Richard Dawkins talks to Jeremy Paxman about The God Delusion, 2007

Jeremy Paxman interviews Professor Dawkins about The God Delusion. Richard Dawkins' asserts that belief in god is irrational and inflicts great harm upon societies.

Definitions of non-theists

source: http://www.religioustolerance.org/at_ag_hu.htm

HASSNERS.org highlights

HASSNERS.org comments

Useful list of defintions - sell 'Labels' for terms defined.



This work by crabsallover is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial-Share Alike 2.0 UK: England & Wales License.

Cardinal Cormac: 'Atheism the greatest of evils.'

source: http://richarddawkins.net/article,3876,n,n

HASSNERS.org highlights

HASSNERS.org comments

by Ruth Gledhill - TIMESONLINE

Thanks to Alan for the link.
In light of the recent Catholics vs Irish issues this is even more disgusting. There is a petition to sign to oppose this sick, demented and thoroughly evil person at the top of the main page. Be sure to follow the links in the article. /Mike

http://timescolumns.typepad.com/gledhill/2009/05/cardinal-cormac-atheism-the-greatest-of-evils.html?OTC-widgets&ATTR=tolblogs


The outgoing Archbishop of Westminster, Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, made a contribution at the end of Archbishop Vincent Nichols' installation that was at once touching, funny, serious and extreme. He said, rather controversially perhaps, that a lack of faith is 'the greatest of evils.' He blamed atheism for war and destruction, and implied it was a greater evil even than sin itself.

You can read our early online report here.

Archbishop Nichols also defended faith against the rise of secularism. In his homily he said: 'Faith in God is not, as some would portray it today, a narrowing of the human mind or spirit. It is precisely the opposite. Faith in God is the gift that takes us beyond our limited self, with all its incessant demands....Some today propose that faith and reason are crudely opposed, with the fervour of faith replacing good reason. This reduction of both faith and reason inhibits not only our search for truth but also the possibility of real dialogue.'
...
Continue reading
http://timescolumns.typepad.com/gledhill/2009/05/cardinal-cormac-atheism-the-greatest-of-evils.html?OTC-widgets&ATTR=tolblogs

This work by crabsallover is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial-Share Alike 2.0 UK: England & Wales License.

Rocks on the Road to Enlightenment by Roy Brown

*Roy Brown is immediate past president of IHEU and main IHEU representative, United Nations, Geneva.

Thank you, Dr Vijayam, the Gora family and the Atheist Centre for hosting this 7th World Atheist Conference: “The March of Atheism”, a conference which itself marks an important step on that march. But the path of Atheism has never been easy. I would like this morning to examine some of the reasons why.

Over the past hundred years, science has revealed the unimaginable vastness of the Universe. We now know that our planet is just a tiny speck in that vast expanse of the Cosmos, barely visible from the outer reaches of the Solar System, let alone from stars and galaxies a trillion times further away.

We also know that far from being formed complete and perfect, the object of divine creation, we humans are simply one species (well OK, a particularly versatile species) but only one species among the many millions of others that have evolved here on Earth by the blind, unguided process of evolution through natural selection.

In the light of that knowledge the idea that we humans are the ultimate and privileged product of a purposeful, divine creation can be seen as the purest fantasy. So why do so many people still cling to such beliefs?

Since Atheism is such a liberating, logically tenable, rational philosophy, why is the march of Atheism such a long, hard slog along such a difficult and rocky path? I want to suggest that there are four major obstacles on the path. And the first of these is …

Religion
Whether we like it or not, many people find religion attractive. Every religion claims to have a monopoly of truth and a monopoly of virtue. Who among us, other things being equal and provided the personal cost is not too high, would not like to be considered both virtuous and endowed with knowledge of the truth? We like the splendour, the ritual, the music, the repetition and the comfort that religion provides. But more than that, we love the certainty that religion offers in an uncertain world. Seeking answers to life’s great questions is an important part of what makes us human – and religion supplies the answers. Above all, with its promises of reincarnation or an afterlife surrounded by angels, religion offers an attractive alternative to the bleak prospect of our mortality.

How can we compete?
One problem we have in confronting the certainties of religion is that the transcendental really does exist. Don’t look so surprised! It exists in our imagination. Gods, fairies, unicorns, ghosts and angels may all be creatures of the imagination but we have no certain logical way of demonstrating that they are purely imaginary. The best we can do is to point out in the light of our newfound scientific knowledge the vanishingly small probability that the supernatural world really exists. But while we offer only probability, religion offers absolute certainty.

Now perhaps it would not matter that religion teaches nonsense (or perhaps, being charitable, I should say “that religion makes unsubstantiated claims”) if that nonsense was totally benign.

But scratch any religion and you find violence lurking just beneath the surface. Every successful religion has evolved memes for self-protection. Whether it is the promise of eternal damnation or the death penalty for apostasy, the promotion of faith over reason, or the demonization of science, these memes have helped sustain the hegemony of religion.

Finally, religion offers many people a purpose in life. Not everyone is capable of accepting the truth that we are all here by chance and that evolution gave us no other purpose in life than to reproduce. For Atheists, Rationalists and Humanists the purpose of life will always be what we choose to make it.

The second stumbling block in our path is …
Human nature
None of us is entirely rational. However much we may wish we were guided purely by reason, we are all emotional creatures. We have evolved to be that way. We trust our emotions more than we trust reason. I know I do. And I know that I have frequently been guilty of using my reason to justify my gut reaction to events. We would like the promises of religion to be true, so we have a desire to believe, an emotional commitment to belief. We use our reason to argue that, well, how can I be sure the claims of eternal life or reincarnation are unfounded? Or that if I die in battle in the cause of Allah I won’t be comforted by 72 virgins?

Secondly, it is in our nature to conform. We are social, tribal animals. Each of us grew up as part of a culture with shared beliefs and values. For most people religion is an essential part of that culture, the glue that binds society together. As children we are taught the beliefs of our parents and our community as fact. If we are part of a community that sees its particular religion as the sole repository of virtue, then to attack or challenge that religion is to attack the very foundations of society. Why would I risk alienation from my community by calling these claims into question? Surely it is better to play along; to pretend to believe even if I am not entirely sure.

The third rock in our path is …
Politics
Two thousand years ago the Roman statesman Seneca the Younger said that the common people find all religions to be equally true, the philosophers find them all equally false, and the rulers find them all equally useful. Not much has changed in 2000 years. Every tin pot dictator, every demagogue, every unworthy ruler attempting to reinforce his power has claimed the support of religion. And the priests have been all too willing to provide that support. What better means could the priests find to preserve their own power than by supporting the rulers and to have their active support in return?

The fact that our political masters find religion useful is, I would suggest, the primary reason for the continuing dominant position of religion in society. We can see this happening today not only in dreadful authoritarian states like Iran and Saudi Arabia but in the world’s great democracies such as India, the United States and even France. Just a few years ago the President of the United States said that, in his view, unbelievers should not be considered citizens.

But it is not only the priests and the rulers that find religion useful. Some philosophers do so too. I have here an article by Matthew Parris, one of the best-known atheist commentators in England, from The Times of just ten days ago. It is called: “As an atheist I truly believe Africa needs God”. He notes that in Africa people who convert to Christianity generally behave better than those who retain their earlier animist beliefs. What he means of course is not that Africa needs God but that Africans need to believe in God. Here then is a philosopher who has replaced the pursuit of truth by the pursuit of expediency. If it makes people better – even if it is based on a lie – let’s go for it. With friends like these, religion is getting an easy ride. It is just one more manifestation of the often heard, paternalistic line that “Of course I don’t believe all that nonsense myself but it helps keep the people in line.”

The fourth rock that I see impeding the March of Atheism is
… Atheism itself

Atheism, particularly in the West, has a bad name. In the public mind it is linked to the idea of State Atheism, Stalinism and the Cultural Revolution of Mao Tse Tung.

Secondly, and in contrast to religion, Atheism per se is not a complete philosophy of life. Disbelief in the transcendental may well be the only respectable, philosophically sound position for an educated, thinking person to take, but the mere absence of a belief does not constitute a philosophy of life. It is quite possible for a rational Atheist to be completely self-obsessed and to care nothing for others.

Indeed, I suspect that some of us know of such people.

The Atheist Centre of course offers more than mere Atheism, it offers Gora’s Positive Atheism, not just Rationalism. It offers Rationalism in the service of compassion: what we call Humanism. Atheism then is a necessary step on the road to enlightenment and to Humanism, but it is not enough. It is where our Atheism leads that is important.

We must recognise that the March of Atheism is not an end in itself but a step on the way to understanding ourselves, the world, and our place within it; a step on the road to caring for others as we care for ourselves; and a step towards the ultimate goal of Humanism and enlightenment.

So how can we shift the rocks from our path? Here are some ideas and some arguments we can use.

1. I would point out the importance of uncertainty, of doubt, as the mainspring of human progress. Humanity has only ever made progress when an individual has stood out from the crowd and cast doubt on the received wisdom of the day.

Any society that prohibits doubt and dissent is probably doomed to stagnation and failure. I would cite Imperial China, Soviet-style Communism, and fundamentalist Islamic states such as Iran as prime examples. Iran and Saudi Arabia may not have failed – yet – but their ultimate failure is surely inevitable.

2. While Rationalism and Atheism are, well, rational, concern for others, the second leg on which Humanism stands, is difficult to explain by reason alone. Yet altruism, or empathy, is an important part of what makes us human. We have evolved to be compassionate. The apparent irrationality of altruism can be explained by evolution. We have evolved to show kindness to strangers. Even though we feel that altruism may be driven by emotion rather than reason, it would not have evolved if it did not confer on us some evolutionary advantage.

3. Humanism offers a complete alternative to religion. Humanists the world over have shown that you don’t need God to be good. And remember that men never do evil as willingly as when they do it in the name of religion.

4. We must do all we can to promote scientific education and critical thinking. Wishful thinking is no substitute for knowing how the world really is. Applying reason to our problems might just help us find a solution; praying never will. Prayer is simply a waste of time and effort; a poor substitute for action.

5. We must challenge the truth claims of religion. Where is the evidence? The believer will reply that we must have faith. But as Mark Twain said: “faith is believing what you know ain’t so”. If religion offered any credible evidence to support its claims, believers would not need faith. The only evidence religions offer for their truth claims is reference to their ancient holy books (ignoring some of the more recent holy books concocted by failed science fiction writers). But the pre-scientific scribblings of some desert tribe are surely no competition for the evidence of science and the application of reason.

6. We must challenge the claims of religion to a monopoly of virtue. First, many of the virtues they claim as uniquely their own were known to the ancients long before their favourite prophet revealed them to the world. They evolved with human civilisation. Secondly, what some religions call virtues, others might call criminal barbarity. We need look no further than the stoning of women for adultery, at one time sanctioned by both Christianity and Judaism, to show that religions too evolve. Perhaps it is not too much to hope that stoning and slavery, no longer accepted by Christianity and Judaism, will also disappear from the Islamic world. Can we even hope that India will one day see the caste system as a primitive and barbaric throwback to a less civilised era?

7. Religion does not lead to a better world. It has always and everywhere stood in the way of progress. Many of the precepts that religion teaches us about how we should live do have value both for ourselves and for society as a whole. But all of these principles can be arrived at without reference to the supernatural – and in fact were so in the course of human history.

8. The linking of morality to religion has created a major problem for society. Teaching children that they must be moral because God wants them to, and that he will punish them if they behave badly, denies the truth that good behaviour is a worthy end in its own right. Loss of belief then leads to loss of good behaviour in society.

