While I’m impressed to see Sam Harris’ editorial on atheism in the Los Angles Times on Christmas Day, his reasoning and tone are the precise reason why I never describe myself as an atheist. For example, in tackling the first myth about atheism (Atheists believe that life is meaningless), Harris says that atheists find other people’s fear of meaninglessness to be in itself meaningless. He should really speak for himself. I might have no fear of meaninglessness, but I understand dread all too well. Existential dread can manifest itself as nihilism or in the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel, and it’s consequences for human society are extremely important. The first law of human interaction should be to attempt to recognize the validity of others’ feelings and to make an effort at empathy. Being dismissive of other people’s anxieties is hardly an enlightened and humanist position.
Harris makes a worse mistake in tackling his second myth (Atheism is responsible for the greatest crimes in human history). Here, he makes the logical error of ‘begging the question’, and he does it in an arrogant and dismissive manner.
Auschwitz, the gulag and the killing fields were not examples of what happens when human beings reject religious dogma; they are examples of political, racial and nationalistic dogma run amok. There is no society in human history that ever suffered because its people became too reasonable.
That’s not logic, that’s just argumentative. I shouldn’t even need to explain why this is an invalid argument, but many people agree that the racial and nationalistic (and economic) dogmas that empowered Hitler and Stalin replaced religious dogmas. And (this is the key) they see that as the problem. For many believers, when people become ‘too reasonable’ they are all too willing to be a cog in a machine that puts millions to death. How has Harris refuted this contention with his assertion that all dogmas are the same and all are exactly antithetical to reason?
Harris refutes the third myth (Atheism is dogmatic) thus:
Jews, Christians and Muslims claim that their scriptures are so prescient of humanity’s needs that they could only have been written under the direction of an omniscient deity. An atheist is simply a person who has considered this claim, read the books and found the claim to be ridiculous.
First of all, Atheism is dogmatic. Atheists affirmatively do not believe in God. They have no proof for this belief. If they did, they would quickly convince nearly all of mankind.
Harris is wrong to think he is describing atheists when he says “One doesn’t have to take anything on faith, or be otherwise dogmatic, to reject unjustified religious beliefs.” Atheists do not believe in god-based (theistic religions). ‘Not-belief’ is an article of faith for them.
Harris’ description applies not to atheists, but to agnostics (people that do not claim to know whether or not there is a god or gods). Agnostics have no problem rejecting ‘unjustified religious beliefs’, but they do not replace one kind of certainty for another.
I’m glad the Los Angeles Times was willing to give an atheist some op-ed space on Christmas. As Harris pointed out, atheists are severely discriminated against in this country.
SEVERAL POLLS indicate that the term “atheism” has acquired such an extraordinary stigma in the United States that being an atheist is now a perfect impediment to a career in politics (in a way that being black, Muslim or homosexual is not). According to a recent Newsweek poll, only 37% of Americans would vote for an otherwise qualified atheist for president.
I just wish Harris was a better representative for humanists and that he didn’t display some of the worst traits of the arrogant atheist. In many ways, coming to atheism after a childhood of religion is similar to forced sobriety after decades of alcohol abuse. Dry drunks and cocksure atheists share a lot in common. For example, a superficial undergrad’s infatuation with Nietzsche, or an irrepressible desire to tell people how dumb they are.
Wisdom lies in knowing that no one knows what the hell is going on in the universe. The Pope doesn’t know. Ayotollah Sistani doesn’t know. Einstein didn’t know. You don’t know. Once you learn that, you won’t feel like killing anyone anymore over what they believe. That is, you won’t feel like killing them if only they would stop killing someone else.
Jesus said to love your enemies. How many atheists are big enough to take that teaching to heart?
Excellent essay. Of course, the very last sentence blows away all of the rest of it. Merry Christmas!
My wife and I took a 4-hour trip today to see our old parish priest preside over Christmas Mass at his fabulously refurbished church, which we did a lot to help build. Of all the hundreds of priests I’ve seen in my life, this is the only one I think is a real saint. He certainly saved my life at one point. This spring, he was diagnosed with cancer and given just a few months to live. He has survived, and today was his first Christmas Mass after the diagnosis. His homily was personal and moving beyond all telling. Throughout the Mass, just a few hours ago, I kept looking at the giant crucifix above the altar, thinking: Love! Love your enemies! That’s what’s really radical here.
The atheists don’t really have an answer to that.
And yes, I had my atheist and agnostic crises too. It’s kind of like a bad cold.
The answer to ‘miraculous’ recoveries is simply the fallibility of man’s own knowledge about diseases and their proper diagnosis and the wide variety of biological healing responses available to the human immune system. To claim that such a healing is a miracle is to assume that the diagnosing doctors are themselves god(s), and that they know exactly when and how every human being will respond to a particular illness.
Also, human beings save one another’s lives every day all over the face of the planet, with words and deeds, so that is not something that is so unusual as to be worthy of ‘sainthood’. I am certainly very glad that someone helped to save your life at some point, and I understand very well the desire to attribute extraordinary supernatural powers to an individual who by word or deed has allowed your life to continue, but it does not constitute any sort of substantial replicable proof of deity(-ies), at least as far as you have communicated in your comment above.
