About Me

My photo
I have a burning need to know stuff and I love asking awkward questions.

Sunday, April 15, 2007

God's Dupes

by Sam Harris for the Los Angeles Times

March 16, 2007

PETE STARK, a California Democrat, appears to be the first congressman in U.S. history to acknowledge that he doesn't believe in God. In a country in which 83% of the population thinks that the Bible is the literal or "inspired" word of the creator of the universe, this took political courage. Of course, one can imagine that Cicero's handlers in the 1st century BC lost some sleep when he likened the traditional accounts of the Greco-Roman gods to the "dreams of madmen" and to the "insane mythology of Egypt."

Mythology is where all gods go to die, and it seems that Stark has secured a place in American history simply by admitting that a fresh grave should be dug for the God of Abraham — the jealous, genocidal, priggish and self-contradictory tyrant of the Bible and the Koran. Stark is the first of our leaders to display a level of intellectual honesty befitting a consul of ancient Rome. Bravo. The truth is, there is not a person on Earth who has a good reason to believe that Jesus rose from the dead or that Muhammad spoke to the angel Gabriel in a cave. And yet billions of people claim to be certain about such things. As a result, Iron Age ideas about everything high and low — sex, cosmology, gender equality, immortal souls, the end of the world, the validity of prophecy, etc. — continue to divide our world and subvert our national discourse. Many of these ideas, by their very nature, hobble science, inflame human conflict and squander scarce resources.

Of course, no religion is monolithic. Within every faith one can see people arranged along a spectrum of belief. Picture concentric circles of diminishing reasonableness: At the center, one finds the truest of true believers — the Muslim jihadis, for instance, who not only support suicidal terrorism but who are the first to turn themselves into bombs; or the Dominionist Christians, who openly call for homosexuals and blasphemers to be put to death. Outside this sphere of maniacs, one finds millions more who share their views but lack their zeal. Beyond them, one encounters pious multitudes who respect the beliefs of their more deranged brethren but who disagree with them on small points of doctrine — of course the world is going to end in glory and Jesus will appear in the sky like a superhero, but we can't be sure it will happen in our lifetime.

Out further still, one meets religious moderates and liberals of diverse hues — people who remain supportive of the basic scheme that has balkanized our world into Christians, Muslims and Jews, but who are less willing to profess certainty about any article of faith. Is Jesus really the son of God? Will we all meet our grannies again in heaven? Moderates and liberals are none too sure. Those on this spectrum view the people further toward the center as too rigid, dogmatic and hostile to doubt, and they generally view those outside as corrupted by sin, weak-willed or unchurched.

The problem is that wherever one stands on this continuum, one inadvertently shelters those who are more fanatical than oneself from criticism. Ordinary fundamentalist Christians, by maintaining that the Bible is the perfect word of God, inadvertently support the Dominionists — men and women who, by the millions, are quietly working to turn our country into a totalitarian theocracy reminiscent of John Calvin's Geneva. Christian moderates, by their lingering attachment to the unique divinity of Jesus, protect the faith of fundamentalists from public scorn. Christian liberals — who aren't sure what they believe but just love the experience of going to church occasionally — deny the moderates a proper collision with scientific rationality. And in this way centuries have come and gone without an honest word being spoken about God in our society.

People of all faiths — and none — regularly change their lives for the better, for good and bad reasons. And yet such transformations are regularly put forward as evidence in support of a specific religious creed. President Bush has cited his own sobriety as suggestive of the divinity of Jesus. No doubt Christians do get sober from time to time — but Hindus (polytheists) and atheists do as well. How, therefore, can any thinking person imagine that his experience of sobriety lends credence to the idea that a supreme being is watching over our world and that Jesus is his son? There is no question that many people do good things in the name of their faith — but there are better reasons to help the poor, feed the hungry and defend the weak than the belief that an Imaginary Friend wants you to do it. Compassion is deeper than religion. As is ecstasy. It is time that we acknowledge that human beings can be profoundly ethical — and even spiritual — without pretending to know things they do not know.

