Philosophical Vegan Forum

Someone on Facebook forwarded me a link of a comment made by Prof. Gary L. Francione. In this comment Gary lists issues with religious acceptance of animal use, but also brings up the following:

Fifth, the New Atheism that is popular among many people, particularly young people, is being peddled by a group of political reactionaries, including Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and the late Chris Hitchens. Noam Chomsky refers to these people as “fanatics.” Why? Because they promote the idea that the problems of the world are caused by religion rather than the geopolitical and economic factors that are really at work. In other words, they want you to think that the problems of the Middle East, for example, are related to Islam rather than to oil and western imperialism. These New Atheists seek to provide a “scientific” basis for the New World Order. If you are regard yourself as a politically progressive person, think twice about whether you want to identify yourself with these reactionary thinkers.
Please note: I am not saying that atheism is wrong because Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens are political reactionaries. I am saying only that people who are interested in critical, rational, and progressive thought should take care before jumping on the New Atheist bandwagon.

I think the part that bothers me most is his use of "New World Order". I have always heard this comment around conspiracy theorists, and I hope that Gary has not fallen in that direction. If he has, and continues to speak about it, he will definitely tarnish the abolitionist movement he has worked so hard to develop.
The way I look at New Atheism, is that they take a harder look then others in order to bring the issue to the forefront. Im not sure if everyone he lists would say that religion is the route of all world issues, and would be naive enough to think that religion is the only cause of strife. I didn't agree with Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens politically, but their critique of religion often seemed spot on.

What are your thoughts on Gary's comments and New Atheism in general?

(full comment by Gary L. Francione: https://www.facebook.com/abolitionistap ... 2176177538 )

I've never been impressed with Francione in general; isn't he kind of a raving deontologist?

I never expected much of philosophical depth from him, so this doesn't surprise me. I thought from the title that it would be more spicy though.

I don't have any problem with New Atheism in particular. I don't think it is at all what he suggests it is. He's made quite a straw man for himself there.

I've never been impressed with Francione in general; isn't he kind of a raving deontologist?

Could you explain?

@brimstoneSalad
I think you could indeed say he's a deontologist, and that does create some serious weaknesses in his arguments sometimes. In his post he says:

Gary Francione wrote:the arguments for animal rights that I have developed over the past 30 years, which are very different from the positions developed by Peter Singer and Tom Regan, rest on logic and rationality. Period. Anyone who claims differently either does not know my work or is deliberately misrepresenting it.

Although he's right on many things, when it comes to complex moral situations, his logic fails.

***

I've seem him criticizing the 'new atheists' before (don't like that term really, it's really just atheism + anti-theism in modern the age), but I'm not really impressed. I can tell he didn't do much research on it. I have some problems with some parts of his posts.

Gary Francione wrote:Third, speciesism, whether in the form of a religious doctrine or a secular doctrine, promotes speciesism. The notion that religion has a corner on the speciesism market is just plain wrong. Have religions been used to support speciesism? Yes. Have secular institutions, such as the humanist paradigm of the Enlightenment been used to support speciesism? Yes. Is mainstream science speciesist? Of course it is. None of these institutions are inherently speciesist (or racist or sexist or homophobic). But these institutions are all dominated and shaped by people who are speciesist (and sexist, racist, and homophobic).

Speciesism is innate in many religions in the same way that women are viewed inferior and homosexuality is not accepted. It's so obvious from reading the text from the holy books. Arguing that it doesn't is not being honest. It is exactly the reason why many religious people are so conservative and want to keep hold to certain anti-progressive ideas in society.

Although it is true that most secular institutions are (still) 'promoting' speciesism, doesn't take away that they the moral philosophy that is driving animal ethics in the right direction is secular. There is no way these ideas are put forward by theologians basing it on the bible. Just look at how William Lane Craig and John Lennox think about Peter Singer. You can say that these are just individuals rejecting animal abolition, but those thoughts are exactly what you would expect from people that are taking the bible seriously.

And attacking science for being speciesist is just stupid. Scientific research being conducted that supports speciesism (like animal experimentation) is a purely political and societal decision. What science itself says about the position of animals and humans in the animal kingdom is the opposite of speciesim. Science is necessary for serious moral reasoning, and is exactly what leads to the rejection of anthropocentrism and speciesim. The understanding of scientific facts about animals is why I am vegan...

He kind of corrects himself by saying that it's the people that shape the institutions and it's not really innate, but that is only true for secular and scientific institutions. Speciesism in religion is innate.

Later in the article he says that many Christians worked on the abolition of slavery. At the same time the bible is used to justify their actions for centuries. It's really was secular reasoning—which could well be performed by moderate Christians—that did the job. If it were for the bible, it would never have happened.

