Dupes
God's Dupes
Moderate believers give cover to religious fanatics -- and are every bit as delusional.
Moderate believers give cover to religious fanatics -- and are every bit as delusional.
Many have attempted to explain the problem with "moderate believers," Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins and others. Sam's explanation here is in my opinion the best to date. The point is, you don't get to carve out your own little "miracles" and then deny others theirs. You cannot say without hypocrisy that X, a proposition that violates physical laws is true but proposition Y that suffers the same flaw is nuts. You cede the moral and intellectual high ground, an indulgence that leads to and has led to chaos.
Of course, no religion is monolithic. Within every faith one can see people arranged along a spectrum of belief. Picture concentric circles of diminishing reasonableness: At the center, one finds the truest of true believers — the Muslim jihadis, for instance, who not only support suicidal terrorism but who are the first to turn themselves into bombs; or the Dominionist Christians, who openly call for homosexuals and blasphemers to be put to death.
Outside this sphere of maniacs, one finds millions more who share their views but lack their zeal. Beyond them, one encounters pious multitudes who respect the beliefs of their more deranged brethren but who disagree with them on small points of doctrine — of course the world is going to end in glory and Jesus will appear in the sky like a superhero, but we can't be sure it will happen in our lifetime.
Out further still, one meets religious moderates and liberals of diverse hues — people who remain supportive of the basic scheme that has balkanized our world into Christians, Muslims and Jews, but who are less willing to profess certainty about any article of faith. Is Jesus really the son of God? Will we all meet our grannies again in heaven? Moderates and liberals are none too sure.
Those on this spectrum view the people further toward the center as too rigid, dogmatic and hostile to doubt, and they generally view those outside as corrupted by sin, weak-willed or unchurched.
The problem is that wherever one stands on this continuum, one inadvertently shelters those who are more fanatical than oneself from criticism. Ordinary fundamentalist Christians, by maintaining that the Bible is the perfect word of God, inadvertently support the Dominionists — men and women who, by the millions, are quietly working to turn our country into a totalitarian theocracy reminiscent of John Calvin's Geneva. Christian moderates, by their lingering attachment to the unique divinity of Jesus, protect the faith of fundamentalists from public scorn. Christian liberals — who aren't sure what they believe but just love the experience of going to church occasionally — deny the moderates a proper collision with scientific rationality. And in this way centuries have come and gone without an honest word being spoken about God in our society.
Comments
A couple of statements that prove that Sam is really stuck in Stage III of spiritual belief:
"they generally view those outside as corrupted by sin, weak-willed or unchurched. "
er..uh...not true...
"Christian liberals — who aren't sure what they believe but just love the experience of going to church occasionally — deny the moderates a proper collision with scientific rationality."
uh...i'm not a christian, but the christian liberals I know wouldn't believe this either.
Sam needs to read Scott Peck's Stages of Spiritual Growth. An abridged version can be found here:
http://www.factnet.org/StagesOfSpiritual_Growth.html
There is a whole group of people out there that sam and his like have no experience with. That isn't bad...it's just what is...all part of the process and I'll take Sam and other Atheitst's version of morality, living life, etc. over a Stage I or II's any day..
I am an atheist, raised by "moderate christians", and I think it's a little harsh to say that they would inadvertently support fundamentalists. Then again, I 'm from liberal europe... Maybe things are different when you live in the u.s.
though I just read the whole article and this paragraph indicates Sam may be further along then I thought:
"Let us hope that Stark's candor inspires others in our government to admit their doubts about God. Indeed, it is time we broke this spell en masse. Every one of the world's "great" religions utterly trivializes the immensity and beauty of the cosmos. Books like the Bible and the Koran get almost every significant fact about us and our world wrong. Every scientific domain — from cosmology to psychology to economics — has superseded and surpassed the wisdom of Scripture."
well-said...
kiva
Abgesehen davon scheint mir Sam Harris aber ein "reasonable man" zu sein.
I agree with Kiva, that's a nice passage, but I doubt that other government officials will admit doubts about christianity - unfortunately .
darn...no edit function of these posts :-)
there is wisdom in scripture, but not scientific wisdom. The beauty is found in those things that are timeless...i'm not a big bible fan myself, but it is not devoid of wisdom.
