As you know, Sam Harris’ atheistic books criticizing religion are popular, and stirring up a lot of thought. One of my favorite Christian Reconstructionist authors, Gary DeMar, has a short two part response to Sam Harris’ 10 Myths of Atheism, entitled Why All Atheists aren’t Monsters and Why Atheists Should be Monsters. The articles aren’t that great, but they bring up a couple of points worth discussing.
1. Atheism leads to meaninglessness.
Sure, Sam thinks that this is a myth, but DeMar answers with some logic of his own, which boils down to "if we are merely just an assemblage of chemicals interacting, how can we really assign meaning or value to any preferred outcome?" It’s not a great argument, but what I think he is saying is that naturalism can not account for personality, and THAT is what gives humans value, and that is what gives meaning, because mere physical chemicals can not think, live, love, or have meaning.
I am way out of my depth here, but I do believe on an intuitive level that (a) naturalistic, materialistic atheism, if taken to its logical ends, does lead to meaninglessness, and (b) while most atheists don’t feel that way, it is because they are being inconsistent in their atheistic views because, well, that doesn’t really match reality or their experience, so they live with this contradiction – which leads to our next point.
2. If atheism logically lead to such atrocities, why are atheists not monsters?
Believe it or not, the answer to this question applies to all decent people who subscribe to an ideology that might lead to doing evil in one way or another. That answer is:
The reason most atheists aren’t monsters is that they are not consistent with their atheistic assumptions.
In fact, the first time I read this logic was in response to similar accusations against Islam – if Islam really teaches hate and murder, why aren’t more Muslims doing it? The answer?
Here are at least three reasons why the violence is relatively limited.
The third [and most hopeful] factor behind the limited violence in the modern age, however, seems to be the natural law placed in most human hearts that dictates compassion to be of higher moral value than killing. This competes with the Qur’anic command to wage war against unbelievers until they either convert to Islam, are killed, or are forced to submit to dhimmitude (third-class status under Islamic law).
This "natural law" also exists in the hearts of atheists, and constrains them from pursuing atheism to its logical ends, as those like Marx and Stalin did.
…pursuing atheism to its logical ends
Explain…
Step 1: Lack of a God Belief
|
|
Step 2: ???
|
|
Step 3: ???
|
|
Step 4: ???
|
|
Step 5: ???
|
|
Step 6: The logical end of Atheism: Millions dead a la (Stalin, Mao)
No Straw-men please.
Ok, I'll get to it. Here's my 15 second preview
1. Lack of god belief
2. Belief in god is superstition, not provable fact
3. Superstition opposes reason and science
4. Reason and science are what keeps us from the ravages of superstition, and helps us find real solutions for our problems (sickness, environmental, etc.)
5. Because religion/superstition is in opposition to science, it is bad
6. Because it is bad, it should be discouraged in society
7. In fact, if we have the power, we should remove all favored status for religious organizations, which are bad for society anyway
8. In fact, if religious organizations want to influence science, politics, or education, they should not be allowed to
9. In fact, now that we have power, let's outlaw religious expression in these arenas
10. In fact, if anyone of these persuasions is in power and defies our edicts, they will be removed forcibly
11. In fact, organizations that oppose our forcible protection of society from these trouble-makers should be shut down, and their leaders fined and jailed
12. Oops, when did we become totalitarian?
I'll do a better job later.
1. Lack of god belief = Atheism
Granted
2. Belief in god is superstition, not provable fact
Granted
3. Superstition opposes reason and science
Yikes! We only made it to step 3. If you want to believe in leprechauns, feel free. I don't care. Same thing with Jesus and Allah. Feel free to believe in them. I won't though.
If this is your idea of logic… Ouch. Still, I'll dissent from Cineaste and say that #3 is accurate in my mind. And although I think it's ethically shallow to use words like "bad", I'm willing to look past items such as #5, because they're common enough beliefs among naturalists. Beyond that item, however, your list is fairly meaningless. And here's why:
You quickly moved into items which were not "the logical conclusion" of anything. They are all extremely optional. I can certainly conceive of atheists who would hold such opinions (your buddy Stalin!), but they're hardly "the logical extension" of not believing in God. And I believe you're intelligent enough to understand that point perfectly well.
