Agnostic Secular Humanist Morality: HHDQ > SGD

You are probably aware by now that Richard Dawkins and fellow atheist Christopher Hitchens want Pope Benedict XVI arrested if he sets foot in the UK for allegedly covering up sex abuse cases in the Catholic Church in his pre-Pope days. Relatively sane critiques of the two center on whether or not what they want is actually legally feasible (here is one of the more comprehensible discussions, and one I can’t follow a fucking word of), or whether or not Ratzinger, while still a cardinal, actually tried to prevent or interfere with the secular legal investigation. At least some sources (like this one) claim that secular authorities were alerted promptly in cases Ratzinger was involved with, and that the letter Ratzinger wrote (which allegedly encouraged silence under threat of excommunication) was intended to discourage discussion within the church to ensure a fair church trial, and was NOT intended to discourage the secular authorities from being notified and cooperated with. Having not read the letter, nor knowing anything about how cases are handled in the Catholic Church, I can’t address whether or not this is a reasonable interpretation.

However, the recent article in the Huffington Post written by Catholic Rory Fitzgerald does not take the sane and rational approach to critiquing Dawkins and Hitchens. Fitzgerald retaliates against Dawkins and Hitchens by arguing that they should be arrested for “atheist crimes”, specifically atrocities committed under Nazi Germany and communist regimes. Fitzgerald’s article has already been addressed by P.Z. Meyers and Jerry Coyne, but it worth taking another look at just for what it tells us about how religious apologists often view, and misrepresent, non-religious secular humanism.

One of the most important reasons why agnostics and atheists do not like religion is because of how it prioritizes in its view of what constitutes morality. The exact atheist/agnostic secular humanist standards for morality are rarely spelled out explicitly, even in anti-religious moral screeds like Richard Dawkins’ The God Hypothesis, or Sam Harris’ Letter To A Christian Nation, so it may be confusing to a religious reader why an atheist considers something moral or immoral. To agnositic secular humanists, morality means enhancing human happiness, dignity, and quality of life (which I will refer from here on out as HHDQ). Reason and critical thinking are also important, but only because it is the most clear-headed and reliable means of determining what it factually true, and what the most effective method is for achieving HHDQ.

It is important to note that atheism is NOT, by itself, a moral position, or even necessarily a rational one. It is simply a lack of belief in the existence of God. The view that Nazi Germany was an atheistic regime is bullshit, but communist regimes, and the human rights violations that occurred under them, undeniably had an anti-religious component. This is important to address. Communist regimes do not reflect the thinking of non-religious rational secular humanism, as many of their policies were neither rational, nor concerned, first and foremost, with HHDQ. Atheism should not be considered a moral position in and of itself, but only as a side-effect of rationality and a desire to focus on HHDQ. Even a casual perusal of God Hypothesis reveals that this is clearly Dawkins’ position.

Monotheistic religions also consider human happiness, dignity, and quality of life to be important, but they have another priority that trumps it: sucking the dick of a powerful imaginary friend in exchange for a reward (which might be abbreviated as “SGD”). The God of the Bible cares more about SGD than HHDQ, and religious atrocities throughout history are based on the same fucked-up priorities. Atheists and agnostics do not think this imaginary friend exists, and even if he did, we find the idea of appeasing him for no other reason than because he offers a reward to be morally cowardly and repugnant. Just as repugnant is the idea of covering up or making excuses for the wrongdoing of religious authorities in order to create the impression that religious people are less likely to do things that are evil and repugnant things (or even, heaven forbid, human things like wanting to get laid with a consenting adult).

Many of the things that religious authorities consider "immoral" are not clearly so under HHDQ, and can only be considered "immoral" if we assume 1) God is real, 2) that what God wants is, by definition, moral (no matter what that might be), and 3) that the things the Bible (or Koran) says God wants really are what God wants. Homosexual activity with other consenting adults does not (neccessarily) violate HHDQ, at least not if both partners are happy with it. Therefore, agnostic secular humanists do not consider it immoral. Christians and Muslims think that God doesn't like it (for reasons that He never clearly and rationally explains), which makes it immoral. SGD > HHDQ. However, sex with children psychologically scars human beings too young to know what they are getting into even if they say "yes." It violates HHDQ, and is therefore immoral to agnostic secular humanists, and we don't need God to tell us that.

Some of Fitzgerald’s comments are unintentionally ironic, particularly when he accuses Dawkins of trying to “undermine Judeo-Christian principles.” Dude…the issue at hand is CHILD RAPE. Dawkins and Hitchins have both stated explicitly that they consider CHILD RAPE TO BE BAD. Is holding individuals accountable for covering up CHILD RAPE “undermining Judeo-Christian principles”? If you say so, dude, but I doubt that is quite what you had in mind.

However, this is almost irrelevant to addressing Fitzgerald’s article, because he misrepresents the nature of the accusation against the Pope. Holding Dawkins accountable for “atheist crimes” committed by other atheists in the past would only be semi-reasonable if Dawkins wanted the Pope arrested for, say the Spanish Inquisition, or the Crusades. However, Dawkins and Hitchins are alleging that Pope Benedict personally did something wrong and illegal: interfering with a secular legal investigation into child sex abuse. Fitzgerald’s knee jerk reaction of trying Dawkins for every atheist atrocity ever committed smacks of defensive overcompensation.

Are the accusations of Dawkins and Hitchens fair? I don't know enough to say, but the answer hinges entirely on Ratzinger's personal intentions and actions.

Now for some random crap.

If you liked Dr. Tran, you'll probably like this.

Yeah, cute. Cats are not to be fucked with, not by babies, bears, or anyone.

Rank your facial hair. My beard fluctuates between the full beard and somewhat patchy (when I trim it), which I suppose means that I fluctuate between totally trustwothy and mildly dangerous. Sounds about right.

LNJ