I also liked this quote by Sam:
"there are better reasons to help the poor, feed the hungry and defend the weak than the belief that an Imaginary Friend wants you to do it. Compassion is deeper than religion. As is ecstasy. It is time that we acknowledge that human beings can be profoundly ethical — and even spiritual — without pretending to know things they do not know."
compassion is deeper than religion, that is for sure. Actually, jesus is reported to have said, "Be perfect as your father in heaven is perfect" or something like that. This, of course, was lost in translation and comes out wrong. The true translation is, "Be compassionate as your father in heaven is compassionate." Now, that makes sense. Also, the translation of "father" is different as well..but no time for that...
i can't believe i just quoted the bible...funny...
kiva
I don't disagree with the sentiment, although this phenomenon is by no means limited to religion. The same is true of political parties and (dare I say it?) atheists.
The true problem (which I think Harris is circling above) is the general lack of willingness of the members of most large groups to scrutinize their own group first and foremost.
As someone who loosely identifies myself as Christian, I believe the 'Christian Church' should focus first and foremost on calling out 'un-Christian' behavior in the church, be it bigotry, intolerance, or willful scientific ignorance. Every time the church is silent on these issues, it undermines the credibility of the church as a whole.
But again, the same phenomenon is observable in many political & social areas. The moderate majority usually would rather focus their attention on their philosophical opponents as opposed to their fanatical 'allies'.
By this logic, Sam Harris and other rationalists, wherever they stand on the continuum of unbelief, inadvertently shelter Stalinist and Khmer Rouge butchers from criticism. But let's not talk about that.
that link won't post properly. Do a google of "scott peck stages of spiritual growth" or put underscore between stages and of and spiritual... stagesofspiritual
"there are better reasons to help the poor, feed the hungry and defend the weak than the belief that an Imaginary Friend wants you to do it. Compassion is deeper than religion. As is ecstasy. It is time that we acknowledge that human beings can be profoundly ethical — and even spiritual — without pretending to know things they do not know."
Wow, very well said - I will learn that sentence and use it in the next discussion about religion I get into. It is true, often christians seem to believe that you can't be ethical without faith. I would also like to add that true compassion, that comes from the heart, not from something other people and a 2000 years old book told you, doesn't contains the danger of driving you into fundamentalism. Commmon sense > faith.
Just FYI, (many) Christians would argue that scripture never says that. I don't remember the verses, but there are a few that indicate that morality is part of creation and that even those who never receive any religious instruction inherently know the difference between right and wrong.
Kevin:
Bulls**t. Every time I hear about "getting rid of religion", xtians argue about how without religion we would be in a state of anarchy, up is down, down is up, and gays can get married. You can show me a few verses on how the bible talks about how morals are "part of creation", and i'll show you hundreds that can be pointed to to give "morals". What the fuck do you think the 10 commandments are construed as in our society?
Let me clarify my post:
1) Some xtians argue that "god" puts the knowledge of right and wrong inside us. I don't even know how they came up with that shit, since "god" is on everyone's side (nazis, islamic jihadists, imperialist nations, etc etc.)
2) tell me why the 10 commandments are in my courthouse if they aren't "a moral compass".
Scientific ignorance, you mean like resurrection from the dead.
For those of us who appreciate Congressman Stark’s admission, you may wish to write him and show your support, as I just did. I would imagine he might be getting peppered with predominantly piously indignant emails right now. Atheists are the new blacks or gays of society and now is as good a time as any to stand up and be counted.
http://www.house.gov/stark/contact/index.htm
Okay. So people who unquestioningly accept religion are "dupes." Yet people who refuse to unquestioningly accept the official 9-11 story are "brain rotted."
Got it. The hypocrisy, that is. It's clear why proponents of the Bush version of events are interested in shutting down debate of the latter. It is much easier for "dupes" to maintain their "faith" when they can protect it from being challenged by inconvenient questions.
Counting down the minutes until this post is deleted . . .
"Okay. So people who unquestioningly accept religion are "dupes." Yet people who refuse to unquestioningly accept the official 9-11 story are "brain rotted.""
You don't understand, do you.
The questions posed by Loose Change and other conspiracy theories have been refuted by people like Popular Science. It's not hard to point out the poor science and shaky claims of Loose Change. I don't think the Administration explaination is adequate, but I also don't think that Loose change is right either.
I don't think Norm of all people has "blindly accepted" the story of 9-11. I've watched Loose change and think that they pose interesting questions (a few) but most of the questions are frankly rediculous.
