Sam Harris Hits It Out Of The Park

[nemorathwald]

From yesterday's Huntington Post, Sam Harris hits it out of the park once again. Excerpt:

---

Atheism is not a philosophy; it is not even a view of the world; it is simply a refusal to deny the obvious. Unfortunately, we live in a world in which the obvious is overlooked as a matter of principle. The obvious must be observed and re-observed and argued for. This is a thankless job. It carries with it an aura of petulance and insensitivity. It is, moreover, a job that the atheist does not want.

It is worth noting that no one ever need identify himself as a non-astrologer or a non-alchemist. Consequently, we do not have words for people who deny the validity of these pseudo-disciplines. Likewise, “atheism” is a term that should not even exist. Atheism is nothing more than the noises reasonable people make when in the presence of religious dogma. The atheist is merely a person who believes that the 260 million Americans (eighty-seven percent of the population) who claim to “never doubt the existence of God” should be obliged to present evidence for his existence -- and, indeed, for his benevolence, given the relentless destruction of innocent human beings we witness in the world each day. Only the atheist appreciates just how uncanny our situation is: most of us believe in a God that is every bit as specious as the gods of Mount Olympus; no person, whatever his or her qualifications, can seek public office in the United States without pretending to be certain that such a God exists; and much of what passes for public policy in our country conforms to religious taboos and superstitions appropriate to a medieval theocracy. Our circumstance is abject, indefensible, and terrifying. It would be hilarious if the stakes were not so high.

---

The rest of the article concerns itself with theodicy, the reconciliation (or irreconciliation) of the idea of infinite love and power with the out-of-control charnel house that is the world. But that's just one sub-set of a greater problem with Theism: not only is there no difference between the existence of a god and its non-existence in the world around us, the biblical devotional life-- the actual experience in practice of having a "personal savior"-- was equally identical between god's presence and absence.

Comments

[eternalmaiden.livejournal.com]

Only the atheist appreciates... From this statement on, it's not just about atheism, but any non-christian religion.

It would be hilarious if the stakes were not so high.

I choose to find it hilarious anyway, since there is little I personally can do to change it. I do what I can with the utmost sincerity, but I'm laughing about it the whole time.

[rikhei.livejournal.com]

I don't know that I feel this way about athiesm in particular, but I think it certainly applies for agnostics as well!

[matt-arnold.livejournal.com]

The distinction between atheism and agnosticism is real, but not important.

[cathyr19355.livejournal.com]

With respect, I disagree.

By definition, the atheist has taken the position that all religions based on belief in a Supreme Being of some sort are not only wrong but somehow illogical. The agnostic does not need to do so.

[matt-arnold.livejournal.com]

Yes. I consider that a very real, very measurable distinction. I also consider it so unimportant that I ignore it. You've described a difference in how they relate to people. Isn't that closer to a belief about human gullibility-- and about respectful social relationships-- rather than about gods? Other than that, I can hardly think of any behavior they would do differently, because gods aren't a factor in the decisions of either one.

[cathyr19355.livejournal.com]

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion, but to me the difference in the way agnostics and atheists relate both to their own beliefs and to other people is the only important distinction about them. To sum up the part of the distinction that I see as critical: atheists proselytize for their point of view, agnostics don't. Neither one's behavior tells us anything about the gods--but then how could it? By definition, atheists and agnostics don't believe in gods, or a God.

[matt-arnold.livejournal.com]

I was surprised when you seemed to sense a disagreement with me, because I'm saying there is (or ought to be) complete harmony between agnostics and atheists.

So I tried to detect where it is you see a disagreement. Perhaps the disagreement is that to me, unimportant things are measured by what one ignores; important things are measured by what one acts to change. That change is worked by "proselytism" and passion.

If the way we relate to religious people is that important to you, you'll act to change it. What will you say to me that will proselytize me to the agnostic view about human beliefs and relationships?

Will you speak to my fear of the threat posed to me and my values by people of faith? That would be a good start. I'll stop taking a stand when I stop perceiving a threat to take a stand against.

[cathyr19355.livejournal.com]

Forgive me for taking so long to respond, but I've been short of time and sleep lately, and I wanted to be reasonably alert when I responded to this.

Thank you for your response. Because of it, I now understand what concerns were really driving your original post. Allow me to attempt to paraphrase, and forgive me if I get it wrong.

I think you're right that we are, fundamentally, in agreement, but we categorize the issues differently.

You perceive a threat to yourself by "people of faith" because you believe that, if their faith is true and deep, they must necessarily be committed to proselytizing for it, attempting to persuade, even compel, other people to share it.

I think that's incorrect (though I will grant that some faiths have, as a built-in element, the mandate that its followers must proselytize).
Part of the reason I say this is because I used to be a person of faith (specifically, a Roman Catholic) and am one no longer. (I now think of myself as an agnostic.) But another part of the reason is that I know many conventionally religious people who are likewise disinclined, or at least disinterested, in forcing everyone to share their beliefs.

What has *not* changed about me since I turned away from Roman Catholicism is not my "faith" but my conviction that it's improper to try to compel, or even persuade, everyone else to share my beliefs. I still believe that mandating faith, any faith, is wrong. And I suspect many "people of faith" are of the same mind as I am in that particular regard.