Let us hope that Stark's candor inspires others in our government to admit their doubts about God. Indeed, it is time we broke this spell en masse. Every one of the world's "great" religions utterly trivializes the immensity and beauty of the cosmos. Books like the Bible and the Koran get almost every significant fact about us and our world wrong. Every scientific domain — from cosmology to psychology to economics — has superseded and surpassed the wisdom of Scripture. Everything of value that people get from religion can be had more honestly, without presuming anything on insufficient evidence. The rest is self-deception, set to music.

16 comments:

Laughing Boy said...

As for Mr. Stark, good for him.

As for the hope that each of our representatives are honest about their beliefs, I'm all for it.

As for Mr. Harris's assertions throughout the article, it's Dawkins served cold.

CyberKitten said...

Rather uncompromising isn't he?

Though Harris does talk a lot of sense even whilst getting most peoples backs up.

BTW - Welcome back LB...

Plonka said...

Well done Pete Stark...:)

A bit Dawkins-ish, but I have to agree CK, it makes a lot of sense...

sirkolgate said...

At the center, one finds the truest of true believers — the Muslim jihadis, for instance, who not only support suicidal terrorism but who are the first to turn themselves into bombs; or the Dominionist Christians, who openly call for homosexuals and blasphemers to be put to death.

What? The truest of true are those that are completely insane, and also those who are actually going against the doctrine to which they profess? That makes absolutely no sense.

As a result, Iron Age ideas about everything high and low — sex, cosmology, gender equality, immortal souls, the end of the world, the validity of prophecy, etc. — continue to divide our world and subvert our national discourse.

The human race is moving so much closer to enlighten due to the “golden age of reason”? Science and technology are not spinning out the thread of ‘reason’ as fantastically as Harris would lead you to believe. Contradiction and science go hand and hand. We take two steps back for every one step forward. We are not wiser with ‘age’ only more capable.

How, therefore, can any thinking person imagine that his experience of sobriety lends credence to the idea that a supreme being is watching over our world and that Jesus is his son?

That’s a lot more out of Bush’s statement then I would even expect an atheist to attach. A thinking person can easily see how his ‘faith’ brough him to sobriety. That’s all. So what if it did?

Every one of the world's "great" religions utterly trivializes the immensity and beauty of the cosmos.

The bible does not attempt to define everything at the molecular level with incredibly hard to remember formulas. If anything, the Bible ADDS another dimension to our overanalyzed, dried up and unoriginal world.

Books like the Bible and the Koran get almost every significant fact about us and our world wrong. Every scientific domain — from cosmology to psychology to economics — has superseded and surpassed the wisdom of Scripture.

No & Nope. Let’s break that fist sentence down. “… almost every significant fact about us and our world.” What exactly is a significant fact about us and our world, Mr. Harris? That 9.8 meters per second squared is the acceleration of gravity. How about the elemental composite of the atmosphere? Did the Bible get that wrong? I’ve read it and I recall no mention of either. In the book of James there was no “And it was said that 7.2 meters per second squared shall hold as the speed of descent into hell!”

The Bible is not ‘sold’ as a science book. Some Christians may assume you can substitute one for the other, but that’s a fallacy. The bible is a book of Religion and as such it is not a factual analysis of the physical makeup of our world. Nothing has superseded the ‘wisdom’ of Scripture. The ‘wisdom’ of Scripture is at its heart a moralistic work that instructs the reader on how to live a life as according to the values of the religion. Why would science have anything to do with that?

There is no question that many people do good things in the name of their faith — but there are better reasons to help the poor, feed the hungry and defend the weak than the belief that an Imaginary Friend wants you to do it. Compassion is deeper than religion. As is ecstasy. It is time that we acknowledge that human beings can be profoundly ethical — and even spiritual — without pretending to know things they do not know.

Does the conscious internal dialogue while I do a good deed really go “I am doing this good deed because God (Jesus) wants me to.” Or is it maybe something else? Compassion and ecstasy are deeper than religion how? What do I know that I do not know?

Everything of value that people get from religion can be had more honestly, without presuming anything on insufficient evidence. The rest is self-deception, set to music.

This article is a fairly good amount of self-deception. Sam Harris has deceived himself into thinking that the value of a scientific ‘fact’ and a religious one are similar enough to be tried against the other. This is a fallacy, they are not of the same type. You might as well compare the works of Star Wars against the body of Quantum Physics.

