you will agree with us. If you dont agree with us that in itself is evidence that you have not reasoned in the right way. The obvious fallacy in such an argument even if it were true is that it is a claim that there is an objective right and wrong which is discoverable by employing the right procedure. Sounds a lot like religion to me.
The only difference is that the liberal god is reason. However to adapt from Alf Rosss observation about justice (another liberal favorite)
invoking reason in support of an argument is like banging on the table.
I see no difference in the Atheist/Humanist/Rationalist invoking reason to this:
There are many who say that reason is not the decisive factor but that other imponderables must be considered. I believe that there can be nothing of value which is not in the last resort based on reason.
That of course was Adolf Hitler. The fact is as I demonstrate in my next book reason is a neutral faculty. Contrary to what Kant claimed it tells us nothing
on its own account. Worse still if reason and instinct were the only faculties in the human brain then it would be better for mankind if reason were expunged from the brain.
Yet I should consider for a moment ACs application of reason.
Since liberals are obsessed with sex let me look at some of his reasoning on that subject. In true liberal fashion AC scratches around in zoology textbooks to find examples of promiscuous sexual behavior in animals which he cites as a sort of validation of his views. He finds the example of
bonobo chimpanzees which
engage in sex almost as a greeting casually and often. (I expect that little example must be titillating to impressionable young students must get loads of giggles). And no doubt this engagement in sex
casually and often leads him to be able
to report that chances of loving and being loved more fulfilling than ever before improve with experience. Thus might the voice of experience speak.
His experience I presume. Pps 205203 respectively
That is the kind of nonsense I would expect to hear from some love-struck teenager not a professor of philosophy. It is the product of an academically institutionalized mind. It is rather pathetic that a human would justify primitive behavior by claiming to be imitating monkeys.
But it gets worse - a lot worse. First AC feels compelled to share this great revelation with the reader:
pleasure is good and sexual pleasure a great good. p206 Such ridiculous statements make even Benthams silly
felicific calculator of
pleasure and pain seem profound.
For AC like all liberals the entire focus of any relationship and indeed life itself is vanity or what is euphemistically referred to as self-fulfillment. The creation of a new life is itself perceived as something that should benefit or give pleasure and gratification to the parent or parents and not vice versa. This is what is meant by those who want children as a kind of fulfillment of their own lives. The focus is on them not the life they create.
So it is not surprising that Grayling like all liberals focuses on just such nonsense except he calls it
flourishing. That to AC is what its all about
flourishing! p192 and nauseatingly repetitive thereafter
When we read ACs chapters on
The Ethical and the Moral and
A Humanist on Love Sex and Drugs (which says it all really) we have to look very hard to find any mention of children and none concerning the obligations human beings may have in respect of the new life they bring into the world as a result of their
experimentation with
love sex and drugs. All we find is a grudging acknowledgement that the
moralist is rightly concerned about the harm done by divorce for example to children ... so ... the chance of trying to build a good and satisfying life has to be done responsibly to minimise the harm such disruption causes. p191 And note that reference to children not
especially to children but
for example to children. Its like talking about being careful not to scrape the car as you reverse out the drive on your way to do some
flourishing.
Such statements demonstrate just how irrelevant children are to the liberal/humanist mindset. A childs welfare cannot interfere with the parents drive for self-fulfillment or
flourishing as AC calls it. And in order to
minimise the harm caused by those who subscribe to this type of nonsense AC suggests that people
work together in providing a solution. p192 In fact there is a whole industry now catering for the harm caused by just this type of primitive thinking; its called
marriage counseling. It is great for those who cause the harm in the first place by their
lack ... of intelligence and courage which renders them incapable of resisting every primitive sexual urge they experience and their total lack of anything resembling empathy even with their own children. Because it is the victims the party betrayed and the betrayed children who have to be sat down and told why the likes of a Grayling are not
flourishing with them around that he needs
space to indulge his
needs and interests so they the victims must
understand ...accept and tolerate it and be open minded. And of course it is all done for the sake of the children. p193
And after making these childlike claims about human
flourishing and not letting anything get in the way of that even your own children he then goes on to map out precisely the type of sexual behavior that is guaranteed to cause enormous harm to others and your own children that everyone must then run around trying to minimize.
What a
bonobo!!