I could go on but I will stop there and conclude. Yes, Atheism is on the march, but we must be clear about where it is leading. Without Humanism as the goal the march of Atheism will fail to bear full fruit. We are fortunate that writers like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens have finally broken the taboo and created a climate in which it is once again respectable to speak about Atheism.

Richard Dawkins in particular, with his clarity of thought and writing, has given us irrefutable arguments for Atheism. I would like this conference to agree to pass a resolution of thanks to Richard Dawkins. Here is a man in the tradition of Bertrand Russell, Robert Green Ingersoll, M N Roy and Gora who, through his integrity and devotion to truth can truly be said to have changed the world for the better. Thank you.

Address to the 7th World Atheist Conference, Vijayawada, India, 6 January 2009

Welcome to the Real World

from Atheist Revolution by vjack

I live in the real world. It is a glorious natural world, a world of matter and energy. It is void of magic, monsters, or gods. And yet, I regularly experience feelings of awe, interconnectedness, and transcendence, which some people mistakenly refer to as "spirituality." Life in the real world is filled with pleasure and joy but also with pain and sadness. Living in this world involves freedom, but it also entails great responsibility. There are no reset buttons or second chances here.

We experience great joy in the real world. We fall in love and develop meaningful friendships. Some of us raise children, and many contribute to society in myriad ways. We recognize that our time is limited and strive to make our mark while we can. Indeed, there are many sources of pleasure associated with living in the real world.

In the real world, we recognize that things are not always as we want them to be. Pain exists, nature can be cruel, and all sentient beings will someday die. But we have no use for delusions here, for we understand that suffering is part of existence. That is not to say that we do not experience grief and that we never seek comfort. We do. We find consolation in each other and through our daily routines.

We are sometimes afraid in the real world. We occasionally have frightening experiences we cannot immediately explain. We seek reassurance and safety from each other and find that most fears melt away with improved understanding of our world. The light of science and reason illuminate our way.

We have no use for the mythical creatures our distant ancestors created. These gods, angels, and demons once served a purpose. No more. Life in the real world has improved immeasurably as science and reason have rendered mysticism and superstition obsolete. We recognize that groveling before imaginary beings is no substitute for action and provides only a false comfort.

To be sure, pockets of darkness remain where superstition and ignorance is widespread. Many people have yet to step into our world and remain trapped in delusion. Some cannot imagine any other existence, and others are simply misinformed or afraid. They are not bad people, and we should be able to empathize with their plight. After all, many of us were once in their shoes. Their presence reminds us of how fortunate we are to live in the real world, but it should also prompt us to extend a hand in friendship and invite them to join us in the real world. There is plenty of room here.

Humanism and atheism - an analogy

http://friendlyhumanist.blogspot.com/came up with this. What do you think of this analogy?

Calling a humanist an atheist is like describing a Christian as someone who believes Leviticus is the word of God. It may almost always be true, but if that's all you know it'll be hopelessly inadequate and almost invariably misleading as a description of the person.

Colin McGinn recalls The Atheism Tapes

British Philosopher Colin McGinn recalls today (4th February) in his blog The Atheism Tapes recording with Jonathan Miller. Some interesting comments critisising his views are being discussed here too.

"I well remember that sunny morning a few years ago when Jonathan Miller came to my apartment in New York to discuss the non-existence of God. ... we were attacking the foundations of what billions of people find essential to living happily (or that’s what they think).

In earlier centuries, or in other places, we would have been gruesomely executed for having such a congenial chat.

It is often forgotten that atheism of the kind shared by Jonathan and me (and Dawkins and Hitchens et al) has an ethical motive. Or rather two ethical motives: one is ethical repugnance at the cruelty, tyranny and oppression of organized religion over the course of human history;

HASSERS 'Antireligious'

the other concerns the ethics of rational belief—how we are obliged to form our beliefs about the world.

HASSERS 'Ethical'

The first motive is familiar and needs no commentary from me. The second is less widely appreciated, but for some of us it is crucial to the whole discussion. We believe,

as an ethical principle, that beliefs about what reality contains should always be formed on the basis of evidence or rational argument—so that “faith” is inherently an unethical way to form your beliefs.

To believe “on faith” is to believe that the world is a certain way (contains a god etc) without the support of either empirical or logical justification. This violates the ethics of belief—how you ought to arrive at your convictions. That, for us, is the original sin of theism; and from this sin the other sorts of sin arise—religious intolerance, persecution, violence.

In the Atheism Tapes you will see this ethical perspective amply displayed.

Atheists through the ages have been moved by a moral imperative: to uphold the rationality of belief.

Wishes can never replace justification as a ground of conviction.

Contrary to the popular myth, atheists are not people who have abandoned the idea of the moral good; they are people with a particularly clear sense of what moral goodness requires.

From our point of view, the typical theist has already done something morally wrong simply in being a theist."

Is there anything good about atheism?

Atheism is so negative. You just trash other people's beliefs and don't have anything to offer instead."

This sort of criticism is often levelled at atheists. And it is true. Atheism is simply the lack of belief in deities. It does not tell you how to live your life or treat other people.

reposted from: http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/positive.html via Stumbleupon
Chris Street comments are in bright green;

highlights in yellow blockquotes.

Of course, the same is also true of theism. Just having a belief in a god gives you no direction to take in life. Theists try to live their lives according to the religion that they follow. Simple belief is just as lacking as simple disbelief.

It is where your belief, or lack thereof, leads you that is important. Not just the fact that you believe or disbelieve.

So, where does atheism lead you? To an emotional dead-end? To bleak hopelessness? To despair and resentment?
No. Quite the opposite, in fact.

People who do not accept the teachings of religion need something else to help them deal with life. Humanism, in one form or another, is a common route (it varies from person to person, as there is no strict definition). There are plenty of Humanist websites that can give you a good idea of the basic principles of Humanism (Fredrik Bendz has a good list of Humanist sites, and the Infidels Library has an extensive collection of humanist texts).

Apart from Humanism, what else does an atheist lifestyle offer? If you are a theist you may well find that many of the following apply to yourself as well. Fair enough - it just shows that atheists aren't so alien after all.

It encourages an inquisitive mind

You've lost your religion, you reject the ideas about creation, biology, cosmology or whatever your religion taught. So, naturally you want to find out what is really going on. As you start to learn about the scientific views on certain subjects you cannot help but want to learn more and more. Also, atheists are often challenged to support or explain a particular theory, and so you want to learn about it if only for a quiet life. Personally, the more I learn about evolution and astronomy, the more I want to learn.

The freedom to think for yourself

Religions often discourage people from thinking about certain issues, or thinking about them outside the context of that particular religion. As an atheist, you often feel a remarkable sense of freedom when you realise that you can think about previously taboo subjects (such as abortion, assisted suicide, birth control etc.) without referring to scripture or a priest for guidance. You are free to decide for yourself. You may even reach the same conclusions -, but you got there through logic and reason, not just unquestioning acceptance of whatever your church dictated.

This is called "freethought" and can lead you down avenues of thought that were previously closed to you. You do not have to follow the teachings of your church, religion or tradition - you can research the subject and decide for yourself. No more must you put up with answers like "God moves in a mysterious way", "Man was not meant to understand such things" or "Because it says so in the Bible, therefore it is true".

No unnecessary guilt

Atheists do feel guilt about things they consider to be morally wrong. However, they do not feel guilt about many of the things theists might. The Catholic Church, for example, seems to expect you to feel guilty about everything from picking your nose to looking at any part of a member of the opposite sex except for their eyes. You should determine your own morality, not let someone else impose theirs on you.

It is better to decide for yourself what is Right and Wrong - what can benefit or harm yourself and others - than to simply accept the teachings of an arbitrary authority. When asked why a certain act is considered immoral, many theists will reply "Because that is what my religion teaches, and what I have been raised to believe". In many instances a moral code based on thought and reason will overlap with a purely religious moral code, but there will be many issues on which the two will either strongly agree or disagree for wildly different reasons.

Intellectual honesty

"Pah! Intellectual snobbery, more like! You think you're so clever, denying God and being a smart-arse."
This is tricky to define without sounding arrogant, so bear with me. I do not mean that theists are intellectually dishonest. I mean that atheists admit if they do not know or understand something, and they are quite likely to accept the views of mainstream science (although not unquestioningly). We do our best to recognise if an idea is irrational - if it is, then we can either discard it or investigate further. Faith, on the other hand, often requires the belief of an irrational idea.
[ It has been pointed out to me that I should say "most atheists" here, as there are plenty of atheists out there who can be stupid and irrational. Present company excepted, of course. =) ]

If I do not know something about the universe I say so, and refer to the current theories of the experts in that field. I'm not a microbiologist, but I trust the experts in microbiology to know what they're talking about. They might not be exactly right (scientists rarely are), but they have come to their conclusions based on the weight of scientific evidence, not personal belief or religious dogma.

If I believe something to be true, it is because of the weight of evidence in it's favour, not because of superstition, wishful thinking or the assertions of religious leaders. ( If a church changes it's views on a subject, followers are expected to simply cease believing the old version and start believing the new - X was true yesterday, but now Y is true and X is false. )

Atheists need to be honest with themselves about why they hold their beliefs. Otherwise they are just god-denying smart-arses.

A sense of wonder

Many theists profess to having a deep sense of awe and wonder whenever they see something special in God's Creation. Leaves in autumn, rainbows, flowers, babies, morning dew on a cobweb, sunsets etc. "How clever and loving God is. What a beautiful world He has created for me to experience." they might think to themselves.

I feel a similar sense of wonder when I see these things. Not because I think about a deity creating them for me to marvel at, but because I understand (to a certain extent) the processes that created them. Plate tectonics, evolution, refraction and reflection of light, cell growth. To some people it's boring old science. To me it's amazing. I feel awe at the natural world and how it all works. I think it belittles it to just say "God did it.". That's not good enough. I want to know how it all works, how cells grow, how stars form, how photons refract and what antimatter is.

Finding out about one thing makes me want to know more and more. Finding out the real answers is much more satisfying than attributing it all to one of the thousands of deities.

( I've tried to express some of the wonder I feel on my Godless Universe page. )

Deeper understanding of atheism and theism

I don't want to suggest that atheists understand religion better than all believers, although I suspect that atheists understand it better than many (after all, most atheists started out as believers). This sounds odd, and indeed rather arrogant (again!).

However, as an atheist you are often challenged to justify yourself and your beliefs. When a Christian meets a Hindu, they just sort of accept each other for what they are. Most Christians have a rough idea of what Hindus believe, and vice versa (one might think that the other is worshipping a false god, but at least they're on the right path). Unfortunately, many theists have a poor idea of what atheists are, and often find it necessary to challenge them, pity them, pray for them or even run them out of town.

This is what drives atheists to try to understand why theists believe, what theists believe, and why they themselves do not believe. Many atheists actually have a better knowledge of the Bible than a lot of Christians (indeed, it is often this knowledge that drives them away from Christianity). Many people who describe themselves as Christian have never really thought about it very deeply. They just think "Yes, God and Jesus are watching over me, and when I die I'll probably go to Heaven. What's on the television?". People rarely challenge them about their beliefs (and as long as they don't try to impose those beliefs on others, there is no need to challenge them).

Atheists, on the other hand, seem to be evangelist-magnets. This forces them to think a little more deeply about their lack of belief and also learn about the beliefs of others. (I was having an IRC chat with some Christians recently, and I mentioned the beliefs of Hindus and Muslims. Several people said things like "How do you know so much about this stuff." Well, I don't really, it's just that they knew so relatively little about it.)