There is a point here… I did not miss it, my atheistic friends. The point is that people who cling to religion are weak and are forcing themselves to be weaker due to their inabilities to accept things that scientific thinkers of non-religious sorts accept directly. We should cast off God because He is a dated metaphor for how we should behave and who needs Him. We should be clever enough to realize that Religion is a sickness of the mind we need to be free from. We need to un-hook ourselves from these dated ideals because they only open the door for a flux of depravity that is then protected by the more moderate practitioners. Where there is religion social problems and general mayhem ensue.

I can be strong in both religion and science. Nothing says that I need to abhor science because I’m religious. I also know no reason why science and religion can’t coexist in certain aspects. I understand creationism vs. evolution, but the same physics and chemistry that apply to you apply to me.

Bah… this is long, but I went through all the work of writing it then sitting on it for days, here’s my comments.

lady deadlock said...

sirkolgate; what a fantastic post.

My problem with atheists (or the ones here) is the constant misreprentation of faiths to make a point.

If the arguments against belief in God are so powerful; then why dissemble ?

Plonka said...

sirkolgate: "The point is that people who cling to religion are weak and are forcing themselves to be weaker due to their inabilities to accept things that scientific thinkers of non-religious sorts accept directly. We should cast off God because He is a dated metaphor for how we should behave and who needs Him. We should be clever enough to realize that Religion is a sickness of the mind we need to be free from. We need to un-hook ourselves from these dated ideals because they only open the door for a flux of depravity that is then protected by the more moderate practitioners. Where there is religion social problems and general mayhem ensue."

A tad harsh in my view (I don't see you as suffering "sickness of the mind" for instance), but well said just the same. One error though. Not all atheists are scientific in their orientation.

sirkolgate said...

Lady Deadlock said If the arguments against belief in God are so powerful; then why dissemble ?

My dear Lady what can I say?

There's many reasons to not believe in God. Most atheists that I know were once Christian.

Here's the fancy thing about God though. You can not disprove that He exists for the same reasons that I can not prove that He does. It’s a tantalizing stalemate and the reason I just adore these arguments.

The only thing an Atheist and a Christian can argue is the strength of the other's argument for or against certain aspects of belief. The Atheists have only one advantage, they don’t have to believe in anything.

Plonka said: One error though. Not all atheists are scientific in their orientation.

Well, I don't mean 'only' scientific Plonka, just 'worldly'. I use 'science' in the purest sense of the word. See below:

Science:
1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.
2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
3. any of the branches of natural or physical science.
4. systematized knowledge in general.
5. knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.
6. a particular branch of knowledge.
7. skill, esp. reflecting a precise application of facts or principles; proficiency.


Atheists that fall outside of this category frankly are simply bereft of the believing in a God or gods. But if they have no reason for doing so scientifically (as above) then they are following their 'faith' just as I follow mine, on a wing and a prayer. I like that.

CyberKitten said...

sirkolgate said: There's many reasons to not believe in God.

Very true [grin].

sirkolgate said: Most atheists that I know were once Christian.

Not me.

sirkolgate said: Here's the fancy thing about God though. You can not disprove that He exists for the same reasons that I can not prove that He does. It’s a tantalizing stalemate and the reason I just adore these arguments.

I actually think that the burden of proof is with the Theists. All I need to do is be skeptical. I've heard many arguments for a belief in God - none of them cut much (if any) ice with me. Though there might be an argument I haven't heard yet....

sirkolgate said: Atheists that fall outside of this category frankly are simply bereft of the believing in a God or gods. But if they have no reason for doing so scientifically (as above) then they are following their 'faith' just as I follow mine, on a wing and a prayer. I like that.

Atheists disbelive in God for many reasons - both 'scientific' and 'unscientific'. Personally I don't believe because there is insufficient evidence to believe. I have also consistently failed to reason my way to His existence - nor has anyone yet presented me with a reasonable argument to 'help me' get from my position to theirs.

Oh, atheism isn't (at least fr me and other atheists I know) a 'faith' position but a *lack* of faith position.

CyberKitten said...

sirkolgate said: Contradiction and science go hand and hand. We take two steps back for every one step forward. We are not wiser with ‘age’ only more capable.

