Michael DeDora has an excellent post on what Craig Hicks does or doesn’t have to do with vocal atheism and what vocal atheism has to do with being a decent human.
…as merely a position on whether god/s exist, atheism is no guarantor of moral behavior, and no guarantee should that be expected from it. Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and many others — apparently now including Craig Hicks — are atheists who have killed. A person’s atheism only tells you that they reject the idea of a god. It does not tell you about the rest of their character, which, as with all people, can include a very human but very misguided hatred. I guarantee some atheists will continue to do violence in the world so long as both atheists and the world exist. Why atheists continue to defend atheism at the expense of a broader moral and philosophical framework remains a mystery to me. This event should remind us that mere atheism is not enough — that for humans to find decency and sustain it, we must construct and nourish moral frameworks that engender complete respect for our fellow humans regardless of their beliefs on religion or gods. Hicks was an atheist, but he was apparently not also humanist. Humanism provides no shelter for such hatred and murder.
Quite. For a good long while I was focused on being a vocal atheist, partly just because I was fed up with the taboo on being that very thing. I’m over it. The accumulated nastiness and brutalism of a huge swath of The Atheist Movement put me off it. I still am a vocal atheist, for sure, but also a vocal feminist and internationalist and advocate of universal rights and similar things.
Which brings us back to the issue of causation. It is very easy to point at reports of a parking dispute, or quotes from a Sam Harris book. But, as when examining terrorism and violence carried out in the name of religion, it is much more difficult to address complex reality, which in this case is that Hicks was most likely driven by a multitude of factors, which hopefully the police investigation will reveal. But, whatever his inspiration, Hicks is responsible for his actions. Yes, he might have found intellectual and emotional comfort in anti-religious writings. But not a single report has shown that the writings he consumed, or that he shared on his social media accounts, condoned violence against any innocent persons, including religious believers. One can think that religion is a burden on society, and that we would be better off without it, while also respecting the dignity and autonomy of individuals to believe in a religion and lead their lives peacefully. For all their stridency, I see no evidence that Dawkins or Harris believe otherwise, or that Hicks found otherwise in their writings.
No, neither do I. On the other hand there are a lot of intermediate steps, and there I’m not so confident. I think Dawkins encourages some contemptuous attitudes by modeling them so often and enthusiastically on Twitter. It’s a big leap from contemptuous attitudes to murder…but it’s a big leap, not an infinite gap. Contemptuous attitudes can and do lead to bullying, to violence, and even to murder. That can happen. It’s playing with fire, that kind of thing.
Of course, some anti-religious rhetoric is charged, and could provide cover for, or amplify, stereotypes of believers. Atheists must have a serious conversation about what counts as this kind of unfair rhetoric, what rhetoric should be welcomed and promoted, and what rhetoric should be rejected outright. But even when we decide on what counts as “too far” in intellectual criticism and argument, are we willing to blame the peaceful anti-religious people around us for inexcusable physical acts like cold-blooded murder?
No, of course not. But what about blaming the verbally belligerent people around us for creating an atmosphere of callous contempt? That I’m willing to blame those people for. To the extent that I’ve contributed to it I’m willing to blame myself.
If you look at Craig Hicks’ Facebook page, you will see that he was very much in favor of human rights and progressive issues – he was a proponent of same-sex marriage, equal rights for all, rational thinking, science, and, though he was anti-religion, he defended people’s right to practice a religion if they wished. He was also a fan of puppies, dogs, sports, and other mainstream stuff. From the content he chose for his Facebook page, he seems thoughtful and humanist in his views.
He owned a gun; he turned himself in. I don’t think there’s any more information than that about him.
There’s nothing on his Facebook page that would lead me to suspect he was capable of murdering three young people in cold blood. Nothing. I invite anyone to link me to anything that is consistent with this murder. It’s completely the opposite of the Elliot Rodger situation, where he openly despised women and threatened them with bodily harm before trying to make good on those plans.
What I found on his FB page was a post admitting he was a grumpy old man for calling the cops on a young couple having sex in the parking lot.
This is ridiculous. There is no connection between his religious views or his politics, and this shooting. As much as many Muslims (and various apologists) want their already fever pitch victimhood narrative taken to fission-level heat, the facts suggest this really was just an unstable, angry man fixated on parking and other rules violations.
Further multiple pieces of evidence have shown from the start that he was decidedly a political liberal. He even actively defended Muslims and religious freedom in posts now revealed:
http://www.breitbart.com/video/2015/02/12/report-chapel-hill-shooter-hicks-defended-ground-zero-mosque/
Yet I have no doubt that some religious apologists and leftists alike will push an ‘Islamophobia’ undeterred by pesky facts.
If anything Ophelia, you and your ‘social justice’ crowd, should take this as a reminder that hurtful and evil people come all across the political spectrum. The notion of ‘social justice’ as defined by a clique of leftwing activists is used as a litmus test of purity and righteousness versus evilness and inhumanity. That is nonsense and the core reason of why ‘social justice’ advocacy alienates so many people.
What this murderer reminds us is that all his bien pensant words on race, religion, secularism, etc. really say nothing about whether people are kind and decent.
So, he didn’t settle all parking lot disputes with execution-style killings? Good to know.
Katherine –
How do you know that? How can you know that with such certainty?
“How do you know that? How can you know that with such certainty?”
First of all, the burden is on you to provide evidence of this alleged connection, beyond your clear desire to lay this at the feet of non-believers who fail to adhere to your leftist politics.
What we do know about Craig Hicks, in addition to his over support of religious tolerance with respect to Islam as detailed above:
Atheist.
Supporter of Southern Poverty Law Center.
Fan of Rachel Maddow.
Fan of Bill Nye.
Vocal supporter of marriage equality.
Long history of aggressive behavior over parking.
History of confrontation over other community rules.
Gun owner.
So not only do you provide no evidence, the evidence shows he in fact did have humanistic concerns, including racial equality, LGBT rights, and religious freedom. Your assumption he could not be both humanistic in theory and have dangerous impulse/anger control is sheer romanticism.
Michael De Dora is awesome, and I consider myself a card-carrying Humanist, so tribally I’m on his side. But his essay seems to be the No True Humanist fallacy, as he wrote:
I agree with the point De Dora was trying to make, that atheism is not enough, that a person needs a system of values. But then what? Suppose a person belongs to a community of Humanism, or a community of religion, does that make them incapable of such petty murders? Or do we really mean Humanism is superior to religion, because No True Humanist could murder but Jews, Christians, and Muslims can? De Dora wrote:
I can also write for a fact:
I can also write for for a fact:
So even if Craig Hicks was a card-carrying Humanist, it would be no guarantee he wouldn’t be a murderer.
Hicks professed mostly positive principles, but in practice violated them. Do we label him by what he said or what he did?
This contradiction drives much of the debate about Hicks. The combination of (mostly) benign sentiments and reported chronic interpersonal belligerence suggests a prototypical Jekyll/Hyde internal split, a literal, cartoonishly extreme schizophrenia. It would amaze me if a man of 46 reached this extreme of unjustified hostility without dropping further clues along his trail.
Pierce, it shows that even reasonable people can lose control to anger.