It sounds a bit paradoxical, but losing your religion often gives you a deeper understanding of that religion - you get a much better view of it from the outside.

Hope for the future

As an atheist, I believe that this is the only shot we get at life. We have to make the most of it while we can; for ourselves and those who follow us. Our scientific understanding of the universe increases daily, despite the historical and current attempts of organised religion to keep us in the Dark Ages. As knowledge increases, there is less and less room for superstition - the God Of The Gaps is running out of space.

I believe we have the potential to make the world a better place - free from superstition, fear of the unknown, irrational persecution and harmful dogma. Do we want our children and grand-children to grow up in a world governed by ancient commandments that must be obeyed simply because a priest says so? We must teach them why it is wrong to harm others, not just say "You shouldn't do that - Baby Jesus can see you.". A child should be able to truly understand the reason why an particular action is wrong, not just accept that it is wrong because somebody (parent, priest or god) declares it to be so.

It's no good expecting God to sort out our problems. It's entirely up to us. I do not think that religion will ever die out entirely, but the world will be a better place without it.

Conversely, a strong religious belief can actually discourage hope for the future - in this physical form, anyway. There are many people who believe that we are living in the End Times. Biblical prophecy, such as that in Revelations, is about to be fulfilled. Jesus is going to come back, fight with Satan, and rule with the righteous for a thousand years. All this is going to happen within our lifetimes. Or at least, Real Soon Now. This might seem fairly harmless, until you realise that these beliefs also drive theists to enter government and gain positions of power, in order to help prepare the way for the Second Coming. If you believe that the world is about to end, why bother following long-term policies, when it is more important to turn as many people to Christ as possible? Why bother helping the needy in distant countries when there are still children over here who don`t have Bibles? This sort of mentality not only expects Armageddon soon, but actually wants to hasten its arrival to purify the planet. (It seems that President Ronald Reagan held these sorts of beliefs. How scary is that?) But, I digress.

Responsibility

Atheists are entirely responsible for their own actions and lives. I accept the consequences of my actions. I don't expect a god to get me out of trouble, nor do I blame a Devil for getting me into trouble. I neither expect a reward in an afterlife nor fear a punishment.

Atheists do things because they feel them to be right, not because they hope to get into Heaven, or fear going to Hell, or because they think they're doing God's will. They do whatever they do knowing that they are responsible to their own conscience, their family, friends and society (of course, the same also applies to many theists).

To blame a god, demon or evil spirit is to give up your personal responsibility. "The Devil made me do it" is not a good excuse (unless you're mentally ill).

And finally...

The knowledge that I'm right and you're wrong.

[ sorry, couldn't resist that 8-) ]

---

© Adrian Barnett 1998
Last updated : 16th May 1998

StrongAtheism.net FAQ

Strong Atheism Explained

Strong Atheism is the proposition that we should not suspend judgment about the non-existence of a god or gods. More extensively, it is a positive position against theistic values, semantics and anti-materialism, a rational inquiry in the nature of religious thought, a new way of thinking about religious and spiritual issues. source: http://www.strongatheism.net

• Don’t ‘strong atheism’ and ‘atheism’ mean the same thing anyway?

No. Atheism (also called “weak atheism”) is a lack of belief in the existence of a god or gods. It is a personal proposition, that in our minds one particular belief does not exist.

Strong atheism is the position that we should affirm the non-existence of a god or gods. It is a position about reality, that there are no referents to “god” out there. Both therefore pertain to different aspects of the issue.

reposted from: http://www.strongatheism.net/faq
Chris Street comments are in bright green;

highlights in yellow blockquotes.

• Strong atheism posits certainty, but certainty is impossible.

Strong atheistic propositions do not imply certainty.

To understand this, we need to understand the difference between a claim and the confidence we put on that claim. We can make claims about a great number of things, but the nature of the claim itself does not indicate how confident we are in it.

To give a simple example, a fundamentalist Christian having a “crisis of faith” would maintain the claim that there is 100% chance that a god exists, while having less confidence in that proposition than he did before. His claim did not change: his confidence changed.

Science also affirms a great number of universals. For instance, Newton’s law of gravity is a universal. The attraction between two masses is proportional to their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance: this equation is universal, it applies to all points of spacetime and all time (as long as the laws of physics exist, of course). Yet science is open to disproof or improvement of its laws and theories. And Newton’s law of gravity was indeed shown to be incomplete by Einstein’s General Relativity. So Newton’s law being universal did not make its confidence 100%:

nothing in science, nor in rational thinking, is known with 100% confidence.

By the same token, a proposition such as “there is no god” may be universal, but it does not demand certainty. It demands that we prove it as knowledge, just like any other claim of knowledge.

• You can’t prove anything.

How do you define “prove”? The dictionary defines it as “To establish the truth or validity of by presentation of argument or evidence”. By that standard, a great number of scientific and technical propositions are proven. “There is no god” would be one of them.

If by “prove” you mean “establish the truth with 100% certainty”, then you’re asking for the impossible. We can’t do that, and neither can you. But that doesn’t mean we don’t know anything.

• Aren’t universal negatives impossible to prove?

It is usually assumed that universal negatives cannot be proven. Indeed that is the main complaint heard about strong atheism: that it cannot by definition be proven, because it is a universal negative. Usually this is associated with a pretense of omniscience.

The argument is that to say that something does not exist, one needs basically to “look” everywhere, thus be omniscient.

But on the other hand, we know that no contradiction can exist, because of the laws of logic. But we can make up contradictory entities. For example, the expression “married bachelor”. A bachelor by definition cannot be married, therefore the expression is contradictory. When the term being used is contadictory, the universal negative is true automatically, like “There is no married bachelor”.

All that is needed to prove such a negative is to show that the concept in question is meaningless or contradictory. For example, an argument often used against the existence of hypothetical gods is the Argument from Evil. In this case, the evidence is that a god must be omnibenevolent, omniscient and omnipotent, and the fact that evil exists. We do not need to know everything to know that evil exists and compare this with a god’s infinite attributes, and yet it is sufficient to argue strong atheism, because it shows that gods are incompatible with our universe.

Another means to prove a universal negative about the non-existence of X consists of finding a positive which opposes X. For instance, science disproved the existence of phlogiston by demonstrating the scientific fact that combustion is sparked by the existence of a substrate combined with oxygen, and therefore not by phlogiston.

It is therefore basically a fallacy to say that universal negatives cannot be proven. Indeed that is the main role of logic: proving universal negatives to remove all contradictions from thought. It would be surprising if universal negatives couldn’t be proven.

“There are actually two ways to prove the nonexistence of something. One way is to prove that it cannot exist because it leads to contradictions (e.g., square circles, married bachelors, etc.). The other way is, in the words of Keith Parsons, “by carefully looking and seeing.” This is how we can know that such things as the Loch Ness Monster, Bigfoot, the Abimonable Snowman, etc. do not exist.”

-Jeffery Jay Lowder, in “Is a Proof of the Nonexistence of a God Even Possible?”

In fact, the scientific method only admits for universal negatives – in science, you can only falsify something completely, not confirm it completely. Something is judged to be true because it stands to the test of falsifiability extensively enough to be unassailable. But failing one single test disqualifies a specific principle from being accepted.

• Isn’t agnosticism the default position?

No. Agnosticism cannot be the default position because it presumes that the word “god” is meaningful and coherent. Until a coherent meaning for “god” is presented, strong atheism will always be the default position. This is true for all concepts also.

• How could you ever address all possible conceptions of ‘god?’

Simple answer: we don’t have to, and don’t claim to.

Longer answer: In order for the issue to have any relevance at all, we have to circumscribe, even if it is meaningless, what the word “god” is supposed to refer to. Atheism and strong atheism refer to the word “god” just as much as theism does, so everyone must have a clear position on what he means when he says “I believe in gods”, “I do not believe in gods”, or “there is no god”. Most of us address a standard monotheistic conception which is composed of:

* Personal being
* Creator of all
* Infinite power and benevolence

Since strong atheistic arguments contradict each of these attributes (or, in the case of all-inclusive arguments like noncognitivism, all of them), the case for strong atheism does not rest specifically on any of these attributes.

This definition fits what we commonly call “god”, fits the attitude of worship that religious people have towards “god”, and does not take the place of another more appropriate word. Most other conceptions, such as pantheism or deism, fail some or all of these basic tests.

To see the issue more simply, you can call a table “waffle”, but that doesn’t mean I’ll start eating it. If we deny that words have objective meaning, then all communication breaks down. As proponents of the rational-scientific worldview, we reject the extremist view that all meaning is subjective.

• Strong atheism is not a serious position, and no academic upholds it.

Strong atheism is a very serious position. People of all times have pondered the nature of our universe, and concluded that gods did not exist. Epicurus, with his formulation of the Problem of Evil, is one early such instance.

To provide you with the tools to appraise and grasp the strong atheistic understandings in the literature, we have a References section on our menu. We invite you to buy or loan the books we cover and see for yourself.

• Science cannot disprove the existence of gods.

Incorrect. Since the truth of the god-hypothesis entails natural consequences, science can disprove the existence of gods.

For science-based arguments, see:

* “Atheistic Cosmological Argument”: – based on the inseparability of time and space.
* Argument from Scale – based on the scientific facts about evolution and the size of the universe.
* “The Absurdity Of Transcendence And Its Consequences On Personhood”: – based on the inseparability of time and space.
* Occam’s Razor – based on the accumulation of scientific explanations for natural phenomena.
* Big Bang Cosmological Argument For God’s Nonexistence – based on the nature of the Big Bang.
* Argument from Evolution – based on evolution being our only known source of intelligence.
* Argument From the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics
* Argument from Quantum Physics

• Science only studies the natural, and therefore has nothing to say about the existence of gods.

This question assumes that everything about the existence of gods is supernatural. But if that was the case, then the god-concept would be irrelevant. Any entity that interacts with the universe, necessarily leaves material evidence of some sort. This evidence can be examined by science. For the kinds of evidence, see the previous answer.

• How can the universe exist without a god?

A pressing question in discussions of strong atheism is the question of origins. Where does the universe come from? Did a god create it?

What grounds do we have to believe that a god is necessary? Cosmological arguments for the theistic side argue that, since everything is caused, there must be a cause to the universe as well. But this is a Fallacy of Composition, which is to say, it transposes attributes of parts to a whole without evidence. Why should we posit that the universe as a whole must also be caused? It is also a fallacy of Special Pleading, since God himself is said to not need explanation. But if this is the case, why does the universe need explanation? We cannot grant it to God and not to the universe. Both explain the same facts.

The more sensible alternative, which is also supported by modern cosmology, is that the universe always existed. According to cosmology, the diversity of the universe arose from a singularity-like state where the laws of physics were unformed.

One can then ask about the origin of the matter in this state, but that is a loaded question. According to this position, there is no “before the Big Bang” for origins to exist. The matter always existed in different forms.

This position is confirmed by the atheistic cosmological arguments, which show that it is illogical to believe in divine creation.

• If materialism is true, isn’t meaning impossible?

No. Meaning is the specificity of a concept or proposition – or more simply, how much we can identify facts of reality based on that concept or proposition. The meaning of a concept or proposition is the same whether they are made of neurons, “god stuff”, “soul stuff”, or any other substance. “1+1=2” expresses the same facts of reality regardless of what it is made of. As such, the issue of materialism has nothing to do with meaning.

• If there are no gods, isn’t life ultimately meaningless?

How does believing in a god give your life meaning in the first place? If you think that being a part of material causes makes your life meaningless, then how does being a part of a divine plan you do not even understand make it any better?