We certainly *know* a lot more than we did even 100 years ago, never mind 2000 years ago. That's undeniable. Whether or not we use it wisely... well, that's a whole other question. We are most certainly more capable but we are still humans beings with all of our well known faults. Oh, and you're going to have to explain the bit about contradiction and science going hand and hand.... that bit confused me.

sirkolgate said: The Bible is not ‘sold’ as a science book. Some Christians may assume you can substitute one for the other, but that’s a fallacy.

...and yet... there are people who call themselves Christians who, when science challenges their beliefs, chose the Bible over known facts. They use the Bible to inform their opinion on scientific subjects. That's hardly reasonable is it?

sirkolgate said: The ‘wisdom’ of Scripture is at its heart a moralistic work that instructs the reader on how to live a life as according to the values of the religion. Why would science have anything to do with that?

If only every theist thought that. Maybe then they wouldn't mind Evolution being taught in schools or stop research into stem cells?

sirkolgate said: Sam Harris has deceived himself into thinking that the value of a scientific ‘fact’ and a religious one are similar enough to be tried against the other. This is a fallacy, they are not of the same type.

That's true - science is orders of magnitude more important than religion. But I think the whole Science Vs Religion thing is a red herring. Mostly they leave each other alone because they look at different aspects of the world in different ways. Its only when they tread on each others toes that problems arise - and then usually only when the theists insist on a literal interpretation of the Bible.

sirkolgate said: I can be strong in both religion and science. Nothing says that I need to abhor science because I’m religious. I also know no reason why science and religion can’t coexist in certain aspects.

There is indeed no need to make a choice - though people do. When beliefs come into conflict some people will inevitably take sides.

Plonka said...

Sirkolgate: But if they have no reason for doing so scientifically (as above) then they are following their 'faith' just as I follow mine, on a wing and a prayer.

"To-Coque!" he cried as he waved his wooden leg...:)

This is where I beg to differ.

You said: Atheists that fall outside of this category frankly are simply bereft of the believing in a God or gods.

How does that require faith? What they have is a lack of faith. The notion that having no belief requires faith is a fallacy.

sirkolgate said...

Woah... Cyberkitten... I thought you were de-clawed?

*I like cats very much so my puns are fully harmless and I actually know better, with you the X-Man character Wolverine comes to mind*

Plonka I checked out your blog *bow to fellow Technophile* and wow, thanks for commenting.

You both have great questions... thankfully you're both probably asleep now so I've got some time to respond.

You've got to tell me what "To Coque" means Plonka, I tried to find the meaning, but can not. That line carries alot of literary weight and I'm ashamed I don't recognize it.

Wait... I think I figured it out. It's a sport related thing (CK and I share a lack of sport enthusiasm) and if he's trying to participate with his 'wooden' leg then good luck to him. Correct?

Literary and original, very nice. ['very nice' said like Borat]

Kay… now to it, shall we?

You’re both right, what it means to be Ahtiest has NOTHING to do with faith. I was only trying to say that as an Athiest science is what you’ve got to work with. If you don’t have science you’re only left with faith.

Even philosophical debate requires deductive reasoning and the rudimentary perceptive reasoning to either disprove God, or as CK so majestically pointed out, fail to prove Him. If I can not see, taste, smell, hear, or touch God then he must not exist. This is the base argument and it is scientific.

CK said: That's true - science is orders of magnitude more important than religion.

Science is orders of magnitude more important now. If you’re concerned with an eternal afterlife then the decades spent on this life are sorta swept away in the torrent of eons making religion infinity more important. =P

CK said: We certainly *know* a lot more than we did even 100 years ago, never mind 2000 years ago. That's undeniable. Whether or not we use it wisely... well, that's a whole other question. We are most certainly more capable but we are still humans beings with all of our well known faults. Oh, and you're going to have to explain the bit about contradiction and science going hand and hand.... that bit confused me.

Science as a tool of discovery has created a vast array of data that is undeniably true and very strong based on the ability to be experimented upon time and time again. The tensile strength of steel, the velocity of gravity, the periodic table, friction coefficients and the billions of other natural observations continue to hold steady as rock.

