An Open Letter to Matt Dillahunty, by the
members of TheVeganAtheist forum. This 3 part
video attempts to address Mr. Dillahunty's
arguments and fallacies as presented on the
Atheist Experience Tv Show. In this the first
part, we start by addressing his rejection
of the scientific consensus.
Dear Matt,
You have expressed in the past your relative
indifference to the issue of the treatment
of non-human animals, and we understand this
apathy. For you humans come first, and that's
very understandable. If you don't care about
something, we can't make you care. We neither
expect you to 'go vegan', nor intend this
letter to have that effect.
This letter is not about animals, nor is it
about veganism; this is about your bad arguments
made in defense of your eating meat. Bad arguments
that are hypocritical in light of your claims
to respecting science and intellectual honesty
-- which is something you should certainly
care about. In this letter we hope to help
you in recognizing the flaws in your reasoning.
We would encourage you to, at least, take
a look at Dawkins' words on this subject in
the future. Although he is not a vegan or
even a vegetarian, he recognizes that speciesism
is wrong and he has no moral justification
for eating meat.
Richard Dawkins in conversation with Peter
Singer wrote:
I think that you [Peter Singer] have a very,
very strong point when you say that anybody
who eats meat has a very, very strong obligation
to think seriously about it—and I don't
find any very good defense. I find myself
in exactly the same position as [I would have
been] 200 years ago […] talking about slavery,
where somebody like Thomas Jefferson—a man
of very sound ethical princi0ples—kept slaves.
It's just what one did; it was kind of the
societal norm. […] The historical president
of slavery I think is actually rather a good
one, because there was a time where it was
simply the norm. Everybody did it, and some
did it with gusto and relish—other people
like Jefferson did it reluctantly. I would
have probably done it reluctantly. I would
have just gone along with what society does,
but I think it […] was hard to defend then,
yet everybody did it—and that's the sort
of position I find myself in now. And I think
what I really like to see is people like you
having a far greater effect upon what I would
call consciousness-raising, and try to swing
it around so that it becomes the societal
norm not to eat meat.
Source:
Source:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GYYNY2oKVWU&t=29m31s
This letter is primarily in response to your
arguments on a not terribly recent episode
of The Atheist Experience, #583 from December
2008 (here's a link for reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mClv6S3BK60).
We fully recognize that this may, by now,
be a straw Matt, and your positions may have
evolved, but due to your reluctance to comment
on or discuss the issue it's hard to find
an updated record of your view on this, so
we're going by what we have.
Point 1: Overtly rejecting scientific consensus
based on personal ignorance of science.
Caller wrote:It is unhealthy. I mean if you
look on the American heart association's website
they have numerous instances where they list
that diets that contain meat are more unhealthy
than plant based diets
Matt Dillahunty wrote: I simply don't believe
it remotely and it's eh. I can answer with
one word -- evolution -- we evolved as an
omnivorous species.
Matt, it doesn't matter what you believe,
it matters what the actual evidence shows;
you should know this better that almost anybody.
You are neither an expert on nutrition, nor
even evolution, and you do much better when
you admit, in humility, your lack of scientific
background. It's not an appeal to authority
to trust expert consensus on scientific matters.
Expert opinions are important, because novices
do not have the training, experience, or time
to understand all of the data. If you choose
to ignore the scientific consensus, then you're
going to have to come up with some very strong
evidence from peer-reviewed research and literature.
Is this not what you ask creationists to do
whenever they choose to reject the scientific
consensus on the age of the earth, or evolution?
Speaking of creationists, let's look at the
case of evolution versus creationism. There
are droves of theists who think they understand
evolution, and physics, well enough to offer
the one word checkmate of "2LOT" (Second Law
of Thermodynamics). As if nobody had ever
thought about it before them. As it turns
out, that mistaken perception of a contradiction
between the two is based on a profound ignorance
of BOTH subjects. Your claims here are no
less ignorant, and we'll explain why at the
end of this section, but the most pressing
matter is that you attempted to make them
at all, considering your own criticism of
creationists for pulling the same kind of
intellectually dishonest nonsense. This is
a very unfortunate hypocrisy.
