I can’t be the only one who finds strident atheists like Sam Harris as annoying and dogmatic as their religious fundamentalist counterparts. Its people like that who alienate the mushy religious-nonreligious middle like myself.
Like Kryptonite To Stupid
I can’t be the only one who finds strident atheists like Sam Harris as annoying and dogmatic as their religious fundamentalist counterparts. Its people like that who alienate the mushy religious-nonreligious middle like myself.
Alienate or educate? The people who should hear the truth, even if it’s ugly, is the moderates. The extremists are lost.
I’m sorry to hear you say that.
I have heard/read a lot of criticism of Dawkins/Dennet/Harris and other outspoken atheists. If their vocal atheism is inappropriate, how should they be expressing themselves? Should atheist just keep their mouths shut in public? Almost every Christian I have ever meet, with the exception of a few universalists, believes that it is right and proper for me to be tortured for all eternity. That seems like a clear case of dogmatic divisiveness.
Also, could you please explain what you mean by dogmatic? What dogma or creed is Harris insisting upon? Atheism is not a dogma–any more than not believing in ghosts is a dogma. It’s just an absence of belief. Is his criticism of religious moderates dogmatism? How? One can certainly disagree with Harris, but that doesn’t make him dogmatic. Is his attachment to empiricism dogmatic? If so, why is that bad? I don’t believe that Harris is the counterpart of religious fundamentalists.
Sounds a lot like the sensible moderates who can’t stand those shrill angry leftists, who are just as bad as their right wing counterparts.
It’s telling someone they’re stupid because of what they believe. I’m all for shutting down the actions of extremists, but attacking people’s faith will just empower the craziest elements. I happen to be more or less agnostic myself.
Take it from me, it also empowers (and enrages) the non - crazy elements.
BTW, I think it’s about time we put the use of the word “crazy” on suspension for a while.
BTW, I think it’s about time we put the use of the word “crazy” on suspension for a while
Do you have any good substitutes warmed up and ready?
Anything both accurate and appropriate will do nicely…
Morality and spirituality (as sense of something greater than oneself) has nothing to do with spooks or magic. Religion is providing the veil for islamic and xtian extremists to make life as miserable as possible for the rest of us. I’m sick of it. The only assholes here are the religious ones and they are stupid too.
“It’s telling someone they’re stupid because of what they believe.”
Why else would you call someone stupid? If someone believed 2+2=5, you would call them stupid. If someone believed Bush was a good president, you would call them stupid. Why is being stupid about religion protected?
Here’s the thing, religious people use much, much worse words to describe people who don’t believe in their religion. It’s like demanding gays be tolerant of those trying to strip them of rights.
I don’t think it is accurate to write that Harris is telling people that they are stupid because of what they believe. Harris seems quite interested in spiritual experiences. I am at work, so I don’t have my bookmarks handy, but check out the Point of Inquiry podcasts. If I remember right, they are produced by the Center for Inquiry, a pro-skepticism group. Anyway, they have several interviews with Harris. He repeatedly acknowledges the reality and power of religious experiences, but he doesn’t think they are the result of a supernatural diety. Harris does say that theists don’t have good, that is emperical, reasons to be theists.
Saying “You are mistaken about the cause of your spiritual experience,” or saying “You lack emperical evidence for your claims,” is not calling someone stupid.
The far right folks are already REALLY agitated, and their goals seem to be antithetical to those of liberals/progessives or whatever label you prefer. As C.S. Strowbridge points out, the religious right in America is also enraged by the GLBT community, as well as African Americans, immigrants, feminists, rock music…. It seems like an endless list.
I am curious who here has read anything by Harris, or listened to him speak at any length.
I don’t know about all atheists, but Dawkins strikes me as having the same brand of arrogance as some religionists. This attitude of “I’m absolutely right and you’re stupid for not seeing reality the way I do” mentality exists in both.
`Saying “You are mistaken about the cause of your spiritual experience,” or saying “You lack emperical evidence for your claims,” is not calling someone stupid.’
That would be fine if that was as far as it went. But Harris and Dawkins are not above impuning the intelligence of anyone who disagrees with them. And this whole canard that “moderate” believers grant cover to the extremists is as offensive as it is sophomoric.
Moderates grant cover to the extent that they demand that religion be exempt from criticism. How is that offensive or sophomoric? How is it sophomoric or offensive to not accept “I have faith that X is true” as a valid argument for X? Faith, and the idead that faith is evidence of anything, is what unites moderates and fundamentalists.
