October 03, 2007

• I agree with his main premise, that one should stay focused on bunk-busting, whatever guise or label it appears under. I'm not sure about some of his specifics. I'm not overly fond of elevating tactics above principle.
• Wow - very clearly put and worth mulling over, for me. I'm guessing a lot of the "ditch-the-atheist-label" is directed toward citizens of one particular country. I'm not sure rejecting being called "atheist" in favour of being called "person who thinks reasonably" is gonna fly (alright, he didn't say that, exactly, but there is a certain suggestion, certainly). But yep, great that he advocates non-dismissal of meditation, and I like the idea of putting the focus upon intolerance of inhumane actions, rather than religious backgrounds of said actions.
• That article was fascinating. I recently broke up with my boyfriend and had a fundamentalist catholic friend giving me advice about relationships and lending me books. Great to read an alternative view that more supports my perspective...
• Not quite of the atheist camp, but what a thought provoking article. Thanks!
• I think this is all very sensible. The trouble with describing yourself as an atheist is that atheism tends to get treated as another sect, with the assumption that I must have an atheist ethical code which is the same as that of other atheists, use atheist ceremonies which match religious ones, accept the infallibility of Dawkins, meet up with other atheists on a Sunday to sing atheist songs ('Who built the Ark? No-one! No-one!) and so on. Julian the Apostate fell into this sort of trap when he tried to revive paganism; you end up creating a kind of shadow of Christianity which actually makes it more prominent instead of allowing it to lapse gracefully into obscurity.
• I am proud to call myself an atheist. Pleggy has a point, but I think atheism is only seen in that way because of what it has to stand against. When they stop being dick-heads, I'll stop banging on about Dawkins. To learn that a third of my Asian countrymen (and I bet it's mostly the men) want to live under sharia law makes my blood run cold. Without the Galactic Empire, there would have been no Rebel Alliance. Think of it that way. I do. And I don't doubt the power of meditation / altered states of consciousness etc. There's nothing mystical about it. It's is only different in scale from taking a deep breath before an interview etc. I don't see how that could even be an issue. Acupuncture - good. Tiger penis - bad. Atheists Out!
• Atheism is stupid. You can't prove that there is no god or gods. You can only prove that the gods people believe in - or the stories about them - are hogwash. Which they have been definitively proven to be. You can't prove that there is no 'spiritual' force in the universe. It may be hidden, like the Higgs Boson. In such a case, that spiritual force is untestable and therefore probably not worth discussing or even thinking about, but its existence cannot be established one way or the other. Thus, saying that there is no god, for sure, definitely, is a stance only an opinionated dolt would take. Being a hardcore atheist is just as close-minded as being a hardcore born-again christian. From my own experience, erasing spirituality from peoples' lives is a bad idea. Erasing orthodox religion from peoples' lives is a *good* idea, because orthodox religion is actually no good for developing spirituality in an individual. Doctrine is bad. Harris is proposing doctrine. Therefore Harris is a fool. We are not fighting a war against religion, that would be doomed to fail (since religion is ultimately tribal in nature, giving religion an 'enemy' to fight against only makes it stronger). We are not fighting a war against anything, we are increasing knowledge and decreasing ignorance. To do so requires no game-plan, no doctrine or strategy. It simply requires patience and hard work. Please don't make atheism into a codified movement against religion. This will ensure religion's growth for the next generation onwards.
• Thanks for calling me stupid. No-one's saying there is no god(s), merely on a scale of probability, it is vastly more likely that there isn't than there is. Plus, our 'spiritual' life and beliefs a not being denied, but they can be seen as a result or by-product of our species' evolution. To deny them would be the same as denying our sex-drive. This evolution is the reason we have moral values (not because of religions). However, to NOT see them for what they are and prescribe to them more power and influence than they deserve is as bad as giving in to any of our other 'baser' genetic imperatives. I really don't care one way or the other (I know what I think, what everyone else thinks is their problem - as QE1 said, don't make windows into another man's soul), but like I say, when they stop being dick-heads, I'll stop with the atheist schtick. It also winds them up, so it's a win-win. kthx!