Here is the equivalent list, in the other direction:
1. Achieving salvation is the most important goal in our lives.
2. Belief in Jesus Christ is required for salvation.
3. Atheists do not believe in Jesus Christ, therefore they are not saved.
4. Atheists often persuade Christians to become atheists, thereby invoking (2) and (3).
(Here's where we go "off the reservation" like you did in #7)
4. To protect Christians from (4), atheists should have limited or no contact with Christians
5. With respect to (1), it is not unreasonable to go to great lengths to ensure (4).
6. Barring a conversion to Christianity, atheists should be segregated from Christians, by force if necessary.
This is precisely the sort of logic (and it is fairly logical) that brought us the Inquisition. I don't, however, believe that it is the logical conclusion of Christian belief. It's merely one possible conclusion, and when combined with Western liberalism*, it is not even a very likely one.
Similarly, totalitarianism is not the logical conclusion of disbelief in a deity. It is merely one possible conclusion, and combined with Western liberalism*, it is not even a very likely one.
(*or humanism, or buddhism, or any other philosophy that has even limited value for egalitarianism)
Now pretend that I didn't use the number "4" twice in a row…
Like I said, that was a quick and dirty, literally 60 seconds off of the top of my head.
But I could find ample evidence (perhaps) of evangelical atheists who agree with steps 6-8. And all that is necessary to jump from 5 to 6, or 8-9, are the necessary catalysts – like another 9/11.
So perhaps I am exaggerating when I say that atheism leads inexorably to such things, but perhaps I should say that, given the right tipping point catalysts, it quite easily morphs into such atrocities.
But as I have asked, what principles would atheists appeal to that would ostensibly keep them from making the leaps from 5 to 6 or 8 to 9?
Seeker, your argument is guilty of the "guilt by association fallacy." You are trying to associate atheism (atheists) with communism, genocide, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and Hitler (via Darwin).
[Why are atheists not monsters?]
Believe it or not, the answer to this question applies to all decent people who subscribe to an ideology that might lead to doing evil in one way or another.
I agree Seeker. This includes Christians, Capitalists, Communists, Atheists etc… I think Shakespeare said it best in King Lear…
"I pant for life, some good I mean to do / Despite of mine own nature"
I am absolutely NOT using guilt by association techniques. I have not once said bad things about the moral character of atheists, at least, nothing that I would not apply to myself (fallen nature).
However, I do contend that atheism's logical application follows roughly the outline I provided. Can you answer my question about which principles would keep atheists from crossing those two ethical jumps above? I am open and listening, but no reasoning has come forth yet.
Let's leave Hitler out of this, since he was not really an atheist.
…but no reasoning has come forth yet.
Considering your your 12 step argument, I would agree this is true for you.
what principles would atheists appeal to that would ostensibly keep them from making the leaps from 5 to 6 or 8 to 9?
Already answered here…
I ask for the third time, what ethic or principle would stop atheism from persecuting religion?
I have not once said bad things about the moral character of atheists
Irrelevant. "You are trying to ASSOCIATE atheism (atheists) with communism, genocide, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and Hitler (via Darwin)." This makes you guilty of the "guilt by association fallacy" I outlined…
Example of Guilt By Association
Will and Kiteena are arguing over socialism. Kiteena is a pacifist and hates violence and violent people.
Kiteena: "I think that the United States should continue to adopt socialist programs. For example, I think that the government should take control of vital industries."
Will: "So, you are for state ownership of industry."
Kiteena: "Certainly. It is a great idea and will help make the world a less violent place."
