The Intellectual Crudity of Non-Theist Apologists

[_antishock8]

I found a pdf version of the interview for you:

http://www.thesunmagazine.org/_media/ar ... Harris.pdf

Thank you.

I like it better already:

Saltman: Isn’t religion a natural outgrowth of human nature?

Harris: It almost certainly is. But every- thing we do is a natural outgrowth of human nature. Genocide is. Rape is. No one would ever think of arguing that this makes genocide or rape a necessary feature of a civilized society. Even if you had a detailed story about the essential purpose religion has served for the past fifty thousand years, even if you could
prove that humanity would not have survived without believing in a creator God, that would not mean that it’s a good idea to believe in a creator God now, in a twenty-first-century world that has been shattered into separate moral communities on the basis of religious ideas....

Saltman: Your analogy between organized religion and
rape is pretty inflammatory. Is that intentional?

Harris: I can be even more inflammatory than that. If I could wave a magic wand and get rid of either rape or religion, I would not hesitate to get rid of religion. I think more people are dying as a result of our religious myths than as a result of any other ideology.

Wow. Imagine that. Context.

Anyway. I don't understand the desire to hold onto the Santa Claus myth. It's silly in most cases, and catastrophically dangerous in some... Which can have consequences for most. After perusing this thread I don't really see anyone make a strong case that non-belief in deity has a causal relationship with murder, rape, etc... However, it can be clearly demonstrated the causality between many attrocities and religion. Where one has no direct correlation, the other does. I don't understand an adult's desire to be an apologlist for the latter.

[_Tal Bachman]

Beastie

That Shermer once criticized Dawkins's views on religion as "overly simplistic and selective" makes me like Shermer all the more; and I totally agree with him. Thanks for the reference.

You asked a few questions which referred to my sample of non-theists. My sample is the folks that I end up discussing these things with in real life, or on various bulletin boards (a number of whom are recovering Mormons, which may have skewed my sample). If you want numbers of atheists I've directly engaged with about this, I'd say probably between a dozen and twenty over the past year. I'm glad your experience is different than mine; it makes me think that perhaps mine isn't representative.

Still, it shouldn't be difficult for you to believe that a man as influential as Richard Dawkins should have his ideas regurgitated by thousands of folks who enjoy thinking of themselves as "critical thinkers" out there.

I'm sorry that I put you on the defensive about atheists. I do want to point out, though, that Richard Dawkins is at the forefront of the anti-religion brigade, and while he certainly can't be presumed to be speaking for atheists, he is currently a very high profile atheist, acclaimed and awarded by many scientific/skeptical groups, and the presenter of the most prominent current case against religious belief. And his comments are being parroted by a lot of people who probably should know better (again, should be easy for you to believe given how many books he's sold).

Maybe you and I both agree that the comments in "The God Delusion" take attention away from far more incisive views on religion.

[_Moniker]

Still, it shouldn't be difficult for you to believe that a man as influential as Richard Dawkins should have his ideas regurgitated by thousands of folks who enjoy thinking of themselves as "critical thinkers" out there.

Before I visited MAD a year ago I hadn't read Dennett, Dawkins, or Harris. I saw references and picked up a few books. I was giggling and making notes through those books as I saw the same arguments I'd been reading almost verbatim. Yet, again, that doesn't make a dogma -- merely it's a good argument and it will be used over and over again.

I wonder if those that grew up in LDS are more likely to have a more (can't think of a real appropriate way to say this) angry response to their former faith and other religions? Beastie was a convert and seems to line up with a lot of my thoughts on religion. I'm more of a Beastie type of atheist.

I'm such a follower -- she does the critical thinking for me! ;)

[_dartagnan]

Wow. Imagine that. Context.

Yes, the context furthered emphasized his ignorance and bigotry. Rape is preferable to religion.

That's your hero.

The only thing he said that made sense was something I had been saying all along. The Communist governments were in fact religions in and of themselves. He also conceded the point that there are non-theistic religions, which is another point I have been trying to pound home. He also said he started practicing Buddhism because he was experimenting with drugs at the time.