All individuals, even theists, find meaning for their lives on their own terms – by what they do, what they believe in, what they want. No god is necessary to do that!

• If there are no gods, isn’t objective morality impossible?

This question may be more complex than it looks. It is important not to confuse objective morality with absolutist morality. The latter is a hallmark of religious doctrines, which make statements of the type “thou shalt not”. But an objective morality, i.e. a morality based on the facts of reality, does not need to be of that type. All it needs in order to be objective is to refer to some facts of reality as source of moral judgments. Because of this, atheism is perfectly compatible with objective morality.

For more information on the problems of moral subjectivist positions, consult our article Answering to Moral Nihilism. For the basis of objective morality, see The Case for Objective Morality.

• My personal experiences are better evidence than your arguments.

We do not deny that you had an important experience. But have you considered that your experience may be explainable by purely material causes? Furthermore, people of all religions have religious experiences. Does that mean you should accept all religions? Or rather, that everyone can have such experiences, and that they do not necessarily prove that a god exists?

It is undeniable that a firm and clear conviction can have a powerful effect. But this is true of all convictions, not only religious ones.

• Isn’t strong atheism a belief, just like any other position?

Any position can be a belief, in the sense that it is held by the individual without sufficient evidence. So the short answer to this question is, yes, just like any other position, strong atheism can be held as a belief.

However, if by this question we mean to question whether strong atheism must be a belief, the answer is no. As you will read on this web site, there is an abundance of rational evidence in favour of the strong atheist position, and against theistic and skeptic positions, making it knowledge.

Some people, especially non-rational pragmatists, argue that our criteria for knowing things are flawed or relative. Everyone, however, does share such criteria: without it, we could not have the knowledge to survive, communicate meaningfully, and appraise the validity of various positions. What is at issue is the validity of specific epistemic positions. We defend rationality and discuss these issues in the “Against philosophical skepticism” section.

• Why can’t you accept god-belief? Everyone needs to believe in something.

We do not need to believe in anything, and even if we did, that would not mean that we should accept god-belief as valid. This argument is as invalid as saying that because we need to eat, we should accept that some parents force their children on a vegetarian diet. God-belief damages people’s mental health and makes them socially irresponsible.

People do not commonly hold beliefs. When we lack knowledge about something, we either use competent authorities to find what we need, or we calculate probabilities based on what we do know. Having beliefs does not improve our knowledge, but rather uses the imagination to give us the certainty we crave. No reasonable person should have faith.

• Why can’t you accept there simply are things we do not know about?

This question, although frequently asked to strong atheists, does not really apply. Most of us do accept that there are things we do not know about.

However, that does not mean that we have to accept your belief about those things we do not know about. If you believe that there may be a god beyond our understanding, we can accept that. But unless you can move on from “I don’t know about it but I just believe” to “I can demonstrate it”, we have no more reason to accept your belief than we would any other currently illogical position that “we don’t know about yet”.

• What is the point of being a strong atheist?

There are as many answers to this question, as there are strong atheists. Some simply want to know the truth. Some others are interested in the philosophical ramifications of strong atheism. Yet others are distressed by the evils that religion fosters in society and seek to fight it.

Ricky Gervais in Archbishop religion debate

reposted from:http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/north-east-news/uk-and-world-news/2007/12/19/ricky-in-archbishop-religion-debate-84229-20271337/

Chris Street comments are in bright green;

highlights in yellow blockquotes.

Podcast - Mayo / Gervais / Williams Interview (go to 25 minutes)

Dec 19 2007

Comedian Ricky Gervais has engaged in a debate about theology with the Archbishop of Canterbury - confessing at the end that he might have "blown his image" by taking life seriously.

The Office star told Dr Rowan Williams he was concerned about "brainwashing" of children who are sent to faith schools at an early age, comparing teaching that God exists to belief in Father Christmas.

"Because I believe in evolution, I believe that a child's brain is a sponge, and it is meant to be because it believes everything it is taught because it has to to survive,"

Gervais said on BBC Radio 5 Live's Simon Mayo show.

"I think if the first thing you are exposed to is that there is a God and you should do these things, I think there is a problem with that. For example, if your kids at the age of seven came to you and said 'there isn't a Santa is there?' you would say 'no there isn't' would you?"

Dr Williams replied that faith schools expose children to the full range of human experience and values and he did not believe they indoctrinated people. He added: "Belief in Santa doesn't generate a moral code, it doesn't generate art, it doesn't generate imagination, belief in God is bigger than that."

In a largely light-hearted conversation, Gervais told the Archbishop that God's "biggest mistake" was giving him free will.

At one point, Dr Williams explained Islamic and Christian traditional thought about angels and the creation of human beings.

At the end of the conversation, Gervais observed: "That was fantastic - have I blown my image - taking life seriously?"

Mayo joked: "Do you think he is a secret Christian under the atheist facade?" Dr Williams joked: "I'll give him time."

Gervais also asked "What's the Archbishop plugging?" to which Mayo responded,

"I think he is plugging Christmas." Gervais said: "Of course, I love Christmas, I say go for it. Brilliant."

How should we brand non-belief?

reposted from: http://blog.newhumanist.org.uk/2007/10/new-humanist-editor-how-should-we-brand.html
Chris Street comments are in bright green; highlights in blockquotes (yellow).

New Humanist editor: How should we brand non-belief?

Our editor Caspar Melville posted on the Guardian's "Comment is Free" site late last week with a piece on Sam Harris's suggestion that atheists should ditch the term "atheist", along with the endless list of other labels the godless tend to employ - "humanist", "secular humanists", "rationalists", "brights" and so on.

Harris's words stand in stark contrast to Richard Dawkins' US-based "Out Campaign", aimed at encouraging atheists to "come out" and admit their non-belief, wearing T-shirts emblazoned with a big red "A" for Atheist. Dawkins was in the audience for Harris's speech to the Atheists Alliance International Conference, and afterwards said he was still thinking about his reaction to it. On Comment is Free our editor jokingly suggests he may be considering rebranding his "Out Campaign", and asks what "A" stands for if it no longer stands for "Atheist"? Needless to say Comment is Free's readers have weighed in with their suggestions. Take a look, it's all good fun.

Atheists should concentrate on the battles worth fighting

reposted from: http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/adam_rutherford/2007/10/fighting_the_right_fight.html

The right fight

Atheists should concentrate on the battles worth fighting, such as instances where religion has undue political influence, or turn the other cheek.

Adam Rutherford

October 3, 2007 11:30 AM

Last time we did this little dance, I was gifted the dubious record for most comments ever on Cif. I never did thank Theo Hobson for that, his being the 971st, but then Mike Read's endorsement of Boris Johnson deservedly took its place as most commented on and presumably Cif's most unifying post ever.

So here we go again. Richard Dawkins is going to take on America, and grant atheists a voice there. In response, Hobson is astounded, and defines atheism as "the positive belief that the world would be better off without religion."

Well, I'm an atheist, and I don't think that.

Atheists are not a homogenous group. Herein lies one of the many problems of being faithless.

Dawkins is right, it doesn't have much of a voice, I guess almost none in the US, nor a very constructive one in the UK, where I am faced with the practical problem of sending my kids to faith schools. This however is a secularist problem, not an atheistic one. Confusing the two discredits both.

The issue with atheism continues to be that its most vocal advocates appear dogmatic, entrenched and arrogant. Not because of their assumption of being right, but arrogant by concluding that the millions of people who do have faith are evil, misguided, a bit daffy, or some combination of the above.

It's a misanthropic view, and far from my own position.

To write off those who have faith as deluded and to equate personal relationships with the divine with a belief in fairies is insulting and unhelpful.

I met Theo Hobson recently; he is charming and smart, and I utterly disagree with him. (I know you guys give him a hard time, but he's not barmy, and does want to change things for the better, so lay off the ad hominems.) He believes that

Dawkins has no idea what faith is. He's probably right, and I also simply cannot grasp what it means to have a relationship with God. It feels like trying to explain the smell of a lime to a man with no nose.

Adrian Mole once ruefully wrote in his secret diaries "trust me to not have any faith", but I'm not sad that I don't have this ability. However, I won't disparage those who do, just because they do.

Hobson makes a good point though: "The comparison of American atheists to both homosexuals and Jews is very interesting. It is tantamount to crying: "Let's seek influence through posing as a victimised minority!'"

Whether or not atheists are victimised in this country is not easy to ascertain.

I certainly resent religion's privilege. Thought for the Day on Radio 4 is mostly annoying to my godless ears

(but I would listen to Jonathan Sacks every day of the week).

That Tony Blair said: "God will be my judge on Iraq," fills me with furious anger because that's not how our democracy works: the prime minister works for me, not for God.

But this brand of vocal, uncompromising atheism seems only to exist only in opposition, and thus is doomed to stagnate.

Only by selling atheism as a positive choice will a movement attract support beyond its existing stalwarts.

Can we all stop being so shrill please? This is not debate, it's farting in your opponent's general direction.

Fantasising about the end of religion is pointless. Would the world be better off without religion? Who knows, it's never going to happen.

Theo, Richard Dawkins does not necessarily represent me, and I call myself an atheist, not an agnostic (see Bertrand Russell for a practical definition). I agree with many, maybe most, of the things Dawkins says, but not all. His wish that people have a voice in a super-powerful, constitutional republic is surely no bad thing, as long as they lobby on issues that concern the relationship between religion and public life. An atheist's views on traffic policy are as irrelevant as a Catholics.

To try to attach a generic political movement to atheism is an error, because it is not a political stance.

Take this recent glorious turn of events: new guidelines last week say that creationism is banned from UK classrooms. Well, thank Christ for that. But let's not claim that as a victory for atheism, it's a victory for intelligence over ignorance. It's a triumph of secularism.

I'm sure Theo and many Christians would agree.

My atheism is a personal, positive worldview, which does not feature god. I try to make it contain compassion and morality, which are derived from innate, cultural and yes, sometimes, historically religious ideas.

That position is only strengthened by dialogue with people of faith. As a liberal I'm not fixated on persuading others, but I can try to make my stance attractive enough that others might choose to consider it.

To Theo I say good luck for inculcating a moral and spiritual framework in his children's minds. I do things differently. To Dawkins I say good luck giving a platform to the voiceless: if you succeed, maybe then they can speak for themselves. To all the atheists out there who are caught in this crossfire of mudslinging and rhetoric I say, revel in your godless landscape.

Fight battles that are worth fighting, like where religion has undue influence, and the rest of the time turn the other cheek.

Sam Harris: We Should Not Call Ourselves Atheists

reposted from: http://humaniststudies.org/enews/?id=317&article=0

Send this article to a friend:

Your Name:
Your E-mail:
Recipient's E-mail:

By DUNCAN CRARY

HumanistNetworkNews.org
Oct. 3, 2007

After the success of his best selling book The End of Faith, author Sam Harris is now calling for the end of atheism.



"I'd like to try to make the case that our use of this label is a mistake -- and a mistake of some consequence," Harris said Friday night, Sept. 28 to a crowd of more than 300 at the Atheist Alliance International conference in Washington D.C.

"I think this whole conversation about the conflict between faith and reason, and religion and science, has been, and will continue to be, successfully marginalized under the banner of atheism," he said. "So, let me make my somewhat seditious proposal explicit: We should not call ourselves 'atheists.' We should not call ourselves 'secularists.' We should not call ourselves 'humanists,' or 'secular humanists,' or 'naturalists,' or 'skeptics,' or 'anti-theists,' or 'rationalists,' or 'freethinkers,' or 'brights.' We should not call ourselves anything. We should go under the radar -- for the rest of our lives. And while there, we should be decent, responsible people who destroy bad ideas wherever we find them."