I grant that Harris and Dawkins can be rude or abrasive. But what’s the worst they do? They say and write publicly that people who think faith is a valid argument for anything are fools. What do Christians, including the moderates, say about everyone who disagrees with them? That they are deserving of eternal torment and they are going to get it. Carlton Pierson and other universalists are the only exception I can think of. That seems far more offensive than saying you think someone is a fool.
Whoops. I meant Carlton Pearson.
OK, Oliver, but you know Superman isn’t real, right?
John keeps on nailing it with every post.
Why make excuses for what these religions, and the 3 monotheistic ones in particular, are really about? Dawkins and Harris are not going to let people cherrypick the tenets of their religion.
I’m thinking that the human tendency to believe in the supernatural has, up until now, been a trait that has benefited human survival but has now become a liability.
For all you dipshits who believe in the concept in heaven and hell I have a question fot you. On judgement day will you stand by and do nothing while those you love are cast in the lake of fire for all eternity?
Christmas is not under siege. Christianity is not under siege.
Science and Evolution and Global Warming and Our Democracy and Separation of Church and State and Keeping Religion out of our Armed Forces — They are all under siege. By the Christists.
Fuck Christists. Go Dawkins. Thank you for providing a strong rational uncompromising voice to counter the darkness.
Harris isn’t advocating anything like what Falwell et aliqui advocate — an anti-theocracy, a la Joe Stalin. He also has no power in our society, unlike Falwell. Same story with Dawkins. Same story with the late Stephen Jay Gould. Though checking Wikipedia, Harris does strike me as an ass as well …
I do wonder if Harris is a “convert” to atheism, so to speak. Point of clarification: I was one of two atheists in the office where I work until recently (the other got a promotion to a different location). While I, who have always been an atheist, even as young as six, was more open about this fact, I was not in-your-face with religious coworkers, while my friend, who came from a religious background, was. The converted tend to have more zeal.
I would still like to know what would be an acceptable way for atheists to participate in the public forum. What kind of criticism of religious belief would be acceptable?
I also want to ask by Southern Quaker a question. I guess from your handle that you are a Quaker. Do you believe that I should go to hell? If so, shouldn’t I find that offensive?
Well Oliver, I used to enjoy your blog, but I have now deleted the bookmark from my browser. I wouldn’t have thought you’d be one of those people that believes religion should be protected from rational criticism, but there it is. Why anyone would ever define as “moderate” the belief that a big sky daddy created the universe just for us, I have no idea.
fd10801 | Dec 21, 2006 6:09:38 PM
“BTW, I think it’s about time we put the use of the word “crazy” on suspension for a while.”
Frank, it’s crazy to think that anything you suggest is worthwhile.
Just because millions of people believe in God, and the belief is central to their own self-image and understanding of the world, and they find any criticism or mocking of their belief threatening, doesn’t mean it’s not a very silly belief.
Why is it not possible for you to disagree with it, and not believe it yourself, without deriding it as “silly”? By any random definition any religion can be defined as silly, also so to can the lack of religion be described as “silly”. But we’d all get much further in the world by not injecting that kind of vitriol into our discourse.
As everyone knows, I hate the extreme religious right and the “values” it pushes. But on the other hand while they have a lot of power (especially under this president), they represent a very small percentage of people. Ditto for their fundamentalist dopplegangers in the Middle East (why, exactly do we not see a lot of the hardcore atheist folks hitting on Islam?).
Certainly how one grew up and how you deal with religion in your life colors how you view these issues. I happen to have grown up with a very religious parent, who also happens to be to the extreme left of me and thinks I’m some kind of Republican. Myself, I happen to believe that nothing in the Universe happens without a reason. Whether that reason is God, Yahweh, Allah or Jessica Alba - I do not know, but I am not so full of my own belief that I’m willing to condemn someone else’s belief. Frankly I think it would be hilarious after all this hubub between Jews, Christians and Muslims that the first thing we see on the other side is Buddah’s big belly.
For me, what I have seen so far of him, Dawkins and Co. are just the atheistic versions of Falwell, Robertson, etc. Ready to condemn everyone who doesn’t follow their specific path, marking anyone who doesn’t follow the One True Way as a heathen. Life is too short for that kind of thing. Why can’t people just have their own beliefs without also having a pissing contest over who’s religion (and for these guys, atheism IS a religion) is better?
For all you dipshits who believe in the concept in heaven and hell I have a question fot you. On judgement day will you stand by and do nothing while those you love are cast in the lake of fire for all eternity?
I don’t know if I believe in the traditional concepts of heaven and hell, but I tend to believe that when you die where you spend the next life depends on the kind of person you were here. What’s the purpose of humanity if Hitler and Martin Luther King are going to the same afterlife? I sure as heck wouldn’t stand by and let my loved ones be hurt in the afterlife, but then it probably isn’t up to me but God/Karma/Buddah/Allah/Yahweh/Marilyn Monroe.