• I said atheism is stupid. Are you atheism? Are you the disbelief or denial of the existence of a God? No, you are a human being who happens to entertain that view. Insulting a viewpoint is not insulting the person. If Atheism is about probabilities, that's fine. Except it isn't. Atheists say "there is no god". This is not provable. That's my problem with it. If you say "the existance of god doesn't make a jot of difference to our life on earth" then I wholeheartedly agree. If you say "talking about god is a waste of time until you define that term" then I wholeheartedly agree. If you say "god does not exist" then I bail. I'm fine with Anti-Christianism, because the bible is horseshit from page one until the end. (SPOILER: Jesus dies). It doesn't even make good bog roll because you get paper cuts.
• Ugh, some wishy washy recipe for inaction and complicity combined with some junk about the value of meditation and a pointless rating of religions on the "crazy" and "dangerous" scales from Sam "waterboarder" Harris. If he feels so strongly about it, he should just go live his underground, meditative, rational life instead of telling Atheists what to do.
• Weeeelll... I've just read the God Delusion (can you tell?), and a lot of that is all about probabilities. Dawkins specifically talks about the ultimate 'unknowability' of god's existence. He also talks about the probability of that existence, and the various scales from believer, through agnostic, right up to 'radical aetheist' Even he doesn't end up on the 'there is definitely no god, I know this for sure' end, and you are right to say this is a stupid stance. What you CAN say is 'I'm pretty fucking certain there isn't, and that's how I'm going to live and think'. So atheists do not necessarily say 'there is no god'. People need to be educated about that too. Also, I think this whole issue is more of an, er, issue in places like the US. Over here, no-one really gives a fuck, except door-knockers and street preachers. Both of whom are easily sent away with an instructive tick in their ear.
• There is no requirement to prove a negative. The burden of proof rests with those making the positive statement, and since that positive statement is so extraordinary it requires extraordinary proof to be accepted. Since that proof has yet to (and is unlikely to ever) arrive, atheists rightly dismiss the religious for their acceptance of what is essentially an unproven hypothesis. A hypothesis the religious do not seem to prove or investigate. Atheism doesn't say "there is no god", rather it says "Those who say there is a god do so without providing proof of their extraordinary claims. Lacking proof of such unlikely super being with a range of implausible and unscientific attributes and abilities, the rational choice is to accept scientific and logical explanations for the existence of the universe, earth and humanity." Yes, it is possible that there really is a sky god out there who created the earth in 6 days and made humans out of dirt, but it is so unlikely that accepting it without a large, irrefutable body of evidence is indication of either gross stupidity or blind faith.
• I've never met an atheist who said that, kit. I've only met ones that say 'there is no god, for sure, because x, y, & cancer'. I have no problem with people like you describe. I am of the uncertain nature. I'm not willing to bet the farm. Personally I think Dawkins is a bit of a dick about the whole thing, but he's married to Romana, so I have to let him off. On his documentary series, he did things like describing the people at Lourdes "wallowing" around in the water, and I thought 'you know, this isn't gonna help'. He's a polemicist, which is good if you like stirring up the nutters, but on the whole I don't think it changes people. You've got to attract people to your viewpoint before they will seriously consider it, otherwise they would rather go back to their comfortable, traditional ways of thinking. He's right about most of what he says, of course, but I've read several of his books, and he comes off a bit strident, imho. For the most part, he's attacking the fundamentalist, doctrinal religious beliefs. I have no problem with that, as they are absurd and deserve derision. I like how he gets in peoples' faces, too. also, what tehmoth said. I'd forgotten who Harris was. "There is no requirement to prove a negative." - there is if you tell me there is no god. I agree about the other bit, though. But in general, let's be honest, the average atheist is not saying 'come on let's have some proof of your extraordinary claims,' they're saying 'this is a load of dingo's kidneys and there is no god, because x,y & cancer'. I refuse to debate it with either side, these days, because nobody defines what they mean by 'god'. Different people have different definitions. It's not possible to have a coherent discussion on it until we do. Dawkins doesn't touch on Gnosticism, on Catharism, etc, AFAIK. There are many different conceptions of what 'god' is & how it behaves.
