Dawkins and Harris Respond
Nicholas Kristoff writes another you're intolerant and disrespectful can't you just be nice screed like many we've read in recent months. Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris respond in 'Letters to the Editor'.
A Modest Proposal for a Truce on Religion
That site is part of an increasingly assertive, often obnoxious atheist offensive led in part by Professor Dawkins — the Oxford scientist who is author of the new best seller “The God Delusion.” It’s a militant, in-your-face brand of atheism that he and others are proselytizing for.
To the Editor:
Re “A Modest Proposal for a Truce on Religion,” by Nicholas D. Kristof (column, Dec. 3):
Contrary to Mr. Kristof’s opinion, it isn’t “intolerant” or “fundamentalist” to point out that there is no good reason to believe that one of our books was dictated by an omniscient deity.
Half of the American population believes that the universe is 6,000 years old. They are wrong about this. Declaring them so is not “irreligious intolerance.” It is intellectual honesty.
Given the astounding number of galaxies and potential worlds arrayed overhead, the complexities of life on earth and the advances in our ethical discourse over the last 2,000 years, the world’s religions offer a view of reality that is now so utterly impoverished as to scarcely constitute a view of reality at all.
This is a fact that can be argued for from a dozen sides, as Richard Dawkins and I have recently done in our books. Calling our efforts “mean” overlooks our genuine concern for the future of civilization.
And it’s not much of a counterargument either.
Sam Harris
New York, Dec. 3, 2006
To the Editor:
Nicholas D. Kristof is one of many commentators to find the tone of the newly resurgent atheism “obnoxious” or “mean.”
Ubiquitous as they are, such epithets are not borne out by an objective reading of the works he cites: Sam Harris’s “Letter to a Christian Nation,” my own “God Delusion” and www.whydoesgodhateamputees.com (I had not been aware of this splendid Web site; thank you, Mr. Kristof).
I have scanned all three atheist sources carefully for polemic, and my honest judgment is that they are gentle by the standards of normal political commentary, say, or the standards of theater and arts critics.
Mr. Kristof has simply become acclimatized to the convention that you can criticize anything else but you mustn’t criticize religion. Ears calibrated to this norm will hear gentle criticism of religion as intemperate, and robust criticism as obnoxious. Without wishing to offend, I want “The God Delusion” to raise our consciousness of this weird double standard.
How did religion acquire its extraordinary immunity against normal levels of criticism?
Richard Dawkins
Oxford, England, Dec. 4, 2006
Comments
Science bless those men!
There's an interesting discussion of Kristoff's column over at Althouse
What a perfect question! And Christianity isn't the only religion this question pertains to.
Not sure interesting is the word I would choose. I think I lost some IQ points reading most of the comments.
I don't understand why Christians still insist on using that argument.
I don't believe in god, but I experience it quite regularly. Therefore, of course, I completely agree with Harris and Dawkins. My question for Kristof and all his ilk would be: if God is who or what you say He/She/It is, then how can you imagine that He/She/It would be even mildly injured or impugned by examination, questioning, criticism--or even doubt?
Think of god as an equal, inseparable from yourself, and there will be no more of most of the world's warfare, let alone the bloviation of characters like Kristof.
Check this out from Huffington Post Contagious Festival: http://atheistdelusion.cf.huffingtonpost.com/
“Question with boldness,” wrote Thomas Jefferson to his nephew, “even the existence of God; because if there be one, He must approve the homage of Reason rather than that of blindfolded Fear.”
"Reason and free inquiry are the only effectual agents against error… They are the natural enemies of error, and of error only… It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself… is uniformity of opinion desirable? No more than of face and stature. Difference of opinion is advantageous in religion… What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth… Free inquiry must be indulged; and how can we wish others to indulge it while we refuse it ourselves."
(Sources of the American Republic, Volume I, p. 277-278)
Thanks for the quote, vonmeth.
I like the word "roguery". I guess I'm generally pro-"-ery" as a suffix.