It is also not difficult to figure out how morals, even competing moral systems, have arisen out of the process of natural selection. That the concept “Love thine enemy” has a ‘resonance’ of sorts with our deepest feelings is not difficult to understand and does not require the introduction of deity(-ies).
I think that atheists are quite likely to have excellent answers to most every question that religionists could propose, if they would only open up their hearts and minds and allow reasonable discourse, rather than accusing atheists of having some kind of bad cold or of being in some sort of crisis. What happened to “love thine enemies”, did it turn into ‘ridicule thine enemies’ all of a sudden? In my experience, it is crises that drive people to search out bad explanations and embrace anything that makes them feel better, even when it makes absolutely no rational sense whatsoever.
You not only mischaracterized what he wrote, but you responded with the same mistaken beliefs about atheists that he was writing about.
In a country as drunk on religion and sectarian strife as ours is, he raises some very important points, points you chose to ignore. You ignored this …
… in order to attack the following sentence.
By lifting that out of context, you miss his point completely. We create meaning, and while some of us dress those beliefs up in fairy stories and invisible daddy figures, the values that those “gods” present to us are OUR creations.
Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins and the other newly-vocal atheists are raising important questions within a country that has been highjacked by religious fanatics. That so many Americans wash their hands of creating a better world for themselves and each other in surrender to distant “higher” powers serves only leave us deeper and deeper in darkness.
As for your last sentence, I will leave you with this image that Freedom from Religion Foundation placed amongst the holiday displays in Madison, WI:
Since there is nothing new under the sun and since you don’t like Sam Harris’s tone, perhaps you will prefer this essay from an earlier time.
The Fixation of Belief (1877) – CS Peirce
I won’t argue the large number of fallacies in your essay, they have been gone over innumerable times already. I will just say that the present movement to label atheists as dogmatic or fundamentalist is a misuse of these words.
It is like saying that someone who believes in Newton’s theory of gravity is dogmatic. Perhaps atheists should be a bit more precise in their statements. What is meant is that their beliefs have been validated to a high degree of probability using the tools of logic and the scientific method. If a supernatural being was to appear and start performing inexplicable miracles then even atheists would revise their ideas.
Even though many like to make distinctions between atheists and agnostics it is more semantic than real. No rational person holds on to false beliefs in the face of new evidence.
The claim that atheists most prove the non-existence of a supernatural being is also a misunderstanding of the scientific method. One cannot prove the non-existence of something. It is up to those who make a positive claim to demonstrate its truth. Once show me the tooth fairy and I’ll believe.
The way science works was best explained by Karl Popper, I suggest reading his ideas on the topic.
There is an enormous distinction between atheists and agnostics, although there is significant overlap.
Agnostics are also atheists. That is because the ‘a’ modifies ‘theist’, and agnostics are also not-theists. That is, they are not believers in a theistic god. But they are also not non-believers. They take the position that matters of this sort are by their very nature beyond the scope of human reason to resolve.
That is not true of pink unicorns. The existence or non-existence of pink unicorns can be decided with the same degree of confidence as any other temporal thing.
I would not suggest that an atheist must prove the non-existence of that in which they do not believe. But they also should be extremely wary of insisting on the non-existence of that in which they do not believe.
You can carry science back to the big bang, but you won’t settle the issue of creation. There are countless baseless and even erroneous beliefs in theology, but on the biggest questions of all, there can only be doubt. Otherwise, you are engaging in the same type of behavior you abhor in the theist.
And account for all things of which I have no proof. They live inside black holes, where nothing can be seen, and no one can ever prove that they don’t.
It is just as absurd to say that belief in some invisible intentionality is an explanation for the universe on equal footing to some natural progress of physical forces as it is to cede that place of honor to pink unicorns. Why should rationality and the basic approaches of the scientific method be suspended because of the current impossibility of observation of some moment in the past?
Now, if you show me a pink unicorn, I’ll believe in pink unicorns. Does that make me agnostic about them? If I’m a pink unicorn agnostic, then I’m a deity agnostic (though it is my guess it would be much harder to successfully demonstrate the almighty than it would a pink unicorn.)
I think you are playing word games here, but at least it is nice to think about pink unicorns (come to think of it, my daughter does have a couple of them in her room.) But you are redefining Atheism to mean disbelief in the unknowable, which it is not- it is disbelief in God(s).
Belief in the non-divine unknowable is perfectly reasonable and does not turn an atheist into an agnostic, by your argument if a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, the sound it makes is the voice of God.
That is begging the question and begging it gratuitously. Either the universe ‘just is’ or it is more than that. The pink unicorn argument is just a distraction.
The entire debate over God concerns the possibility of ‘invisible intentionality’. Science has made good inroads in debunking the ‘necessity’ for invisible intentionality. I would argue they haven’t completely finished the job. But necessity and possibility are not the same.
And before you make someone else’s belief in invisible intentionality an object of your derision, you should check the limits of your own knowledge, as well as examine your motives for being a jerk.
putting away Occam’s razor?