Will: "Well, you know Stalin also endorsed state ownership on industry. At last count he wiped out millions of his own people. Pol Pot of Cambodia was also for state ownership of industry. He also killed millions of his own people. The leadership of China is for state owned industry. They killed their own people in that square. So, are you still for state ownership of industry?"
Kiteena: "Oh, no! I don't want to be associated with those butchers!"
More from Sam Harris. This is about his frustration with the reticence he encountered from other scientists at the Salk Institute meeting.
Beyond Believers
And this accompanying comic is a wonderful illustration of his frustration with fellow scientists.
My opinion is, this just shows that unifying atheists is like herding cats. Do Evangelicals agree with any or all of Sam’s four points? I agree with Harris that these are not good objections to atheist criticisms of religion. Though, I too am a bit reticent to attack religion on a wholesale basis because my problem is with fundamentalism (those who take their holy books literally). Sam Harris’ response is that moderate religion, while less harmful, still provides a cover for the more harmful fundamentalism by fostering acceptance of irrational beliefs in our culture. I am tempted to enter Sam’s essay contest. Does anyone have any thoughts about what to include in a potential reply to Harris?
1. Even though I’m an atheist, my friends are atheists, and we all get along fine without pretending to know that one of our books was written by the Creator of the universe, other people really do need religion. It is, therefore, wrong to criticize their faith.
Maybe I should enter the contest too, but I wouldn’t win because I don’t share his “faith is in opposition to reason” philosophy.
However, evangelicals would not agree that it is wrong to criticize faith. In fact, in a free and reasonable society, nothing should be considered legally blasphemous or off limits to criticism. So, how do we respond to people’s felt need for faith, and how do we criticize faith?
a. We must tolerate faith because we can not *disprove* many of the central tenets of faith, mainly that there is a God. Therefore, on intellectual grounds, we can not deem faith entirely incorrect.
b. We must admit that man’s perceived need for faith or God may be a reflection of reality, not just a psychological fault. Man may hunger for God because he hungers for reality, and God is real. Additionally, this hunger may be built in, like our need for food or sex, that is, intended by the designer.
c. We must acknowledge the *limits* of reason, and admit that there are ways of knowing which, though less easy to confirm and more subjective, are valid. These include conscience, intuition, a sense of self-evident rules of conduct.
d. We may, however, limit the application of faith in public life, specifically, government. However, we can not eliminate it, but I believe that we can make certain guidelines, some of which are already in place, including
– non-establishment of religion as a state sponsored thing
– non-interference with religion
– allowance for Deist expressions in government
– acknowledgment of the contribution of Christianity to American history
– limiting public policy debates to ethics, omitting religious reasoning (“the bible says so”). However, this does not omit the right of a person to say that we should obey divine or natural law, though that in itself should not necessarily be condisered conclusive. I am thinking of, particularly “we hold these truths to be self-evident.”
e. Criticism as to the voracity of religious claims may be made based on several principles, including:
– do the claims or rules violate human rights? (again, we hold these truths to be self-evident)
– do they involve compulsion?
– are their historical claims verifiable or easily proven false?
– can miraculous claims be supported by historical or other indirect evidence? We can’t rule out the miraculous just because we find it unbelievable
2. People are not really motivated by religion. Religion is used as a rationale for other aims—political, economic, and social. Consequently, the specific content of religious doctrines is beside the point.
Huh? Of course people are motivated by faith and religion. What people believes matters in that it leads to certain conclusions and actions. However, I’m not sure why those in science would really want to care about doctrine. This statement is hard to understand. What’s he really trying to say?
It is useless to argue against the veracity of religious doctrines, be¬cause religious people are not actually making claims about reality. Their claims are metaphorical or otherwise without real content. Hence, there is no conflict between religion and science.
