The Red Neck, Blue Collar Atheist

I’m sure that we have all wondered what it would look like if Atheism were promoted not by self-anointed intellectuals but rather it were promoted by a self-anointed red neck, blue collar huckster.  Now we can know for certain what that is like.

Hank Fox is a self-described “redneck blue collar Atheist” who has written a book, not surprisingly called, “Red Neck Blue Collar Atheist: Simple Thoughts About Reason, Gods, & Faith”.  He provides a convenient on-line sample of the book which is a chapter on morality and being good without God.  So let’s take a look.

Fox goes to lengths to create a fictional church, one which claims to contain all morality.  “Those people” Fox declares, think that absent the Church, morality doesn’t exist.

” To those people, no deliberate moral act could take place outside the Baptist Church, or, specifically, Pineview Baptist Church. “If there is no God, what keeps you from robbing and raping?” is really the speaker’s way of saying just that.”

This model, he strongly asserts in a large and BOLDED sidebar, is ”widespread and extremely persistent”.   His evidence for this is merely his assertion that it is so; it’s a model, you see, but it is also TRUE, at least for Fox.

He tests this model of morality, “model 1”, with the assertion that (a) it is moral to open the doors for old people, and (b) you can “just know that”.  So morality is not contained in the church, at least if opening doors for the elderly is the epitome of morality – and it is declared so, as Fox uses it.  I.e. Church ≠ morality.

For Fox, this disqualifies model 1, QED.  But his evidence is still merely his assertion;  does morality really extend to opening doors for others?  If it does, who said so, and what gives them the right, the moral authority to declare that it is so?  Fox takes the moral authority upon himself, without explanation of his assumption of moral authority, and without apology. 

But let’s go back a bit and assess Fox’s position on understanding theology:

” The “theologian” business, the idea that you have to become an expert on the Bible to argue with Christians, that’s always bothered me too. As a freethinker, the LAST thing I want to do is spend huge amounts of time studying THEIR holy book. There’s a whole universe of other stuff I’d rather be working to understand, or enjoying.”

We, therefore, need to grant him his ignorance when he addresses the things he rejects?  Including his ignorance that the term “theologian” is not exclusive to Christianity, we can suppose.  One of the overarching characteristics of “red neck, blue collar” –ism, is that it is proud, PROUD, of its ignorance and stands tall to defend the right to be ignorant.  Of course, the RNBC’s do have that right; but it does not mean that they ARE right.  What Fox seems to be promoting is that within his bubble of ignorance there blooms a bud of wisdom regarding the objects of his ignorance.  But we can legitimately ask, how likely is that?  But maybe he has a case; we proceed with that hope.

Back to his original model, model 1, we can show conclusively that Fox does not know how pervasive such an attitude is despite his claim that he does.  If he had a poll that demonstrated these “facts”, he would have shown it for support.  Claims to know the universal thoughts and thought processes of humans, especially humans as numerous and diverse as Christians, can only be false.

 This model was a Fox-specific straw-man construction, a cartoon, based on his admitted ignorance of what constitutes the basis for a theological moral base.  It is common for Atheists to construct erroneous views of theology out of pure ignorance (with a little meanness thrown in, as we will get to in a bit).  There is no need, they suppose, to understand the actual premises; they can create false arguments for a supposed theology, and feel quite brilliant as they knock down their own false assumptions.

Fox continues to claim that opening doors for the elderly, being a moral act, can be moral in many religions and in Atheism.  He lays out a second model, model 2:

” In Model 2, religion itself, some kind of devout faith, is the real deal, the true source of morality.”

His effort here is to attach a selfishness to an ill-defined model, and he does it with a very clumsy attachment.  The assertion is composed of mixed thoughts: If religion is the source of morality, then no one outside the religion can perform moral acts, and the religion is selfish in claiming sole rights to morality.  The confusion of source with actor muddles this to the point of nonsense: the source does not prevent actions outside the circle of membership and to claim that it does is nonsensical.  The red neck equivalent would be something like this: If universities are a source of rational thought, then no one without a university degree can have rational thoughts.  In other words, the model and its conclusion reduce immediately to absurdity.

Undeterred, Fox forges ahead with another moral model.  This third one is two-part.  First, there is “no causal connection” between religion and morality.  Second, religion has no claim to morality at all:

” In fact, the only link between the two is the shaky one that religious people deliberately make in an attempt to make their religion seem necessary – the hijacking of morality by the members of Pineview Baptist Church, along with the pompous crowing that only they are blessed with a moral code.”

He goes on:

” The fact that the boxes of Religion and Morality are separate does not mean that PBC members can’t be extremely moral people. It does mean that moral people do not have to belong to PBC, or Judeo-Christian-Islamic Hootenanny, or any religion.