“For me, what I have seen so far of him, Dawkins and Co. are just the atheistic versions of Falwell, Robertson, etc.”
It’s not even close.
Dawkins: “You believe in a invisible man in the sky. You are a moron. I feel the same way about people who make decisions based on their birth sign. Or tried to treat their ezema with a crystal.”
Falwell: “You don’t believe in the same invisible man in the sky. Or, for that matter, you do believe in the same invisible sky but celebrate him in a slightly different way. Therefore, you are evil. Evil, evil, evil, and deserve to burn in hell forever. And that’s where you are going to gay. Ha ha ha!”
Anyone who challenges long-held beliefs, deeply embedded in the dominant culture, is going to irritate people.
Russell’s Teapot
Dawkins and Co. are just the atheistic versions of Falwell, Robertson.
Oliver - How exactly are Dawkins and Co. condemning religious people? They may find them silly and simplistic, but true condemnation is the preferred tool of the true believers. Falwell, I’m sure, believes and hopes that Dawkins and Harris will spend eternity in the fires of hell. Not quite the same as wishing someone would examine their belief system.
Life is too short not to question every firmly held belief. That some people are offended by this just goes to prove how tenuous those beliefs must be.
It’s telling someone they’re stupid because of what they believe.
I’ve listened to Harris speak at length and never heard him call anyone stupid for their beliefs.
His main point is basically this: It’s time to stop giving religoids a free ride. Answering “because it’s God’s way” or “The Bible says so” just isn’t a good enough argument for anything.
John - I’ve listened to Harris at length on a SALT podcast, and he does seem to have an affection for Zen and meditation, which I do as well. I haven’t read his book yet (I live outside the U.S. and don’t get much non-fiction without a struggle and fortune).
Personally, I’m much more of the type that will blow someone off when they make a judgement based purely on superstition or supernatural, unprovable nonsense. I agree that the free ride should be over for theists.
If that bothers a believer, that’s their problem. It’s their “personal” relationship, after all. Why should my opinion matter? Plus, face it, 99% of the “believers” in the world are extremely hypocritical on a daily basis.
–WKW
C.S.Strowbridge : I don’t know if you have misquoted (misinterpreted) Dawkins & Co. (I hope so), but you have certainly misinterpreted the average born again Christian.
There is such a wealth of misinformation about Christianity (in all its forms), and other religions in this thread that I don’t know where to start.
Perhaps the most preposterous concept was this one:
First of all, what would you do? Write a stern letter to the Times? Picket the Pearly Gates?
Secondly, Jesus Christ Himself said:
It’s comical to read you amateurs (this includes that moron Dawkins, who seems presumptuous enough to pontificate as if he invented agnosticism and or atheism) trying to sound serious about a topic with which you are so blazingly unfamiliar.
The only person who said anything sensible (quelle surprise!) is Mr. Powell:
Oliver: What’s the purpose of humanity if Hitler and Martin Luther King are going to the same afterlife?
This is one major reason that religion persists. Most people, it seems, have trouble accepting that “bad” people will not be punished and that “good” people will not receive some sort of reward. Who wants to think that when their time comes, they are going to end up in the same place as Jeffrey Dahmer?
Ultimately, religion only serves to cheapen human life. It removes any real responsibility for one’s actions. It may have served a purpose a thousand years ago, but today, it is superfluous, at best.
At the same time, though, I’m not sure how effective Dawkins and Harris and the “new breed” of atheists are. It’s rude to call someone stupid, or a fool, even if that’s what they are, so a lot of potential converts will instinctively shut them out.
fd10801,
It’s nice to see that you’ve taken up the role of pompous dickweed in Pedro’s absence.
nihilistic_disintegration, I was going to respond to fd10801, but your post said all that was needed.
fd,
I’ll admit I’m just an amatuer, but to me Matt 19:29 sounds like just another variation on the 72-virgins theme.
“What’s the purpose of humanity if Hitler and Martin Luther King are going to the same afterlife?”
I like to make two more points here:
The first point is simple. Why does there have to be a purpose? I don’t need to believe God has a master plan for me to get out of bed and go to work every day. You may want life to have a purpose, but that doesn’t matter. I want the Canucks to win the Stanley Cup. I’ve accepted that won’t happen this year. That doesn’t mean I won’t cheer the team every game and be bummed out when they miss the playoffs.
Secondly, if there is no afterlife, no judgement day, etc., then it means you have to fight for justice in this life.