Why place a highly complex thesis on an equal footing with simple ones simply because many people prefer it? An omnipotent invisible intentionality could very well have created everything from nothing an hour ago, a year or three thousand years ago- with memories, documents and physical indicators of a ‘past’ fully intact- fossils could very well be as the bumper sticker describes them “God’s little joke”. Postulating the existence of such a thing requires no limits in knowledge and that is fine- nothing wrong with faith.
But to insist that there is probative evidence for theism in the limit of knowledge itself invites unnecessary conflict between faith and expanding the limits of knowledge. To argue that belief in a deity should be granted credence for reasons other than faith is unsound argument- a new and improved version of the irredeuctable complexity argument of creationists.
Any probative evidence is admittedly hearsay and highly inconclusive. But since we are talking about manners and not a truth which is ultimately unknowable, yes, it is in poor taste in many circumstances to take it upon oneself to disabuse people of their superstitions. For example, in an extreme case, it is rude to instruct a grieving mother of the implausibility, scientifically speaking, of a personalized afterlife with intact memories. Maybe it might be good conversation in another setting. My objection is to an attitude, which I presume to critique because I am part of the offending group. Just as you make critiques of Israel that are so harsh that you could rightly accuse me of anti-Semitism if I made them. Call it the privilege of a freethinker.
“The existence or non-existence of pink unicorns can be decided with the same degree of confidence as any other temporal thing.”
The standard “pink unicorn” in this context would be the Invisible Pink Unicorn“; like the FSM, She is (to the best of my knowledge) not considered to be temporal.
But they are also not non-believers. They take the position that matters of this sort are by their very nature beyond the scope of human reason to resolve.
This is a critical point, IMO. If certain concepts, such as defining infinity or anything related to it, are indeed beyond human understanding, then relieving the burden on one’s mind by throwing it into the hands of something also beyond comprehension is a defensive action. I would go so far as saying that every human with a certain level of understanding has to do this in order to keep from going crazy in our supposed natural, but not understandable world! Therefore everyone that is human with decent intelligence is at least an agnostic, IMO.
The problem comes when other humans try to harness this unknown and unknowing to force other humans to act under the first groups powers. The initial dogmatic explanations created by early cunning folks, which people seem to need in many cases, over time becomes persuasive traditional power and is used to create cults for certain people’s benefits over others or over other cult explanations! The people caught up in these various cults are just to weak or lazy to “make up” the needed explanations for the unknown on their own, and just go along as always with other people’s versions or explanations for convenience or because of pure habit! People also do not like change, or so it would seem.
I love the notion of arguing about atheism on Christmas, and would like to toss a few logs on the fire. I do not think that atheism is a form of belief. Rather is a way of understanding the world that employs a entirely different structure and means of gathering and evaluating evidence. I haven’t read Pierce since I was an undergrad and Popper was grad school, but in my shaky memory, they would seem excellent places to start.
There is one other observation that I think fits here. People are atheists for many reasons and their atheism takes many forms. Many people are atheists as a reaction to their parents theism. I don’t think any of our arguments will reach them, because their motivations lie more properly in the domain of psychology. The motivation that leads one atheism is important, as is their intellect and experience, which will shape how a person understands and expresses their atheism.
This is just flat out wrong. By your standard, if I tell you that I know there’s an invisible pink unicorn in your living room, you’d have to take it on “faith” that it’s not there since you can’t prove to me otherwise.
You need to have faith to believe an extraordinary claim, but it requires no faith not to. Do you believe it requires faith to believe there there aren’t ghosts, goblins and zombies? Or does it require faith to not believe in Zeus, Thor or Mithras. What about UFO abductions? If you don’t think it requires faith to not believe in those things, why would you say it requires faith to disbelive in the Jewish/Christian/Muslim god?
Atheism doesn’t refer to an absolute certainty, it refers to a certainty given all available evidence. I don’t think you would find a single atheist who would say that they would continue to disbelieve in any god who provided some sort of evidence that they do exist and possess divine powers. However, in the absence of any evidence, atheists relegate religion to the status of any other belief with no supporting evidence.
you are distinguishing between hard and soft atheism.
I don’t like that distinction because it turns Buddhists into atheists. While it is true that they are not-theists, they are religious and have some quasi-dogmatic beliefs.
I prefer to refer to atheists as people that affirm there are no gods, not as those that reject this god, but not that god, or who express a lack of certainty. If you express a lack of certainty, you are more properly an agnostic (or, one without wisdom).
it must be noted that atheism and theism are not on the same epistemological footing; in fact, since it is impossible to prove a negative (“god does not exist”), atheism requires no proof. the burden of proof has always been on the theists. but theists aren’t interested in proof. That’s why they barricade themselves behind faith, which is not just belief without evidence, but also belief in defiance of contradictory evidence. and that’s why even if atheists could do the logically impossible and produce conclusive evidence of god’s nonexistence, they would not “quickly convince nearly all of mankind”, for theists will continue to ignore them.
well said.
Saying that atheism requires no proof is too broad.
It depends on what is being asserted. I can say with a high degree of certainty that Mary, the mother of Jesus, did not remain a virgin her whole life because Jesus had unimmaculately concepted brothers named in the New Testament. I can use my knowledge of science to dispute (with high confidence) that there was an immaculate conception at all. But if you ask me whether the Big Bang just happened or it was willed in some way, where is my confidence?