I think the threat posed to you and your values (many of which I suspect I share) is genuine, but you have it miscategorized. The threat is posed by people determined to impose their own beliefs, whatever they are, upon others. Many of those people follow one religion or other, possibly most of them are Christian, but I believe that at least some of them are atheists, since atheism also leaves room for a certain amount of crusading (consider the efforts of the former Soviet Union to abolish religion of all kinds.) On the other hand, I do not know of any crusading agnostics, if only because the position "I don't know if God exists, and you can't either!" is a tad too ridiculous to base a crusade upon. :-)

I prefer to think of the people who pose the kind of threat we are discussing as "fanatics," but that's just a minor question of terminology.

[palindromeg33k.livejournal.com]

"Atheism is nothing more than the noises reasonable people make when in the presence of religious dogma."

if this is so, i would point out that i agree that religious dogma is a bad thing but that not all religion involves any kind of dogma.

[matt-arnold.livejournal.com]

I think Sam Harris would agree, if you define religion in a certain way. According to the live chat we had with him on the Universist board, he himself is very interested in practicing meditation so long as it doesn't involve faith.

[natashasikorsky.livejournal.com]

It is worth noting that no one ever need identify himself as a non-astrologer or a non-alchemist. Consequently, we do not have words for people who deny the validity of these pseudo-disciplines. Likewise, “atheism” is a term that should not even exist.

Except that for some people non-belief is *so* important that they blog about it constantly ;-) I believe that atheism, when the term truly applies, is not only a philosophy, but a religion.

[matt-arnold.livejournal.com]

Atheists (and most agnostics) tend to be philosophical and methodological naturalists. This is the positive assertion that the physical universe is a closed system. In other words nothing outside it or a product of it can affect it. Now that is a philosophy and a view of the world, but it has to do with a whole lot more than "gods."

What I hope you will understand, is that when god-believers take this whole package and narrow it down to a word meaning "non-god people," this is only because "god" happens to be the only part of it a believer in god probably cares about. To a believer in a god, it's the only issue.

But to most atheists, gods are only an issue at all because there are so many believers in gods. If there were enough alchemists living in my society, I would blog about my nonalchemism at least once a week. The importance of it is entirely determined by that.

[sarahmichigan.livejournal.com]

in atheism, there are no rites, no gods, no tenets you have to affirm. I take issue with calling atheism a "belief system" but can understand why someone would think it is one, or even a philosophy. But it's ridiculous to call it a religion. Are some atheists so zealous and militant and preachy about their atheism that it seems dogmatic and religion-like for them? Yes, but the mere fact that someone says, "I don't believe any god exists" can hardly be construed as saying that person's atheism is a religion.

[ardent-spork.livejournal.com]

Isn't non-belief in a god a precept of Atheism?

[matt-arnold.livejournal.com]

She's talking about precepts and tenets as something you believe because a holy book or a teacher tells you so. Christians say "I identify as a follower of Jesus, therefore I believe his teachings." Nobody says "I identify as a member of the atheist group, therefore I believe the atheists that there is no god." It's the absence of a belief. If you don't believe in gods and goddesses, you just don't. The atheist identification is after that, and is not what matters.

[ardent-spork.livejournal.com]

So, basically, they feel that empirical evidence overwhelmingly indicates the non-existence of God...at least that's how I'm interpreting it. Their non-belief/good common sense/whathaveyou follows from what they feel to be conclusive proof of the nonexistence of a deity. (I'm an agnostic, I hasten to add.)

It seems to me, from my experiences with my own family, who are very religious, that they feel that empirical evidence overwhelmingly indicates the existence of God. Their belief in God/Jesus/The Biggest Hamster Ever/whathaveyou---and from thence, adherence to the tenets of their religion--- followed from what they felt to be conclusive proof of its existence. (Which is pretty Pascalian, and AFAICT, seems to fall outside the black-and-white divisions we've established here...although all good generalizations are like brooms...meant to sweep broadly, not stand in corners.)

Of course, I'm inclined in general to distrust people who feel the need to tell me what their opponents say or how they think---I grew up amongst the extreme-ish right and attended school with the extreme-ish left...neither of whom I found very convincing. I don't think that Christianity is correct when it identifies atheists (should that be capitalized) as people who simply "don't want to live a moral life", certainly; any group over ten people will lack a single definite agenda that everyone works towards.

At any rate, hope I'm not intruding.

[matt-arnold.livejournal.com]

You're certainly not intruding, but it's customary to identify yourself, even if with a pseudonym.

You're right that atheists see the evidence to be against the existence of god(s). Atheists and agnostics would both agree, however, that a claim does not have to be accepted just because you can't disprove it. The burden of proof is never on disproof. Acting like something does not exist is the default, or else we'd have to believe in a billion invisible things that merely aren't disproven. Occam's Razor goes into that.

Whether to capitalize atheism is entirely a matter of personal preference. I know of no reason to do so, or not to do so.

People all generally go to whichever makes the most empirical sense to them. However, once you're in a religion it teaches you to set that rationality aside; having arrived at the Perfect Source of Truth who's going to spoon-feed them all the Big Answers, most religious followers believe by faith in the proclamations of that source from then on. If I ever hear anyone exploiting reason only far enough to discredit reason so that I have to do whatever nonsense they (or their chosen holy book) say from now on, that's proof enough not to trust them.

Contrast this with science, which is a collection of very close approximations, built on a process of errors, doubting, and correction, which you and I are expected to challenge and study the evidence for ourselves. We're just not allowed to cheat, which is what faith would be if we bring it into the scientific magisteria.