Though he is now one of the public voices for atheism, Harris said that he never thought of himself as an atheist until he was "inducted" to speak as one. He did not use the term atheist in The End of Faith, which is his most substantial criticism of religion.

HNN Podcast Speaks to "The New Atheists"

Humanist Network News traveled to Washington D.C. to cover the Atheist Alliance International conference for our HNN Audio Podcast. Co-host Duncan Crary recorded face-to-face interviews with Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett and Christopher Hitchens.

These interviews will appear on the next Humanist Network News Audio Podcast at the end of this month. If you've never listened to our audio podcast, this is the one to start with.

Crary speaks to these famous authors about their reactions to Sam Harris' talk, about organized atheism and many other topics.

To listen to the HNN Audio Podcast, visit HumanistStudies.org/podcast

Subscribe to HNN Podcast
Paste this url into your
Pod-Catcher:

"As I argued briefly in Letter to a Christian Nation, I think that 'atheist' is a term that we do not need, in the same way that we don't need a word for someone who rejects astrology. We simply do not call people 'non-astrologers.'" he said. "All we need are words like 'reason' and 'evidence' and 'common sense' and 'bullshit' to put astrologers in their place, and so it could be with religion."

In order to be consistent, Harris said those who label themselves atheists would have to waste their time opposing all irrational faith claims equally. Instead he said those who do not believe in god should focus on challenging opposition to issues like stem-cells on the grounds of reason. Identifying as an atheist "squanders the trust of people who would otherwise agree with us on specific issues."

Many audience members were taken aback by Harris's talk and expressed offence, shock and confusion during the question and answer session. Afterwards, one conference-goer vowed to throw away her copies of the author's books.

On Saturday, Harris spoke with Humanist Network News and other reporters in the conference media room.

"As a matter of philosophy, atheism is not a worldview. And yet it is being construed as one by its opponents and attacked as a worldview. And people have many erroneous associations with what is entailed in not believing in god. And I think we collaborate in that misunderstanding by labeling ourselves in opposition to religion," he told HNN.

"We're falling into a trap in some sense set by religious people because atheism as a term is so ill dignified in our culture. It has such bad PR that to answer to the name of atheist in some sense already wins the argument for your religious opponent. ....We have a terrible PR problem."

Harris said he's not sure what atheists should do if they all suddenly agreed with him.

"We'd have to change some websites and business cards," he said, referring to atheist organizations.

Harris prefers organizational titles like the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Science and Reason, which allows Dawkins to openly challenge religious claims on the grounds on science and reason rather than atheism.

"Atheism is nothing more than the sounds people make when in the presence of unjustified dogma. It's just reason in action," Harris said, adding that the term atheist will no longer be useful if atheist organizations achieve their goals.

"Maybe there is a role for being outspoken as atheists, self-labeling, at the moment," Harris said, musing on the topic. "Maybe there's some transitional importance to this."

Other notable conference speakers included Prof. Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett and Christopher Hitchens. Along with Harris, these authors have been branded "The New Atheists" by the media.

Also speaking to reporters in the conference media room, Dawkins said of Harris: "I think he was making a very interesting point, and I'm still thinking about my reaction to it."

Dawkins, author of The God Delusion said that he looks forward to a time when atheist organizations are no longer necessary, but they are necessary now, especially in the United States.

Dennett, author of Breaking the Spell told HNN: "I think Sam's right that the term atheist is a risky term in some ways because it minimizes and marginalizes what the real issue is: which is irrationality and a failure to respect reason. Belief in God is just one aspect of that.

On the other hand, Dennett said that people need labels and that "atheist" is a good term that needs to be rehabilitated.

Hitchens, author of God is Not Great spoke with HNN in the hotel bar on Saturday night. Hitchens said he recognizes that the term atheist is unsatisfactory and that he prefers to call himself an "anti-theist."

"I believe the confrontation with the term (atheist) is inescapable. One is going to be asked -- either out of curiosity or hostility -- 'Are you an atheist?' And the term has a common understanding....where to say 'yes' means 'I do not believe in a creator god or an intervening god.' Thus, I think it's idle to expect that one can dodge the question, as it will be presented in that form. And I'm perfectly content to say 'yes' to that question in whatever tone it is asked of me.... I think any attempt to duck the question is doomed."

Duncan Crary is the director of communications of the Institute for Humanist Studies. He is the host of the Institute's monthly podcast.

Editor's Note: The Washington Post published an edited transcript of Harris' entire Atheist Alliance International conference talk on its website. To read the transcript, click here. Also be sure to read Ellen Johnson's response to Harris published in this edition of Humanist Network News. Johnson is president of American Atheists.

The Problem with Atheism by Sam Harris

reposted from: http://richarddawkins.net/article,1702,n,n

and see and 300+ comments in the Washington Post

Reposted from:
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/sam_harris/2007/10/the_problem_with_atheism.html

(This is an edited transcript of a talk given at the Atheist Alliance conference in Washington D.C. on September 28th, 2007)

To begin, I'd like to take a moment to acknowledge just how strange it is that a meeting like this is even necessary. The year is 2007, and we have all taken time out of our busy lives, and many of us have traveled considerable distance,

so that we can strategize about how best to live in a world in which most people believe in an imaginary God.

America is now a nation of 300 million people, wielding more influence than any people in human history, and yet this influence is being steadily corrupted, and is surely waning, because

240 million of these people apparently believe that Jesus will return someday and orchestrate the end of the world with his magic powers.

Of course, we may well wonder whether as many people believe these things as say they do. I know that Christopher [Hitchens] and Richard [Dawkins] are rather optimistic that our opinion polls are out of register with what people actually believe in the privacy of their own minds. But there is no question that most of our neighbors reliably profess that they believe these things, and such professions themselves have had a disastrous affect on our political discourse, on our public policy, on the teaching of science, and on our reputation in the world. And even if only a third or a quarter of our neighbors believe what most profess, it seems to me that we still have a problem worth worrying about.

Now, it is not often that I find myself in a room full of people who are more or less guaranteed to agree with me on the subject of religion. In thinking about what I could say to you all tonight, it seemed to me that I have a choice between throwing red meat to the lions of atheism or moving the conversation into areas where we actually might not agree. I've decided, at some risk to your mood, to take the second approach and to say a few things that might prove controversial in this context.

Given the absence of evidence for God, and the stupidity and suffering that still thrives under the mantle of religion, declaring oneself an "atheist" would seem the only appropriate response. And it is the stance that many of us have proudly and publicly adopted.

Tonight,

I'd like to try to make the case, that our use of this label is a mistake—and a mistake of some consequence.

My concern with the use of the term "atheism" is both philosophical and strategic.

I'm speaking from a somewhat unusual and perhaps paradoxical position because, while I am now one of the public voices of atheism, I never thought of myself as an atheist before being inducted to speak as one. I didn't even use the term in The End of Faith, which remains my most substantial criticism of religion. And, as I argued briefly in Letter to a Christian Nation,

I think that "atheist" is a term that we do not need, in the same way that we don't need a word for someone who rejects astrology.

We simply do not call people "non-astrologers." All we need are words like "reason" and "evidence" and "common sense" and "bullshit" to put astrologers in their place, and so it could be with religion.

If the comparison with astrology seems too facile, consider the problem of racism.

Racism was about as intractable a social problem as we have ever had in this country. We are talking about deeply held convictions.

I'm sure you have all seen the photos of lynchings in the first half of the 20th century—where seemingly whole towns in the South, thousands of men, women and children—bankers, lawyers, doctors, teachers, church elders, newspaper editors, policemen, even the occasional Senator and Congressman—turned out as though for a carnival to watch some young man or woman be tortured to death and then strung up on a tree or lamppost for all to see.

Seeing the pictures of these people in their Sunday best, having arranged themselves for a postcard photo under a dangling, and lacerated, and often partially cremated person, is one thing, but realize that these genteel people, who were otherwise quite normal, we must presume—though unfailing religious—often took souvenirs of the body home to show their friends—teeth, ears, fingers, knee caps, internal organs—and sometimes displayed them at their places of business.

Of course, I'm not saying that racism is no longer a problem in this country, but anyone who thinks that the problem is as bad as it ever was has simply forgotten, or has never learned, how bad, in fact, it was.

So, we can now ask, how have people of good will and common sense gone about combating racism? There was a civil rights movement, of course. The KKK was gradually battered to the fringes of society. There have been important and, I think, irrevocable changes in the way we talk about race—our major newspapers no longer publish flagrantly racist articles and editorials as they did less than a century ago—but, 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?

Attaching a label to something carries real liabilities, especially if the thing you are naming isn't really a thing at all. And atheism, I would argue, is not a thing. It is not a philosophy, just as "non-racism" is not one. Atheism is not a worldview—and yet most people imagine it to be one and attack it as such. We who do not believe in God are collaborating in this misunderstanding by consenting to be named and by even naming ourselves.

Another problem is that

in accepting a label, particularly the label of "atheist," it seems to me that we are consenting to be viewed as a cranky sub-culture.

We are consenting to be viewed as a marginal interest group that meets in hotel ballrooms. I'm not saying that meetings like this aren't important. I wouldn't be here if I didn't think it was important. But I am saying

that as a matter of philosophy we are guilty of confusion, and as a matter of strategy, we have walked into a trap. It is a trap that has been, in many cases, deliberately set for us. And we have jumped into it with both feet.

While it is an honor to find myself continually assailed with Dan [Dennett], Richard [Dawkins], and Christopher [Hitchens] as though we were a single person with four heads,

this whole notion of the "new atheists" or "militant atheists" has been used to keep our criticism of religion at arm's length, and has allowed people to dismiss our arguments without meeting the burden of actually answering them.

And while our books have gotten a fair amount of notice, I think

this whole conversation about the conflict between faith and reason, and religion and science, has been, and will continue to be, successfully marginalized under the banner of atheism.

So, let me make my somewhat seditious proposal explicit: We should not call ourselves "atheists." We should not call ourselves "secularists." We should not call ourselves "humanists," or "secular humanists," or "naturalists," or "skeptics," or "anti-theists," or "rationalists," or "freethinkers," or "brights." We should not call ourselves anything. We should go under the radar—for the rest of our lives. And while there, we should be decent, responsible people who destroy bad ideas wherever we find them.

Now, it just so happens that religion has more than its fair share of bad ideas. And it remains the only system of thought, where the process of maintaining bad ideas in perpetual immunity from criticism is considered a sacred act. This is the act of faith. And I remain convinced that religious faith is one of the most perverse misuses of intelligence we have ever devised. So we will, inevitably, continue to criticize religious thinking. But we should not define ourselves and name ourselves in opposition to such thinking.

So what does this all mean in practical terms, apart from Margaret Downey having to change her letterhead? Well,

rather than declare ourselves "atheists" in opposition to all religion, I think we should do nothing more than advocate reason and intellectual honesty—and where this advocacy causes us to collide with religion, as it inevitably will, we should observe that the points of impact are always with specific religious beliefs—not with religion in general. There is no religion in general.

The problem is that the concept of atheism imposes upon us a false burden of remaining fixated on people's beliefs about God and remaining even-handed in our treatment of religion. But we shouldn't be fixated, and we shouldn't be even-handed. In fact, we should be quick to point out the differences among religions,

for two reasons:

First,

these differences make all religions look contingent, and therefore silly.