I don’t care to associate myself with people that think they know more than it is possible to know and then use that false confidence to insult the intelligence of other people.
It’s just an argument over terms and labels. But for me it’s an argument over basic decency and good manners as well.
the statement “atheism requires no proof” is not too broad. jesus, mary and the big bang nonwithstanding, as far as atheists are concerned, the only relevant assertion is simply this: “god exists.”
atheists are not required to disprove this, but theists must be ready to provide whatever proof positive they have if they wish to engage in rational debate with atheists. and it is no insult to say so.
but to treat atheism and theism as if both were equally impossible to prove (and therefore make neither ism worthy of more respect than the other) is not a bow to decency and good manners, but instead an indulgence in intellectual dishonesty.
for if theists were intellectually honest, if they were truly interested in finding proof for the most fundamental tenet of their belief, they would be looking for it with every tool available. forget jesus, mary and the big bang — those are mere carnival distractions. the main attraction is god him-, her- or itself. if theists were honest, they would have any number of testable hypotheses about the nature of god and where to find god. they would be building a god-meter to detect its presence and mounting a god-expedition in a custom-built god-ship to get at least a few glossy pictures of the beastie.
sounds quite silly doesn’t it? but it’s the same process we apply to every other mystery of any importance to the human race; the same approach that discovered everything from electricity to the neanderthal to the bacterium. the same system that put us on the moon. why not apply it to god almighty? because it makes one wonder: does the very serious idea of looking for god sound silly because we haven’t a devoted one iota of brainpower to ask where to look, or because we already know that god doesn’t exist?
instead, what theists have done is preemptively define god as unknowable and undetectable in an attempt to relieve themselves of their burden of proof and place themselves on the same intellectual footing as atheists. but simply put, the assertion “god exists” is in fact testable, even if we do not yet possess the tools to prove it today. but all one has to do is start looking.
that’s an infantile argument.
God exists is a hypothesis.
You can try to test it all you like, and you won’t prove or disprove it. I might ask you what caused the big bang. Was it part of a plan in the mind of an overgrown kid that had grown weary of his last universe? Or did it just happen because things just happen when things just exist.
I’d like to see you prove one side or the other.
This is not a question like: are there neon-green rabbit eggs in real life? You can’t try to settle it with careful study and an appeal to statistical probabilities. Some people believe there must be a creator. Others do not. They each have the ability to be annoying when they try to convince everyone else that they are right.
Atheists just get the worse end of the stick and so feel defensive. They’re defensive because they may have acted like a prick at the wake but they never tried to make their beliefs into law or convert by the sword. All true. But they were still a prick at the wake.
you’re completely missing the point. it’s not my job to prove or disprove the existence of an entity that i don’t believe exists. that’s the job of those who insist that its existence is a fact.
there is simply no basis for claiming that god’s existence is a priori unprovable. the only honest means of determining the truth is to assume that it is provable and test the hypothesis. if you’re not willing to start doing at least that, and in a serious manner, you have no basis for insisting that the hypothesis is valid. and to insist that a testable but untested hypothesis (theism) is as equally valid as an untestable one (atheism) is fundamentally dishonest.
and lastly, by insisting, in the name of civility, that i accord equal validity to that hypothesis is not unlike the same phony “balance” and “bi-partisanship” that the media forces on progressives whenever they present liberal positions as equivalent to the right-wing spin and soundbite of the day.
and how often have we railed against that?
I don’t insist you accord equal validity. I only ask that you make compassion a higher order ethical demand than being correct, and that you recognize the limitations of your own knowledge.
I also didn’t say it was your job to prove or disprove the existence of an entity in which you do not believe. What I suggested is that you not make it your job to tell other people you have the answer. You do not.
After all, my column did not suggest that I believe in the sky-god of the Abramatic religions. It said that I am tired of atheists acting like pompous jerks and that I am sad to see an oppotunity wasted in the LA Times for a humanist to make a decent appeal for humanist principles.
“God exists is a hypothesis. You can try to test it all you like, and you won’t prove or disprove it.”
Scripture describes many dramatic proofs in the past, and many believers describe striking proofs from prayer today. That is to say, a standard form of the hypothesis is entirely provable, though not at the option of human beings — unless one believes promises of the efficacy of prayer.
This, however, raises the question “Why won’t God heal amputees?”
I must disagree with your characterization of “the big bang”. Many, probably most, modern cosmologists do not have a dogmatic belief that the ‘big bang’, as it was derisively named by naysayers in the early twentieth century, is the last word on some sort of beginning of everything. Many modern theories, which are currently being scientifically examined, do not require that the early twentieth century interpretation of the ‘big bang’ be correct, or that it be the placeholder for Prime Causation.
It is scientifically possible and plausible that the ‘big bang’ is all a ‘big misunderstanding’ and that the Universe(in the Megaverse sense) has simply always been here and that the ‘big bang’ is merely an event which seems at the moment to be opaque to the passage of information from what existed before to what exists now. Absence of information is not equal to Information of Absence, thus, positing that the ‘big bang’ is a ‘creation’ event is a dogmatic and doctrinaire position.
