Peter Singer is a calm, lucid and able debater, and our debate at Biola University in Los Angeles on April 25 was lively and hard-fought. Not for nothing is Singer considered a world-class philosopher and advocate. You can watch the debate here.
Singer praised me for not simply making assertions of faith or hurling Bible passages at him but rather for using reason and argument to make my case . And I complimented Singer for stepping, so to speak, into the lion's den. (Biola actually stands for Bible Institute of Los Angeles.) Unlike the pusillanimous Richard Dawkins, who doesn't dare to debate me even at his home campus of Oxford, Singer was brave to come to a Christian campus to dispute the resolution "God: Yes or No." The audience of 3,000 was mostly though not exclusively Christian.
So perhaps atheism has found an able advocate. But unbelievers may want to think twice before lining up behind Singer, who argues in favor of infanticide, euthanasia and (this is not a joke) animal rights! One of Singer's interesting proposals concerns what may be called "fourth trimester" abortions, i.e. the right to kill one's offspring even after birth!
Here are some choice Singer quotations on the subject which I get from his books Rethinking Life and Death and Writings on an Ethical Life.
On how mothers should be permitted to kill their offspring until the age of 28 days: "My colleague Helga Kuhse and I suggest that a period of twenty-eight days after birth might be allowed before an infant is accepted as having the same right to life as others."
On why abortion is less morally significant than killing a rat: "Rats are indisputably more aware of their surroundings, and more able to respond in purposeful and complex ways to things they like or dislike, than a fetus at ten or even thirty-two weeks gestation."
On why pigs, chickens and fish have more rights to life than unborn humans: "The calf, the pig, and the much-derided chicken come out well ahead of the fetus at any stage of pregnancy, while if we make the comparison with a fetus of less than three months, a fish would show more signs of consciousness."
On why infants aren't normal human beings with rights to life and liberty: "Characteristics like rationality, autonomy and self-consciousness...make a difference. Infants lack these characteristics. Killing them, therefore, cannot be equated with killing normal human beings."
In my opening statement I showed the profound connection between Singer's Darwinian atheism and his advocacy of infanticide and euthanasia. Remarkably Singer responded by saying he didn't come to debate his bioethical views! Rather, he wanted the debate to focus exclusively on the question of whether God exists or not. I didn't want this to be a debate in which Singer and I ended up talking on completely different subjects, so I engaged him on his chosen ground.
Even so, I was disappointed that Singer wouldn't stand up for the opinions that have made him famous, or infamous. Our topic resolution was broad enough to permit a discussion both of the existence of God and also of the social implications of the theist and the atheist positions. I view Singer's work as exploring the consequences of living in a truly secular society, devoid not only of the Christian God but also of Christian morality.
So while Christianity introduced into Western civilization the concept of dignity of human life, Singer explicitly says we have to get rid of this outdated concept. He contends that God is dead and we should recognize ourselves as Darwinian primates who enjoy no special status compared to the other animals. In the animal kingdom, after all, parents sometimes kill and even devour their offpsring. Singer argues that the West can learn from the other cultures like the Kalahari where children are routinely killed when they are unwanted, even when they are several years old.
Some of Singer's critics call him a Nazi and compare his proposals to Hitler's schemes for eliminating the unwanted, the unfit and the disabled. But as I note in the debate, Singer is no Hitler. He doesn't want state-sponsored killings. Rather, he wants the decision to kill to be made by you and me. Instead of government-conducted genocide, Singer favors free-market homicide.
Given the connection that Singer draws between atheism and child murder, using the former as his premise to recommend the latter, I wonder if our atheist friends are going to rush to embrace this guy as one of their heroes. Is Singer showing us where the road to complete secularism actually leads?
Reader Comments ( Page 1 of 49)
1. 1st comment!
Mokele Mbembe at 9:01AM on May 9th 2008
2. Well DD, since Christianity makes us think that humans are superior to all other living beings we share the earth with it is of no surprise a Christian would be offended by comments made by Singer regarding the value of life. Now I am not defending Singer, when I held my son after his birth it was the most exhilarating experience of my life. He was mine, a living breathing human being.
To me all life has value, including those of animals which Christians tend to disregard as soulless creatures that are the lesser creation of our god. If people quit thinking they are "superior" in that only human life has value perhaps priorities would be revised, especially those concerning the salvation of our planet and the hundreds of creatures whose lives we destroy and drive into extinction. We will soon be a part of that extinction thanks to religious belief and I bet the extinction of humans will surely come before any resurrection.
goddess1prevail at 9:11AM on May 9th 2008
3. Giving Christianity credit for moral values is the same as giving the English language credit for mans ability to talk.