From an evangelical perspective, we are making claims about reality. We claim there is no conflict between religion and science because
– most of where the two disagree are in areas that are highly subjective and unverifiable, like origins
– Christian scientists genuinely believe that many creationist suppositions, including young earth, ARE possible, and not definitively disprove by science, because such proofs depend on unverifiable or debatable assumptions, like the constant speed of light
– the fact that scientists ignore many valid creationists observations and questions proves that they are being ideological, not scientific
What atheist scientists need to do is acknowledge that when it comes to first causes, we may want to investigate Creationist assumptions, not just materialist ones, and that real science can be done based on those assumptions in order to prove or disprove various theories. We should be wary of “god in the gap” reasoning, but not all such reasoning, including ID, may be glibly categorized as god in the gap, if we are being intellectually honest.
Religion will always be with us. The idea that we might rid ourselves of it to any significant degree is quixotic, bordering on delusional. Dawkins and other strident opponents of religious faith are just wasting their time.
While religion will always be with us (see Huston Smith’s Why Religion Matters and Why God Won’t Go Away, I don’t think that Dawkins is really trying to get rid of religion, but rather, to marginalize it back “into the closet.”
That goal, the one of secularizing our public institutions and insulating them from faith, has been done successfully, and Dawkins and his ilk are only rearing their ugly ideas in order to push back the forces of faith, which in some cases are overstepping their bounds, such as in pushing for school prayer or making all stem cell research illegal.
However, in other issues, such as abortion, sexuality, the family, and evolution, I think people of faith are perfectly correct in pushing back on materialist and Darwinist world views, since they are unnecessarily limiting and often wrongheaded. Of course, I discussed the possible liberal and conservative extremes in many current public issues in Far Left, Far Right, and Middle?
Seeker, this is funny but we don't have to debate this. The debate is already taking place here. So far, Andrew Sullivan sounds a lot like you and Sam Harris sounds a lot like me. Take Sam's response as my response to your post above :)
And that is convincing to you?
Yes, actually. I had said before that I am reticent “to attack religion on a wholesale basis because my problem is with fundamentalism (those who take their holy books literally).” I said, “Sam Harris’ response is that moderate religion, while less harmful, still provides a cover for the more harmful fundamentalism by fostering acceptance of irrational beliefs in our culture.”
Harris supports this very well in his reply above. I want to see how Sullivan (a religious moderate not a fundamentalist) responds. To my reasoning, which totally rejects “revealed truth,” Harris’ arguments are devastating. For example,
How does one “integrate doubt” into one’s faith? By acknowledging just how dubious many of the claims of scripture are, and thereafter reading it selectively, bowdlerizing it if need be, and allowing its assertions about reality to be continually trumped by fresh insights—scientific (“You mean the world isn’t 6000 years old? Yikes…”), mathematical (“pi doesn’t actually equal 3? All right, so what?”), and moral (“You mean, I shouldn’t beat my slaves? I can’t even keep slaves? Hmm…”). Religious moderation is the result of not taking scripture all that seriously.
…is an annihilating attack on religion. I mean, the question, “How does one “integrate doubt” into one’s faith?” is just awesome! If I were in Sullivan’s shoes I’d run screaming for the hills on that one :) I posed a similar question to you when I asked…
If Seeker’s faith can be reasoned with, can we then question his strength of faith? If Seeker’s faith cannot be reasoned with, does this not bear out my contention, “faith is unreasonable.” This quandary is from a paper I wrote about “Sic et Non” by Peter Abelard. To clarify, I came up with this not Abelard, so he gets no citation. :)
I’m going to sue Sam Harris for plagiarism :)
Sullivan might object using a “revealed truth” argument. Why do I, and atheists like Sam Harris, reject revealed truth? Because I can easily say the leprechaun sitting on my shoulder reveals himself only to me. I’m sure you don’t find such an argument for leprechauns the least bit convincing yet this is the same argument fundamentalists use when they quote the Quran or Bible.
Harris is setting Sullivan up by baiting him with a “Why is God a Christian God?” question. Sullivan shouldn’t respond to this if he knows what’s good for him. Harris will jump on anything resembling “revealed truth” as a response for the reason I noted.