Atheists are defensive because they have a defendible position, with excellent ramparts and portals from which to defend their position, not because they are boorish at the death-party. On the contrary, I have found that religionists are much more likely to be defensive and reactive to the extreme against any perceived attack on their particular belief system(s). Atheists don’t have the “worse end of the stick”, they simply have the more logical one.
My point is not to argue dogmatically for the Big Bang theory. That would be the topic for a different thread.
Just taking it at its simplest, if the universe was once a tiny point that exploded and has been expanding, that still doesn’t tell you whether there was a prior universe that collapsed into that point, or whether there are many universes, perhaps in different stages of expansion or contraction. And perhaps the whole theory is wrong.
But, you are still faced with the question of why there is a universe rather than nothing at all. And no amount of scientific observation is going to answer that question, or answer whether there is a ‘will’ or some ‘intelligence’ that guides the creation, expansion, contraction, or mere eternal maintenance of this universe (or any others).
It is hubris to think that you know the answers to those questions.
You can debunk the literal truth of Genesis and you can dehistoricize the New Testament by using the scientific method. But it still won’t kill off the possibility of monotheism. You can debunk the potential for a personalized afterlife with an intact memory, you can test for evidence of providence and find it lacking, but you can’t rule out the possibility of a Creator.
Einstein, for example, said that God does not play dice with the universe, but he didn’t say there is no God. He knew better than to say that. And there is a lot more dice playing in the quantum mechanics than Einstein had counted on (but that is another issue).
It is, of course true that in the totally abstract realm, where one gives up reality, one can suppose many things, even solipsism, as THE answer, and assume a position that no one can dispute. Or one can assume the position that no one can know anything absolutely, and of course that is also ‘indisputable’. One can even claim that someone who claims to know ANYTHING absolutely is a totally and completely arrogant fool. Metaphysics is a great sport.
However, once one allows for the accumulation of facts through experiment and verification and allows for the existence of other ‘scientists-observers’, lots of things become knowable to an extremely high degree of certainty. One thing that cannot be known, apparently, is “Why is there something rather than nothing?” Perhaps the answer is that there has always been something, and that nothing is not possible. The mere fact they we are here to observe our universe from a finite perspective limits our entire understanding, on a gut level, to finite universe explanations. We all have trouble believing that the Megaverse has no beginning or end, and that what happened before the big bang and what will happen after the scattering of our universe by infinite expansion is part of a larger Megaverse that has always existed and always will exist, when, in fact, that is far and away the most scientifically probable answer in this post-Einsteinian era of scientific knowledge.
It is a relatively recent development of some string theory cosmologists that the anthropic principle is in fact a plausible scientific explanation for our abilities and limitations in understanding the universe. This is VERY disturbing to many scientists, who would prefer to leave the observer out of the equation completely and arrive at answers that do not presuppose or involve our existence. In my opinion, we are here to see this universe because we are here and the universe is here, simply that, and not that something someone somedeity(-ies) created something out of nothing, which is many, many orders of magnitude more implausible than even the anthropic principle. After all, We Are Here, but I haven’t seen or spoken to any Creator deity(-ies) in a verifiable and repeatable way nor have I have ever seen anyone who could.
The mere fact that one can ask a metaphysical question does not make the question a reasonable one if one allows the existence of verifiable and repeatable experiments. It appears to me to be the case, from my better than average, but not omniscient knowledge of science and scientific cosmology, that the question that you have perpetuated as plausible is not really a very good question at all, and the answer is not a very ‘satisfying’ one simply because of the inadequacy of the question itself (notwithstanding the rich metaphysical tradition of asking it). Why is there something rather than nothing? Because, in the broadest possible sense of the old words, that is the way it always has been and ever shall be, world without end.
that’s a hypothesis that I could support. But we’re playing with leeches. As long as we remember that we don’t know, we’re on fine ground.
I’m not sure what playing with leeches refers to…
Scientifically and logically we do know to a very high degree of certainty that no supernatural effects are observable or replicable, just like we know to a very high degree of certainty that in a decimal numbering system 2 + 2 is always equal to 4. The fact that I can never add 2 and 2 an infinite number of times to see if, in fact, it ‘always’ equals 4 does not mean that I should create a deity to cover my ass in case it isn’t ‘always’ observably and replicably true.
We also know to a very high scientific certainty that it’s statistically possible given the known laws of the universe in which we exist that my BooMan Tribune Mug might, once every 100 quadrillion billion years or so, instantly evaporate and reassemble two inches above my desktop in midair. It’s possible, but it’d be kind of stupid of me to live my life worrying about spilling my coffee that way. Not worrying about it certainly doesn’t make my life meaningless, or make me a boor.
However, if that level of certainty de facto makes me an asshole at the wake, so be it. 😉
That’s a typical response, and it is something I might well have written myself at an earlier point in my life. But I think it is wrong from several standpoints.
First, you are truly exaggerating the ability of science to rule out the supernatural. A good look at quantum mechanics will show not that something supernatural is going on, but that what we think of as observable is actually quite limited. In other words, the division between natural and supernatural is more blurred than many people would like to admit. That doesn’t make it any more likely that Jesus walked on water, but it does mean that the universe is a lot less observable and predictable that we would like to think.