Consider the unique features of Mormonism, which may have some relevance in the next Presidential election. Mormonism, it seems to me, is—objectively—just a little more idiotic than Christianity is. It has to be: because it is Christianity plus some very stupid ideas. For instance, the Mormons think Jesus is going to return to earth and administer his Thousand years of Peace, at least part of the time, from the state of Missouri. Why does this make Mormonism less likely to be true than Christianity? Because whatever probability you assign to Jesus' coming back, you have to assign a lesser probability to his coming back and keeping a summer home in Jackson County, Missouri. If Mitt Romney wants to be the next President of the United States, he should be made to feel the burden of our incredulity. We can make common cause with our Christian brothers and sisters on this point. Just what does the man believe? The world should know. And it is almost guaranteed to be embarrassing even to most people who believe in the biblical God.

The second reason to be attentive to the differences among the world's religions is that these differences are actually a matter of life and death.

There are very few of us who lie awake at night worrying about the Amish. This is not an accident. While I have no doubt that the Amish are mistreating their children, by not educating them adequately, they are not likely to hijack aircraft and fly them into buildings. But consider how we, as atheists, tend to talk about Islam. Christians often complain that atheists, and the secular world generally, balance every criticism of Muslim extremism with a mention of Christian extremism. The usual approach is to say that they have their jihadists, and we have people who kill abortion doctors. Our Christian neighbors, even the craziest of them, are right to be outraged by this pretense of even-handedness, because the truth is

that Islam is quite a bit scarier and more culpable for needless human misery, than Christianity has been for a very, very long time. And the world must wake up to this fact. Muslims themselves must wake up to this fact. And they can.

You might remember that Thomas Friedman recently wrote an op-ed from Iraq, reporting that some Sunni militias are now fighting jihadists alongside American troops. When Friedman asked one Sunni militant why he was doing this, he said that he had recently watched a member of al-Qaeda decapitate an 8-year-old girl. This persuaded him that the American Crusader forces were the lesser of two evils.

Okay, so even some Sunni militants can discern the boundary between ordinary crazy Islam, and the utterly crazy, once it is drawn in the spilled blood of little girls. This is a basis for hope, of sorts. But we have to be honest—unremittingly honest—about what is on the other side of that line.

This is what we and the rest of the civilized, and the semi-civilized world, are up against: utter religious lunacy and barbarism in the name of Islam—with, I'm unhappy to say, some mainstream theology to back it up.

To be even-handed when talking about the problem of Islam is to misconstrue the problem. The refrain, "all religions have their extremists," is bullshit—and it is putting the West to sleep. All religions don't have these extremists. Some religions have never had these extremists. And in the Muslim world, support for extremism is not extreme in the sense of being rare.

A recent poll showed that about a third of young British Muslims want to live under sharia law and believe that apostates should be killed for leaving the faith.

These are British Muslims. Sixty-eight percent of British Muslims feel that their neighbors who insult Islam should be arrested and prosecuted, and seventy-eight percent think that the Danish cartoonists should be brought to justice. These people don't have a clue about what constitutes a civil society.

Reports of this kind coming out of the Muslim communities living in the West should worry us, before anything else about religion worries us.

Atheism is too blunt an instrument to use at moments like this. It's as though we have a landscape of human ignorance and bewilderment—with peaks and valleys and local attractors—and the concept of atheism causes us to fixate one part of this landscape, the part related to theistic religion, and then just flattens it.

Because to be consistent as atheists we must oppose, or seem to oppose, all faith claims equally.

This is a waste of precious time and energy, and it squanders the trust of people who would otherwise agree with us on specific issues.

I'm not at all suggesting that we leave people's core religious beliefs, or faith itself, unscathed—I'm still the kind of person who writes articles with rather sweeping titles like "Science must destroy religion"—but it seems to me that we should never lose sight of useful and important distinctions.

Another problem with calling ourselves "atheists" is that every religious person thinks he has a knockdown argument against atheism. We've all heard these arguments, and we are going to keep hearing them as long as we insist upon calling ourselves "atheists.

Arguments like: atheists can't prove that God doesn't exist; atheists are claiming to know there is no God, and this is the most arrogant claim of all. As Rick Warren put it, when he and I debated for Newsweek—a reasonable man like himself "doesn't have enough faith to be an atheist." The idea that the universe could arise without a creator is, on his account, the most extravagant faith claim of all.

Of course, as an argument for the truth of any specific religious doctrine, this is a travesty. And we all know what to do in this situation: We have Russell's teapot, and thousands of dead gods, and now a flying spaghetti monster, the nonexistence of which also cannot be proven, and yet belief in these things is acknowledged to be ridiculous by everyone.

The problem is, we have to keep having this same argument, over and over again, and the argument is being generated to a significant degree, if not entirely, over our use of the term "atheism."

So too with the "greatest crimes of the 20th century" argument. How many times are we going to have to counter the charge that Stalin, Hitler, and Pol Pot represent the endgame of atheism? I've got news for you, this meme is not going away. I argued against it in The End of Faith, and it was immediately thrown back at me in reviews of the book as though I had never mentioned it.

So I tackled it again in the afterword to the paperback edition of The End of Faith; but this had no effect whatsoever; so at the risk of boring everyone, I brought it up again in Letter to a Christian Nation; and Richard did the same in The God Delusion; and Christopher took a mighty swing at it in God is Not Great.

I can assure you that this bogus argument will be with us for as long as people label themselves "atheists."

And it really convinces religious people. It convinces moderates and liberals. It even convinces the occasional atheist.

Why should we fall into this trap? Why should we stand obediently in the space provided, in the space carved out by the conceptual scheme of theistic religion? It's as though, before the debate even begins, our opponents draw the chalk-outline of a dead man on the sidewalk, and we just walk up and lie down in it.

Instead of doing this, consider what would happen if we simply used words like "reason" and "evidence." What is the argument against reason? It's true that a few people will bite the bullet here and argue that reason is itself a problem, that the Enlightenment was a failed project, etc. But the truth is that there are very few people, even among religious fundamentalists, who will happily admit to being enemies of reason.

In fact, fundamentalists tend to think they are champions of reason and that they have very good reasons for believing in God. Nobody wants to believe things on bad evidence.

The desire to know what is actually going on in world is very difficult to argue with. In so far as we represent that desire, we become difficult to argue with. And this desire is not reducible to an interest group. It's not a club or an affiliation, and I think trying to make it one diminishes its power.

The last problem with atheism I'd like to talk about relates to the some of the experiences that lie at the core of many religious traditions, though perhaps not all, and which are testified to, with greater or lesser clarity in the world's "spiritual" and "mystical" literature.

Those of you who have read The End of Faith, know that I don't entirely line up with Dan, Richard, and Christopher in my treatment of these things. So I think I should take a little time to discuss this.

While I always use terms like "spiritual" and "mystical" in scare quotes, and take some pains to denude them of metaphysics, the email I receive from my brothers and sisters in arms suggests that many of you find my interest in these topics problematic.

First, let me describe the general phenomenon I'm referring to. Here's what happens, in the generic case: a person, in whatever culture he finds himself, begins to notice that life is difficult. He observes that even in the best of times—no one close to him has died, he's healthy, there are no hostile armies massing in the distance, the fridge is stocked with beer, the weather is just so—even when things are as good as they can be,

he notices that at the level of his moment to moment experience, at the level of his attention, he is perpetually on the move, seeking happiness and finding only temporary relief from his search.

We've all noticed this. We seek pleasant sights, and sounds, and tastes, and sensations, and attitudes. We satisfy our intellectual curiosities, and our desire for friendship and romance. We become connoisseurs of art and music and film—but

our pleasures are, by their very nature, fleeting. And we can do nothing more than merely reiterate them as often as we are able.

If we enjoy some great professional success, our feelings of accomplishment remain vivid and intoxicating for about an hour, or maybe a day, but then people will begin to ask us "So, what are you going to do next? Don't you have anything else in the pipeline?" Steve Jobs releases the IPhone, and I'm sure it wasn't twenty minutes before someone asked, "when are you going to make this thing smaller?" Notice that very few people at this juncture, no matter what they've accomplished, say, "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."

Even when everything has gone as well as it can go, the search for happiness continues, the effort required to keep doubt and dissatisfaction and boredom at bay continues, moment to moment. If nothing else, the reality of death and the experience of losing loved ones punctures even the most gratifying and well-ordered life.

In this context, certain

people have traditionally wondered whether a deeper form of well-being exists. Is there, in other words, a form of happiness that is not contingent upon our merely reiterating our pleasures and successes and avoiding our pains.

Is there a form of happiness that is not dependent upon having one's favorite food always available to be placed on one's tongue or having all one's friends and loved ones within arm's reach, or having good books to read, or having something to look forward to on the weekend?

Is it possible to be utterly happy before anything happens, before one's desires get gratified, in spite of life's inevitable difficulties, in the very midst of physical pain, old age, disease, and death?

This question, I think, lies at the periphery of everyone's consciousness.

We are all, in some sense, living our answer to it—and many of us are living as though the answer is "no." No, there is nothing more profound that repeating one's pleasures and avoiding one's pains; there is nothing more profound that seeking satisfaction, both sensory and intellectual.

Many of us seem think that all we can do is just keep our foot on the gas until we run out of road.

But

certain people, for whatever reason, are led to suspect that there is more to human experience than this. In fact, many of them are led to suspect this by religion—by the claims of people like the Buddha or Jesus or some other celebrated religious figures. And such a person may begin to practice various disciplines of attention—often called "meditation" or "contemplation"—as a means of examining his moment to moment experience closely enough to see if a deeper basis of well-being is there to be found.

Such a person might even hole himself up in a cave, or in a monastery, for months or years at a time to facilitate this process. Why would somebody do this? Well, it amounts to a very simple experiment. Here's the logic of it: if there is a form of psychological well-being that isn't contingent upon merely repeating one's pleasures, then this happiness should be available even when all the obvious sources of pleasure and satisfaction have been removed. If it exists at all, this happiness should be available to a person who has renounced all her material possessions, and declined to marry her high school sweetheart, and gone off to a cave or to some other spot that would seem profoundly uncongenial to the satisfaction of ordinary desires and aspirations.

One clue as to how daunting most people would find such a project is the fact that solitary confinement—which is essentially what we are talking about—is considered a punishment even inside a prison. Even when cooped up with homicidal maniacs and rapists, most people still prefer the company of others to spending any significant amount of time alone in a box.

And yet, for thousands of years,

contemplatives have claimed to find extraordinary depths of psychological well-being while spending vast stretches of time in total isolation.

It seems to me that, as rational people, whether we call ourselves "atheists" or not, we have a choice to make in how we view this whole enterprise.

Either the contemplative literature is a mere catalogue of religious delusion, deliberate fraud, and psychopathology, or people have been having interesting and even normative experiences under the name of "spirituality" and "mysticism" for millennia.

Now let me just assert, on the basis of my own study and experience, that

there is no question in my mind that people have improved their emotional lives, and their self-understanding, and their ethical intuitions, and have even had important insights about the nature of subjectivity itself through a variety of traditional practices like meditation.

Leaving aside all the metaphysics and mythology and mumbo jumbo, what contemplatives and mystics over the millennia claim to have discovered is that there is an alternative to merely living at the mercy of the next neurotic thought that comes careening into consciousness. There is an alternative to being continuously spellbound by the conversation we are having with ourselves.

Most us think that if a person is walking down the street talking to himself—that is, not able to censor himself in front of other people—he's probably mentally ill.

But

if we talk to ourselves all day long silently—thinking, thinking, thinking, rehearsing prior conversations, thinking about what we said, what we didn't say, what we should have said, jabbering on to ourselves about what we hope is going to happen, what just happened, what almost happened, what should have happened, what may yet happen—but we just know enough to just keep this conversation private, this is perfectly normal. This is perfectly compatible with sanity.