To blindly accept any claim is for fools and followers. Whether or not it is religion, or conspiracy theories.
Willey, thanks for reminding me why I post here so rarely. Chill.
All I said was that scripture doesn't support the idea that you have to be religious to be ethical, and I don't believe it does. The mere existence of the Ten Commandments doesn't imply that it's impossible to be ethical if you don't know the Ten Commandments any more than if you didn't know there was a law against murder.
A compass (moral or otherwise) is supposed to be a tool to help you navigate. However, there are obviously other tools (starting with your eyes and ears) that can help you accomplish the same goal.
Do some people think it's impossible to be moral without faith? Yes. Do the majority? I don't know. Does the bible say that? No.
That's all I was saying.
One more thing Kali:
Did you know that the NUMBER 11 is largely connected to 9-11?!?!?! For reals! Go read about it!
http://www.snopes.com/rumors/elevens.asp
Thanks Kevin, but from what i've seen, Most people do look to the bible for moral decisions (however, I live in Utah, so my experiences might be skewed :D)
I was thinking more like young Earth/creationism, as that's a process that is believed to be happening today (yet still denied by many Christians), as opposed to arguing about a single 2000 year old event. Personally, the resurrection always strikes me as an odd place to "plant one's feet."
IF there was a God, and IF he became human, and IF he was crucified, a single 2000 year old isolated 'resurrection' wouldn't seem outside the realm of feasibility. Likewise for the idea of resurrection at the end of the world.
Using resurrection as an example of an absurd religious belief just seems like putting the cart before the horse. The very idea of an all-powerful God is much simpler to reject than to tacitly accept the premise of a God and then get stuck at the idea that God could do something unnatural.
"To blindly accept any claim is for fools and followers. Whether or not it is religion, or conspiracy theories."
You don't understand, do you. The official story IS a conspiracy theory.
Oh, and nice of you to throw out all the red herrings. I've not advocated any particular movie or theory on the subject, but how very clever of you to try to discredit me by hanging one around my neck. What I do support is the asking of tough questions (since a serious criminal investigation into the criminal act of 9-11 is apparently never going to happen) because the Bush-approved CONSPIRACY theory doesn't pass the stink test. Not that the reality of my position is of any importance to you. Feel free to continue tossing your garbage in the hopes that something will stick.
Agreed, but I'll be the first in line to argue that while religion often likes to comment on morality, morality can exist perfectly well regardless of (and sometimes in spite of) religion. Which is also why I like to keep government & religion as far away from each other as possible.
I think it is good that you don't believe a person has to believe in a faith, in order to be moral.
However, I hope that I can convince you that the majority does indeed believe this... The two houses of Congress contains people of different genders, ethnic background; people who openly admit to believing in various religions, and to have differing sexual preferences -- but only a single person has admitted to being an atheist.
We know that the more intelligent a person is, the more likely she or he is to be an atheist. And however foolish our politicians may occasionally appear to be, you cannot ascend to such political power, unless you are very smart. Hence, there surely are a lot more atheists in Congress than a single one. They simply know that admitting it would probably cost them their seats.
So yes, the majority of American Christians believe you cannot be a good person, unless you accept Jesus as your personal savior.
Wow. The 9-11 conspiracy stuff above sounds exactly like the evolution conspiracy stuff I hear from the few creationists I know.
As an aside, it would be interesting to know just how many (modern) historical beliefs have ever been proven to be falsely held due to a massive conspiracy.
"The 9-11 conspiracy stuff above sounds exactly like the evolution conspiracy stuff I hear from the few creationists I know."
Yes, those who religiously cling to the official 9-11 conspiracy story and believe that it shouldn't be challenged do resemble creationists who don't want their worldview challenged by reason and critical thinking.
I don't know that politics is the best example to make your point. What people say (and are expected to say) in the realm of politics has little to do with they believe to be true, but more to do with the fear of what will happen if they 'go against the grain'.
But I agree that a lot (maybe even the majority) of Christians in this country believe that one can not be moral without faith. Then again, the U.S. has an amazingly high percentage of Christians (relative to the rest of the world) who believe Earth is less than 10,000 years old too, so that's not saying a lot.
All this is my way of saying I don't think this is an indictment of religious faith, so much as it is against stupid Americans. :)
Um...no.