The second problem is in thinking that religious people posit a God as a way of covering their ass. Many people experience a God presence, which they only thereafter try to explain. We might identify some neurotransmitter that explains their experience, but we’re talking about motives here.
When people begin rationalizing theif God experience then we are on solid footing in refuting their reasoning. No, the diversity of the world does not require an intelligent designer. We can explain how it could come about without that crutch. No, there does not HAVE to be someone or something to reward the unrewarded and punish the unpunished. It’s perfectly possible that the universe is indifferent to our notions of fairness.
But, that is not what I am objecting to. People are weak, flawed, scared, and mortal. They are not all well educated nor are they all very intelligent. What they need more than anything else is love, compassion, and support. They do not need to have their crutches pulled from them.
Some people can handle that and benefit from it. Others cannot handle it and will not benefit from it whatsoever.
So, humanists should first of all make sure they know the limits of their own knowledge and not overstate their case. Second, they should make sure to make love, compassion, and support their highest calling. Third, they should not act as missionaries, thinking it is their calling to deconvert the world from their delusions. And fourth, they should be mindful of their audience and the circumstances when they decide to pontificate on their beliefs.
Atheism is not an easy road for many people. It’s not a comfort to many people. It’s traumatic. And I get really irritated with atheists that are insensitive, or act like know-it-alls.
And, if you put this all in a political perspective, in America, is should go without saying that my position is much more prudent than, say, Madman’s.
First of all, thank you for your thoughtful reply. It is not often that I have the opportunity to discuss these matters in a collegial way. As far as I am able, I have always embraced the values that you propose, and have tried to have compassion first and knowledge second in everything that I do. If personal choice is an endorsement of your calling for a more gentle approach to religionists, then I do so endorse it, in most instances. I do believe that there is a place for tit-for-tat tactics, but they should be used as one tool in a rhetoricians toolbox, not as a cure-all. I may abandon respectful discourse when I am repeatedly disrespected. I refer you back to your recent quote of Woody Allen…
My definition of natural includes all of quantum mechanics and the weirdnesses of quantum phenomena. However, it has been said that anyone who thinks they really grok quantum physics and its implications is a liar (I think it was Feynmann, and I paraphrase) because the world of the very very small is truly weird and foreign to all that we know in the middle scale world from direct experience. It has also been said that any technology sufficiently advanced beyond our understanding will seem to be magical/supernatural (I forget who said that one, was it Heinlein?). In this context, I do believe that it may be possible for observations/decisions alone to have a very small effect on the physical processes of the middle scale world. But I don’t think we can levitate the Pentagon or cure an incurable disease by merely willing it or praying for it, for instance. Perhaps at some point I will expound on my agreement with Einstein that time is an “illusion” and that we, or at least our intentions, do actually live forever, in a very weird quantum-mechanical way – but that is another story…
I agree with you that some people may have religious experiences or god experiences that feel unique to them and that this triggers a search for explanation, and that these experiences and resulting actions are not properly characterized as ass-covering. I think you rightfully called me on that. I have certainly had such experiences myself and understand how powerful they are. However, I believe that some people do have a narcissistic or fear-based desire to live forever and that in these cases the piling on of religious dogma to the effect that an eternal afterlife preserves one’s personality and agency intact is ass-covering to the highest order, notwithstanding that some people who are not so inclined are then roped into the scheme.
Atheism is embraced by a variety of people for a variety of reasons, and I do not identify with many of those people or their reasons. My own journey has been that of an evolution from simply believing what my culture indoctrinated me with through many levels of search and struggle, belief and disbelief. I am happy with where I have arrived and the prospects for the road ahead. As for atheism not being an easy road, I concur with whoever said that nothing worth doing is easy.
You conflate two meanings of the word belief:
The first means a high degree of confidence in something brought out by physical evidence. The second is a synonym for “faith”.
So a scientist’s beliefs are of a different nature than a religious adherent’s.
If you find the Peirce essay a little dry, perhaps you might like this argument from the past better:
Why Am I Agnostic – Robert Green Ingersoll (1889)
As to the question as why the self-evident “truths” of atheists aren’t universally accepted there are several considerations. First they are very widely accepted in many regions of the world, especially western Europe.
See this poll from yesterday, for example:
Religion does more harm than good
The results for other countries, especially in Scandinavia are even more striking. Some countries report 4-9% religious affiliation.
In addition education has a great deal to do with what people believe. If this weren’t so then the battles of what gets taught wouldn’t be so fierce. Those sects which most fear the discoveries of science and the changes in understanding brought on by the Enlightenment are those which do their utmost to shield their kids from being exposed to information outside the accepted canon. Good examples include the Amish and the ultra-orthodox Jews who live in secluded enclaves in the Catskills.
Most people who lose their faith relate how this process was brought about by exposure to new ideas and contact with those outside their childhood circle.
At one time everyone thought the earth was the center of the universe. Just because many people believe something does not make it so.
To say that the definition of a word is dogmatic is an error. Atheism means the absence of belief in god. To conflate a denial of the existence of god with dogmatism is another error. For dogma to be present, doctrine must be also.