PBC members are not moral because they’re PBC members. JCIH believers are not moral because they’re JCIH believers. Neither are moral people somehow automatically PBC or JCIH members without knowing it.

People are moral because they care enough to make an effort to be good. Period.”

Fox has now declared his version of morality, but through the haze of the word "good".  He is correct in saying that membership does not make one moral.  But no one except himself is making that point, and he makes it in a straw man model made up just to prove this point (which again, no one else is making).

Fox had already attacked the Ten Commandments.  Perhaps he will share with us exactly what “good” means, and what is and is not good.  Even better, perhaps he will share with us exactly what the source of his moral certainty is and what constitutes the authority for making that moral declaration of which he is certain is "good".

But what he actually does is to attack the obvious:  Churches (he’s not dealing with the issue of the existence of God)… Churches are composed of humans and sometimes get things wrong (a foible which Fox attacks with juvenile lust).  Certainly some Southern churches have endorsed slavery (as have secular Democrats).  This proves exactly nothing.  It was Christian influence (e.g.  Mennonites and in Britain, Wilberforce) that led to the abolition of slavery, not secularism).  Nonetheless, Fox besmirches the church with whatever he can.

His next claim is that religion – as he sees it – takes away valuable time and resources from dealing with the actual problem, which seems to be the issue of “what is good”.  This inefficiency is apparently evil in Fox’s moral estimation.  Churches think they already know what morality is, but they should be spending full time trying to figure out what it is...?  Fox doesn't even do that.  He already knows what his morality is.

And this results in the following statement, perhaps indicative of the intellectual level of the entire discourse:

” Considering that you and your group will expend some of their time and energy in chanting, speaking in tongues, handling snakes, adjusting your funny hats, kneeling and praying with Brother Pat, lighting candles, arranging incense, polishing up the gold elephant statues, cutting parts off babies, poring over bomb designs – whatever your particular religion demands you do – you will definitely have less time for door opening. You will get less accomplished with your limited time, energy and intelligence applied to the mixed effort than if you had focused the full of your available resources on moral behavior alone.”

The self-righteous bigotry oozes forth.  Does Fox believe that his list is descriptive of Christian theology?  It doesn't matter whether he does or does not, because he uses his list as if it definitely were the fundamentals of theology, and he hates it, having selected it for that purpose.  Fox is not necessarily an Atheist so much as he is a hater.  And he has given us the foundation for his hatred by sharing the elements which disgust him.  Does this prove to him that there is no God?  We can’t know from just this chapter.  But it ‘s not over.

” The sad fact is, if your main focus is your religion and not your morality, you and your friends become less able to achieve some full measure of morality.

In his mind (and there only) Fox has divorced religion – or is it Christianity? – or is it all religious believers? – from morality, thereby enabling him to believe himself more moral than any religious persons and able to tell them so.  He, RNBC Fox, spends no time which is not focused purely on a full measure of morality, or so he implies.  His righteousness is measurable therefore as an efficiency co-efficient. 

As he proceeds it is becoming obvious that the authority and source for morality in Fox’s world is Fox.  Are his particular commandments coming up?  Or is it Relativism or perhaps consequentialism which the Atheist Fox prefers?

Fortunately for us, Fox does elaborate on how one “gets morals”.  First he sets up another strawman:

” It is impossible to be a moral being yourself, or a positive moral force in your society if you don’t understand something of the reasons for moral acts. People who think that only religious faith keeps you from committing crimes – and I’ve heard that silly question often enough “If you don’t believe in God, what keeps you from committing murder anytime you feel like it?” that it must be a pretty common idea – have no way to think about morality beyond “I have to do what my god says.”

Worse, contained within that question, a question suggested by everything taught in churches, is the statement that the natural desire of human beings is to rob and kill others and the only thing restraining them is their good Christian faith. Freighted within the question is the clear implication that compassion, love, charity, tenderness and decency are unnatural, alien traits to humans, and become available only after you start to believe in God. For people who believe that, every person outside their religion is automatically wicked.

To me, this is so far beyond insulting – not just to me but to the entire human species – it’s just plain filth. “

This bogus set-up is precisely NOT what is taught in Christianity – but of course Fox specifically doesn’t want to spend the effort to see what Christianity really is; he prefers to make stuff up, call it Christian or at least “religion”, and then to bash that little clay creation as if it were the real thing.  If he is insulted, he insulted himself and then took umbrage at the insult.

But he charges ahead with his declaration of moral causation:

” For instance, why open doors for old people? Why really?

Because it’s good to help those less strong than ourselves – it costs you almost nothing but might mean a great deal to the person you do it for.

Because it’s a win-win: It gives you a good feeling to know you’re helping someone, and it gives them a good feeling that someone cares enough to offer help.