• Hm. I can appreciate what he's saying about not accepting the terminology and structure of religion to describe a group of people who do not believe in any form of supernatural deity(ies), but who otherwise probably don't agree on much of anything else, including and especially what the definition of "atheist" or "agnostic" is. (This thread is shaping up to be a good example of that. Personally, I prefer "heathen". ;-) ) However, people need those handy little sound-bite labels, and will continue to use them no matter what, and underground might as well be invisible. In the United States, at least, unless you specifically say you believe otherwise, the default assumption is that you're Christian. Not accepting the term "atheist" will do nothing to change those survey results or the perception of non-believers as a bunch of immoral evildoers.
• Hank - read the God Delusion - touches on a lot of the stuff you're mentioning, plus is as funny a book as I've read in ages. I know he can be all up in your face, but I like that - it's good that the complacent and the people with a sense of smug entitlement because of what they choose to believe should be confronted by someone who is A) cleverer than them and 2) righteously pissed off with them. I'd buy him a pint.
• > You can't prove that there is no god or gods. I don't have to. I just avoid the presumption that there is one or multiple. It's strange to me to expect atheists to prove something to support a non-act or a non-state. If I'm in a state of not believing, why should I have to justify that?
• Sheesh, I should refresh the page when I decide to comment after two hours of doing something else. tehmoth said more clearly what I was trying to say.
• "It's strange to me to expect atheists to prove something to support a non-act or a non-state." Following this line of thought, I'm more of an atheist than anyone, because I simply don't give a fuck whether there is a god or not. It is not relevant to me. "If I'm in a state of not believing, why should I have to justify that?" - It is necessary if you define yourself as an Atheist. You're taking up a position. QED. If you don't have the concept of something, you don't think about it. It never becomes an issue. You don't label yourself by that. Look, aside from that, the idea that there is a hierarchy of intelligence in the universe, and that there is something higher on the scale of intelligence than man, is not such an odd assumption. A caveman looking at nature, at all the animal forms and then himself, who is superior to all of them (at least in intellect) is bound to infer that there is something more sophisticated than himself, somewhere up on the scale, because that's the pattern that is readily established. That is a natural inference drawn from our environment. Whether it's right or wrong, I'm not going to get into. I don't care enough. Now, all the other shit that goes with believing in magical old father men in the sky, that's a different story, but the concept of a higher power is in itself not so crazy, given our ecosystems. That doesn't mean you have to believe it, because there is not much proof of this higher power's existance. In a scientific sense, there is no proof at all. Statistically speaking, it makes no difference whatsoever to your life whether there is or is not a supreme being. Anyway, that's not the issue. Atheism is taking a specific stance that there is no god. 'I don't believe in god,' you say. The natural response to that is, why not? If one replies "I don't have to justify that!" then one sounds like a fucking dumbass. If one says 'oh I've never thought about it,' then you're not an atheist. An atheist, by definition, has drawn conclusions about his universe, and he should have some reasoning for that. Unless you want to call yourself an Ignostic, who is someone who refuses to take part in the discussion at all until, like me, you hear a coherent collective definition of what this 'god' is. Otherwise, by taking a stance on the existance or non-existance of god, you are bound by rules of logic to define why you take this stance.
