Sam Harris Talks about the Defence of Religion

[_EAllusion]

I'd also should point out the Sam Harris reply you posted is a classic example of his dill-hole behavior. He insults and states something patently untrue about the criticism he received:

And there is something cult-like about the culture of atheism. In fact, much of the criticism I have received of my speech is so utterly lacking in content that I can only interpret it as a product of offended atheist piety.

Then he goes after an absurd strawman that has basically nothing to do with why people disagree with him:

Imagine President Bush announcing his veto of federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research at a White House press conference. A reporter for a major television network can ask one of the following questions. Which would you choose to best strike a blow against religious ignorance in this country?

1. Mr. President, what rational basis is there to worry about the fate of three-day-old human embryos? These embryos do not have nerve cells, much less the nervous systems they would need to suffer their destruction on any level. Your veto, frankly, seems insane to any educated person, and it is painfully obvious that it was the product of religious metaphysics and superstition—not science or morality. Do you ever worry that you may be dangerously misled by your religious beliefs? What can you say to the tens of millions of Americans whose suffering will be needlessly prolonged by your faith-based thinking?

2. Mr. President, as an atheist, let me ask what rational basis is there to worry about the fate of three-day-old human embryos? These embryos don’t have nerve cells, much less the nervous systems they would need to suffer their destruction on any level. Your veto, frankly, seems insane to millions of atheists in this country, and it is painfully obvious that it was the product of religious metaphysics and superstition—not science or morality. Do you ever worry that you are failing to represent the interests of millions of atheists who also vote, or that you may be dangerously misled by your religious beliefs? What can you say to the tens of millions of Americans whose suffering will be needlessly prolonged by your faith-based thinking?


Which question would you like to see asked on the evening news? To my mind, (1) is clearly better than (2). Much better. And yet, many atheists are behaving as though they prefer (2).

[Alf'Omega]

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.

Hold the bus.

The "community" would suddenly be absent if people who didn't believe in god suddenly stopped calling themselves atheists? You think it's the label that creates the "community" as opposed to the specific absent belief?

That makes no sense, man. If this is an argument against his views, it's extremely weak.

First of all, atheists are not really a community at all. It's just something that a wide variety of people have in common. Atheism is not an organizing concept. It's not something to rally around. It's almost as though you're equating atheism with "anti-religionism" (I just made this up, and I like it), but that's not what atheism is at all (or, maybe it is, and that's why it's a problematic term). You seem to want to support overloading the term, and that's the specific problem I have with it (as does Harris, it seems). If we could get people to agree that all an atheist is is someone who needs evidence before they'll believe in a god, I would be fine with it, but because it is loaded with other misconceptions, it's an inaccurate label, and I want nothing to do with it.

It does non-believers no good to be grouped with other non-believers based on one particular outlook, especially when that outlook has to do with non-belief. That leads to bigotry (just look at the way dart repetitively uses the term "New Atheists" in his trademark pejorative way, as though there are weekly "New Atheists" meetings where people are evilly rubbing their hands together scheming to overthrow the religious).

Atheists are no more a community than everyone who happens to not have acne.




__________

[_antishock8]

Why do "people disagree with him"?

I think he makes some very relevant points with many of his observations. For example:

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Sam_Harris

[_EAllusion]

Hold the bus.

The "community" would suddenly be absent if people who didn't believe in god suddenly stopped calling themselves atheists? You think it's the label that creates the "community" as opposed to the specific absent belief?

Not that particular label, no. But if there wasn't some term or group of terms to refer to people who reject belief in God, then yes, the community Sam Harris participates in would not exist. The label is just a collection of phonemes to refer to a concept. And Harris does not think people should self-identify with this concept. If that is the case, people aren't going to get together as they do now on the basis of their shared atheist identity, even if atheists are instead called gobblewobbers, those who do not believe in God, brights, or Fantastic McAwesomes.