This is know as 'circling thoughts in SES teaching (this is a useful part of School of Economic Science philosophy - most of their other concepts, I disagree with)

Well, this is not what the experience of millions of contemplatives suggests.

Of course, I am by no means denying the importance of thinking. There is no question that linguistic thought is indispensable for us. It is, in large part, what makes us human. It is the fabric of almost all culture and every social relationship. Needless to say, it is the basis of all science. And it is surely responsible for much rudimentary cognition—for integrating beliefs, planning, explicit learning, moral reasoning, and many other mental capacities. Even talking to oneself out loud may occasionally serve a useful function

.

From the point of view of our contemplative traditions, however—to boil them all down to a cartoon version, that ignores the rather esoteric disputes among them—

our habitual identification with discursive thought, our failure moment to moment to recognize thoughts as thoughts, is a primary source of human suffering.

And when a person breaks this spell, an extraordinary kind of relief is available.

But the problem with a contemplative claim of this sort is that you can't borrow someone else's contemplative tools to test it. The problem is that to test such a claim—indeed, to even appreciate how distracted we tend to be in the first place, we have to build our own contemplative tools. Imagine where astronomy would be if everyone had to build his own telescope before he could even begin to see if astronomy was a legitimate enterprise. It wouldn't make the sky any less worthy of investigation, but it would make it immensely more difficult for us to establish astronomy as a science.

To judge the empirical claims of contemplatives, you have to build your own telescope. Judging their metaphysical claims is another matter: many of these can be dismissed as bad science or bad philosophy by merely thinking about them.

But to judge whether certain experiences are possible—and if possible, desirable—we have to be able to use our attention in the requisite ways.

We have to be able to break our identification with discursive thought, if only for a few moments. This can take a tremendous amount of work. And it is not work that our culture knows much about.

One problem with atheism as a category of thought, is that it seems more or less synonymous with not being interested in what someone like the Buddha or Jesus may have actually experienced.

In fact, many atheists reject such experiences out of hand, as either impossible, or if possible, not worth wanting.

Another common mistake is to imagine that such experiences are necessarily equivalent to states of mind with which many of us are already familiar—the feeling of scientific awe, or ordinary states of aesthetic appreciation, artistic inspiration, etc.

As someone who has made his own modest efforts in this area, let me assure you, that when a person goes into solitude and trains himself in meditation for 15 or 18 hours a day, for months or years at a time, in silence, doing nothing else—not talking, not reading, not writing—just making a sustained moment to moment effort to merely observe the contents of consciousness and to not get lost in thought, he experiences things that most scientists and artists are not likely to have experienced, unless they have made precisely the same efforts at introspection.

And these experiences have a lot to say about the plasticity of the human mind and about the possibilities of human happiness.

So, apart from just commending these phenomena to your attention, I'd like to point out that, as atheists, our neglect of this area of human experience puts us at a rhetorical disadvantage. Because millions of people have had these experiences, and many millions more have had glimmers of them, and we, as atheists, ignore such phenomena, almost in principle, because of their religious associations—and yet these experiences often constitute the most important and transformative moments in a person's life.

Not recognizing that such experiences are possible or important can make us appear less wise even than our craziest religious opponents.

My concern is that atheism can easily become the position of not being interested in certain possibilities in principle.

I don't know if our universe is, as JBS Haldane said, "not only stranger than we suppose, but stranger than we can suppose." But I am sure that it is stranger than we, as "atheists," tend to represent while advocating atheism. As "atheists" we give others, and even ourselves, the sense that we are well on our way toward purging the universe of mystery.

As advocates of reason, we know that mystery is going to be with us for a very long time. Indeed, there are good reasons to believe that mystery is ineradicable from our circumstance, because however much we know, it seems like there will always be brute facts that we cannot account for but which we must rely upon to explain everything else. This may be a problem for epistemology but it is not a problem for human life and for human solidarity. It does not rob our lives of meaning. And it is not a barrier to human happiness.

We are faced, however, with the challenge of communicating this view to others.

We are faced with the monumental task of persuading a myth-infatuated world that love and curiosity are sufficient, and that we need not console or frighten ourselves or our children with Iron Age fairy tales.

I don't think there is a more important intellectual struggle to win; it has to be fought from a hundred sides, all at once, and continuously; but it seems to me that there is no reason for us to fight in well-ordered ranks, like the red coats of Atheism.

Finally,

I think it's useful to envision what victory will look like. Again, the analogy with racism seems instructive to me. What will victory against racism look like, should that happy day ever dawn? It certainly won't be a world in which a majority of people profess that they are "nonracist." Most likely, it will be a world in which the very concept of separate races has lost its meaning.

We will have won this war of ideas against religion when atheism is scarcely intelligible as a concept. We will simply find ourselves in a world in which people cease to praise one another for pretending to know things they do not know.

This is certainly a future worth fighting for. It may be the only future compatible with our long-term survival as a species.

But the only path between now and then, that I can see, is for us to be rigorously honest in the present.

It seems to me that intellectual honesty is now, and will always be, deeper and more durable, and more easily spread, than "atheism."

I've reposted most of the (very thoughtful) comments at http://richarddawkins.net/article,1702,n,n

1. Comment #75508 by BAEOZ on October 2, 2007 at 9:59 pm

First comment!
I agree about calling ourselves atheists just opens up the same old arguments that believers throw at atheists. After all, believer coined the term as a negative or at the very least non affirmative of their positive belief. So, start negative, stay negative.........Better terms....Humanist, reasonableist....
Sam still hasn't convinced me that transcendence is anymore useful or real than snorting cocaine and going "wow, the universe is so huge". But then what do I know?

2. Comment #75511 by Robert Maynard on October 2, 2007 at 10:20 pm

This is the speech that caused such an upset at the AAI? Harris deserves a hug, or at the very least a handshake, for going out on a limb like this and challenging his audience.
I can completely understand where Harris is coming from in this speech in regards to tactics, and I appreciate his romantic vision of 'guerilla rationalists', a diffuse crack force of individuals who are simply out to "destroy bad ideas" through conversation, one person at a time. This is a vision I admire, and I think it's a good representation of how ideas actually transmit through public consciousness, particularly when they break into mainstream entertainment media.

The negative reaction to his suggestions makes sense though, in that it's a vision completely at odds with the political mobilisation many other atheists are seeking, and it is clearly running right up against the group vibe one is going to find at a convention.

At first glance there are two problems with his suggestions:
- You cannot simply seek to evade usage of certain parts of language. Descriptive terminology is an important part of how we communicate. If you decide you're going to avoid using certain common terms, it's just going to frustrate and obfuscate conversation. It's true: 'Atheist' is a package of information which helps streamline the variables of dialogue, and can impact the potential of conversation in negative ways.
However, in dealing with this obstacle I think it is more effective to influence culture (with political and social visibility), and gradually alter the content of the package that ones brain opens when they hear someone say "I'm an atheist", rather than simply avoid using the term. Bad arguments against atheism will wane because old people die, and generation-to-generation transmission will have to compete with the accelerating transmission of its counter-arguments. To quote Harris, "reasons are contagious". :P

- Not everyone is comfortable with confrontation, and many just want better social standing for atheists. Harris is clearly a confident and articulate conversationalist, and he clearly spends a great deal of time mulling over and preconceiving lines of argument in his head, as I (and I'm sure a lot of us) often do. But it just isn't the case that all atheists can or want to do that.
I have definitely advocated the position here that people should seek to improve themselves intellectually, to become more confident as atheists, and besides scientific literacy this includes becoming good at presenting arguments, but to give some credence to a fellow poster I've clashed with over this, Yorker, not everyone can do that. And they shouldn't have to.
Political and social respectability is the very least the atheist deserves in the twenty-first century, and they should by no means have to spell out refutations for ontological arguments and creation science to get it.

I still respect Harris as much as ever - but he must surely concede that the 'destroyers of bad ideas' are just one flank of atheism as a demographic in the so-called culture wars, and avoiding all manner of self-description could only be considered part of a long-term plan to dismantle categorical discontinuity in language, not a means to benefit the lives of atheists here and now.

3. Comment #75513 by Janus on October 2, 2007 at 10:21 pm

About the use of the word "atheist":

It's true that, as a matter of pure logic, it's a bit silly to identify ourselves by what should be the norm. And I guess that it might be true that religious believers will stop using some of the worst arguments against us if we somehow convince all atheists to stop calling themselves atheists for a few decades. But let's be realistic here: We need _a_ name for ourselves. Partly because we're trying to build a movement, but mostly because that's just the way human languages work. How else are we supposed to talk and write about
people-who-favor-rationality-and-need-evidence-to-believe-something-and-therefore-do-not-believe-in-deities?
We need a label whether it's atheist or sceptic or bright or something else.


About meditation and "spiritual" experiences:

Okay, so we can have new experiences that bring long(er)-lasting happiness thanks to meditation, and meditation isn't necessarily linked to religious beliefs. Great, I might give it a try one day. Is that the admission Harris wants from us? Meditation can help humans achieve a different state of consciousness; so can LSD for that matter. I can't say this revelation makes me feel a lot of respect for the monks and mystics who spend their lives "feeling happy" in their caves and monasteries. There's more to life than the search for happiness. There is also achieving our goals and making a difference in the world (however small). Doing research might make scientists feel happy, and raising children might do the same for parents, but that's not why most people do it. It's a sad thought, but mystics who dedicate their lives to "observing their consciousnesses" and "living moment-to-moment" have to a large extent wasted their lives.

5. Comment #75516 by kraut on October 2, 2007 at 10:25 pm

Transcendence without snorting - whats wrong with that? Not that I am actively engaged, but I have spent month in the wilderness of BC with just my wife, myself and some horses and I found an apppreciation of nature, a feeling as part of the natural world, a sharpening of senses that is simply incomparable to any other experience we as a couple ever had.

I find the pursuit of happiness very much overrated, I prefer a feeling of contentment, of living in the present as much as possible, of appreciating my being alive.

You might call this transcendental or not, it is an experience not to be found in the regular 9 -5 world, and lead you back to dealing with essentials, between you and your partner, you and nature.
I have to agree - we cannot throw the experiences of a solitary meditating mind out by just labelling them religious. It is just another way to experience yourself - and your surroundings - without the disturbance of the ordinary.

Otherwise - yes, I agree with Sam, and that why I always felt reluctant to use the "term" for myself, although I have for myself abandondend the believe in anything "supernatural" since my 16th year.
A label flattens the discussion, makes you identifiable and boxes you in. Why point out that I as a reasonable being have to be "against" theos?
I am not against god - I just do not see a shred of evidence for his existence.
What I am against, are the idiocies contemplated and actively persued in the name of religion.

6. Comment #75517 by 82abhilash on October 2, 2007 at 10:51 pm

You know people there are a lot of good ideas expressed here by Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennett and the like. The arguments are themselves extremely sound, even though they may not give one the sense of transcendental bliss that most ordinary people seek. Although I must add that Richard Dawkins did well with his book 'Unweaving the rainbow' and Carl Sagan's documentary 'Cosmos' is brilliant.

Anyway, the point I am trying to make is, these are new arguments, plus some old arguments repackaged for a new generation. They are not going away, especially since religion is showing its ugly face too often these days. And while projects like the 'Blasphemy Challenge' can make important people take notice of the changing times, it is reason that makes the change endure regardless of any label or lack there of - atheist, new atheist, anti-theist, non-theist, skeptic, skepchick, agnostics, secular humanist, 'no label at all', naturalist, darwinian,, etc.,. So to that extent I agree with Sam Harris.

