About Me

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

Friday, August 17, 2007

10 myths—and 10 Truths—About Atheism (Part 1)

By Sam Harris for The Los Angeles Times

December 24, 2006

SEVERAL POLLS indicate that the term “atheism” has acquired such an extraordinary stigma in the United States that being an atheist is now a perfect impediment to a career in politics (in a way that being black, Muslim or homosexual is not). According to a recent Newsweek poll, only 37% of Americans would vote for an otherwise qualified atheist for president. Atheists are often imagined to be intolerant, immoral, depressed, blind to the beauty of nature and dogmatically closed to evidence of the supernatural.

Even John Locke, one of the great patriarchs of the Enlightenment, believed that atheism was “not at all to be tolerated” because, he said, “promises, covenants and oaths, which are the bonds of human societies, can have no hold upon an atheist.” That was more than 300 years ago. But in the United States today, little seems to have changed. A remarkable 87% of the population claims “never to doubt” the existence of God; fewer than 10% identify themselves as atheists — and their reputation appears to be deteriorating. Given that we know that atheists are often among the most intelligent and scientifically literate people in any society, it seems important to deflate the myths that prevent them from playing a larger role in our national discourse.

1) Atheists believe that life is meaningless. On the contrary, religious people often worry that life is meaningless and imagine that it can only be redeemed by the promise of eternal happiness beyond the grave. Atheists tend to be quite sure that life is precious. Life is imbued with meaning by being really and fully lived. Our relationships with those we love are meaningful now; they need not last forever to be made so. Atheists tend to find this fear of meaninglessness… well … meaningless.

2) Atheism is responsible for the greatest crimes in human history. People of faith often claim that the crimes of Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot were the inevitable product of unbelief. The problem with fascism and communism, however, is not that they are too critical of religion; the problem is that they are too much like religions. Such regimes are dogmatic to the core and generally give rise to personality cults that are indistinguishable from cults of religious hero worship. Auschwitz, the gulag and the killing fields were not examples of what happens when human beings reject religious dogma; they are examples of political, racial and nationalistic dogma run amok. There is no society in human history that ever suffered because its people became too reasonable.

3) Atheism is dogmatic. Jews, Christians and Muslims claim that their scriptures are so prescient of humanity’s needs that they could only have been written under the direction of an omniscient deity. An atheist is simply a person who has considered this claim, read the books and found the claim to be ridiculous. One doesn’t have to take anything on faith, or be otherwise dogmatic, to reject unjustified religious beliefs. As the historian Stephen Henry Roberts (1901-71) once said: “I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.”

4) Atheists think everything in the universe arose by chance. No one knows why the universe came into being. In fact, it is not entirely clear that we can coherently speak about the “beginning” or “creation” of the universe at all, as these ideas invoke the concept of time, and here we are talking about the origin of space-time itself. The notion that atheists believe that everything was created by chance is also regularly thrown up as a criticism of Darwinian evolution. As Richard Dawkins explains in his marvelous book, “The God Delusion,” this represents an utter misunderstanding of evolutionary theory. Although we don’t know precisely how the Earth’s early chemistry begat biology, we know that the diversity and complexity we see in the living world is not a product of mere chance. Evolution is a combination of chance mutation and natural selection. Darwin arrived at the phrase “natural selection” by analogy to the “artificial selection” performed by breeders of livestock. In both cases, selection exerts a highly non-random effect on the development of any species.

5) Atheism has no connection to science. Although it is possible to be a scientist and still believe in God — as some scientists seem to manage it — there is no question that an engagement with scientific thinking tends to erode, rather than support, religious faith. Taking the U.S. population as an example: Most polls show that about 90% of the general public believes in a personal God; yet 93% of the members of the National Academy of Sciences do not. This suggests that there are few modes of thinking less congenial to religious faith than science is.

10 comments:

dbackdad said...

"Atheists believe that life is meaningless" - That's one that I've never been able to understand. I completely agree with Harris on this. A belief in and a reliance on the afterlife seems to make mortal life more meaningless for those of faith ... not atheists.

"... there are few modes of thinking less congenial to religious faith than science is" -- And vice-versa. It's no wonder this theocracy we are building here seems to try to undercut science at ever turn. Truth is painful.

CyberKitten said...

dbackdad said: I completely agree with Harris on this. A belief in and a reliance on the afterlife seems to make mortal life more meaningless for those of faith ... not atheists.

It does seem that way. When a theist says that only God gives our lives meaning they are saying that *without* God life is meaningless. So without God watching your children grow up is meaningless, your job is meaningless, your achievements are meaningless, your relationships are meaningless. As I have said before it's a sad philosophy.

dbackdad said: It's no wonder this theocracy we are building here seems to try to undercut science at ever turn. Truth is painful.

I do find it both strange and sad that some people can only cope with 'harsh' reality by turning their backs on it. The only way that they can cope with the real world is by falling back into the arms of theistic fantasy. We humans do seem to have a great capacity for self-delusion don't we?