I was saying that the people who believe the vast majority of us are deluded into believing something false about 9-11 (that airplanes flown by terrorists brought the buildings down) due to a massive conspiracy sound exactly like the people who believe the vast majority of us are deluded into believing something false about evolution (that science supports evolution) due to a massive conspiracy.
You're within your rights to challenge the conventional wisdom on 9-11 and evolution alike. I don't hold either view 'religiously'. I just haven't seen any remotely compelling evidence to disprove either one.
And I get annoyed when I'm accused of buying into a 'conspiracy' in both cases by armchair 'experts' who generally can't string a coherent sentence together.
Well stated kevin. Exactly my point.
I don't know what to think about Sam Harris. On the one hand, he says the kind of stuff about nutty religions that needs to be publicly said, on the other, he turns around and falls for New Age and parapsychology nonsense:
http://www.randi.org/jr/2006-09/092206bad.html#i8
"And I get annoyed when I'm accused of buying into a 'conspiracy' in both cases by armchair 'experts' who generally can't string a coherent sentence together."
Oh, my sentences are perfectly coherent, thank you. And I really don't give a shit what annoys you.
Pretty amusing, though, that guys like you, Willey, and Norm use the term "conspiracy" to discredit and label as "brain rotted" people who disagree with you, and then you get all "annoyed" when it's pointed out to you that the official story is a "conspiracy theory" as well.
Of course we don't "unquestionly" accept the official 9-11 report, and yes we can think it is in general correct without accepting every detail, but there are those whose brains are rotted with conspiracy theory that will use dishonest arguments in an attempt to resurrect weak and statistcally improbable arguments on 9-11. Further you can be sure that anyone who links to 9/11 arguments in "this thread" since they are off topic will find their comments deleted and quite possibly be banned from commenting here.
I fail to see how the whole 9/11 thing is particularly relevant to the "God's Dupes" article. I also doubt the merit in arguing and speculating about an event that happened 6 years ago, when there are far more recent and significant atrocities that can be looked into without creating an unprovable premise.
Sure, the official line is technically a "conspiracy theory" too. However, adding more empty speculation to the pile doesn't help things.
IIRC, Norm also had a point when he pointed out that uneducated speculation about 9/11 drains credibility regarding the more obvious (and provable) crimes and manipulations of the Bush administration.
Does this mean I can't post a bunch of ID arguements either? I keed I keed.
I don't first call things conspiracies to discredit them. They discredit themselves with the lack of evidence and proof.
Well, maybe... I can't say if the "true believer" harms or benefits religion or politics the most, or whether they are better or worse than the cynical hypocrites. It's a symbiotic relationship.
Can we agree on it being an indictment of stupid, religious Americans?
There is something hauntingly sick about what's being advanced here. What is unique to this argument that doesn't apply to any group, tribe, family, political party, etc.? I wholly agree that our connectedness and subsequent cross-culpability is daunting and there needs to be a raising of consciousness about it for survival in a shrinking world. However, the principles elucidated in the article are being subverted, bringing it all down to political punches, as usual. Instead of being commentary about behaviors that are universal, it's being fashioned into a noose directed at every last person who slightly equivocates about their level of faith. Monstrous.
Sure, so long as you're not saying only people of faith can be stupid. :)
(answer: no, but it does seem to help)
Most of you are missing the point completely......
The point that is being made is that "liberal" or "moderate" religious people have no right to question those of the fundamentalist. A irrational belief is an irrational belief, and you cannot create some arbitrary line that faith can not cross over. Its ok to hold a belief that is over and above logic and reasoning (Jesus will return), but that belief is just TOO over logic and reasoning.( homosexuality is a sin). Both of these are irrational in our currently in our reality, so how could one religious person question anothers.
I'd like to see more of James Randi talking about Sam Harris, or the two of them having a conversation about that "mystical" stuff.
From what I remember of the book, Harris was very careful not to equate it to mysticism, but for lack of a better word, he used "mysticism" and "spirituality".
He did say some things about consciousness that sounded at least reasonable, even if implausible (not for me to judge that). But its reasonableness depended on the evidence he cited. Now that the authors he cited have been put in question, I'd like to see a response from him. It's the only good criticism I've seen of his work.
In any case, he deals with this matter of his version of "spirituality" in a subsequent edition, where he explains it more clearly (I did get his point in the first reading, though) to other skeptics that wrote to him complaining about that part.
I second that.