Aren't you glad I told you that?
Oh my golly, what offensive letters! This mean-spirited choice of words: "my honest judgment is that they are gentle" or "a view of reality (...) so utterly impoverished as to scarcely constitute a view of reality at all"...!! I'm still reeling in agony. Have you no decency, sirs??
"How did religion acquire its extraordinary immunity against normal levels of criticism?"
Easy. After violence unified a society, violent religion was used to keep it together and enfranchise the servant class to the "authority" of the ruling class. The remnents of this is still used today - religion giving authority and impunity to a ruling class. (e.g. Since god appointed Bush, whatever he does, regardless of measurable results, is God's will and therefor 'good')
I'm wondering about Harris' source for the statement that "Half of the American population believes that the universe is 6,000 years old." Young earth people are a fringe group, not the majority.
Someone telling me I will burn in hell for eternity is much more offensive than someone telling me I won't.
[Kingsley] Amis's God reveals his character in the theodicy-as-bullying poem "To a Baby Born Without Limbs" that appears in the novel The Anti-Death League:
This is just to show you who's boss around here. It'll keep you on your toes, so to speak, Make you put your best foot forward, so to speak, And give you something to turn your hand to, so to speak. You can face up to it like a man, Or snivel and blubber like a baby. That's up to you. Nothing to do with Me. If you take it in the right spirit, You can have a bloody marvelous life, With the great rewards courage brings, And the beauty of accepting your LOT. And think how much good it'll do your Mum and Dad, And your Grans and Gramps and the rest of the shower, To be stopped being complacent. Make sure they baptize you, though, In case some murdering bastard Decides to put you away quick, Which would send you straight to LIMB-O, ha ha ha. But just a word in your ear, if you've got one. Mind you DO take this in the right spirit, And keep a civil tongue in your head about Me. Because if you DON'T, I've got plenty of other stuff up My sleeve, Such as leukemia and polio, (Which incidentally you're welcome to any time, Whatever spirit you take this in.) I've given you one love-pat, right? You don't want another. So watch it, Jack.I think he's referring to this poll. http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=21814&pg=1 It looks from this that the figure is in the 40% range certainly not a fringe group.
I think he got the 50% figure from another question "God created man exactly how Bible describes it" the positive reponse to that question was 53%
Since when have the jeebus freak bible-thumpers ever offered a truce to rational people?
The only thing religious people hate more than someone from a different religion is atheists.
There is nothing more intolerant than a religious believer.
Thanks for the poll info, Norm. I have to say that I'm shocked and saddened by those numbers, and won't be taking my science education for granted any longer.
Dawkins, in his editorial reply, was downright gentle. I was expecting a bit more fire, but perhaps he determined that in order to be published he'd have to tone down and be more "p-c".
Here's a link to an article that describes the abysmal state of knowledge, particularly in the US, as regards acceptance of the basic, verifiable principles of evolution and the age of the Earth and universe.
http://www.livescience.com/humanbiology/060810evorank.html
No credible scientist believes that the planet is 6,000 years old, yet a significant number of Americans (one of the largest segments when compared against other nations) in fact do.
It's scary to think that more than 1/2 of my neighbors may be so completely backwards as to somehow hold this idea.
well if tere is a god I dont think he/she/it would be to bothered about wha we say about he/she /it because if there is a god he is soo far from our undersdtandin in our meger minds its like stephen hawkin tryin to explain quantum pyhsics to a blade of grass
Dawkins & Harris are right-on. Recently, I posted a 6-part series called "Atheism 101" on YouTube. It's my hope that it might help enlighten/educate people that don't really have a handle on what Atheism is really about.
Go to: http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=doubter5
Larry Rhodes Doubter5 Please rate/comment as you view them!
Thanks!
In Reason!
Doubter5
http://www.digitalfreethought.com
"I don't understand why Christians still insist on using that argument."
Gazzaniga's simply elegant (and elegantly simple) explanation: Their brains make them do it.