CyberKitten said...

theologix said: I find it ironic that by seeking to clear up myths about atheism, the posts and comments are perpetrating myths toward theism.

Such as?

CyberKitten said...

theologix questioned: A belief in and a reliance on the afterlife seems to make mortal life more meaningless for those of faith.

That seems a reasonable interpretation of some of the theistic comments I have seen on various Blogs (and elsewhere). Certainly some theists see the afterlife as more important and more 'real' than this life. I've certainly come across that attitude before.

theologix questioned: I do find it both strange and sad that some people can only cope with 'harsh' reality by turning their backs on it. The only way that they can cope with the real world is by falling back into the arms of theistic fantasy.

Again I have come across this attitude myself. Some theists seem to find contact with the real world of science to be rather painful - especially when they think that it threatens to undermine their belief system in some way. When these two 'magisteria' come into conflict some tend to chose their beliefs over scientific discoveries. Evolution being the classic case in point. Many theists manage to accommodate science & faith but some - for whatever reason - cannot or will not do so.

theologix questioned: Ask yourself, which is more moral, helping the poor out of concern for their suffering, or doing so because you think the creator of the universe wants you to do it, will reward you for doing it or will punish you for not doing it?

This is a common argument that often comes up. Can you act in a moral fashion if that action is in any way forced on you. Do some theists at least behave the way they do because of the fear of the consequences if they act in ways they think God would *strongly* disaprove of. How can you act in a truely moral way if the choice is between doing what you are told or being punished forever?

theologix questioned: From the atheist point of view, the world’s religions utterly trivialize the real beauty and immensity of the universe.

This I actually disagree with. *I* might see the Universe as an amazing place... *You* might see it as an amazing place too - but due to our beliefs we see the its beauty for different reasons and from different standpoints. I may disagree with *why* you think the Universe an amazing thing but I don't think that it trivialises the fact of the beauty.

CyberKitten said...

theologix said: Note that the author's definition of arrogance is defined as claiming to know what you don't.

I think its more claiming with absolute certainty not only do they *know* things - which atheists believe that they don't know - but that they know these things are true and that *everyone* else is dead wrong in their beliefs. Smugness normally follows.

theologix said: He knows quite a bit about extraterrestrial life that may or may not exist.

I think that it is highly likely that if intelligent life exists elsewhere that they would be completely bemused by our sacred books. For starts they are products of ancient - if human - cultures. It is hard enough for *us* to understand them, nevermind creatures from literally alien cultures. They may have religions of their own. They might even be monotheists but I would bet my house that their monotheism had been arrived at in very different ways than our own. Comparing their beliefs with ours I suggest they would either find ours either incomprehensible or laughable and, with the inevitable cultural differences, more so that human atheists do.

theologix said: Theism is a delusion, thus knowledge that God does not exist is expressed. The author has to know everything in existence to make such a statement, or be "pretending to know" things that he doesn't. He is either guilty of the arrogance he seeks to dismiss, or he is actually the God he denies.

Not at all. I too think that theism is a delusion. From my point of view I don't know what else to call it. To say such I thing I do not need (nor claim) perfect knowledge of the Universe. As far as I am concerned I see people passionately believing in something I consider to be a fantasy and adjusting their behaviour accordingly - that's delusional is it not? Do not some theists call atheism delusional, indeed *dangerously* delusional? Do said theists have perfect knowledge or just strong beliefs?

theologix said: cyberkitten, with all due respect, you should really be more careful of the quality of material you paste into your blog.

I'm sorry that it didn't meet your exacting standards. The post was there to generate comments and illuminate the subject at hand - which I hope it will do. If I posted only 'perfect' articles any comments I received would be along the lines of: I agree - which would be *really* boring if it happened too often. Through criticism of what I post here we might both arrive a little closer to the truth of things don't you think?

theologix said: The article was chock-full of such fallacies.

That's up for debate - obviously.

theologix said: I stop here out of respect for you, brevity, and the fact that I'm under the weather and going to bed.

I'm sorry to hear that. I hope you're feeling better soon.

theologix said: I write stuff like this off to fear and a lack of working rationale, just as I do every other bigotry I come across.

Interesting....... Fear of what I wonder? From what I've read of Mr Harris he seems to have a pretty well defined 'working rationale'.. But maybe that's just me?

Laughing Boy said...

SEVERAL POLLS indicate that the term “atheism” has acquired such an extraordinary stigma in the United States that being an atheist is now a perfect impediment to a career in politics (in a way that being black, Muslim or homosexual is not).

This is due largely to the efforts of atheists themselves, with Madalyn Murray O'Hair being the primary offender. Other more recent examples only reinforce the stereotype. There are so few atheists in America (1% or less) that they all tend to get painted with the same brush. Unfortunately, as a group, they do little to elevate their low status.

Laughing Boy said...

"Atheists believe that life is meaningless" - That's one that I've never been able to understand. I completely agree with Harris on this.

I think that idea is reinforced by some seminal atheists themselves; namely Sartre and Camus, but others, too. Of course, to a theist, atheism promotes (ultimate) meaninglessness by its very nature. All protestations by atheists to the contrary won't change that.