Atheism possesses no doctrine in that it has no organized body to teach its principles of belief, which in themselves really boils down to an indivdual who doesn’t believe. Trying to turn a simple definition into a complex system of ideology, complete with doctrine and dogma is egregious. There is no belief system among atheists, which, to be fair, must be present before one can be doctrinaire or dogmatic.
Atheists do not pretend to established opinion; on the contrary, atheists individually hold an unestablished opinion. There is no authoritative tenet, such as “original sin” or sin of any kind; there is no point of view put forth by a recognized body, and there is no body of formally stated rules and regulations governing morality or faith, all of which are required in order to say a belief carries the baggage of “dogma.”
“Dogmatic” and “doctrinaire” are commonly perjorative adjectives applied to those who wield their authoritativeness in a self-righteous or rigid manner on themselves or against others. Few atheists do that, simply because the do not possess any dogma or doctrive to back themselves up.
in the last stentenc:
“they”
“doctrine”
but to make judgements about anyone you have to look at their philosophy of life. There are many who take various religious teachings and use them as a tool to lead a balanced life and a life that does not cause grief to others. As an atheist I have no desire to convert anyone to my ideology. I want to lead a life where I cause others little or no problems and a life where I can live with a clear conscience and try to to the best of my limited abilities to lead a good life. I have no doubt there are many Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus and Jews and those of other myriad religions who strive for the same.
I am sure that in the unfortunate world in which we live atheists have caused death to many (Stalin, Pol Pot) although to link Hitler and the Nazis to atheism is a bit of a stretch in my opinion. However, we shouldnt forget some of the huge massacres committed in the name of religion. The extermination of the indigenous peoples of North and South America stand out as particularly appalling. The thirty years war saw some horrendous massacres and then what has been described as the first modern day holocaust in the Belgian Congo was a very nasty if little known act in history. That said it seems that masscres and holocausts are not particularly linked to atheism or religion but unfortunately are more a product of mankind in general that occur when clashes of philosophy of life occur. Religious philosophies are only part of what distinguishes societies and can never be seen as the sole rationale for an event.
Anyway that is enough of that for the festive season.
Peace.
I suppose that I am an atheist as defined against the One god, or multiple god dynamic that we are only capable of discussing in the United States. Despite that,(or because of it) I have always felt a kinship with Taosim (or Daoism).
Hitler clearly replaced a theist religion, with a non-theistic religion based upon the Nordic tradition. Whether he was non religious, or what he has other than a paranoid drug addicted meglomanic, the rest of us really shouldn’t give him any more energy.
Sam Harris should quit his diatribes, or articles, or whatever he calls these word groups he has published, as these arguments only work on those people who are educated in proper application of the scientific method, and are not afraid of death.
For a view of skepticism, or Pessimism as he would describe, you should all read Clarence Darrow’s Verdicts out of court, where he waxes on varied liberal turf way back in 1926. Its been 80 years, and he is still brilliant.
On the Christmas “fill in” news commentaries, I twice heard that the problem with the Nazis were that they were atheists. This is patently false; the Nazis boasted that they were a Christian nation–without any theology, of course.)
The stridency of athiests seems to be a reaction to the pressure that the Religious Right has brought to bear on the enforcement of a single religious philosophy in the public forum. I followed a great discussion between Francis Collins and Richard Dawkins in several journals recently; these two great thinkers come far closer to a civilized discourse on the range of belief and ethics in the world than any I’ve seen lately.
Of course no one knows exactly the truth about our universe. So what? We DO know the truth about our conceptions of God and religion – they spring from a fear of death. I suggest you read Denial of Death or visit the website of the Ernest Becker Foundation to learn the genesis of all religion.
So, do all Christinas love their enemies? I admire Jesus’ teachings and think they transcend the ages.
Does this make me less of an atheist? No, Jesus was a man who had to operate in his cultural milieu to be effective. But first and foremost he was a man. A man of great wisdom and intelligence and compassion. A man with a vision, nothing more and nothing less.
I leave room for doubts, does THIS make me less of an atheist? Not all atheists are the same. I imagine there are obnoxious atheists, none that I know.
Not believing in something is dogmatism? In what dictionary?
Peace be with you and a happy 2007.
Booman, You have permanently lost a failry regular reader with this sloppy and ill-considered post. There is much wrong with your essay. The illogic in it — and the failure actually to meet arguments on their own terms, instead of lobbing epithets, dwelling on irrelevant “unknowable” questions,” etc. — has all been fairly well commented on. So I’ll leave that and comment a bit on tone. For someone who purports to be concerned with “good manners” you do have a penchant for indiscriminately slinging shit — using completely unsupportable generalizations, stereotypes, and derogatory terms for those who think differently from you (e.g., all this “dry drunk,” “arrogant atheist” crap); seems like there’s something rather personal bugging you here that you should perhaps think about working out with a therapist.