• In my experience, the statement "I don't believe in god" has a context, generally the dominant religious belief system of the speaker's culture. For me, it's shorthand for "I don't believe in god as presented by the Roman Catholic Church" or, more generalized, "I don't believe in god as presented by Christian churches, or even by the People of the Book." I don't understand why the onus is on me to disprove the existence of this god. The struggle by Atheists in the West is first and foremost against the god defined by the Judeo-Christian-Islamic (JCI) desert religions. As you correctly point out, the argument is pointless without a clear definition of what god is. But I think there are sufficient grounds for argument between a JCI view of god and an atheistic standpoint. Beyond that, an agnostic stance toward the question of a "higher intelligence" seems sensible.
• Atheism is taking a specific stance that there is no god That's only what is sometimes called "Hard Atheism" or "Strong Atheism". Atheism originally just meant lack of belief in gods, which is pretty much my own view. I also think that when an atheist says, "there are no gods", it's along the same lines as saying "there are no fairy godmothers or leprechauns or pink unicorns". I think it's perfectly reasonable to say these things in ordinary speech. Can I /prove/ these statements? No, of course not. They really mean "I think there's no reasonable evidence for X". At least, that's the way I see it.
• Well, I've seen leprechauns.
• I disagree with Harris's dismissal of "anti-racism":

  ask yourself, how many people have had to identify themselves as “non-racists” to participate in this process? Is there a “non-racist alliance” somewhere for me to join?

  At least in Europe, there was and is still an "anti-racism" movement. Rock Against Racism, Anti-Nazi League, SkinHeads Against Racial Prejudice, Football Against Racism in Europe, Searchlight magazine, etc.
• Am I agnostic or atheistic if I couldn't give a flying fuck on a Friday? 'Cause I couldn't, you know.
• I'm fascinated by the way so many of the above comments vividly illustrate Harris' premise. I generally keep my own non-belief hidden as I've found the most extreme form of knee-jerk prejudice seems reserved for those who would call themselves "athiests." In my own experience, using the term seems, in others' eyes, the equivalent of declaring onesself an Enemy to All Mankind. Intelligent discussion is a good thing, especially when those so engaged avoid emotional reactions. Sadly, it's been rare for me to have one when the other parties are desperately clinging to the comforting illusion that somewhere there is an omnipotent power that will make everything better somehow, and which gives them the right to pander to urges to (for example) subordinate women, think in narrow terms of "right" and "wrong", influence others, etc. "My invisible friend is better than your invisible friend" is a concept that I just cannot process. In far too many cases, full engagement with religion seemingly shuts down an individual's powers of analytical thinking in favor of a "faith" where there is no attempt to find reasoning other than the all-encompassing religious ideology. Simply put, it's easier to let someone else make your big decisions. Rejection of an invisible power means assuming full responsibility for one's actions and their consequences, and that is a scary path for most humans. It is the removal of the largest crutch ever created, and as such is viewed with extreme fear and loathing. Great post, wendell! Really enjoyed stretching the ol' brain. BTW although I don't believe in organized religion, I would stop short of declaring believers "stupid," and I would hope the same courtesty might be extended to those who do not believe. The mind, after all, is a very, very personal place.
• Such depth! Who'dathunkit from Sam Harris?
• >>I would stop short of declaring believers "stupid," and I would hope the same courtesty might be extended to those who do not believe. The mind, after all, is a very, very personal place. Do you afford the same "courtesy" to people that ARE stupid? Those deemed clinically insane by our "experts"? Brutes and bullies who embrace violence as a legitimate method of interpersonal communication? The greedy and self-centered willing to destroy people and environments to enrich themselves? Seems to me you are trying to create a special category for one type of belief, a particular brain state, and I fail to see how that is justifiable. I'm sure it makes you feel good about yourself to be so "open-minded" and inclusive, but in fact it opens the door for a great deal of abusive behavior. In like manner, if I let myself believe anything on insufficient evidence, there may be no great harm done by the mere belief; it may be true after all, or I may never have occasion to exhibit it in outward acts. But I cannot help doing this great wrong towards Man, that I make myself credulous. The danger to society is not merely that it should believe wrong things, though that is great enough; but that it should become credulous, and lose the habit of testing things and inquiring into them; for then it must sink back into savagery. --W.K. Clifford, The Ethics of Belief
• precious.
