The kind of analysis that only D’Souza can provide

It wasn’t my intention to do a series of posts noting the most offensive reactions to the Virginia Tech slayings from our friends on the other end of the political spectrum; it’s just worked out that way. I keep noticing bizarre screeds and feel compelled to share.

Of course, if you’re anything like me, you’ve been wondering, What does Dinesh D’Souza have to say about the tragedy? Obsidian Wings’ hilzoy wrote a terrific post answering this very question.

D’Souza, you’ll recall, is the conservative activist/writer who argues that terrorists are right about the problems with the culture in the United States. Osama bin Laden and other dangerous Islamic radicals believe the U.S. is too secular, too permissive, too diverse, too free, and too tolerant … and D’Souza believes they’re absolutely correct. Indeed, D’Souza goes so far as to argue that liberal Americans are literally to blame for 9/11 — the left invited the attacks by reinforcing the beliefs al Qaeda had about the United States.

Yesterday, D’Souza’s keen insights were directed at the aftermath of the VT massacre and the role of atheists.

Notice something interesting about the aftermath of the Virginia Tech shootings? Atheists are nowhere to be found. Every time there is a public gathering there is talk of God and divine mercy and spiritual healing. Even secular people like the poet Nikki Giovanni use language that is heavily drenched with religious symbolism and meaning.

I haven’t the foggiest idea what D’Souza is talking about. Atheists are “nowhere to be found”? What does that mean? Atheists are right where they’ve always been. Does D’Souza think nonbelievers saw the news about the shootings, called their friends, and said, “OK, gang, you know what this means — time to go into hiding”?

As for the Giovanni poem, I read her speech from the memorial service — and there wasn’t a religious word uttered: “We are strong and brave and innocent and unafraid. We are better than we think, not quite what we want to be. We are alive to the imagination and the possibility we will continue to invent the future through our blood and tears, through all this sadness. We are the Hokies. We will prevail, we will prevail. We are Virginia Tech.” Moving words, but “heavily drenched with religious symbolism”?

But D’Souza seems particularly troubled by Richard Dawkins.

The atheist writer Richard Dawkins has observed that according to the findings of modern science, the universe has all the properties of a system that is utterly devoid of meaning. The main characteristic of the universe is pitiless indifference. Dawkins further argues that we human beings are simply agglomerations of molecules, assembled into functional units over millennia of natural selection, and as for the soul — well, that’s an illusion!

To no one’s surprise, Dawkins has not been invited to speak to the grieving Virginia Tech community. What this tells me is that if it’s difficult to know where God is when bad things happen, it is even more difficult for atheism to deal with the problem of evil. The reason is that in a purely materialist universe, immaterial things like good and evil and souls simply do not exist. For scientific atheists like Dawkins, Cho’s shooting of all those people can be understood in this way — molecules acting upon molecules.

Honestly, one might think D’Souza was trying to sound like an idiot.

The notion that Richard Dawkins had not been invited to the VT memorial service was of particular interest. D’Souza thinks this is proof that atheists are lost when it comes to “the problem of evil.” Of course, as hilzoy noted, it’s easy to extrapolate from D’Souza’s thesis.

* Dinesh D’Souza has not been invited to speak to the grieving Virginia Tech community. What this tells me is that if it’s difficult to know where Osama bin Laden’s responsibility for 9/11 leaves off and liberals’ responsibility begins, it is even more difficult for conservative hacks to deal with the problem of reconciling determinism and free will.

* Pat Robertson has not been invited to speak to the grieving Virginia Tech community. What this tells me is that if it’s difficult to know where God will send the next hurricane, it is even more difficult for Christians to deal with Zeno’s paradox.

* John Derbyshire has not been invited to speak to the grieving Virginia Tech community. What this tells me is that if it’s difficult to know the difference between fantasy heroism and the real thing, it is even more difficult for NRO writers to deal with the problem of other minds.

Perhaps the most striking mystery is not the role of nonbelievers in a community’s grieving process, but rather, how Dinesh D’Souza continues to get to write commentary.

The right should observe the first rule of holes here and stop digging. Cho’s “manifesto” discusses dying like Jesus Christ. Using the right wing Christofascist post-Columbine logic that Marilyn Manson music should be banned for “inspiring” the shooters (as opposed to my position that it should be banned because it is unaesthetic noise), apparently we should ban Christian teaching because Christ’s martydom clearly “inspired” Cho. Dinesh does have a point, however: at no time does Cho compare himself to an athiest. When it comes to blame for this one, athiests are, as D’Souza says, nowhere to be found.

  • So true.

    Not really knowing if I am an athiest or agnostic or just a Doubting Thomas, I can handle evil. All humans are inherently evil. All humans are inherently selfish and greedy. However, many do manage to overcome these predispositions and work toward the greater good most of the time. Some do not. But ‘evil’ and ‘good’ are not necessarily derived from the existence of God or a god. Humans are still able to think, reason and rationalize, even if just a bunch of molecules.