Because if you help maintain the tradition of young people opening doors for elders, you yourself will probably someday benefit.

Because generous acts help maintain an overall friendly atmosphere in your society, which benefits everybody. If you help some elderly person, it’s likely someone else will follow your example and help your own parents or grandparents ... or your pregnant wife, or a handicapped child, or just someone tired and harried and in need of a little human caring.

Because compassion feels good, and even though the beneficiary of the act may be a total stranger, the act itself makes you a better person for yourself and your family.

Compare this list of reasons to the juvenile, simplistic “Because my supernatural sky-daddy commands it.” The two mindsets are not even in the same ballpark.

The same process holds for every other aspect of morality. “

Let’s review.

First, it’s “good” to do X because (a) it costs nothing, and (b) the recipient of X will like it.  I.e., it is good because the consequences are positive: Consequentialist.

Second, it’s win – win.  Consequentialist.

Third, it’s tradition and you might benefit.  Consequentialist.

Fourth, if you are generous it might get passed on.  Consequentialist.

Fifth, it feels good.  Consequentialist.

Simplistic Consequentialism never rises to the comprehension that designating only the ends as beneficial leaves open the question of the means to those ends, and whether a “good” end justifies any means whatsoever to get there.  Possibly Fox is not really Consequentialist, but has merely selected his moral declarations for this writing which are Consequentialist.  And possibly Fox has never even heard of Consequentialism, being of a proud Red Neck Blue Collar ignorant persuasion.  But fox is not above pompous conclusions:

” The guy who understands the real mechanics of morality is far more advanced, morally, than someone who robotically does what he’s commanded, who fearfully does “good” acts to avoid eternal fire, or who selfishly chalks up goodie points only for the purpose of bargaining for his own everlasting life.

He’s also a much better neighbor to those who hold other faiths, or no faith at all.

Fox makes up one last strawman, the presumption that a person is a robot if one thinks that the authority for making moral pronouncements should reside with someone other than Fox or any other human.  But the reverse is the case: why should any person take moral lessons from Fox, or from any other human?  Which human is it who has the unquestionable moral authority to dictate to all other humans such things as moral tenets?  Why should anyone conclude that Fox has some preternatural moral abilities that they do not have?

Returning to Fox’s first strawman (model 1), the church which contains all morals, and comparing that to Fox’s several positions including his pride in his personal ignorance, can we conclude that there is a deathless moral message contained in this chapter of Fox’s book?  Consequentialism is an easy, wide and comfortable road, and is not even really a morality; it is a technique for declaring that something you approve of and want is a "moral objective" and then filling in the tactics to get it.   The morality is had merely by declaring it to be moral (the Alinsky method); the reason it is moral is that the consequences are desirable to the declarer – true logical circularity.  Nonetheless, the declarer of the moral objective gets what he wants, and those opposed are thus immoral.  It’s that simple.

So what if a person decides that other people do not have any moral authority to tell him how to lead his life?  There are three choices: the person can determine his own moral code; he can choose to have no moral code; or he can look to a higher, Godelian authority.  Fox seems to have chosen the first, developing his own moral code and claiming that it is common sense, with the further expectation that it is universal, and the even further expectation that it will be accepted as "reason".  And he also seems to think that those not taken by his particular bias are not moral, which is the exact charge he makes against others, and in that sense he is just another denomination of the same church.

Perhaps Fox is unaware that human moralists are a dime a dozen, and that none of them, him included, have any claim on unquestionable moral authority of a universal nature which makes their declarations of any value to other humans.  Fox will find a following who enjoy his sarcasm (which they interpret as “humor”).  But there is nothing of a universal nature in his, or for that matter, any moralizer’s pet theories.  And certainly one would expect morals, if they exist, to be universal; otherwise they are just opinions, and that is what we have here, Fox’s opinions, strewn with false theology, false demography, and with copious sarcasm and a little undisguised hate.  If that works for you, then buy his book.

Addendum:
Can you think of instances where it would not be moral to open doors for old persons?  I can.
1.  The door is the exit from an airplane in flight.
2.  The old person doesn't want to use the door.
3.  The door is to a bathroom which is currently in use.
4.  The door is to a mass shower with fake shower heads that issue toxic gas.
5.  The door releases a cage full of lions into an arena containing elderly gladiators armed with soup spoons.

The immediate response to this list might be that this sort of thing was never Fox's intent.  It is right in line, however, with Fox's perversion of Christianity, a tat for his tit, as it were.  There is no use in protesting a distortion if distortion is your own form of intellectual currency.

6.  The door is a trap door beneath the elder's feet.  Perhaps this might be OK if the elder lands on a giant whoopie cushion?
7. The door holds up a concealed ironing board which will goose-egg the elder. (An old Marx Bro. fav.)
8. That's enough: point should be made by now.