If I were in Sullivan's shoes I'd run screaming for the hills on that one :)
Of course you would, because you, like Harris, misunderstand the role of doubt in the walk of faith. I even have a book on my shelf called "The Art of Christian Doubt." While some of Harris' arguments have merit, others are pathetically superficial straw men painted over philosophical discussions that run volumes deep.
Sullivan shouldn't respond to this if he knows what's good for him.
I'm not sure that Sullivan speaks for us evangelicals at all, but your gleeful confidence in Harris is amusing. Harris' dismissal of revealed truth is his own choice, his choice to limit himself to reason rather than employing reason to find trustworthy sources of faith. He may want to live such a "safe" and limited life, but it is hubris to try to impose that on the rest of us as if he is somehow superior – in fact, he is living an inferior life in that respect. He should claim ignorance of such matters and retire to his knitting.
"Revealed truth"? How do you know it's been revealed? And by what? What evidence do you have that your revelation is true and not, say, Mohammed's? This is pure, unsupported assertion and should be dismissed as such.
"…but is is hubris to impost that on the rest of us as if he is somehow superior." ?! Those words apply to xianity is general, and to you in spades. Xianity has imposed its superstitions on mankind for centuries, often by violent coercion. And you want to impose your beliefs on the rest of us: you've demonstrated that over and over again. You just assume your superiority when you assert that your religion is true and that you get to impose it on all of us. The hubris is yours, seeker, as is the ignorance.
God bless you Seeker! You are like clockwork; always able to make me laugh :)
you, like Harris, misunderstand the role of doubt in the walk of faith
So, what reasonable argument can one make that would cause you to doubt your faith? [insert sound of crickets chirping here]
…your gleeful confidence in Harris is amusing.
Or, it could be confidence in the arguments Harris is making which happen to be similar to mine own “If Seeker’s faith can be reasoned with, can we then question his strength of faith? If Seeker’s faith cannot be reasoned with, does this not bear out my contention, “faith is unreasonable.” Just a thought.
I say Sullivan would be a fool to make an argument based upon objective proof and what do you do? You attempt to prove me wrong by enthusiastically nailing yourself to the cross of the absurd: saying people “limit” themselves by being too reasonable and rejecting “revealed truth.” I didn’t think anyone could take an argument like “The leprechaun sitting on my shoulder reveals himself only to me therefore leprechauns are real” as sound reasoning. But, you do just that when you say…
What it does mean is that it is perfectly logical to live as if [the leprechaun sitting on my shoulder] were true even if I can not prove [the leprechaun sitting on my shoulder] empirically – just like Harris lives as if there is not [a leprechaun sitting on my shoulder] because he is convinced. I could be wrong about [the leprechaun sitting on my shoulder]. However, I am convinced that I am probably right, and will live that way. You sound insane with that kind of reasoning Seeker.
Listen, I can only take people who make such arguments as seriously as a child proclaiming the existence of her imaginary friend. Sometimes I forget how crippled your capacity to reason is. I have to keep reminding myself that I am speaking to someone who actually believes in talking snakes. You can prattle on about revealed truths but they only lead to the cultural mindset that Harris is railing against…
3. It is useless to argue against the veracity of religious doctrines, be¬cause religious people are not actually making claims about reality. Their claims are metaphorical or otherwise without real content. Hence, there is no conflict between religion and science.
I realize that “From an evangelical perspective, we are making claims about reality. – Seeker” But from the perspective of those outside your fundamentalist world order, it’s just so much nonsense. Hence, your “claims are metaphorical or otherwise without real content.” Harris knows better though! He takes you at your word that you actually believe that stuff literally. That’s why Harris includes #3 in “a list of those most in need of deflation by freethinkers.”
Revealed truth is the ultimate conversation stopper in reasonable discourse Seeker. You can only speak in terms of revealed truth to someone who also believes in leprechauns or talking snakes, someone who shares your faith or delusion, whatever you choose to call it. I’m betting that Sullivan will have better sense than you and not present an argument like revealed truth. Harris would obliterate it.