• In my own experience, using the term seems, in others' eyes, the equivalent of declaring onesself an Enemy to All Mankind. This has been my experience too. So, while I don't exactly hide my lack of belief, I don't ever bring it up, first. I also run into the assumption that all atheists have a grudge against God, or the church they were raised in, or their families, when that's not always the case. I was raised without religion, with the expectation that when I got older, I could choose my own, or the lack of, whatever.
• rushmc: Are you really equating religious believers with the clinically insane?
• Sorry to be irksome, rushmc. Just tryin' to throw in a little civility. Being unreligious does not make one amoral. Folks sure do get touchy when belief systems are questioned, is all I'm saying, and I'm trying to keep the poo-flinging to a minimum among my fellow esteemed monkeys.
• It doesn't matter whether you call yourself an atheist - Jesus loves you anyway. :)
• I always find this a bit problematic. I'm an atheist in the sense that I have no belief in a divine power in the crude religious sense and I don't expect there to be life after death and so forth. I'm all for rational inquiry and the scientific method. But temperamentally I'm some sort of witch doctor manque and am quite given to spiritual transports and mysticism. That's been the comfort of non-Western religio-philosophical traditions for me. There's no shortage of bullshit there either, but at its best it operates in a paradigm where there isn't the same dichotomy.
• paradigm... dichotomy? What the fuck am I on about? Time for another Guinness I think.
• Too bad there's not a relevant Jeff Foxwarthy scale. You knw, "Do you [insert activity]? Then you might be an atheist!" I tend to agree with Harris's thinking re: the "atheist" label. I guess it IS a philosophy, but the term kind of makes it sound like not believing in a deity halds more significance than it usually does for the people who don't.
• "I’m done. I’ve met all my goals. Now I’m just going to stay here eat ice cream until I die in front of you." Those are the words I would most like to speak someday. They are replacing, "You are welcome. You may now stand up, Ms. Pfeiffer."
• I see no reason to believe in any supernatural entity (God, ghosts, feng shui, etc.) and I am against every religion I've ever heard of (Methodism, Vodoun, Scientology, etc.), but I'm willing to entertain the idea of a neurological basis for acupuncture (now I'm wondering if my "plan" covers it). And I think Hawkins is speaking to high school kids since grownups don't need to be taught how to think about what they don't believe.
• How many times??? Acupuncture good, tiger penis bad. Treat this as a maxim to live by, m'boy! P.S. I am God.
• I am Mithras.
• *genuflects* Monkeyfilter: there's no shortage of bullshit there either, but at its best it operates in a paradigm where there isn't the same dichotomy.
• The Bullshit Dichotomy Paradigm. Good name for a philosophical theory... or a blog... or a rock band. And kifisto is NOT God. I'm the only one here with an established* cult. *although long inactive, and overruled if languagehat becomes active here again
• I'm an atheist, but I hate talking about it. Oh, the conversations, they are so very tedious. I briefly rejoiced when I read the first part of Harris' essay. I felt like he was giving me permission to be a coward. But the truth is, I feel obliged to openly identify myself as an atheist whenever the topic comes up. REPRESENT, woo. *waves official atheist pompoms in a desultory fashion*
• I don't want to be a part of this discussion, but I'm certainly enjoying the varying POVs. Yer doin' good, gang. Carry on!
• When Mithras appears, can bullshit be far behind? ;-)
• I'm an atheist, but I certainly don't consider myself smarter, more rational, or more sane than those who aren't. I figure everyone has a perfectly valid personal reason for what they believe, and leave it at that.
• I just liked it because there were some points in there somewhere about, uh, picking your battles wisely, I thought, and, uh, being critical thinkers. Um.. I'm gonna go get some hotdogs and beers now, wait for the next round?