Have you ever seen Red Dwart? The episode where Kryton’s replacement shows up. Robot Heaven was a concept created by humans to make sure the robots, (i.e. Slaves), did what they were told. The would gladly be slaves now because they would be rewarded for eternity. The thing is, the humans and the robots each thought the other’s heaven was a lie; just something made up to keep the other side from goign crazy.
On a side note, I also find the concept of karma to be equally dangerous.
The last time I saw Dawkins on TV he was talking to Haggard (you know, the gay meth head), and Haggard was throwing a tantrum in the car park. Dawkins also told the story of a professor who had, through his entire career, held an opinion as fact. A new researcher took up the reins, and, in one lecture, not only disproved the professor’s pet theories, but advanced newer (and more plausible) ones. Far from being upset, the professor shook the guy by the hand and thanked him for advancing everyone in their chosen field of research. This is how Dawkins feels. If someone could prove, with empirical evidence, Intelligent Design, for instance, he would back down on his criticism of creationism over Darwin.
John, et al:
You make the same mistake Dawkins does in conflating religious fundamentalism with all of Christianity, by, for example, equating my moniker with some kind of fundamentalist ideology which sends anyone I disagree with straight to hell. You obviously know next to nothing about Quakerism.
It is a sophomoric to say that any person of faith grants cover to the extremists because it is an argument ad absurdum. Does Leo Tolstoy “grant cover” to Danielle Steele, then? Does democracy “grant cover” to facism? Should we condemn ALL political philosophy on the basis of mistakes made in the name of communism and facism? (which have done at least as much harm, and not nearly as much good, as religion in the last century)
Further, I’m quite fed up with this argument that religion is somehow beyond criticism in public life. Sure, a small group of fundamentalist may make a bunch of noise when you criticize them, but I have yet to see anyone arrested for promoting atheism in this country. And again it ignores the countless times that people of faith HAVE condemned extremism and violence.
It seems to me that atheists are just as guilty of this as people of faith. Dawkins or Harris makes a argument full of holes, someone points out the fallacies in their logic, and atheists scream about how intolerant religious believers are. If you want to have a serious debate about this issue, then you have to let your opponents rebut your arguments. That is how debate works.
I don’t think religious belief persists because we want “bad people punished” or we are afraid of dying, or any of the other absurd arguments Harris puts forth.
In my experience (having this debate on a number of boards) I don’t think that atheists truly understand what faith is. Most seem to equate sprititual faith with belief in the Easter Bunny or FSM, and think that the purpose of faith is to make us less afraid, or give us a big, mean ol’ father figure to push us around.
This is a very simplistic understanding of religion and faith (which is one of my big problems with Dawkins) and seems to be based solely on an interpretation of the behavior of a certain vocal minority of believers.
If you want to understand faith you need to study it beyond just reading Dawkins, Dennett, or Harris. And beyond assuming everything Jerry Falwell says is shared by all people of faith.
THEN you can start criticizing it and have my full attention. In the meantime I’m going to continue to argue that you are being simplistic and sophomoric.
“Secondly, if there is no afterlife, no judgement day, etc., then it means you have to fight for justice in this life. ”
yeah, because Gandhi, MLKJ, and Schweitzer were all such slackers.
As the severed head of Henry Kissinger said on Futurama:
“This is not a productive area of discussion.”
As usual, an internet debate about atheism has deteriorated to “atheism is a religion” and “Stalin was an atheist.”
Southern Quaker, what the hell does this mean:
‘Does Leo Tolstoy “grant cover” to Danielle Steele, then?’
Forget everything else I have said. WHAT does that mean? Is it some sort of attempt at sarcasm? Are you saying that the moderates grant cover to fundies position is as ludicrous as the Tolstoy/Steele connection?
You win. I am really a 13 year old atheist jerk. You are stupid. I impugn your intelligence.
‘Does Leo Tolstoy “grant cover” to Danielle Steele, then?’
Maybe I’m just an old irritable fart, but our host Mr. Willis ended this thread with his violation of Godwin’s Law. Double extra bonus points for doing it during a discussion of atheism.
Finally, lest we forget, the civil rights movement in this country was led largely by people of faith. So, if religion has “outlived its usefulness” it seems to have happened just within the last 30 years or so.
Do most Christians believe literally in the immaculate conception and virgin birth? The resurrection? Heaven and hell? My guess is that in this country they do. I apologize if I’m being rude with this but I think if you view the Christian story as anything but allegorical you’re being more than a little irrational. I don’t know at what point a Christian crosses over into fundamentalism, but a literal biblical interpertation, to me, is extraordinarily silly.
yes, John, that is exactly what I am saying. And yes, the Danielle Steele comment was meant to be sarcastic.