Beyond all that, what you’re repeatedly failing to acknowledge is that your religious belief system is an entirely different ball game from the reasoning of folks who reject the notion of a supernatural agency based on the lack of any empirical support for it. By believing in god, you are particpating in an entirely different system of thought, not one based on evidence or logic but faith. That’s your choice (in my view a poor one, but it’s your choice). Why is it so difficult to simply acknowledge that while you may find empiricism handy in some contexts, you toss it out the window when it comes to religion (you toss a few more things out the window as well, I might add, including your vaunted “manners”)?
where in all of my column and subsequent comments do you get the impression that I believe in God? To come away from those comments with that impression is almost dumbfounding to me.
The entire point of my tirade is that it annoys me when humanists get a platform as large as the LA Times editorial page on Christmas, they use it to talk down to people of faith, make lousy and erroneous arguments, and otherwise do a disservice to humanists.
Humanists are indeed discriminated against in this country, and cannot hope to be elected to statewide office, and in many cases, lesser office, unless they lie about their belief system. If I am touchy about anything, that is what I am touchy about.
Let me clear about something. There is something admirable about refraining for alcohol use. It’s even more impressive when it is accomplished in the face of dependency. I would never tell a dry drunk that they were wrong to remain sober. Nor would I tell an atheist they were wrong to hold their beliefs.
I’m talking about humility and manners and hypocrisy. It’s easy for people to spot those character flaws in a recovering alcoholic. It seems next to impossible to get a recovering religionist to recognize the same faults in their fellow atheists.
My tone might be off, but it is in response to something I am quite tired of hearing. And that is people that call themselves atheists giving atheism a bad name by acting like sanctimonious, arrogant, jerks to people of faith.
In my opinion, the problem is with a lack of compassion and empathy, an overregard for the value of converting the ‘deluded’, an arrogance about the scope of science to answer fundamental questions, and a standard that appeals to the most intolerant of the religious as a counterexample to justify itself.
I know it sucks to be discriminated against, to be vilified, to be mischaracterized. I know because it all applies to me. That is no justification, whatsoever, to treat other people badly.
And it’s all consistent with the rules of this site, including:
It was why he was hired to write the column. If he wrote the sorts of column you’re looking for they wouldn’t have hired Sam Harris to do it. Have you read his books? Complaining about it is like complaining about it being Monday. What’s the point?
i’m beginning to form a hypothesis that booman seems to be responding to some unasserted and untested personal issue which has curiously caused him to abandon the civility he so vociferously demands of others. however, in the name of civility, i’m going to forego the testing of that hypothesis at this time.
i’m all for civility in debate — politeness is the grease that smooths human relations, after all. it should be considered a necessity. in fact, if booman had asked for civility for its own sake, i’d have no problem with it. but to premise that civility on the granting that two different propositions representing two different belief systems must be equally valid is just a charade — much like the tilted point/counterpoint shoutfests we’re tired of seeing on the likes of faux news — and i’m not the least inclined to play along on those terms.
but if booman thinks i’ve been uncivil, i’ll be the first to apologize.
A frustration I have had in discussing atheism with both atheists and agnostics is the establishment of defined terms.
Popularly, an “atheist” is someone who is convinced no god exists, and an “agnostic” is someone who is not sure or is not sold, but not necessarily convinced.
To many atheists and according to many dictionary definitions, an “atheist” is someone who lacks a belief in a deity. That definition would include so-called “agnostics”, newborn children and pet rocks. Similarly, an agnostic is defined as someone who considers the existence of god an unknowable question. Such an agnostic may or may not have a belief in god (without a claim of knowledge.)
The amount of effort spent on these definitional games is immense and, to me, tiresome across the board
As for the proof of atheism and its failure to win worldwide popularity, many valid ideas are unpopular and much hogwash is beloved. I can “prove” that astrology is no better at predicting events than throwing dice, but that won’t put the astrology business out of business.
If I understand booman’s latest remarks what has gotten him upset is the tone of people like Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins.
Now there are several ways to view this.
I’m willing to grant a measure of truth to all these complaints. The question is does this mean they should modify their approach? This then becomes a discussion of tactics not goals. Their goals are clear, they want people to stop believing in supernatural phenomena and they want people to stop following leaders who claim that such phenomena give them special rights to tell others how to behave and what to think.
The answer may not be what people want to hear, but history provides the models. When there are large scale social movements in need of change those who favor small steps and accommodation seldom have any effect. It takes extremists to shift the boundaries of the discussion. The perfect example was Carrie Nation. People spoke out against “demon rum” for decades, but when she took an ax to saloons public opinion started to shift.
Currently there are many people with extreme religious views in positions of authority in the US. They use uncompromising language to demonize their opponents. Just last week we had a congressman making such remarks about a newly elected Muslim representative. What little criticism there is of such attitudes does not make the headlines.
So here we have a couple of modern day Carrie Nations taking a rhetorical ax to organized religion instead of saloons. The result has been that their point of view has been getting attention. It has even been picked up by the old line media. It also encourages those who share their viewpoint to speak out (or “come out”) since others have taken the lead. Is it polite? No. Is it effective? Apparently.
Do you have to like their tactics? Of course not.
I cited above two very influential (for their time) essays which took a more moderate approach. Did they achieve their aims? Apparently not. So there is room for the strident, the moderate and the accommodating.
Messy, but that’s how things work. If you don’t like their approach, but you support their goals than speak up in your own style.