However, in the less easily experimental regions like pharmaceutical, historical, behavioral, and those new frontiers like quantum physics and space exploration the grasp is tenuous at best. In these areas science is its own worst enemy as information can become available at any second which will crumble the house of cards previously established.

This is not to say that we can’t or are not making advancements in these areas, but simply that science can be fickle.

CK said: ...and yet... there are people who call themselves Christians who, when science challenges their beliefs, chose the Bible over known facts. They use the Bible to inform their opinion on scientific subjects. That's hardly reasonable is it?

*shrug* No, but remember how much that Bible means to them. It is their only ‘real’ connection to what the believe with all of their hearts. With science behind you there’s a lot more ‘real’ reading material available. However, they should just know when to be quiet. I try to.

CK said: I actually think that the burden of proof is with the Theists. All I need to do is be skeptical. I've heard many arguments for a belief in God - none of them cut much (if any) ice with me. Though there might be an argument I haven't heard yet....

Yeah, its tough CyberKitten. I personally had a huge war with faith. At one point in my life I was 100% positive that God didn’t exist because it just didn’t make sense. Why? Why does there need to be any ‘higher power’ we’ve got it all figured out, things just happen and life goes on. In the infinite realms of space and time everything is possible, along a purely scientific sense of course.

I’ve had a reasonably hard life (as hard as someone in a developed country who’s always had something to eat and a roof over my head can have) and I made it through college, after 5 years, and got a job and got laid off at Christmas, and got another job and went manic and lost two jobs at once while getting two restraining orders and was committed to a mental hospital, diagnosed bipolar and after a few months of unemployment got another job. I’ve been married 6 years and things are good, but not great.

Where is God in all of that?

Everywhere, I guess. I made it through that because of my faith. Why? I can’t really say other than I just always knew I wasn’t alone.

I can imagine the proof of God that other people have thrown at you. Most of them wouldn’t cut much ice with me either. I’m not like most Christians and I don’t go to church because I don’t tolerate your average Christian very well. In fact I’d say I’ve got less of a tolerance for Christians than most Atheists do.

So what evidence do I have that God exists?

There is no proof. There is no evidence. That’d be too easy.

Plonka said...

Sirkolgate: I hope you found my "blognow" one. I'm moving to the one here, but all good things take time...:)

Ooops, a typo... Tu coque. Sorry about that...:)

The wooden leg thing is just something my grandmother used to say a lot ("'To late!' She cried, as she waved her wooden leg" was how it actually went). It's origin is lost but seems to originate in the early 1900's. There's nothing really literary about it, but ask someone older than about 60 that has some experience in things British and they'll have heard it.

Even philosophical debate requires deductive reasoning and the rudimentary perceptive reasoning to either disprove God, or as CK so majestically pointed out, fail to prove Him. If I can not see, taste, smell, hear, or touch God then he must not exist. This is the base argument and it is scientific.

No, that's experience of the senses. "Scientific" requires the method and that involves a lot more than sensory experience.

CyberKitten said...

sirkolgate said: Woah... Cyberkitten... I thought you were de-clawed?

What ever gave you *that* impression? This kitty most definitely has claws... sharp teeth too [grin].

sirkolgate said: ...with you the X-Man character Wolverine comes to mind.

I'll take that as a compliment.

sirkolgate said: You’re both right, what it means to be Ahtiest has NOTHING to do with faith. I was only trying to say that as an Athiest science is what you’ve got to work with. If you don’t have science you’re only left with faith.

Not true. Science can certainly inform any debate with facts are concerned (as well as a good dose of theory) but science can't comment at all on some questions. These are handled by philosophy. Taken with political ideology/philosophy I don't see any need to add faith/theism into the mix. Science, philosophy and politics just about covers it I think.

sirkolgate said: Even philosophical debate requires deductive reasoning and the rudimentary perceptive reasoning to either disprove God, or as CK so majestically pointed out, fail to prove Him.

I don't think that its a case of proving or failing to prove the existence of God. It does seem patently impossible to 'prove' God by reason alone (at least it is to me). I do not feel the need to *disprove* the existence of God nor to try (and fail) to prove His existence. I merely consider the evidence (such as it is) insufficient for me to believe in Him.

More later......

sirkolgate said...