Both are cases of people attempting to debunk
one science (evolution/nutrition) that they
personally dislike by appealing ignorantly
to some other science (thermodynamics/evolutionary
biology) with only passing familiarity, by
pointing out a perceived contradiction (a
contradiction which doesn't actually exist
-- and if it did, you would have to admit
the other option is that evolution is false;
are you really ready to make that assertion?),
to discount the expert opinion of every major
body of scientists on the subject in the world
along with irrefutable evidence which they
conveniently ignore in favor of their own
preconceptions.
There is no difference here. Except, there
is a good explanation for creationists showing
this behavior; their indoctrination prevents
them from accepting scientific consensus.
You have supposedly found your way out of
the religious dogma and embraced science,
however counterintuitive it might be sometimes.
However, when it comes to the consumption
of meat you dismiss scientific consensus in
an awfully trivial manner. What justification
do you appeal to that makes scientific consensus
important for the theory of evolution, the
big bang, or even heliocentrism, but casually
dismissable in favor of your own preferences
when it comes to whether or not meat is good
for you?
To come back to the actual point in question.
It's not just the American Heart Association
that agrees the consumption of meat is a major
factor in the development of heart disease.
For the others, here's a short list with citations
and links:
World Health Organization
the American Dietetic Association
the American Institute for Cancer Research
the World Heart Federation
the British National Health Service
NIH wrote:It has been established beyond a
reasonable doubt that lowering definitely
elevated blood cholesterol levels (specifically,
blood levels of low-density lipoprotein (LDL)
cholesterol) will reduce the risk of heart
attacks caused by coronary heart disease.
This has been the consensus for 30 years,
and continues to be today. It's non-controversial
among experts. The only people challenging
this are conspiracy theorists, like "The International
Network of Cholesterol Skeptics", which is
a group primarily composed of various lobbyists
for the meat industry. They're essentially
the dietary version of climate change "skeptics".
They offer no alternative to the lipid hypothesis,
and their "contributions" are regularly debunked
by actual experts.
They are, however, very popular among the
meat eating public (particularly with the
current paleo-fad dieters) who want to be
reassured that there's nothing wrong with
their saturated fat rich diets (just as creationists
welcome any reassurance that evolution goes
against science, no matter how dishonest).
This is an instance where you have to recognize
your biases, and realize that when you're
hearing something you really want to hear,
however true it may ring for you, that doesn't
make it so. Follow the actual evidence, and
you'll arrive at the correct conclusion (which
is likely the scientific consensus- because
that's what the scientists do).
We shouldn't even have to address your argument
about "evolution", because the science should
speak for itself. When there is an apparent
conflict between two proven facts, that usually
only indicates some degree of ignorance in
the person observing that conflict, and not
an actual contradiction -- this should have
been your assumption, and rather than make
these claims you should have tried to figure
out why these two sciences seem to contradict
each other. To anthropomorphize evolution
in effort to explain, "Evolution" doesn't
care if you have a heart attack at 40, because
by that time it's done with you. Here's how
Dawkins explains it:
Richard Dawkins wrote:Obviously lethal genes
will tend to be removed from the gene pool.
But equally obviously a late-acting lethal
will be more stable in the gene pool than
an early-acting lethal. A gene that is lethal
in an older body may still be successful in
the gene pool, provided its lethal effect
does not show itself until after the body
has had time to do at least some reproducing.
For instance, a gene that made old bodies
develop cancer could be passed on to numerous
offspring because the individuals would reproduce
before they got cancer. On the other hand,
a gene that made young adult bodies develop
cancer would not be passed on to very many
offspring, and a gene that made young children
develop fatal cancer would not be passed on
to any offspring at all.
Source: Dawkins (1989), The Selfish Gene.
Pp. 46.
If meat caused cancer, diabetes, cardiovascular
disease, Alzheimer's or erectile dysfunction
before reproduction, surely we would either
evolve to stop the development of these diseases
so early or to not eat meat. As we have evolved
to be able to eat meat, either meat rarely
caused these diseases before the age of reproduction
or we evolved to delay the effects, however
this does not matter. The facts of the matter
is that a) these diseases occur after the
age of reproduction, therefore have no effect
on evolution and b) these diseases are caused
by meat consumption (although not exclusively,
primarily so).