But I understand the need of the label in bringing people together. But as a member of the mainstream society, I prefer not to use my label, unless pressed upon. I would rather use reason at every turn whenever and wherever I confront irrationality.

It is something about the way the human brain works - forever handicapped by the sequence in which you feed in the information. If you bring forth a sound argument, people may listen to you, even accept your reasoning and most may not care too much if they later find you to be a 'new atheist'. However if they find that out first, then they will lock out of anything you have to say immediately.

7. Comment #75518 by Russell Blackford on October 2, 2007 at 10:55 pm

I just can't see the relevance of Harris' comments about meditation etcetera. The article would be better if it focused on the tactical points, and I think it's really stretching things to believe that this point has much tactical relevance. Few people will reject atheism primarily because of concerns that it cuts across their meditative practices or whatever.

Maybe someone else can explain what Harris has in mind here, but I think it just muddies the waters.

With the rest, maybe he has a point about tactics and perceptions.

8. Comment #75519 by Downunder on October 2, 2007 at 11:06 pm

Sam Harris's point that the label "atheist" should be avoided makes sense. In addition to his extensive reasoning, that label has collected an unpleasant image and more to the point, it is a 'negative'. We need a positive image against religious fanatics. Let us do some brainstorming to find a better name and to start the ball rolling: VITALIST?

10. Comment #75521 by ChrisMcL on October 2, 2007 at 11:24 pm

Why don't we just do with the "A" word what African-Americans have done with the "N" word. Let's "take back" the "A" word.

The negative connotations to the label are from stereotype, not reality. By showing the world who we really are, atheists can, in time, redefine the ideas associated with the word "atheist".

12. Comment #75523 by Hypoluxa on October 2, 2007 at 11:31 pm

I think I understand what Harris has said and agree. The label of atheist has for in its entirety to the unbeknownst has been predominately negative. His example of just being "responsible people who destroy bad ideas wherever we find them", makes sense to me. That way we remove ourselves of this negative connotation, and are just somebody who makes a valid reasonable argument and thought to a bad idea/illogical belief etc.

While having experimented with meditation and LSD in the past I personally did not have any life changing thoughts or experiences, that I considered profound. I found it more relaxing than anything in my personal opinion. I still revert back to rational thought and reality.

So, again what to call ourselves instead of "atheists" etc? I do not know, even though like a poster mentioned before me, that humans like to feel and be a part of a group dynamic, as it is in our nature to do so, we should just continue to think freely, rationally, and of course question everything.

13. Comment #75525 by Theocrapcy on October 2, 2007 at 11:43 pm

I hear and understand what Sam is saying, and I quite like his warning to us that we may be missing something more meditative on principle. And no, we shouldn't be satisfied as being portrayed as a negative force.

However, this is idealistic and the world is always going to partition people and cultures into groups. At the moment the Atheism label is being thrown at us, and it is sticking. The best we can hope to do to overcome this is to turn the label around (and the N word is a terrible but comparable example). Once the word is diffused it can then be more easily shed, once it no longer is a derogatory term, then we will have something by which to measure progress.

It is unfortunate, but the label will continue to be applied. We have a choice to do nothing and keep taking the flak, or stand up and reclaim the word.

Win the semantic battle first.

14. Comment #75526 by monkey74 on October 2, 2007 at 11:57 pm

I'm 100% for advocating reason and intellectual honesty. In my opinion, it is the best way for every one to get equal rights and treatment. The term atheism arises only because of the need of such a description. Religion still has a very strong hold on the world. To me, atheism and its movement is necessary in order to make a very pronounced mark on the timeline at this moment. It is a common term that tells the non-believer that it is ok not to believe and that one is not alone.

When I became completely free of all superstition on my own some years ago, I felt a real sense of relief and enjoyed a really different world view. I never announced my point of view because I felt it wasn't necessary. But then I after some time, I became tired of the constant bombardment of nonsense pushed at me and found no people who even remotely shared my view. I started doing research into the subject of non-faith and came across names like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Jonathan Miller, and other great people. It seemed that the same conclusions that I had made were also shared by many others.

There is still a vast amount of religiosity being pushed in our face and the only thing to do is push back. It is present in our public offices, in movies, in daily comments, and even asked in all sorts of work, hospital, scholarship applications, and just about anywhere else. The religion question in applications bothers me just as much as the race/ethnicity question. These differences and focus points that form excuses for discrimination should not have a place in our society anymore. One can only hope that the religion and race issue will soon disappear. But yet, they still are present.

The thing that I absolutely dislike of this whole movement is the way that atheism is being broadcast by many in the form of a religion and being used as a way to make money out of it. It is starting to gain the unwanted qualities of organized religion. If we are to become united, let it be for the fight for reason and hope to be able contribute towards the future of humanity as a whole.

I really think that the word atheist is not ready to go away yet. The word atheist is a heavy one and we are the one common 'bad guy' of all religions. We just have to take the demonization of it away and show it for what it really is. We are here and have the right to have a voice. Hopefully the need for such a word will soon fade away.

16. Comment #75530 by suffolkthinker on October 3, 2007 at 12:09 am

I have always instinctively disliked labeling myself with something that I do not believe in, however in recent years I have strongly come round to Richard Dawkin's view that we do need to come "out" and stand up, and for now the label Athiest is useful as it is at least well known.

Think of it as labelling yourself as anti-apatheid in South Africa 1970. Hopefully it will not always be necessary, but for now let's stand up and up and be counted.

17. Comment #75531 by MartinSGill on October 3, 2007 at 12:12 am

I both agree and disagree with Sam (does that make me an agnostic? :P ).

I think the term atheist is not overly helpful. The problem as I see it though is that we've tried reason and reasoning. It's called the enlightenment and for the past 200 years we opposed ignorance with reason and see where that got us.

19. Comment #75535 by Quine on October 3, 2007 at 12:33 am

It is fine for some to hang back an take some kind of rationalist position, but also, some need to be an advanced guard that will take the heat for standing up and saying they do not believe in gods. Those folks are going to be called Atheists, anyway, so they might as well take it on and wear the Big Scarlett Letter A. Those who take the heat, are also in a position to keep the heat on the absurdities of religion.

Exploring what is going on in your own head need have no more to do with religion than crawling around exploring caves. Sam or others can go have these experiences, but I wish he would spend more time relating the way religion has traditionally hijacked these mental states to con folks into believing in the supernatural.

20. Comment #75536 by hakija on October 3, 2007 at 12:35 am

I have preferred the title "rationalist" over all others. Haven't we arrived at our views on religion, science and morality through the rational process?

I disagree with Quine. Rationalism is not a concession. Who's hanging back? Most who hold negative stereotypes of those who rejects the existence of a deity think of themselves as basically rational, even if they believe in a god. We won't get so far by calling their long cherished beliefs absurd.

Appeal to their reason, and invite them to take it a few steps further, and question the value of these long held beliefs.

21. Comment #75537 by banzaib on October 3, 2007 at 12:53 am

As usual, a very thoughtful article which generated some thoughtful responses.
I'm with Sam on his assertations about the word atheist and the downside of aligning oneself with it.
I'm also with him in principle about his thoughts on meditation. My reservation about meditation is that while it may be effective for some, it's my guess that it's not for everyone. I think the really important thing Sam is saying is that we should not close the door on finding healthy, reasonable ways to feed our (for lack of a better term) spiritual selves while trying to diminish superstitious thought in the world.
Dennett has pointed out that religion has always been good at keeping love involved in its orginizational practices. Something that atheism struggles with for completely understandable reasons.
Personally for me I struggle to understand what sort of blend we are of being collective, social beings and to what degree we are individuals.
I think that the lion's share of what we are is actually more collective than many of us care to admit. I think we are afraid to admit that because there are aspects of ourselves that we perceive to be personal/individual. These seem to need some "attention" too.
The atheist in me reawakened and began a thinking jouney back in Febuary. It was so refreshing to hear voices like Richard, Sam, Daniel, and Christopher (I've read and listened to you guys enough that I give myself first name privilges).
Eventually we will have to move away from the God/No God question. I have. It's simply no longer intersting.
What is amazingly interesting is to try to understand why and how we've ended up in the situation we're in, and what should we try to head towards.
For that, I think we need Sam to go back to school and finish his neuroscience degree. More about evoutionary psycology (Pinker), Richard's memes, Dennett's scientific philosphical perspective (with a nice dash of Santa Claus like warmth), and we need to get Christopher to smoke and drink a little less so he can hang around longer to provoke us into using our minds
for more than just agreeing with ourselves.
I look forward to hear more about what comes out of this conference. This is making the times we live in much more interesting than they would be without it.

22. Comment #75539 by Robert Maynard on October 3, 2007 at 1:01 am

Bonzai,

If someone takes it upon himself to speak for "the cause" and goes out of his way to challenge people to debate in public he'd better know what he is talking about.

Well exactly, I was talking about people who don't want to do that, and just want political rights and not have to worry about workplace discrimination, for example. Not every atheist wants to be, nor should be expected to be, the kind of person Harris here says we can all be without calling ourselves atheist. This is because criticism of irrationality is not an activity inextricably bound to atheism.
I agree with Harris that it's a great and even noble position, for everyone to strive for, but that kind of shift is generational, and the position he is advocating really only need form a subset of atheists - who are actively involved in confronting and eroding bad ideas.

23. Comment #75541 by trgregory on October 3, 2007 at 1:07 am

We have to stand up and be counted! If we start making all sorts of excuses as to why we are not loved by religious folk, we have lost all strength in argument.
I take exception to Sam Harris' use of the racist's use of the N word being similar to Atheist A word. There is nothing wrong with Atheist as a description of somebody who doesn't accept the concept of god.

24. Comment #75543 by Dog Boots on October 3, 2007 at 1:14 am

Great read. Don't care as much for the meditation-bits, but I do see his points and their validity.

I suspect it could be a good tactical move for Richard, Christopher and others when being interviewed, to refuse the term "atheist" whenever it's brought up. A very good idea, actually. Bring some public attention to the fact that this word ought not be, and if you're not an atheist, "they" can't attack you as such.

25. Comment #75545 by Conrad on October 3, 2007 at 1:16 am

I do agree with Sam about the issues with using such a term, but I do believe it all boils down what one's goals are. If you're looking for the political clout and freedom of non believers, then you're not only going to retain the title, but you're going to try and strengthen it's stock price, so to speak, in the public forum. If you're out to do away with all and any irrationality, then you're going to see the title as a hinderance, as Sam does. For Sam to do what he does, he has no need of the title.

Personally, I'm fine with the title. I use it when conversations turn to such issues and otherwise I've always taken the path that Sam suggested, trumpeting reason and evidence all the way. But when the conversation does turn to religion and my beliefs are asked about, I gladly state that I'm an atheist and I do my best to be a good ambassador for the public image. All in all, I think that may be the best way to deal with the atheist problem. You're not quite so likely to get everyone to drop it any time soon.

But one day, I hope to have no need of it.

26. Comment #75546 by Caeruleum on October 3, 2007 at 1:22 am

Of all the current anti-religious writers, Sam is my favourite. Consider this comment:

He observes that even in the best of times no-one close to him has died, he's healthy, there are no hostile armies massing in the distance, the fridge is stocked with beer, the weather is just so—even when things are as good as they can be, he notices that at the level of his moment to moment experience, at the level of his attention, he is perpetually on the move, seeking happiness and finding only temporary relief from his search.

This is great stuff and certainly rings a bell with me. Surely, even for the non-religious, there no shame in seeking the quiet mind.