Sam Harris Talks about the Defence of Religion

[_antishock8]

I think Dart's basic style is to call something stupid, endlessly, and then claim the only cure for being stupid is to believe in a god.

Anyway, I was responding to EA's assertion that SH was opposed to calling himself an antheist. I think it's pretty clear Mr. Harris is comfortable with that term.

[_EAllusion]

Uh, I've read more than one article with Sam Harris arguing against using the term atheist. I've seen numerous exchanges in which he has argued against it. He understands that he falls within the terms meaning, but he does not think it should be used to describe himself and he argues that atheists should not use the term.

Here's PZ Myers responding to the notion. (Read the link inside for what Harris is arguing)

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007 ... ew_ath.php

[_antishock8]

Friend. It's right there. Just look up a little and read SH's essay. He self-identifies as an atheist in that essay. It directly controvenes your assertion.

[_Some Schmo]

Friend. It's right there. Just look up a little and read SH's essay. He self-identifies as an atheist in that essay. It directly controvenes your assertion.

Dude, EA is correct about this. I've seen Harris make this point as well. He uses the term because it's widely accepted as the term that describes his own point of view, but that certainly doesn't mean he likes or embraces it. It's not a problem with the set of beliefs as much as it is a problem with the terminology.

[_antishock8]

I find it a little peculiar that someone self-identifies as an atheist in an essay he writes, then states that he doesn't like to self-identify as an atheist.

Perhaps he has more of a problem with theists' interpretation of the term "atheist" than he does with using it to describe himself?

My point, with respect to the term “atheist” (or any other), is that the use of a label invites a variety of misunderstandings that are harmful to our cause.

Etc...

[_EAllusion]

Sam Harris recognizes that he fits under the meaning of the label "atheist" and participates in the atheist community. He also thinks taheists should not self-identify as atheists and should eschew the label. That the entire atheist community that he is a star in revolves around having a central defining concept conveniently labled "atheist" that would be absent if his wishes came true is an argument against his views, not a case that he doesn't have them.

[_antishock8]

http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text ... -atheists/

I think he's discussing strategy; a way of approaching people in context of atheism. Regardless, he still self-identifies as such and continues to do so to this day.

[_EAllusion]

Antishock -

Harris thinks calling yourself an atheist and making that a part of your identity is like going around calling yourself an a-alchemist, a-lochness monsterist, a-[n]. There's a infinite supply of irrational beliefs out there that we don't go around defining ourselves in terms of nonbelief in. He also thinks the mere existence of people running around calling themselves atheists makes it seem like there's a legitimate dispute over the soundness of God, which there isn't. Further, he thinks atheism comes across as negative, since it is defined in terms of what it disagrees with. He thinks both of these points are detrimental to persuading people to not believe in God, respect atheists, and so forth. He'd prefer if atheists stuck to positive labels like "rationalist" and so on. I strongly disagree with this, but these are his views.

[_EAllusion]

http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/response-to-my-fellow-atheists/

I think he's discussing strategy; a way of approaching people in context of atheism. Regardless, he still self-identifies as such and continues to do so to this day.

Here's PZ's reply to that incidentally:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007 ... nice_f.php

I also don't think you understand where Harris is coming from here. He's advocating that atheists stop calling themselves atheists. To the extent he doesn't follow his own advice, that's his problem. He's also opposed to the term "secular" if you weren't aware of that. Not positive enough, apparently.

[_antishock8]

Perhaps he should start calling himself a "Bright"?

http://the-brights.net/