It is clear and the evidence is everywhere to be seen that if self-fulfillment or
flourishing is the focus of marriage it is a betrayal of the life two human beings bring into the world. The parents create life for their own benefit to satisfy some want or need in themselves: or because the
biological clock is ticking. And when sexual gratification comes into the mix as well the results are disastrous but precisely what the likes of AC prescribe and regrettably what the majority of people practice today especially in the Western world.
It is precisely this kind of bankrupt thinking that has led to the mess we see today with the economic crisis drug abuse teenage delinquency casual violence and crime ever increasing divorce rates single parent families venereal disease as common as the common cold political and financial corruption and scandals and so we could go on. When children see parents obsessed with their own needs and wants in their pursuit of pleasure and
flourishing with little regard to the harm caused to their children children become conditioned to believe that
their only obligation in life is also to satisfy whatever needs and wants their primitive instincts present to them irrespective of the effect on others. But I expect that the likes of AC will be blissfully unaware of the connection between the ills which afflict the modern Western world and their
philosophy of me never mind accept any responsibility for them.
AC and the whole rather pathetic liberal/humanist/atheist/rationalist movement seem totally incapable of comprehending that each human being is a
unique exclusive and special individual who deserves to be conceived in a
unique exclusive and special act and brought up in a
unique exclusive and special relationship which in turn should endure for the benefit of even the next generation. Anything else is a betrayal of the human life two free individuals bring into this world by their own voluntary act. It is not a question of whether the sacrifices required to make such a commitment may generate any sexual frustration in those who
lack … the intelligence or the courage to properly make such a commitment. Every human life deserves nothing less. Quote from p214 in relation to drug addictsFor further explanation of what
unique exclusive and special means see my article
The Meaning and Essential Ingredients of Marriage.
It is odd that the liberal mind seems so incapable of grasping the fact that those things worthwhile in life and most of us recognize that the creation of a human life is one of those things require enormous sacrifices in respect of every aspect of life. The creation of a human life demands such sacrifices before during and after the creation of that life. And yet the sacrifice required in respect of the creation of human life doesnt really amount to much more than sexual restraint for women dont behave like a slut; for men dont be a Casanova.
Ironically although I expect the irony will be lost on AC those students who would wish the honor of attending ACs lectures (which would be a mystery worthy of philosophical and even scientific enquiry in itself) would be expected to have made very significant sacrifices in their youth to attain the grades worthy of being offered such a dubious honor. But for the creation of human life? No such sacrifices required!
All that said I should at least extend a hand of gratitude to AC for providing me with the evidence I have been looking for to prove that the Harm Principle as I say in my book is nothing more than tendentious nonsense. The Harm Principle for those unfamiliar with the concept is an invention of John Stuart Mill (another thoroughly mediocre utilitarian English philosopher) and is regarded by Liberals as the pinnacle of human understanding. Not surprisingly AC claims that
the simplicity of the principle should not mask its profundity". p194
However when we look at ACs obsession with
flourishing" we discover what he really means by the Harm Principle. According to AC we should be
concerned about the harm done by divorce for example to children ... and try ... to minimise the harm". The harm AC refers to of course is a result of the family getting in the way of someones
flourishing". So when a persons
flourishing" is being inhibited by a wife or husband or children then the harm according to AC is actually being inflicted on the person whose
flourishing" is being inhibited. The harm and hurt suffered by a wife or husband or children as victims of a betrayal through adultery for example is of their own making because according to AC they dont
understand ...accept and tolerate it and be open minded about it. p192 In ACs thinking the victims are to blame because they dont have
a good general understanding of the minimum conditions for human flourishing". p192 The
conditions" of course are that they should not get in the way. And we dont really need to be too careful about reading between the lines to understand that in ACs view as with all Liberals
flourishing" is all about sex and career.
So we see what AC really means by the Harm Principle: If those around you inhibit (harm) your
flourishing" in any way you can dump them; and if they get hurt then its their own damn fault for getting in your way. And it doesnt matter that they depended on you trusted you believed in you even loved you (although it would be unfathomable to imagine why anyone could find much to love in the sort of character painted by AC) or that you brought them into this world by your own voluntary act. If they are perceived as harming your ability to
flourish" in any way they deserve what they get. The Harm Principle is extreme and ugly narcissism.