Muslims have been criticized for not speaking out more against their radicals. Everyone lies somewhere on a spectrum. Why should anyone or any group expect that they have to explain for the actions or beliefs of others? The original argument seems to be that believers of any sort give cover to others. So what? I am not responsible for what any atheist or agnostic believes or says regardless of my counting myself among their numbers. Or, are we really accepting that we are responsible for the beliefs, words, and actions of more radical post-deists among us? I am unconvinced.
There's a huge problem with Harris' argument, and with anyone who advances similar arguments. The issue between the West and Islam is much more complicated then "they're Muslim/Fundamentalists," and goes back much further than 6 years ago when some "terrorists" flew a couple of planes into a couple of buildings. What Harris is spouting is no different then McCarthiests spouting anti-communist propaganda during the cold war, it's nothing more than rhetoric that blinds the listener to the deeper questions around the issue. Essentially what he's saying is no different than Bush saying "they hate us for our freedoms." Never mind that the West has systematically uprooted every regime in the Middle East (to stay focused, I know there's many others in other regions) those either goes against America/Western interests or are no longer useful. Never mind that after WWII Europe wanted nothing to do with the thousands of Jews that were displaced. Instead of dealing with the problem, they "gave" them Israel by funding the 12 Years War that shoved the local Muslims into their current Hell Hole. Never mind that the US and other countries in the West have been funding state-sponsored terrorism on Muslims for at least the last 20 years.
The problem is Americans in particular have very short memories. Most of us don't remember, or care, enough to look at the history of the West's involvement with Muslim countries. To many people in the US, 9/11 was the moment when we really became aware of Islam. And no matter how much you don't want to talk about it Norm, 9/11 and the conspiracy theories that surround it are vital to this conversation because that is the moment on which this conversation stands. You have to believe the official story behind 9/11 to justify your belief that Muslims are radical haters of the West the same way that Americans in the 50's had to believe that the communists were evil god-hating atheists who wanted to kill babies and destroy the American way of life. If you don't believe that, then the actions that the government takes to "protect" us don't make sense. And if you don’t believe it, then you start to ask deeper questions about the nature of our relationship with Islam and the Middle East. I’m not trying to push any theory about how 9/11 happened, I really don’t care if you believe the official story or not, but I do think it’s necessary to question the motivations behind why a group of 19 Muslims felt they needed to fly planes into buildings in the US, because I’m willing to bet that it had a lot less to do with religion then we’d like to think.
Interesting. I think part of the problem is that the problems of dogma, theocracy, and religious cults and institutions are being grouped in with religion in general. Part of this might be that a large number of thinking people have decided that Atheism is a good flag to rally under.
Perhaps the 9/11 hijackers weren't soley motivated by holy texts or religion (although what part of "kill the infidels" is unclear?)
However they were certainly fucking insane.
Anyways, something I touched on in another thread: I mentioned that despite his harsh criticism of the Church and Islam, Bill Maher is not an Atheist.
I think we need to focus more on discouraging people from being part of the Church-mob (or any such institutionalized cult) instead of trying to separate them from their Jesus or Mohammed. Most people don't read or understand the scripture and dogma, they are just swept up in the mob mentality of the group they are part of. If we encourage them to think for themselves, they will be less likely to do insane things because their religious leaders told them to.
Well put, Kali. That's all I'm going to say, since Norm's threatening to delete comments again and since I stated my position in last week's melee.
I agree you're not responsible for what someone else says. But I do think you run the risk of hurting your own cause by ignoring them, as that can be viewed as implied approval of their beliefs or message.
If you truly believe in your cause (be it atheist, religious or political), one of the best things you can do is to denounce or distance yourself from those who identify themselves as being in your camp while promoting ideas seen as offensive to those you would otherwise wish to unite with.
What is unique is that your family, political party, tribe or whatnot will eventually disown you, if you keep doing things that they seriously disagree with. If you get caught drinking and driving, you'll probably get invited around for Thanksgiving, but probably not if you get caught drowning your children in the bathtub, or flying jetliners into buildings -- hell, the bin Laden family disowned Osama. Islam, somehow, as not. And Christians argue that Andrea Yates wasn't a Christian as such, but just insane -- in spite of the fact that a fanatical priest was very much part of that tragedy.
What is truly monstrous here is that Christians -- and religious people everywhere -- wants complete immunity from any form of criticism, no matter how monstrous their behavior is.