[_Bond...James Bond]

The only thing he said that made sense was something I had been saying all along. The Communist governments were in fact religions in and of themselves.

I had the same thought about fascist governments after reading some of Hannah Arendt's work on Totalitarianism. I think I even wrote a paper about it. Ah I did. Here it is (For anyone who cares).

http://mormondiscussions.com/discuss/we ... php?e=1006

[_Tal Bachman]

GoodK

I've read the Sam Harris book twice (I thought a lot of it was very incisive, actually), I've read the Dawkins book, I'm half done the Hitchens book, and I don't plan on reading Dennett's book because I've been following him for years on the subject of consciousness and I can't stand the guy. Reading his stuff makes me cringe.

But it is a strange position you take, simply announcing that, say, Sam Harris and Bertrand Russell have "answered that long ago" (gee, where have I heard that sort of thing before?), simply because Sam Harris and Bertrand Russell - and you - like to imagine they did. Or assuming that the only explanation for me not buying their "answers" is because I'm unfamiliar with them. As it happens (not sure it matters), I've probably read a lot more Bertrand Russell than you, and I'm probably more familiar with Harris's stuff than you are (including "Letters to a Christian Nation"). It is just that...I could be wrong...but I don't think the point about atheist ideologies inspiring murder just as theist ideologies do has been answered. Here's why.

Consider this from Harris, which you quoted:

"This really is one of the great canards of religious discourse, the idea that the greatest crimes of the 20th century were perpetrated because of atheism. The core problem for me is divisive dogmatism."

If you read closely, you will see that Harris has inadvertently committed an error here. His statement reveals that he believes that "atheism" can have nothing to do with a "divisive dogma". This is simply not true, even though there is no good reason to believe there is a god. I already explained how in an earlier post, but here is a not-so-hypothetical example again, in a chain of syllogisms:

P1.) Delusions are bad because they inhibit our ability to make much needed improvements in life, like eradicating socioeconomic inequality;

P2.) Belief in God is a delusion, the product of the human mind;

C1). Therefore, belief in God is bad.

P3.) Belief in God is bad;

P4.) Eradicating bad things is good;

C2.) Therefore, eradicating belief in God is good.

P5.) Eradicating belief in God is good;

P6.) Things like priests, missionaries, religious sermons, religious services, icons, and "holy books" promote belief in God;

C3.) Therefore, eradicating things like priests, missionaries, religious sermons, religious services, icons, and "holy books" is good.

Now, the sentence "eradicating things like priests, missionaries, religious sermons, religious services, icons, and 'holy books' is good" sounds a lot like dogma to me...AND it is a conclusion derived from a few premises, one of which is that the existence of some interventionist sky god is a delusion (a belief which I basically subscribe to, by the way).

In real life, in the minds of some folks, Conclusion 3 - a dogma the premises of which include the claim that God is a delusion - requires killing, and quashing freedoms of association, speech, and the press.

I suggest that this means that atheism and dogma aren't inherently mutually exclusive. There is no end to the bizarre, twisted conclusions that human beings can come up with, and believing that God is a delusion is just as likely to pop up in their grotesque, disgusting chains of "reasoning", or to serve as some "premise" somewhere to justify the worst acts people can commit, as believing that he isn't.

I have a lot more to say but I have to run at the moment...

Later, if you want me to continue.

[_Tarski]

GoodK

I've read the Sam Harris book twice (I thought a lot of it was very incisive, actually), I've read the Dawkins book, I'm half done the Hitchens book, and I don't plan on reading Dennett's book because I've been following him for years on the subject of consciousness and I can't stand the guy. Reading his stuff makes me cringe.