And nowhere did I equate stalinism with atheism. I simply pointed out that condeming all religion based on its extremist elements is equivalent to condeming all political philosophy based on its extremist elements.
Re-read my post. Nowhere did I equate atheism with stalinism.
My hunch is that Bull Connor (sp?) was a man of faith as well.
S.Quaker,
What is the purpose of your faith?
ND-
I believe that God exists (although quite frankly, not in a form that most fundamentalists would recognize) and I try to live my life in a manner consistent with my experience of God.
Note that I do not claim that an atheist cannot live a good life, or be an ethical human being. I happen to agree with much of what is criticized about fundamentlism.
I simply object to many of the simplistic arguments Dawkins and the like put forth in attacking ALL faith.
Ah… Nothing really speaks to the true meaning of Xmas quite like a fight about the prince of peace, does it?
While I’ll say that I respect Dawkins as a scientist, as a christian myself I do find his attitude towards religion somewhat abrasive, but I cant really challenge it too hard. His disdain for religion is, I would think, based on the attitude religious people have toward their own extremists, one where the Falwells and Robertsons of the world are allowed to brew their specialized brand of blind frothing hatred by the other “believers” who, though they may personally revile characters like Falwell, make no real effort to denounce them, saying to themselves “Well, he says he’s doing it in christs name, so I may not agree with that but I cant call it wrong.” If its not US Christians with Falwell its MidEast Muslims with Bin Laden, sure we dont like him, but we dare not oppose, a destructive attitude which can only thrive where people take no intrest in self-examination of their own faith and belief structure. The most charitable explanation I can give for fervent, aggresive, fundy atheists is that they’re trying to fight that specifically, and see the faith in whatever god is involved as the root cause. I dont precisely agree with it, not least of all because I do not share their belief, but can see the benefit of challenging the faith of people whos love of Christ has them permitting hate perpetrated in His name.
Very good post, Oliver.
If I say “I disagree with you” about an issue, any issue, then it can mean A) I think you’re wrong but I can see where you’re coming from and respectfully disagree with you, or B) you’re not just wrong, you’re crazy, you’re beyond the pale, you’ve abandoned honesty and reason.
Now, while B) may be an appropriate message for fundamentalists, it’s simply not appropriate for all religious believers everywhere. Like Southern Quaker suggested, Gandhi, Tolstoy, and MLK were not trivial, absurd, or contemptible people. (And I could add to that list Flannery O’Connor, Duke Ellington, Desmond Tutu, off the top of my head.) Atheists, of course, would be perfectly justified in sending a message like A) to such individuals, but — again paraphrasing Southern Quaker — it’s just sophomoric to dismiss all religion everywhere as utter trash.
Actually, I would argue that what unites reactionary fundies and devout atheists like Dawkins is that they’re much too quick to go to B), when A) would do. They can’t just disagree with people on their pet issues — they have to condemn them as utterly lost and wrong.
Hey, you know what I just realized? Many of the leaders of the civil rights movement were black! Can you believe it? I then had the epiphany that women were involved in the suffrage movement. I mean, honestly, what are the chances!
Next someone is going to tell me that Ghandi was Indian, or that Schweitzer was a doctor and adhered to the same hippocratic oath as all good physicians…meaning he swore an oath to Apollo, Aesculapius, and all the other Greek gods.
Ironically, Tolstoy does give cover to Danielle Steele in the sense that both are works of fiction and that if we tolerate one person’s lightweight turgid romantic drama, we must tolerate another’s literary epics, no matter how politically charged. At least that’s the case in democracies, but not fascist dictatorships, Sadly, over the past few years we have seen how democratic principles can be twisted all to easily toward authoritarianism. The idea that we must sacrifice our freedoms to save them, and whatnot. Oh the irony that democracies can enable fascism.
I personally find it much more interesting when books like Harry Potter are targeted for preaching some form of paganism or some such nonsense. How is it that there are people threatened by an obvious piece of fiction, acting as though somehow some impressionable members of society might actually come to adopt it as fact and form some sort of a cult around it. That’s just nuts.
The problem, in the end, is not that people have “faith.” It’s that many accept that “faith” as “fact.” That can lead to battles over Darwin, sexual preference, or what it means to be a patriotic American. It’s fairly well known that atheists are almost universally held as untrustworthy in the U.S. Is it any wonder that many are fed up with being told they are just as bad, if not worse, than those with real power and influence? Even Muslims can get elected to office, even if they have to endure the idiotic blather of the Christian far right.
