Feminst Leader Illustrates Atheism’s Problem With Morality

Mark Schierbecker, from The College Fix, does some reporting about Richard Carrier being accused of sexual harassment in an article entitled, “Popularizer of social-justice atheism can’t believe he’s accused of sexually harassing students.”  He includes some more details of Richard Carrier’s secular values:

In a Facebook post June 15 that was removed right before this story’s publication, the former president of the Arizona State University chapter of the alliance, Amy Frank, said that Carrier “sexually harassed me and touched me a year ago after speaking at ASU.”

Without being told who accused him, Carrier thought the alliance was referring to another woman he had expressed interest in at another event. He had deemed his behavior toward that woman as morally reprehensible, whereas his interaction with Frank was not “at all bad,” he wrote.

As a result he didn’t immediately defend himself from the allegations, telling the alliance he “thought the interest was mutual and I was very wrong” and wouldn’t do it again. Instead he offered to come clean about the encounter on his blog.

It is interesting to watch the atheist polyamorist get confused about what he said or did to whom. Y’see, he only behaved “morally reprehensible” with that woman, not this woman.

Only months later did Carrier learn that the complaint came from Frank, he said.

“I have not decided yet whether to sue Frank,” Carrier told The Fix in a followup email Thursday. “She appears to be troubled and may be a victim of mental illness.”

So Carrier, the champion of feminism, is trying to plant the idea that a woman, who has said she was sexually harassed, is actually mentally ill.

Yet the same Richard Carrier once said, ” You can find plenty to read now online about the disproportionate way that even in our own American society women are harassed or assaulted, or regarded as liars, or their thoughts or concerns ignored.”

So what are we supposed to do?

According to the 2014 version of Richard Carrier, we should believe Amy Frank,  otherwise we participate in the “sexist abuse and mistreatment of women throughout our social system.”  Yet according to the 2016 version of Richard Carrier, we are to ignore Amy Frank’s concerns as those of someone who is troubled and mentally ill.

All of this underscores atheism’s problem with morality.  For years, Richard Carrier has made it clear he has a strong moral code – the moral code of Feminism.  He has articulated and defended this moral code with thousands of passionate words.  He has done this for years.  He has used his moral code to pass judgment on many other people, even to the point of defending the accusation that a leading skeptic in his own movement was a rapist.  So yes, Richard Carrier has a moral code.  It has served him well to become something of a leader in the his small corner of the secular movement.

But when it came time to adhere to his moral code when it no longer benefited him to do so, suddenly, in an instant, the lofty moral code, with its thousands of words of support, was no longer important.  For now, it is the Reputation of Richard Carrier that takes precedence.    Even if he has to sue.

So Richard Carrier, champion of atheism, helps illustrate atheism’s problem with morality.  Yes, he has a moral code.  It’s just that you only adhere to the moral code when it suits you.  Why?  Because ultimately, there is no reason to adhere to the moral code.  Unless it suits you.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in atheism, Morality, social justice atheism, Uncategorized and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

11 Responses to Feminst Leader Illustrates Atheism’s Problem With Morality

  1. Kevin says:

    I would actually say that it’s more a problem with modern feminism than atheism that they want you to just blindly believe the accuser. There are so many ways that can go wrong, as Carrier has now demonstrated.

  2. TFBW says:

    Either way, it underscores the point being made: as an atheist, Carrier can (and does) adopt whatever moral code seems right to him at the time. There’s no anchoring principle anywhere, except, as a cynic might suggest, “what’s best for Richard Carrier.”

  3. Talon says:

    Carrier is a slimy little toad. He was quick to jump on the “Always Believe the Victim” bandwagon when it suited him (and might get him laid!), giving little consideration to rights of the accused, but now that the shoe is on the other foot, he’ll stop at nothing to protect his reputation, even smearing his alleged victim. Whatever his moral code is, you can be sure he’ll abandon it whenever it becomes too much of an inconvenience.

  4. Ryan says:

    So the big question now is how the Jesus-mythers will react to all of this. Will the revelation that Carrier is unprincipled and changes positions when his reputation is on the line hurt his credibility as an unbiased historian? The mythers love to suggest that all historians are biased and simply accept Jesus’ existence without really looking at the evidence, but it seems to me that this unfolding drama reveals something about how Carrier, the reincarnation of Aristotle, thinks. And it suggests to me that he is just the type of person that would push a fringe theory that a small but very loud group wants promoted for ‘glory’ and personal gain. When Carrier’s important, epoch-shaping works are read 2,000 years from now alongside Aristotle’s, one wonders whether this drama will be mentioned, or will the records be purged so that no blemish may come upon the legacy of such an important philosopher, equal in every respect to Aristotle?

  5. Crude says:

    So the big question now is how the Jesus-mythers will react to all of this.

    By denying the women exist, of course.

  6. Kevin says:

    I notice that big name New Atheists are universally idiotic in one way or another, on topics unrelated to God. It’s almost like they aren’t any better at reasoning than anyone else, yet are considered paragons of logic by their followers. I wonder how a casual observer could possibly decide Carrier or Dawkins or Harris were rational in their atheism, when they are irrational in so many other areas?

  7. TFBW says:

    Can’t speak for Carrier, but I suspect in the case of Dawkins and Harris that it’s partly a case of mistaking eloquence for intelligence, especially when that eloquence articulates their own beliefs.

  8. Ilíon says:

    ^ and it helps to affect a prissy British accent.

  9. Ryan says:

    TFBW said: Can’t speak for Carrier, but I suspect in the case of Dawkins and Harris that it’s partly a case of mistaking eloquence for intelligence, especially when that eloquence articulates their own beliefs.

    I think beggars can’t be choosers sums it up pretty well. As long as they can dress nice, shave occasionally, and use some big technical terms and sound intelligent, it’s good enough for them. They are really just salesmen, not serious thinkers. Read one page of a book by Dawkins or Harris and it becomes obvious that these men are not the type to seriously critique their own arguments in a pursuit of truth. Carrier is the closest thing to a qualified historian that doubts Jesus’ existence… so what else are they to do?

  10. TFBW says:

    They are really just salesmen, not serious thinkers.

    But they (Dawkins and Harris, at least) bear the label “scientist”. People have difficulty seeing past that label to the actual contents, so it’s a label with considerable influence over perception of quality. The average person’s ability to perform critical analysis of an argument is also pretty terrible, so even if they see past the label, they may not notice the poor quality within.

  11. Michael says:

    They are really just salesmen, not serious thinkers.

    I agree with TFBW. In fact, I think it pretty clear Harris got his PhD for the sole reason is becoming a better salesman. That also seems to be the case with Carrier.

    If you took away the PhD from any of these men, I doubt they would have the leadership status that they do have among their dwindling number of fans.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s