    I have no idea where I am going with this.

  • CB- You left out the best part of the speech!
    “We know we did not deserve it but neither does a child in Africa dying of AIDS, but neither do the invisible children walking the night to avoid being captured by a rogue army. Neither does the baby elephant watching his community be devastated for ivory; neither does the Appalachian infant in the killed in the middle of the night in his crib in the home his father built with his own hands being run over by a boulder because the land was destabilized. No one deserves a tragedy.”

    Lets see, AIDS in Africa (poverty and health), Orphaned children living in war torn countries avoiding death squads,Illegal Ivory Poaching (animal protections and rights), Mining policies (land management and industrial regulation). All of these are obviously very important consevaritve issues, right Dinesh? Not only is there not a stitch of biblical language or symbolism in this speech, half of it lays out tragedies that happen to innocent people everyday. IMHO the conservative movement in America is on the wrong side of each of these issues and actively works to avoid legal protections and assistance for victims of these events.

    Hey Dinesh, athiests do not have secret languages, public rites, and centuries old symbols to brandish at public events. My guess is that the athiests were the people in the crowd who were standing respectfully and reflecting on the tragic events of 4/16. Why does the right need to see conformity to prove morality?

  • Maybe we should ban wealth and patriarchy from America’s college campuses—since these appear to have been the motivating souces behind the shoot-em-up at VT.

    Hmmm…college campuses without concern for wealth—FREE COLLEGE FOR EVERYONE!

    Then there is that pesky thing about patriarchalism. To lose patriarchalism, colleges would have to ban pretty much all forms of monotheism. Colleges with polytheism might not be a bad idea….

  • Zeitgeist makes my point. Cho, although irrational in many respects, makes clear his alignment with Jesus and hatred for immorality and hedonists. Sounds like he has much more in common with the religionists than the hedonists. If one were to take a lesson from that–and I’m not inclined to–we should ban religion from campuses for fear of inciting retribution from people like this, instead of inviting more. But the intolerant and “righteous” always seem to get the opposite message. Just as some conservative “thinkers” are calling for more guns on campus as the antidote to massacres rather than gun control.

  • Dinesh should read some Buddhist writings. If he finds Dawkins disconcerting, the concepts of skandha and anatta will cause him to completely flip out.

  • Focality wrote:

    “Dinesh should read some Buddhist writings. If he finds Dawkins disconcerting, the concepts of skandha and anatta will cause him to completely flip out.”

    Of course, your statement has the assumption built in that Dinesh hasn’t already ‘flipped out’. I think he’s been gone for quite some time…

  • I have not been invited to speak at ANY university.
    I am sure that it is because of my policy paper about public financing of hookers & beer.

  • The easiest way to prevent future mass shootings at schools is to ban males from education after puberty begins. The one commonality in all of these is the gender of the shooter.

    This makes about as much sense as the right wingers’ solutions.

  • Dawkins has not been invited to speak to the grieving Virginia Tech community.

    Calling an English zoologist living in Oxford is the first thing that comes to my mind to deal with a tragic shooting.

  • He is right about one thing: atheism, so far as I know (being one myself), has little to offer by way of consolation when things go as wrong as they did at VT, or in response to catastrophes natural (earthquake) or personal (cancer).

    Religion does have something to offer: the Lord is my Shepherd, Lamp Unto My Feet, Farther Along, Amazing Grace, pie in the sky bye and bye. It takes mature courage to unflinchingly face the cold comfort of a godless world in which things go wrong and bad things happen.

    The trouble with religion is that, unlike the mostly harmless Santa Claus and Easter Bunny myths e.g., the price extracted for the comforts of the religious myth are guilt, hatred, bloodshed, ignorance, fear. Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God — being held up out of the fiery pit only by the mercy of the Almighty — isn’t really all that comforting. Religion has led to more misery than any other institution I can think of. The only return is the delusion of payback after existence ceases.

    Better to spend our lives finding ways to predict earthquakes, ways to prevent or cure cancer. Better to work at creating the kind of society where VT’s happen only rarely … which I think we’ve done pretty well compared to, say, today’s Iraq.

  • The one commonality in all of these is the gender of the shooter. -Jennifer Flowers

    Another one is guns. That’s a pretty glaring commonality.

  • D’Souza’s writings, especially on 9/11, aren’t that far off from Cho’s mentality. By saying the US is evil and therefore deserved the attacks could just as easily have been written by Cho. With their ideas of right and wrong, crime and punishment, debauchery and retribution, Cho and Dinesh are two peas in the same pod.

  • petorado wrote:

    “D’Souza’s writings, especially on 9/11, aren’t that far off from Cho’s mentality. By saying the US is evil and therefore deserved the attacks could just as easily have been written by Cho.”