More to the point, just how are the arguments put forth by Dawkins or Harris (or other outspoken atheists) extreme and where are the holes? Is it that they are blunt, or are they advocating stripping the rights from believers, i.e. preventing them from holding public office or denying them marital benefits? Is the problem here content or presentation?
Wonderful analysis of Sam Harris writing. As good as any I’ve read.
The answer to your question?
I wish you were.
You’re right, Muzza, you’re an amateur.
Let me make this clear for the theologically challenged: If one is “eligible” to go to Heaven, then they will no longer be concerned with earthly matters, including questions like, “What’s Hitler doing here?”, or “How did Teddy Kennedy (Edward Teller / Julius Caesar / Charlemagne / Caryl Chessman) get in?”
This also includes the famous question from the New Testament, “If one marries more than once on earth, who will his wife be in Heaven?”
Thus endeth the lesson for today.
Bill L: What would you expect?
Why would I believe something, but not believe that it is a fact?
Tell me one thing you believe that you don’t perceive of as a fact?
I believe it was Saint Thomas Aquinas who said (I paraphrase), Understanding follows faith, faith doesn’t follow understanding.
What would be the point of faith, if it proceeded from scientific proof?
Apropos of the couple of SF references in this thread, Richard Dawkins married Lalla Ward (Romana Mk2), after she divorced her leading man Tom Baker.
Now Dawkins’ views make some sense =;-}
Here is a main point I see Harris making:
Religion plays much too big a role in society to avoid speaking about it out of respect for others’ beliefs.
If I don’t need to treat your politcial believes sacredly, why must I treat your religious beliefs the same? Why is speaking about the problems religion causes such a taboo?
That’s what must change, and is changing, whether people like it or not. Religion is on the table.
–WKW
And regardless of my opinion of fd10801, this line is pure brilliance and I may have to lift it in some form or other:
“What’s Hitler doing here?”
–WKW
Faith, by definition, is NOT fact. Believing something to be true doesn’t make it so. People are free to believe the world is flat, but no amount of faith will make it so. A good many people get the difference, and they hold their faith as something personal and don’t wield it as a bludgeon to bend others to their will. Unfortunately, as the study I linked to previously points out, that doesn’t prevent strong prejudices from creeping into their daily lives.
fd10801,
My amateur status was permanantly secured when I escaped the catholic church after having to only kiss the occasional ring. I guess I should count myself lucky. You go on playing God Said and contemplating WWJD. I’ll continue living my perfectly moral, reason-based life. Happy holidays.
Ah, yes, Muzza, the unreconstructed Cathoilc, confusing the small, creepy and dangerous world of Sister Mary Elephant with the intellectual round table that includes the like of Malcolm Muggeridge, C.S. Lewis and G.K. Chesterton.
WKW: this line is pure brilliance and I may have to lift it in some form or other
I am more concerned that you understand the meaning of that question, than I am about royalties.
Bill L.: Believing something to be true doesn’t make it so
Shouldn’t that read, “[My]believing something to be true doesn’t make it so [for you]?”
I say that because there is no way that something I believe ceases to be true (for me), unless I cease to believe it.
Telling someone else that what I believe to be true is true is a far cry from wielding “it as a bludgeon to bend others to their will.”
I am more concerned that you understand the meaning of that question
Your beliefs and explanations of the supernatural are of no interest to me.
–WKW
Ranting arseholes are ranting arseholes no matter what they’re ranting about. I love Richard Dawkins, but I wish he’d put a cork in it once in a while. Man’s married to Lalla Ward, he should be a lot more content than he is.
First-time poster, although I’ve followed this blog for some time now.
Although it’s been alluded to several times now, I feel I have to reiterate that likening Harris and Dawkins to the Falwells and Robertsons of the world is a spectacularly flawed analogy. Yes, each camp is outspoken in its belief that they are correct in their worldview. However, that’s the end of the similarities. Harris and Dawkins, like all good scientists, require empirical evidence to acknowledge the existence of any physical phenomenon, whether that’s gravity, evolution, black holes, or God. Religious folk, REGARDLESS of their level of extremism, hold a belief that is decidedly irrational. What kind of reasonable person believes in something that has not the slightest shred of evidential support?
This is an important discussion because of the elevated status religion has in our culture. It greatly impacts our social and economic policies, and yet is something that cannot “politely” be questioned in public. For example, I personally alienated half my family by having the temerity to suggest to them that maybe God wasn’t the origin of life on Earth. The horror, the horror!…
Please, if you haven’t done so already, read The God Delusion by Dawkins.
fd10801,
Nice of you trivialize the rape altar boys. By hey, believers were able rationalize that one away for years.
Tell you what, I’ll see your Muggeridge, Lewis, and Chesterton and raise you a Sagan, Gould, and Hawking.