Plonka I did find your other 'very' fleshed-out blog. That was the one I referred to.

Thanks for filling me in on the "Tu coque" and I see now it's at least partially literary. Being from Shakespeare’s Tragedy involving Caesar, unless I'm mistaken (that was a long time ago and while I do love the classics for their weight I enjoy Science Fiction/Fantasy (mostly the latter) when I get a chance to read. The Wikipedia reference was "Tu coque Brute..." which I take to be Caesar’s last words to his murderer Brutus ("And you... Brutus" as I remember my translation)

Ok... Ok... I concede to the argument that an Atheist can exist without science. What it means to be Atheist is a lack of belief (in God) not the addition of anything, including science.

Speaking of which… I consider philosophy a ‘science’ though it may be only a science of reason, it is nonetheless logical and wizened old Greek men with long gray beards who enjoyed the drape of a good toga and the fashion of sandals used philosophy to shape the path of Science with things like empirical study.

This is arguing the shade of green in the lawn though, isn’t it?

Mainly, I hope that I stood up to Mr. Harris sufficiently enough to make him seem a tad ‘less’ insightful than he may have at first seemed, CyberKitten. *innocent smile*

This is not to say that I don’t see the value of ‘emotional’ pieces within someone’s given group. While Mr. Harris finds a brick wall with me, the article is most definitely going to be a hit with people who already have some agreement with him. I’ve written pieces like this before, where you just let go and have a good rant, and they’ve been most popular even if they weren’t very strong with the critics. To be honest most sermons and religious papers I’ve ever seen put together by even the most controlled theists are much the same.

CK said: I don't think that its a case of proving or failing to prove the existence of God. It does seem patently impossible to 'prove' God by reason alone (at least it is to me). I do not feel the need to *disprove* the existence of God nor to try (and fail) to prove His existence. I merely consider the evidence (such as it is) insufficient for me to believe in Him.

Touché… and point… again. This is the other line of arguing to which I bare acute interest, this whole question of belief.

CyberKitten everything you said was a valid point and one which reflected your stand. You have said before that the burden of proof falls upon the theists. I’d say the burden of believing falls upon the atheists.

Silly plays on words aside, you’re never going to believe in God if you need evidence to believe. That’s missing the beauty of the forest for the interest in the trees. Not that I am all distraught over it and think you’d better shape up or else. People need to find faith on their own otherwise it has no value and there’s no strength in it. That kind of faith is blind and no better than not having any at all.

*shrug* Doesn’t mean I won’t hang around and be a bug in your ear. That’s just ‘my’ way. And who knows… maybe one day I’ll get my act together and write something that may not ‘prove’ God exists, but may make believing just a tad more interesting.

OR my old scientist roots are gonna reach up and yank my faith out and I’ll be merrily destroying fundamentalist Christian garbage as only a learned ravaging prior Christian can do. >=)

CyberKitten said...

sirkolgate - Thanks for your substantial comment. Sorry that I've been tardy in getting back to you...

sirkolgate said: I consider philosophy a ‘science’ though it may be only a science of reason, it is nonetheless logical and wizened old Greek men with long gray beards who enjoyed the drape of a good toga and the fashion of sandals used philosophy to shape the path of Science with things like empirical study.

I think that there's a *lot* more to philosophy than dead Greek guys. Elements of Philosophy and Science are certainly related but I wouldn't call Ethics a science - for example. Philosophy (in general) is not Science by another name. There are many questions that Science is just not interested in answering just as there are Philosophical questions that Science wouldn't know where to start even investigating.

sirkolgate said: Silly plays on words aside, you’re never going to believe in God if you need evidence to believe. That’s missing the beauty of the forest for the interest in the trees.

Its been said to me before. Without a *reason* to believe I cannot believe (and it fascinates me that other people still can). Without evidence to the contrary I cannot see my position changing.

sirkolgate said: Doesn’t mean I won’t hang around and be a bug in your ear. That’s just ‘my’ way. And who knows… maybe one day I’ll get my act together and write something that may not ‘prove’ God exists, but may make believing just a tad more interesting.

Go for it. I look forward to having interesting future conversations.

sirkolgate said...

You're welcome CyberKitten. I apologize that all my comments have to be so 'substantial' =)