    I’ve decided, since D’Souza has so much in common with our enemies around the world, to refer to him forevermore as “Al Qaeda’s ambassador to the U.S.”.

  • it is even more difficult for atheism to deal with the problem of evil.

    I’ve written before about people using psycho-babble to scam people, to be more persuasive than they really are. Look, it works even if you don’t think you have respect for psychology. It works because we’re brought up in a society that has a lot of respect for psychology, so you have that background.

    Is Dinesh D’souza’s degree even in philosophy? Does he explain for his extremely lay audience what the “problem of evil” might be and what the hurdles are that must be overcome to resolve it?

    Otherwise, it sounds like he’s just self-servingly dragging out some philoso-babble to make it sound to his readers as if he’s dealing with something really weighty when he’s not.

    If evil can just be defined as anti-social actions, and Darwin’s evolution supports selection of social-reinforcing behavior, then atheism can account for evil quite well because anti-social actions, such as Virginia Tech, are those that haven’t been selected out for some reason. If you have any explanation for why a particular person might murder people even though for the most part people are evolutionarily disposed not to murder people like that, and are evolutionarily disposed to respond to conditioning not to, then you have an atheistic explanation for evil.

  • No kidding. This guy should go back to high school. He’s still mad because he didn’t get picked to play in any of the games. What an egomaniac to think his opinion is profound. Just can’t see his limitations.

  • Let us remember the immortal words of Monty Python:

    “There’s nothing an agnostic can’t do if he really doesn’t know whether he believes in anything or not.”

  • One of the obvious arguments about atheism is that if you don’t believe in an afterlife, you are more likely to make the most of your current life, and less likely to prematurely end the lives of others.

    Anyways, it’s hard to imagine anyone, atheist or otherwise, who’s half a big a w*nk*r as D’Souza.

  • NO. I’m not coming in here. No.

    well.. except to say

    I believe in an afterlife : I’m living it.

  • Dinesh Da-Who? Seems to me he went out of style, kind of like suspenders on 29 year old Wall Street bond traders.

    But if that’s still his attitude, I’m not Dinesh to my birthday party.

    Crankily yours

  • I’ve been bothered by the number of people who have claimed that God was “looking out for” those who survived the VT shootings. Does this mean that He was ignoring those who died?

    It’s like when you pass those tiny crosses along a roadside where grieving family members have marked where a loved one has died. It’s hard for me to see them without thinking what they really mean is “Right here is where Jesus let me down.”

    If you believe the God spared some of those lives then you have to also believe He wanted the others to die. That kind of makes God seem a more like Cho than, say, Billy Graham.

  • Religion is comforting, particularly in the aftermath of terrible tragedies such as what happened at Virginia Tech. Cold, empirical science is not. (And just as relevant, neither is underwater basket-weaving.) Religion is well-placed for offering comfort to the bereaved and indeed has been specializing in this service for longer than recorded history.

    This is what D’Souza is observing. What is completely nonsensical about his arguments is that no one else is suggesting that it would be appropriate for a physicist to lecture us about our relative irrelevance in the scale of the universe, or for an underwater basket-weaver to, um, you’ll have to use your imagination on that one. Anyway, the point is, it’s completely disingenuous to claim that all the underwater basket-weavers have gone into hiding, and they don’t have an answer any more than the atheists do. What D’Souza’s trying to do is say, “Ha, in your face!” as if religion is all-important because its use is in responding to this disaster. Again, like almost all the other disgusting people who have crawled out of the woodwork these last few days, he’s just trying to garner attention for himself in the most stomach-turning way to sell his particular brand of snake-oil.*

    * This should not be interpreted to imply that the comfort-givers are snake-oil salesmen – they are not, their role is proper and vital – it is the Christianists, rather than the Christians, who disgust me, the ones who try to tell you not about how God provides but how religion needs to be more prominent.

  • http://www.onenewsnow.com/2007/04/poll_could_the_supreme_court_b.php

    Todays Onenews poll (I think they may be connected to the AFA as they are the ones their “news section” links to)

    What has contributed MOST to the lack of respect for human life seen in America today?

    Banning prayer in public schools

    Teaching the evolution theory as fact

    Legalizing abortion-on-demand

    Glorifying violence in the media

    Failing to reach the lost with the Gospel

    I can’t decide, I mean they all fit so well and cover the only possible reasons for things like VT.

  • What has contributed MOST to the lack of respect for human life seen in America today?

    Banning rational thought in public schools

    Teaching creationism as fact

    Legalizing torture-on-demand

    Glorifying war in the media

    Failing to reach the same conclusion as the majority of citizens

    I can’t decide, I mean they all fit so well and cover the only possible reasons for things like the failure in Iraq and the congressional hearings today.

  • Comments are closed.