Oh, and fd… here’s the thing. Either God exists, or he doesn’t. It is not as though you believing he exists means anything in regard to the question of his actual existence. Likewise, some Christians’ firm belief in creationism as a reasonable explanation for biodiversity and human existence doesn’t make creationism any more true than if no one believed in it. The truth, by definition, is not subjective. Good science is also not subjective.
Do you see where I’m going with this?
I have recently decided after years of ambivalence to “come out” as an atheist, and I’ll tell you why in 3 words.
Babies with cancer.
Religion is Man’s attempt to explain the unexplainable. but if I am expected to believe the myths of a miracle birth and resurrection from the dead, then how can I discount other myths and stories, like Icarus or Odesseus battling a Hydra? If you stand by the notion that one set of beleifs must be true, then you can’t say that others have no merit.
Al Pacino said it best in that awful Keanu Reeves movie;
“God is an absentee landlord!”
Mambochickhen23 is dead-on right.
We’re disagreeing on the definitions of truth, belief, fact, and opinion. No matter how strong the belief, it can’t, by definition, supplant fact and truth.
Sorry I wasn’t clear about the Stalin thing. I just meant that someone way up near the top of the thread had mentioned him. I apologize that I wasn’t clear in my post.
Nice of you trivialize the rape of altar boys
When did that happen?
Incidentally, if you were concerned about childhood sexual abuse, you should have been home schooled, since way more teachers abuse their students, than priests do their altar boys.
mambochicken23: I see exactly where you’re going — into quicksand.
No amount of science has ever disproved the existence of God, or Jesus, for that matter. In fact, the science of archeology and linguistics tend, however slowly and incrementally, point toward proving the verity of religious “truths” on a regular basis.
Duros62: If you stand by the notion that one set of beliefs must be true, then you can’t say that others have no merit.
Huh? Of course I can. If I believe that the Universe, and everything in it, is the result of the Will and Desire of an All - Knowing, All - Powerful, and Loving God (and I do), what else must I believe? That the Universe fell off the back of Dr. Who’s Tardis? Or was the result of Odin’s wrath?
WKW: Your beliefs and explanations of the supernatural are of no interest to me.
Ah, yes. The openmindedness of the modern liberal.
If you don’t understand the meaning of the words, then you are just echoing them, and, if you were possessed of any integrity, you would never quote them again without admitting a) that they were not original with you; and b) that you have no idea what they mean.
fd, please tell me you’re joking…
1) The reason that science has never disproved the existence of God is simple. The existence of God is not a testable hypothesis. What sorts of tests would YOU offer to demonstrate God’s existence?
2) You pompously presume that the burden of proof for God’s existence (or nonexistence)is on the atheists. It’s not. It’s more parsimonious to presume the absence of something, rather than the absence of something, given that there is no evidence to support either hypothesis. Since there cannot be empirical evidence for or against the existence of God (see point #1), the law of parsimony (Occam’s Razor, Morgan’s Canon, whatever you want to call it) dictates that one presumes the negative.
For me to accept that a God exists, I’d have to be provided some empirical data that can only be accounted for by the existence of a deity. Otherwise, to paraphrase Professor Frink, a “God” might exist, but he’s a do-nothing, pointless entity whose strength to change the world is less than that of the tiniest ant. Certainly not the omnipotent father figure that he’s typically portrayed as.
Perhaps you were mistaken about who going into quicksand.
“Harris and Dawkins, like all good scientists, require empirical evidence to acknowledge the existence of any physical phenomenon, whether that’s gravity, evolution, black holes, or God. Religious folk, REGARDLESS of their level of extremism, hold a belief that is decidedly irrational. What kind of reasonable person believes in something that has not the slightest shred of evidential support?”
— mambochicken23
The question is, what COUNTS as evidential support? Atheism is a philosophical / theological stance, not a scientific one, and as such it’s not susceptible to scientific argumentation one way or the other.
A believer might say, Well, I know God exists because the orderly nature of the world indicates that it was created by a conscious, loving intelligence. Or, I know God exists because all the different major religions of the world point toward similar underlying transcendent truths, which shows an awareness of the same transcendent reality. Science can’t tell us squat about whether these are valid claims: whether the universe is in fact “orderly,” or whether perceived similarities between religions indicate that they all share a common awareness of a transcendent reality. These are philosophical not scientific questions.
Oh, btw, I never said that Jesus didn’t exist. Historical records indicate that Jesus probably did exist, sometime around 2000 years ago. What I question is his nature. He was simply a person, born to a mother who had had sex with a man. Was he a great man, a pacifier? Surely. Was he the Son of God? Surely not. To believe otherwise is to believe a fairy tale as fact.