P.S. He even shortens Christopher into Chris (Christopher would hit him for that ).

***

On the 'new atheists' I have different feelings, because there are more people representing it and holding different views. On the existence of God I of course agree, although I'm not always sure whether it is always argued very well (I especially find Christopher Hitchens to be weak sometimes at this point).

I agree with most of their criticism of religion. But I'm not sure that every point they make is factually true, especially Harris and Hitchens on the middle east (that Francione also pointed out). I just don't know enough about the conflict to know whether they are right (and don't really bother to study it), although I think it's undeniable that there is religious influence as well. Of course I do agree that the position of women in this area is horrible. And I also agree with other issues as well, like the damage being done by the catholic church.
Edit: I have to point out that the middle east situation is probably one of the few situations that I doubt the truth of, so I think the suggestion of Francione that the problems of the world aren't caused by religion is wrong; some are, some aren't, and that's the 'new atheists' position as well.

I absolutely share their goal to make people more rational and critical to push society in the right direction. It's true that society has to face many important problems (like climate change) and that when we still are arguing about issues—that are really non-issues—like stem-cell research, that's a problem.

I especially love the work of Dawkins on evolution; Harris on free will, morality (which I also view as extremely important) and spirituality; and Krauss on cosmology.

Ive had an interesting back and forth debate/argument with some members in the comment section of the above Facebook post.

Here is an interesting one:

The Atheist Vegan: I'm not going to bother to respond to your comments regarding religion because they confirm that you've bought into the extremely ignorant, shallow and simplistic approach of the New Atheists. Just like with fundamentalists of all kinds, my experience has been that it's a waste of time trying to have a reasoned discussion with those who subscribe to those views. If you're going to criticise something, or have any kind of worthwhile debate about it, or be a true sceptic, you have to first know something about the subject, beyond puerile caricatures. What's more, you fail to realise that your notion of "demonstrable evidence" is based on metaphysical assumptions. In short, why don't you try getting some basic education on your subject before you start proselytising a bunch of ignorance?

Just as religion is a barrier for some people going vegan, for many others, it's precisely what provides the basis for their moral concern regarding animals, leading them to become vegan, whether that's the notion of universal love and care of the vulnerable as taught by Jesus; the awareness of the interdependence of all things, as taught by Buddhism; the belief in the one Self that exists in all beings as taught in Hinduism; the notion of the Tao that pervades all beings, as taught in Taoism; or the value of ahimsa as taught in Jainism, Hinduism and Buddhism. So to characterise the religious impulse as being universally antithetical to animal ethics is just plain wrong.

<<You may not like my bringing together of atheism and veganism, and while not directly related, they are my two passions and I feel discussing them is helpful.>> I might have a passion for Bavarian folk dancing, but that's no reason to try to draw a non-existent connection between that and the Abolitionist Approach and mix them up together on a Facebook page in a way that sends the message that there is a connection.

It seems you're not making yourself very popular there.

I suppose what they mean with the term 'new world order' is the globalization taking place. But it is a term that indeed has some conspiracy theory baggage (it's also used to refer to a future worldwide totalitarian regime). I think people are doing good by staying away from using the term.

The woman you're quoting is partially right. We should be careful with using the word 'religion' because it refers to all of them, while not all being equal. She's right in pointing out that animal abolition is surely possible from the point of view of Jainism—where nonviolence is their central doctrine. I think you could argue pretty much the same for Hinduism and Buddhism—at least they aren't hindering it and many practicing people are veg*n. But this is not true for the Abrahamic religions. Saying that Jesus taught universal love and care of the vulnerable is only correct in the context of humans. Jesus of the bible was not even a vegetarian (which has even been used against me as an argument for eating meat) and did embrace anthropocentrism, as you would expect from the doctrines of his father (which is also himself, but somehow more liberal than his father).

Also to the last part of her post; it's not necessarily atheism that is leading to veganism, because that's just disbelieve in god(s). The fact is that most atheists are neo-darwinians, secularists and most of the time liberal. Those characteristics do lead to veganism, because in that position you have to accept that humans are not special and that animals are also capable of suffering in many of the same ways humans do. So I would definitely say that their is some connection between atheism and veganism, but it's because of the things atheists inherit that leads it there.

It's sad that Francione bought into the criticism of the new atheists, since most of the criticism is just misrepresenting them. I think his full pacifistic approach to everything (outside of animal ethics) is also not very helpful here.