I think it was covered on this blog, when a well-known feminist blogger was canned from the John Edwards campaign. What was her crime? She pointed out the very obvious, indisputable, undeniable, clear-cut fact that the Papacy has engaged in some very misogynistic rhetoric. She dared criticize religion. And that campaign immediately got rid of her. How's that for unique?
How's that for monstrous?
Well said, Dzwonka. :)
I would like to add that while "moderates" usually condemn the homicidal or super-insane things that extremists do (via a quiet "official position" on the matter), they refuse to identify the actions of the perpetrators in terms of the ideology in question, despite the fact that the incitement to act crazy is right there in the scripture they all share.
They avoid ever giving us a convincing example of why they don't share the same homicidal fervor of the maniacs. The best I've heard is that the scripture must be taken "as a whole", but its hard to reconcile that when incitements to murder and insanity are written right there in black and white.
And they can't very well go "gee, that's not right, lets just edit that out", now can they?
Kiva: “Sam needs to read Scott Peck's Stages of Spiritual Growth.”
Though I haven’t read this particular book, I have read much of Peck’s work and he seems to conflate lexicon and make outlandish statements without any evidence to support his claims. He often mistakes the God of Abraham for an un-institutionalized deistic God and uses them interchangeably for example.
Actually, Sam Harris is often criticized by many secularists for giving a “free pass” to other forms of belief and has even stated that he believes that spiritual experiences do exist but that these shouldn’t have to be intertwined with unjustified religious claims like Jesus being born of a virgin or Mohammad coming down on a winged horse.
McRae: “I am an atheist, raised by "moderate christians", and I think it's a little harsh to say that they would inadvertently support fundamentalists.”
I’ve read much of Harris’ work and gone over a plethora of audio and video seminars, debates, and lectures and from what I understand to be his stance is that he sees moderates, not as willful advocates of religious extremists, but enablers of such an ideology by propagating the taboo of religious criticism. By saying that everyone should respect peoples’ beliefs and that no one should criticize religion, they are giving cover to fundamentalists because we ultimately have a choice between conversation and violence both interpersonally and at the level of nations.
MikeC: Why should anyone or any group expect that they have to explain for the actions or beliefs of others?
Sorry. ^Excerpt form Sam Harris' The End of Faith.
Frenetic, "Dogma, theocracy, and religious cults and institutions are being grouped in with religion in general."
You have a very good point here, however I would argue that "dogma" is the operative word, and would ask you what the difference is between religious dogma and nationalist dogma (of which the US has more then plenty)? Sure the 19 highjackers on 9/11 were insane, but there isn't much difference between them and the Kamikaze pilots of WWII. If you look at it, al Queda performed their acts under the vale of religious dogma (though I would also argue that there was plenty of propaganda about US/Western foreign policy crimes against the people of their country), while the Kamikaze died for their cause under the guise of nationalism (which was based in a long history of Confucianism, and not religion). However, they both flew planes to kill Americans while believing they were doing the right thing for their cause. I use the Japanese as an example of an equal act committed under a separate but equal form of dogma.
My point is this, through nationalistic rhetoric and dogma we're allowing our government to commit acts against the "terrorists" that far exceed what they've done to us. Take Abu Ghraib or Gitmo for example. We're labeling them as "terrorists" through our nationalism while they're labeling us as "infidels" through their religion and we're all killing each other for different, but equal, dogmas. The problem isn't religion, it's dogma in any form, and Harris is just as guilty of it as any religious bigot (to get back to my original point). Getting rid of religion would help, but we'd find other reasons to hate each other.
I don't think Atheism can be grouped that readily with other ideologies (as has been done by other posters in this thread). Atheism is quite simply "a belief there is no God". Atheists currently have no writings labeled as universally definitive, nor is it written that Atheism is "a belief there is no God... and kill anyone that thinks otherwise" but all the Moderate Atheists ignore that second part (whereas the same cannot be said for certain other religions).
You don't need scripture for dogma though, and Atheists should indeed beware of it. People get carried away very easily, so we should all be extra conscientious. Fortunately, modern Atheism tends to be connected with science, and the scientific method is fairly resistant to dogmatic thinking.
One cannot "get rid of" religion, even if one (in grave error) used force to that end. People will believe what they want to believe, and that is a fundamental human right (a right that is honored in very few countries).
One can, however, tell people why they think Atheism and secularism is a good idea. And, one can do it (and it is being done) without resorting to dogmatism.