A diet of animal products will see you through
reproduction, and that's all it had to promise
to our ancestors; and that's clearly all it
does for us. If you plan on living longer
than that, you might want to actually look
at the evidence in a modern context. Meat
is also healthier than starving to death,
and it's healthier than malnutrition and for
people hundreds of years ago or in the third
world the situation is different. But you
are not in the third world, and you live in
a time in which one can be quite healthy on
a vegan diet (no longer concerns about B-12,
for example). You should realize that health
and ethical matters are highly situational.
If the environment requires it, humans even
eat each other, and it's both healthy and
ethically permissible compared to starving
where self-preservation is at issue.
You would do well to go on a mostly vegan
diet, for your own health, just as anybody
could be advised to stop smoking or drinking
in excess. We don't really want to see you
follow Christopher Hitchens (peace and blessings
of Darwin be upon him) in digging yourself
and early grave. A diet high in fiber and
low in saturated fat (plant-based) can reduce
the prevalence of cancer admirably, and the
same diet can help with diabetes, an illness
we are sad to hear you suffer from. For more
inf ormation, you could check the numerous
studies published by Harvard University orthis
article.
That said, is it immoral to cause yourself
harm? Maybe not, but there is an important
ethical bottom line, and that is where the
evaporation of your 'health' excuse is very
relevant:
From a utilitarian perspective, it may be
permissible to cause some harm to others if
that harm results in a greater good. Such
as, possibly, harming animals to benefit humans
(medical testing is a great example). This
seems ultimately to be the argument you're
appealing to, with a health-benefit approach.
Even vegans generally accept legitimate health
reasons for using animal products (medications,
etc.) that are accepted by science as necessary
and useful to promoting or preserving health
(although views on medical testing vary, that's
another issue). This is a reasonable argument,
provided there is a real benefit. There are
issues of which is greater- the harm or the
benefit- but these are admittedly hard to
weigh. That makes it more of a moral grey
area when there is both harm and benefit involved.
But when, as happens to be the case with meat
(in our privileged first world context where
we do have other superior options) we're dealing
with a lose-lose scenario, both harmful to
animals and our own health, this is no longer
a grey area, and it is no longer rational
to advocate the practice. If you manage to
find some victimless way to harm yourself,
there's some argument to be made that you're
not doing anything wrong by it. But meat production
today, in your reality, is not victimless.
You aren't eating roadkill, you're not freegan
(widely considered morally equivalent to veganism),
you aren't eating lab grown meat, and we have
not developed farming and slaughtering practices
that are ethical. The fact of possible or
hypothetical exceptions doesn't excuse the
reality. Until one or more of those things
changes, your action of eating meat is personally
indefensible. Not for people in the third
world or hundreds of years ago, but you, today.
Not people in the 31st century eating meat
grown in a glass jar, but you, today. Not
the fictional characters in the Hitchhiker's
guide eating that pig that was genetically
engineered to want to be eaten, but you, today.
We're not saying don't eat meat, we can't
tell you what to do. We're just saying it's
wrong. Wrong for everybody, throughout the
universe and all space and time? No. Wrong
for you, today, in your privileged first world
country, in an age of scientific enlightenment
where we have the know-how to produce better,
healthier food and the methodology to prove
it. You're engaging in an irrational lose-lose
behavior that is not even close to being a
moral grey area. But worse yet, you're being
intellectually dishonest when you defend it.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Don't forget to check out parts 2 and 3 of
this open letter to Matt. The letter in its
entirety can be found on theveganatheist.com.
If you would like to see a response from Mr.
Dillahunty, please consider sharing this video
with others on facebook, twitter and google
plus and perhaps it can be brought to his
attention. The more exposure these videos
receive, the more likely Matt will notice
them and feel compelled to respond.
Looking for a great place to communicate with
vegans, atheists, theists and non-vegans from
across the globe, consider joining TheVeganAtheist
forum. Our growing community is always looking
for new members with whom we can share our
experiences, debate issues, discuss and learn
from each other. This letter is the first
forum collaboration, so if you would like
to be a part of future projects, find us at
theveganatheist.com/forum