[_Some Schmo]

EA, in examining your responses on this topic, I suspect that you're problem with him has to do with style and ethics (although I think your view of his ethics are also questionable, but you're entitled to your opinion, as I said before).

If that is your benchmark for the quality of his intellectualism, well, ok, but I personally wouldn't conflate those attributes. Harris has a great talent for assessing and articulating some good, common sense stuff. That's why I believe he's a great thinker. Perhaps you disagree with that assessment, and that's up to you.

I agree with PZ when he says people can call themselves whatever they want, but I also agree with Harris when he says it does non-believers no favors, and although he uses the phrase "we shouldn't call ourselves that" I don't see him demanding it as much as making a case for it. Atheists can take it or leave it.

[_Some Schmo]

Hold the bus.

The "community" would suddenly be absent if people who didn't believe in god suddenly stopped calling themselves atheists? You think it's the label that creates the "community" as opposed to the specific absent belief?

Not that particular label, no. But if there wasn't some term or group of terms to refer to people who reject belief in God, then yes, the community Sam Harris participates in would not exist.

You sound like a new age quantum consciousness guy: "Until it has been observed and has a label, it does not exist." The group of people who don't believe in god exists whether there's a label for them or not.

The label is just a collection of phonemes to refer to a concept. And Harris does not think people should self-identify with this concept. If that is the case, people aren't going to get together as they do now on the basis of their shared atheist identity, even if atheists are instead called gobblewobbers, those who do not believe in God, brights, or Fantastic McAwesomes.

I thought he suggested "rationalists."

[_EAllusion]

There exists an atheist community(s). Being an atheist doesn't require one to be a part of it, but there clearly are atheist publications, atheist conferences, atheist message boards, atheist get togethers, atheist shows, atheist...

People don't do this on the basis of not having acne. They do, to a lesser extent, on the basis of having bad acne. People also do this in opposition to ideas or institutions. Abolitionism was defined by its disagreement with something. It depends on whether the category is socially relevant.

Sam Harris participates in this. He wouldn't be able to if his views were actually followed.

[_Some Schmo]

There exists an atheist community(s). Being an atheist doesn't require one to be a part of it, but there clearly are atheist publications, atheist conferences, atheist message boards, atheist get togethers, atheist shows, atheist...

See, this is problematic. Certainly, this stuff exists for people who call themselves an atheist, but that doesn't at all mean that everyone who can be considered an atheist (or considers themselves that) participates or even cares about this stuff. Is he talking to the people who care about this stuff, don't care about this stuff, or everyone who doesn't believe in god?

People don't do this on the basis of not having acne. They do, to a lesser extent, on the basis of having bad acne. People also do this in opposition to ideas or institutions. Abolitionism was defined by its disagreement with something. It depends on whether the category is socially relevant.

I chose "not having acne" over "having acne" specifically because of the absense of a particular trait, and I agree, people don't organize on that basis. I disagree, however, that not having acne is socially irrelevant, as anyone with really bad acne would likely tell you.

Sam Harris participates in this. He wouldn't be able to if his views were actually followed.

Well, I argue he would, but it would just be under a different name. And the fact is, his goal is such that he would like to talk himself out of a job. No religion means there's nothing for him to talk about. That's the whole point, isn't it?

[_EAllusion]

I thought he suggested "rationalists."

He doesn't want "rationalists" to refer to nonbelief in God, though. He's opposed to any word functioning as the word atheist does. He just takes it for granted that believing in God is irrational, therefore if you go around saying, "I'm a rationalist" you've implicitly stated that you don't believe in God along with a host of other things.

[_EAllusion]

but that doesn't at all mean that everyone who can be considered an atheist (or considers themselves that) participates or even cares about this stuff

You are aware that I said the exact same thing in the very post you quoted, right? Having bad acne doesn't require you to participate in any broader bad acne community, but their exists one. Opposing slavery doesn't require one to participate in an abolitionist movement, but there existed one.