But it is a strange position you take, simply announcing that, say, Sam Harris and Bertrand Russell have "answered that long ago" (gee, where have I heard that sort of thing before?), simply because Sam Harris and Bertrand Russell - and you - like to imagine they did. Or assuming that the only explanation for me not buying their "answers" is because I'm unfamiliar with them. As it happens (not sure it matters), I've probably read a lot more Bertrand Russell than you, and I'm probably more familiar with Harris's stuff than you are (including "Letters to a Christian Nation"). It is just that...I could be wrong...but I don't think the point about atheist ideologies inspiring murder just as theist ideologies do has been answered. Here's why.

Consider this from Harris, which you quoted:

"This really is one of the great canards of religious discourse, the idea that the greatest crimes of the 20th century were perpetrated because of atheism. The core problem for me is divisive dogmatism."

If you read closely, you will see that Harris has inadvertently committed an error here. His statement reveals that he believes that "atheism" can have nothing to do with a "divisive dogma".

Tal, I don't see where he said that atheism can have nothing to do with divisive dogma. I keep reading the quote and then your translation and I don't quite get it.
But I guess it depends on what you mean. Which is it? Do you think he is implying that
A. atheists cannot be dogmatic about political matters. (of course they can)
B. atheism cannot be inherently dogmatic or divisive. (Is atheism inherently divisive?)


Is it just disbelief in gods that is divisive or can my disbelief in other things for which there is no evidence also be divisive?

Is it divisive if I don't believe in a manlike anthropomorphic Mormon mammal god? Could that kind of disbelief lead to Stalinesque atrocities?
What about Greek Gods? Disbelief in Thor?
Why is it suddenly divisive when I get to the end of the list of possible gods and declare that I don't think any exist? Maybe its just the suggestion that people in general would be better off if they stop believing in gods that you have a problem with. Well, should we also shy away from trying to promote general disbelief in magic, witches, demons, curses, UFO etc?

Disbelief in which god was it that finally pushed Stalin over the edge to evil?

What about the ancient Chinese? Is belief in magic or astrology close enough to keep a society or ideology away from the stone cold evils of atheism?


How about this thought experiment. Can you see how belief in witches could be dangerous? Well, is disbelief in witches equally dangerous? By what mechanism does mere failure to believe in an invisible being for which we have no evidence become dangerous? Is it only dangerous if I encourage others to stop believing in witches?

Are any of the four horsemen suggesting that we force people to not believe in gods and devils or is it more like they are suggesting a campaign of education about religion and its problems. I think they would just like a society where its OK for me to say what I think about nonevidence based beliefs without being pegged as evil.

[_dartagnan]

Is atheism inherently divisive?

No more or no less than religion in general.

Most of the world is religious, so naturally you'll see more divisions in that context. That is the nature of virtually all social structures. Atheism represents on a small fraction of society, yet we already see divisions taking place. When they get organized they are no different from religions. Atheists are wanting to get away from the atheist label because they don't think it properly applies to them. The distinctions between different types of atheists are being invented, etc.

[_Jersey Girl]

Is atheism inherently divisive?

No more or no less than religion in general.

Most of the world is religious, so naturally you'll see more divisions in that context. That is the nature of virtually all social structures. Atheism represents on a small fraction of society, yet we already see divisions taking place. When they get organized they are no different from religions. Atheists are wanting to get away from the atheist label because they don't think it properly applies to them. The distinctions between different types of atheists are being invented, etc.

I'd like to see some evidence of organized Atheists. Could you supply at least 3 examples?

[_Tarski]

Is atheism inherently divisive?

No more or no less than religion in general.

So disbelief in anything that many people believe in could be divisive. But then so what? that's a long way from Stalin.
But a positive belief that is centered on some sacred texts that tell us that not believing could bring death or hell is whole other level I would say. There is a rather direct line from such ideas to violence. But the mere failure to believe? Is there a directly line from that pure lack to violence? How does that work?
There are all sorts of beliefs that I think we should discourage. Belief in witches, astrology, crystal healing, demonic possession, scientology, recovering repressed memories by hypnosis, homeopathy etc. Is it dangerous or evil to promote disbelief in these things? Why is belief in one of the many gods different?