• No mustard on my hotdogs, please.
• >>rushmc: Are you really equating religious believers with the clinically insane? Wow, what an utter misreading of my remark. Why, I wonder, did you pull out that particular example while ignoring all the others? In the context of what I actually wrote, I think it is clear that the point I was actually making was that if one is going to uniquely place religious believers off-limits for judgment and condemnation, then one should at least attempt to justify this action. That said, yes, I DO in fact think it accurate to consider believers "insane," where sanity is defined as adherence to reality and a commitment to reason (the definitions essentially used by the psychological community). If I believe that I am Napoleon, I am being irrational and at odds with reality (assuming that I am not, in fact, Napoleon), and am likely to be considered a candidate for treatment. If I believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, I am being irrational and at odds with reality, and am likely to be considered a candidate for treatment. If I believe in God, then I am being irrational and at odds with reality and SHOULD be considered a candidate for treatment, were our society not so biased in favor of this particular madness. There is nothing that says that a large percentage (even a majority) of a population cannot suffer a particular psychological condition. Look at depression and how common treatment for it has become in recent years. In the future, religious delusion shall certainly appear in the DSM.
• >>I figure everyone has a perfectly valid personal reason for what they believe, and leave it at that. Why do you assume that personal reasons are valid?
• Relevant: http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/sunny_hundal/2007/10/muslims_should_embrace_fre.html
• Wow, what an utter misreading of my remark. That's why I *asked* if it's really what you meant. Why, I wonder, did you pull out that particular example while ignoring all the others? Because it was the worst example. the point I was actually making was that if one is going to uniquely place religious believers off-limits for judgment and condemnation, then one should at least attempt to justify this action. Did anyone say believers were off-limits for judgement and condemnation? If their belief causes them to do harm to others, then condemn them for their actions. Their belief, in itself, is not harmful. That said, yes, I DO in fact think it accurate to consider believers "insane," So, I was right? It wasn't an "utter misreading"? Why do you assume that personal reasons are valid? Well, because they're personal, and thus are valid to the person holding them. Maybe not to me or you, but we don't get to dictate what's correct for them to believe.
• Religion is best when sauteed in olive oil with garlic and onions.
• Until it caramelizes.
• Did anyone say believers were off-limits for judgement and condemnation? You may not have said that, but lots of people do. Trot out a Kathy Griffin or a Danish cartoonist, and you get legions of people and institutions saying "He/she should't be allowed to disrespect my beliefs."
• IIRC, there was a study that looked at acupuncture to determine if it was worth HMO funding. They had three sets of people - one set undergoing acupuncture, one set being stuck with acupuncture needles but not in any of the chakra points that are taught to acupuncturists, and one that didn't have any needle-related treatments. No significant difference between acupuncture and faux-acupuncture, although both those groups fared better than no-treatment. What that told me is that it's probably something about laying down and taking a break from your day to tell someone about your aches/problems, and maybe a little sensory stimulation from the needles, rather than anything to do with nerve systems or chakras or whatnot. So I'd go for the meditation or the nap or the chat with a friend over acupuncture just on a cost basis.
• Also, atheism rocks.
• Yeah, but still, lay off the tiger penises man. Another mammal needs them.
• I would have loved to be one of the faux-acupuncturists. It must have been incredibly rewarding to just randomly jab needles into people like giant squishy voodoo dolls.
• >>Their belief, in itself, is not harmful. That is a false claim. >>So, I was right? It wasn't an "utter misreading"? Not at all. Re-read my reply. >>Well, because they're personal, and thus are valid to the person holding them. Methinks you misunderstand the meaning of "valid."
• If you think belief, in itself, is harmful; who is being harmed?
• See the W.K. Clifford quote I posted above.
• My laugh-out-loud-and-startle-the-cats moment of the day: Atheist Apocalypse.