ChristianPinko, see my post in response to fd. I think that your concerns are, at least somewhat, answered there.
crap.
supposed to read, “It’s more parsimonious to presume the absence of something, rather than the presence of something…”
fd10801,
The public school system I attended treated me just fine. Where I suspect I was exposed to the greatest risk was at the parochial school I attended for catechism. Although I never was, I know of others who were victimized by one of the priests.
I would love to see some data on your teacher vs. priest assertion. It’s my belief, which I acknowledge might not be proven factual or shown through research to be the truth, that a significantly higher percentage of priests sexual abuse children. I can’t recall hearing of cases in public school systems that have rivaled what went on in the Boston or Los Angeles archdioceses. But hey, I’ve got an open mind and will accept data that proves my position wrong.
Depending on your particular brand of religion, you may want to stay far, far away from geology, physics, evolutionary biology, astronomy, or any number of scientific fields that have done irreparable damage to beliefs held dear by millions. Your only options will be to evolve, ignore, or sentence the heretics to death.
fd10801,
The public school system I attended treated me just fine. Where I suspect I was exposed to the greatest risk was at the parochial school I attended for catechism. Although I never was, I know of others who were victimized by one of the priests.
I would love to see some data on your teacher vs. priest assertion. It’s my belief, which I acknowledge might not be proven factual or shown through research to be the truth, that a significantly higher percentage of priests sexual abuse children. I can’t recall hearing of cases in public school systems that have rivaled what went on in the Boston or Los Angeles archdioceses. But hey, I’ve got an open mind and will accept data that proves my position wrong.
Depending on your particular brand of religion, you may want to stay far, far away from geology, physics, evolutionary biology, astronomy, or any number of scientific fields that have done irreparable damage to beliefs held dear by millions. Your only options will be to evolve, ignore, or sentence the heretics to death.
Sorry about the double post. (Damn you to hell dial-up, damn you to hell.)
First major disagreement I’ve had with you, Oliver. I for one am delighted to see non-believers fighting back, and not mincing words.
These days you can be gay, you can be black, but you CANNOT be in politics and be openly atheist. Do you not see a problem with that?
Sure, and I’m not arguing that that is ok. Atheists should be as likely as anyone else to be elected for public office. The issue is with people claiming superiority while deriding others. Be they atheist or theist, its just as bad. Right now the theists are in control, but their mirrors don’t seem a whit better to me.
This is turning into a “dormitory bull session”, and I don’t get stoned anymore, so I have little to contribute.
There is more baloney flying around here than a friggin’ deli.
One guy says he felt safer in public school. He (of course) had no problems in Catholic school, but he “knows people” who did. Yeah, right.
I spent 8 years in Catholic school (grades 4 through 12) and I was not sexually abused, nor did I ever hear of anyone being sexually abused. I guess that means it never happened, right?
There are breakthroughs in cosmology, astronomy, and physics (particularly quantum physics) everyday, that point towards an intelligent maker of the universe.
Studies in archeology and linguistics tend to confirm the historical veracity of the figures, and their stories, in the Bible.
Here’s another example of where you atheists, and non - religionists go astray: Was He (Jesus) the Son of God? Surely not. To believe otherwise is to believe a fairy tale as fact.
Why “surely”? Why couldn’t He have been the Son of God? Because there is no God? Then we’re back we started. Because God had no son? Well, if you believe in God, and I do, then you can believe he “authored” the Bible, and I do. If you believe the Gospels are true, and I do, then since the Gospels say Jesus was the Son of God, then I suppose Jesus was the Son of God.
But since that all hinges on whether or not there is a God, that still takes us back to where we started.
So, let’s stick with the original topic, shall we?
Is any positive purpose served by an attitude like Mr. Harris’?
My answer would be, “No”.
Interestingly, while Mr. Harris suggests that the presence of disasters and catastrophes in the world disproves the existence of God, he inadvertently claims that if God is not beneficent as he defines it, then there can’t be a God.
How juvenile. “There can’t be a God, if I’m not happy.” What a selfish concept. Is there no lesson in perserverance? In hardship? In pain and suffering? Oh, no, says Mr. Harris, if we’re not all enjoying ourselves at all times, then there can’t be a God.
What a towering intellect! Such imagination! Hurricane Katrina proves there is no God… Child murder proves there is no God.
Perhaps Mr. Harris needs to read the Book of Job in the Bible to learn about suffering, misfortune and the Will of God, if, indeed, he is capable of understanding such things.
I recommend the same reading for all of you — especially you liberals, whether you are believers or not.