Jerry Brown at 9:13AM on May 9th 2008
4. Love the title. Who needs subtlety, right? Singer's a bit hardcore for my tastes.
"Some of Singer's critics call him a Nazi and compare his proposals to Hitler's"
Doesn't everybody compare their enemies to Hitler?
JB,
That's the analogy I was never able to put into words.
Mokele Mbembe at 9:27AM on May 9th 2008
5.
#3: Good one, Jerry. It is from our cultures, not our religions, that society develops mores.
Gosh! DD sounds upset that Singer came to debate the topic of the debate! Sounds like the same crap DD tried to pull at the GW debate I went to.
Of course, there is a big difference between philosophical discourse and action. Singer is not ADVOCATING the murder of death of anyone. He is making a point with regard to the concept of "PERSONHOOD".
Hopefully, bloggers will bother to read up on Singer to get the real story.
I looked around the blogosphere, and there is no blog that is as egotistical and sophomoric as DD's. The only reasons I come here is to listen to folks like Jerry and GHB, etc, and to see what the religionists are saying.
DD is disgusting.
Linda at 9:32AM on May 9th 2008
6. Um, there are other conclusions one could reach than Singer's, even within atheism.
"There is no cause so noble that it will not attract some kooks." - Larry Niven
Ray Ingles at 9:33AM on May 9th 2008
7. Actually, here's a link where I, in fact, DO come to other conclusions:
http://ingles.homeunix.net/rants/atheism/braincase.html
Ray Ingles at 9:35AM on May 9th 2008
8. So while Christianity introduced into Western civilization the concept of dignity of human life,
Is that what you call that Dinesh ... and what did the Huegonots, Cathars,Waldensians, Paulikians, Runcarians, Josephites, and all the other heretic sects call it?
What about the good people of Ireland? In 16th and 17th century Ireland. English troops "pacified and
civilized" Ireland, where only Gaelic "wild Irish", "unreasonable beasts lived without any knowledge of God or good manners, in common
of their goods, cattle, women, children and every other thing." One of the more successful soldiers, a certain Humphrey Gilbert, half-brother
of Sir Walter Raleigh, ordered that "the heddes of all those (of what sort soever thei were) which were killed in the daie, should be cutte
off from their bodies... and should bee laied on the ground by eche side of the waie", which effort to civilize the Irish indeed caused
"greate terrour to the people when thei sawe the heddes of their dedde fathers, brothers, children, kinsfolke, and freinds on the grounde".
Tens of thousands of Gaelic Irish fell victim to the carnage this dignity of human life as you call it.
http://www.notachristian.net/christianatrocities.html
JimCO at 9:35AM on May 9th 2008
9. DoubleD, Is Singer the best you could dredge up from the lunatic fringe? It is obvious that Singer was specifically debated to advance your anti-secular and anti-atheist agenda. Maybe it is time for you to shut down your medicine show, relax and write another marvey book.
JefFlyingV at 9:48AM on May 9th 2008
10. Good link, jimCO. I've researched the christian antisematism, and it seemed to have started after the ecumenical council, Nicaea:
"The Christian Church formualtes its policy toward the Jews: the Jews must continue to exist for the sake of Christianity in seclusion and humiliation."
Linda at 10:02AM on May 9th 2008
11. BEHOLD THE FRUIT and CONSEQUENCE OF ATHEISM
http://evolutionfacts.blogspot.com
ALLEN JONES at 10:07AM on May 9th 2008
12. ATHEIST'S and BUDDHISTS ARE EVEN STARVING THEIR OWN PEOPLE FOR POWER WHILE CHRISTIAN'S AND THE CHRISTIAN MINDED ARE TRYING TO FEED THEM IN BURMA.
http://atheistsareimaginary.blogspot.com
ALLEN JONES at 10:11AM on May 9th 2008
13. LET'S ALL BEHOLD TOGETHER THE HORRORS OF ATHEISM IN SHOCK!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vW62EilDXPY
ALLEN JONES at 10:14AM on May 9th 2008
14. Behold the fruit of dim wittedness, the fallacious erraculating 'Allen Jones'
JefFlyingV at 10:15AM on May 9th 2008
15. Of course the other point is ... under whose authority did you annoint Peter Singer as the atheist spokesman? I'm betting that until you brought his name up here, the majority of posters had no idea who he was. Perhaps you should take a poll to find out just who we atheists look towards aa that person that best represents our POV. Again I am guessing that Singer would not be anywhere even near the top 25. But I suppose that would not back up your own beliefs which is you would prefer a nut out on the fringe to make a point about atheists in general. Is this also a Christian value that speak highly of ... that the ends justify the means?
JimCO at 10:17AM on May 9th 2008