Laughing Boy said...

Such regimes are dogmatic to the core and generally give rise to personality cults that are indistinguishable from cults of religious hero worship. Auschwitz, the gulag and the killing fields were not examples of what happens when human beings reject religious dogma; they are examples of political, racial and nationalistic dogma run amok....

This description fits institutional atheism perfectly. (See Madalyn Murray O'Hare.) It really is very much like a religion. The examples Harris gives are proofs which much of the world will not soon forget. When religious dogma is prohibited, it is replaced by some other dogma.

There is no society in human history that ever suffered because its people became too reasonable.

Sure enough. What does this have to do with atheism?

CyberKitten said...

laughing boy said: This is due largely to the efforts of atheists themselves, with Madalyn Murray O'Hair being the primary offender. Other more recent examples only reinforce the stereotype.

I'd heard of the name but had to look her up on Wikipedia. She certainly didn't seem a very nice person. Not very reasonable labelling a whole group by her example though.

laughing boy said: There are so few atheists in America (1% or less) that they all tend to get painted with the same brush.

1%? Depending on what statistics you pick I think. I've seen the number as somewhere between 2-8%. Still pretty low as things go.

laughing boy said: I think that idea [of atheists believing life is meaningless] is reinforced by some seminal atheists themselves; namely Sartre and Camus, but others, too.

I haven't read either of those people so I can't comment. However, even if true it doesn't mean that atheists in general believe that. We're a rather diverse bunch of people.

laughing boy said: Of course, to a theist, atheism promotes (ultimate) meaninglessness by its very nature. All protestations by atheists to the contrary won't change that.

How *very* open minded.

laughing boy said: When religious dogma is prohibited, it is replaced by some other dogma.

Quite possibly - but there is dogma and then there is dogma. Also you seem to be implying that some sort of dogma is inevitable. Is there then better types of dogma and worse types? Do we require or desire dogma or can we choose a better way or at least another way?

CyberKitten said...

theologix said: Each of us is personally a blip on the evolutionary map. There is no reason for us to be here since we are nothing more or less than the product of random mutations and natural mechanisms.

Yes. You seem to have a problem with that - and with Evolution in general. Do you think that because we each arrived here through a long string of natural processes that we can't give our lives meaning?

theologix said: Any feeling such as love, pity, etc... is nothing more than the firings of neurons in our brains, and are nothing more than the effects of random mutations and natural mechanisms that preserved them in an effort to promote the survival of our DNA in the mating pool.

...and your point is? Just because love is, in effect, programmed into us and has an evolutionary advantage for our genes doesn't make it any less real or valuable. I was very much aware of this fact when I was deeply in love with my last girlfriend. What difference did it make to my feelings or our relationship...? None. Why should it?

theologix said: Our offspring is nothing more than the survival of our DNA in the mating pool in the hope (misstated actually, since mindless, natural processes are neither hopeful, nor planning-- but nonetheless in the hope) that they too will prove fittest to pass that DNA along to their progeny.

...and? That doesn't mean that we can't love them, nurture them and be proud of them. Again, we may be programmed by evolution to feel these things about our offspring but that doesn't make the feelings any less real.

theologix said: This self-awareness is out curse, since it allows us to ponder the meaningless of ourselves in the context that we are nothing more than evolution becoming aware of itself.

Oh I *love* being self-aware. It's great. I derive a lot of pleasure from thinking about things. Of course if I wasn't self-aware I wouldn't miss it - as I would have no idea what it was that I could be missing... but I wouldn't give up my self-awareness for anything - at least not until I'm dead anyway. Rather than a curse (which I think is rather a strange idea) I see it as a blessing. I'm certainly glad that I'm a human being who can ponder the mysteries of the Universe. It's not in the least depressing, rather the opposite in fact. Would you honestly want to give such a thing up... for peace of mind?

theologix said: "Open mindedness" is the response of random mutation and natural selection to promote the passing of DNA in the social environment promoted by random mutation and natural selection.

So... you think that open-mindedness (and presumably bigotry) is genetic? That open-minded people are genetically different from closed minded people? Are atheists genetically different from theists? Are Catholics genetically different from Buddhists? If that is so then how can the faithful lose their faith? How can people convert to various religions? Not everything we do, think or feel is the result of the actions of our genes.

theologix said: Our social habits are nothing more than the response of random mutation and natural selection to make us more fit to pass our DNA into the mating pool.

If that is the case then why is there (and has there been) a great deal of variation in those social habits? Are some social habits evolutionarily superior to other habits? If that is the case then why haven't those superior habits prospered at the expence of other habits and become the norm? How do you explain social variation?

Overall you seem to be putting forward the idea that Darwinian Evolution makes us into some kind of robots. We're not. Being self-aware conscious beings we have the power to over-ride any directions of our genes. We are free to chose our own way in life. This is plain to see from the amazing diversity of human existence. If we are programmed to act in certain ways it seems that either the programming isn't working or that it has *very* wide parameters.