Perhaps if this done, there will be a positive effect on public policy and the separation of church and state.
And maybe, some people will listen, and change their minds, and maybe they will become human beings with a greater respect for life on this wondrous planet.
Frenetic, I agree (and I should note I'm an athiest as well). When I said 'Harris' I simply meant Sam Harris himself, and by vurtue anyone else who blames religion for the problems of the world without looking to their own forms of dogmatism.
Hehe, and yes, I know we can't "get rid of religion," it just seems that every time Harris talks about this subject he sounds like he wants to blow religious fanatics off the face of the planet. He may not actually be saying that, but to many that's how he comes accross (myself included). I completely agree that talking about our non-belief is a good thing so long as we are respectful of those we talk to. What I mean by that is refute the ideas, but don't disrespect the person who holds them.
Glad we agree, K. =)
That's a good point. I worry that some Atheists will feel the aggressiveness of religious conservatives needs to be met in kind. I think this is a very bad idea. Peaceful resistance works, its just not as sexy as a violent revolution. ;)
I think that's reasonable, inasmuch that it isn't inherently good to fight back with the same exact means and measures as those who attack you. But it isn't reasonable to consider it to always be inherently wrong to do so.
Atheism has obviously always existed -- we're all born atheists. But it has only been acceptable to be openly non-religious in the past few centuries. And by that, I mean acceptable in a sorta marginal way -- in the sense that you won't be burned at the stake for being a heathen, apostate, kaffir, heretical, un-Godly atheist-kinda deal... But hey, you try running for public office -- no deal, buddy. Once you realize this, you need to realize another important fact: that rationality isn't an inherent quality in our species. It is merely a latent potential. We all have the capacity for good and evil -- and some, a capacity for great good, and also great evil. And we all have the capacity for irrationality, and rationality -- in great and small ways. .
I agree that we should not behave like aggressive, religious conservatives -- they're selling snake-oil. We're not. And we don't need to be aggressive, or conservative -- we just need to be reasonable. But there's a difference between that, and being naive. And being passive.
Does the aggressiveness of religious conservatives need to be met in kind? Does the aggressiveness of -- what the hell, I dunno -- a mugger, an armed robber, or a deranged axe-murderer need to be met in kind? No, of course not. But that doesn't mean you should preclude using force against them.
Not a single one of the first half dozen of our Presidents were what you'd call orthodox Christians. In those early, pre-Darwin days, very few ever dared admitting to atheism -- although many of them were accused of it. They called themselves deists -- giving lip service to the concept of a god that might have created the world, but certainly did not respond to prayers, or pay any attention to the world at all anymore. The absent clockmaker. Today, no Presidential candidate could ever hope to run for office, without proclaiming a religious belief.
I don't advocate using force -- I don't advocate using any of the nasty tactics that religious people do. But I do believe we should inform people. The religious call it preaching. The neutral by-standers call it brain-washing. We're not brain-washing anyone; we're not preaching. We're informing, and educating people.
We should do more of it.
How can i refute Ideas of people who say that their ideas are the "word of god"?
To refute a religious idea, in the part of the country where I live anyway, is considered highly disrespectful by nearly all theists (unless what you actually meant was to repudiate the ideas, which in that case helps confirm Harris' point). Contrarily most atheists would welcome - and even seek - any evidence whatsoever that their ideas are invalid, regardless of how it was presented
By this logic, Sam Harris and other rationalists, wherever they stand on the continuum of unbelief, inadvertently shelter Stalinist and Khmer Rouge butchers from criticism. But let's not talk about that.
Kelly,
Interesting that you would include the Khmer Rouge butchers here. In 1979, fully five years into a decline in Cambodian population orchestrated by Khmer Rouge killings, starvation, and emigration, the US joined China in support of Khmer Rouge incursions into Vietnam. It was so important to US policy makers to oppose the Vietnamese communists that they were willing to overlook Khmer Rouge genocide. I guess America wasn't Christian enough in those days.
Furthermore, where exactly in Atheist canon does is there even a hint of encouraging or justifying Stalinist or Khmer Rouge atrocities? And can you give an example of any Atheists unwilling to absolutely condemn the specific (Communist) ideology involved?
There are none. The same cannot be said for the religious ideologies in question.
Kelly's point is a red herring, which is probably the reason nobody else rose to the bait and bothered replying to it.
Post a comment