Yet being a Utilitarian principle it is how all Liberals understand the Principle. Its utility lies in the extent to which it serves the self. And in addition to things like marriage counseling a whole industry has emerged producing streams of studies research and statistics to demonstrate that this tendentious narcissism doesnt harm those affected by the self-indulgence of those around them and closest to them. The studies research and statistics show of course that if those close to your feel hurt or harmed by your self-indulgence it only serves to reveal in them some character defect due to their inability to be
sensible constructive and generous" in
understanding … the …conditions for human flourishing" nothing that a bit of counseling cant sort out.
The Harm Principle is just a pathetic excuse for self-indulgence at the expense of others.
Harm done by any action can only be objectively ascertained in relation to a set of clear and unambiguous moral principles not subjective self-satisfied pontificating about
flourishing". Any violation of any of the Principles of morality (as described in
Freedom v A Tyranny of Rights) is by definition harmful. But the consequence of a violation of a real moral principle cannot itself be a principle its a consequence. To define the consequence of an action as a principle to define the action is to turn logic on its head which is precisely what AC does. To him the only harm that counts is any limitation to self-indulgence.
The homage AC pays to the Harm Principle is kindergarten philosophy. It goes something like this. Teacher tells the children that it is wrong to upset other children by taking away the toys they are playing with. Little Jack sees Tim playing a game with a toy and joins in the game. But Jack gets bored with the game and Tim doesnt want to play what Jack says is a more exciting game so Jack takes the toy and goes over to play his new game with Kevin leaving Tim in tears. Teacher calls Jack over to give him a scolding for upsetting Tim. But Jack says that Tim upset him because his game was boring and Tim wouldnt play his more exciting game. So it is Tims own fault for getting upset. Thats ACs Harm Principle for you.
There is of course another version of the Harm Principle which finds its justification in deception. According to this version it is OK to commit adultery for example as long as your wife or husband doesnt find out about it because what they dont know cant hurt them. It is the philosophy of deceit. It can be applied to most things. It would thus be OK to commit fraud as long as the victim doesnt realize that he has been duped and you dont get caught.
Whichever version of this ridiculous principle we consider the Harm Principle demonstrates the utter stupidity of founding morality on the consequence of an action rather than the action itself and its motivation. Adultery is wrong whether the victim knows about it or not. Fraud is wrong whether the victim knows about it or not. Theft is wrong even if the victim thinks missing property was lost rather than stolen.
The Harm Principle is just another way of saying that anything goes as long as you dont harm yourself by getting caught because that would inhibit your freedom to
flourish".
We even now see this perverted logic being invoked by governments against so-called whistleblowers. The argument goes that government suffers harm by disclosures of unlawful activities by government agencies. The harm claimed to be suffered is that the government has been caught thus inhibiting its ability to continue with its unlawful activities rather than the fact that the real harm done by its unlawful activities is to have put in place the mechanisms for the establishment of an authoritarian state.
It is unfortunate that a professor of philosophy cant see the stupidity in such thinking but that is what can happen when a life is spent in an institution surrounded by impressionable young teenagers hanging on your every word. You begin to live in a fantasy world. The problem is however that those impressionable teenagers take their fantasies out into the real world to wreak havoc on the rest of us. Cue crooked bankers corrupt politicians shameless insurance companies and a host of other institutions that exist to relieve us of our property and freedom with
bewildering propaganda".
Like the rest of
The God Argument the Harm Principle is fantasy philosophy guaranteed to drag humanity down into the gutter.
In his book
Dreams of a Final Theory the physicist Steven Weinberg gives the anecdote of the complaining university Chancellor the physics department costs an enormous amount of money with the experimental equipment it requires; the mathematics department is better they only require pencils paper and wastepaper baskets; but the best is the philosophy department they dont even need the wastepaper baskets. In the case of
The God Argument a wastepaper basket would have been a sound if relatively costly investment.
The back cover of my book
Freedom v A Tyranny of Rights says that for any philosophy etc to be of any worth it will have to clear the hurdle set by the
Ten Principles of Freedom. Graylings work is written proof of that prediction.
Yet to be fair to AC I will present him with a riddle perhaps he could set it as an examination question: When Nietzsche mocked Kant for having discovered a
moral faculty in man he inadvertently solved Kants dilemma of being unable to identify what his moral law actually was for fear of offending against the charge of empiricism from the likes of Hume.
If AC hasnt solved the riddle by the time my next book is published I would be happy to send him a complimentary copy. BIG HINT: the solution can be found in this review.
[email protected] www.josephbhmcmillan.com
Copyright © Joseph BH McMillan 2013