Oh man, Gary Francione is really pissing me off. He can be so condescending, arrogant and super sensitive/reactionary to any inquiry. I feel as if this man can't take even mild criticism without loosing it. He has been central to my conception of veganism, and it saddens me to observe his nasty side. He keeps suggesting straw man arguments to things Ive never brought up, and makes condescending remarks to things he assumes I believe. I agree fully with the abolition of animal use, but Gary is his own worst enemy and needs to work on his people skills.

Gary L. Francione: The Abolitionist Approach to Animal Rights The Vegan Atheist: If you do not think that science itself requires metaphysical assumptions and beliefs, you know nothing about science. Nothing.

And the fact that you asked me that idiotic and offensive question indicates that you understand nothing about my theory of animal rights. But I have come to expect this sort of nonsense from the promoters of "new atheism." It's just superficial and reactionary bullshit. No offense to bulls. Noam Chomsky described the "new atheists" as “religious fanatics” who believe in the “religion of the state” in that they argue we have to defend the violence and atrocities of the state because it’s being done to ensure human progress and to achieve other wonderful consequences. That is what I mean by New World Order.

In any event, my views were pretty clear in this essay that I wrote several years ago:

http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/new-atheism-and.../...

Moreover, when you first asked the question about what I meant by New World Order, I responded:

>>The Vegan Atheist: If you do not see world control shifting to a relatively small corporate-dominated oligarchy, then we're living on different planets! Frankly, if Sam Harris does not scare the shit out of you with his insane "scientific" proofs of the superiority of Western civilization, we live in different universes.<<

You then followed up and asked:

>>are you claiming that a secret Jewish controlled New World Order is actually happening?<<

Sorry, that was not a reasonable question in light of my response in this thread (and putting aside the other things I have written on the topic).

And you have me on your YouTube channel--along with Yourofsky, Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens. And that's supposed to make me feel reassured, eh? Sorry, you're totally confused. Over and out.

I could not agree more. A friend of mine who is an atheist said to me that he he lived in perpetual embarrassment because, on hearing he is an atheist, people assume he's into Harris, Hitchens, Dawkins, whom he properly regards as reactionary, superficial clowns.

Absolutely spot on. It combines simplistic thinking, parental rebellion, and prejudice all in one convenient place.

Yeah I read it, it's saddening... The more he says about the new atheists, the worse it gets. It seems he things just like that women (Linda) that Sam Harris wants to kill innocent people and things along those lines. Those are really outdated lies spread by people like Chris Hedges, which Linda in fact linked to. Harris has exposed this lies here and has written on other misrepresented issues that Francione raised here.

If Gary Francione is now really calling the new atheists islamophobic, he has lost it. I never get it when people that stand up for oppressed women, girls getting circumcised and punished for the crime of reading, freedom of expression and against suicide bombing (and so on) are being attacked for criticizing the root of the problem. That's exactly the double standard some liberals have that Harris and Dawkins are talking about.

Surely I don't agree with every political view of the new atheists (especially Hitchens), but Francione's critic here is really unfounded and for the large part straw man. It would have been better for him to not publish his views on religion and stick to his own domain. It's always dangerous to argue for positions that are outside of your domain that some people of the movement are likely to disagree on.

Now he's even criticizing Richard Dawkins who said that he would abort a fetus with Down's syndrome (see here). If Francione really thinks that is immoral to do so—or to say it's not immoral to not do it—then he's demonstrating that he knows nothing about morality. I'm done with him.

TheVeganAtheist wrote:

I've never been impressed with Francione in general; isn't he kind of a raving deontologist?

Could you explain?

That would be pretty complicated, but to crudely simplify it, any well developed moral framework is either consistently consequentialist, or deontological at heart (either that, or it's relativist, but that's more like opting out than actually participating in the conversation)- and deontology is founded upon either divine fiat of some kind, or logical fallacies (read a bit of Kant, and play spot the contradictions). And divine fiats are built on premises that are supported in a metaphysical sense on logical fallacies and other falsehoods (although you usually have to be a pretty well studied atheist to fully understand that- I don't think even Dawkins does).

It's really, really hard to dig to the heart of these arguments to uncover these problems.

You, yourself, are in a kind of in-between state with regards to deontology and consequentialism. I think your moral framework is still developing, and that's understandable- it's much more understandable now knowing that you came up learning Francione.

But, I would look at this whole thing in a positive light if I were you: Francione has always been wrong about this stuff-- now you're aware of it, and can learn the how and why, so you don't repeat his mistakes. I love experiencing paradigm shifts; it opens a new plateau of understanding, and makes everything before that seem so simple.

Also, it's important to note: Utilitarianism is not the only form of consequentialism (just the most famous)- consequentialism is much more broad than that. But because they're all arguing from consequence, various forms and diverse theories tend to converge towards a central point.