10 myths—and 10 Truths—About Atheism (Part 2)
By Sam Harris for The Los Angeles Times
December 24, 2006
6) Atheists are arrogant. When scientists don’t know something — like why the universe came into being or how the first self-replicating molecules formed — they admit it. Pretending to know things one doesn’t know is a profound liability in science. And yet it is the life-blood of faith-based religion. One of the monumental ironies of religious discourse can be found in the frequency with which people of faith praise themselves for their humility, while claiming to know facts about cosmology, chemistry and biology that no scientist knows. When considering questions about the nature of the cosmos and our place within it, atheists tend to draw their opinions from science. This isn’t arrogance; it is intellectual honesty.
7) Atheists are closed to spiritual experience. There is nothing that prevents an atheist from experiencing love, ecstasy, rapture and awe; atheists can value these experiences and seek them regularly. What atheists don’t tend to do is make unjustified (and unjustifiable) claims about the nature of reality on the basis of such experiences. There is no question that some Christians have transformed their lives for the better by reading the Bible and praying to Jesus. What does this prove? It proves that certain disciplines of attention and codes of conduct can have a profound effect upon the human mind. Do the positive experiences of Christians suggest that Jesus is the sole savior of humanity? Not even remotely — because Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims and even atheists regularly have similar experiences. There is, in fact, not a Christian on this Earth who can be certain that Jesus even wore a beard, much less that he was born of a virgin or rose from the dead. These are just not the sort of claims that spiritual experience can authenticate.
8) Atheists believe that there is nothing beyond human life and human understanding. Atheists are free to admit the limits of human understanding in a way that religious people are not. It is obvious that we do not fully understand the universe; but it is even more obvious that neither the Bible nor the Koran reflects our best understanding of it. We do not know whether there is complex life elsewhere in the cosmos, but there might be. If there is, such beings could have developed an understanding of nature’s laws that vastly exceeds our own. Atheists can freely entertain such possibilities. They also can admit that if brilliant extraterrestrials exist, the contents of the Bible and the Koran will be even less impressive to them than they are to human atheists. From the atheist point of view, the world’s religions utterly trivialize the real beauty and immensity of the universe. One doesn’t have to accept anything on insufficient evidence to make such an observation.
9) Atheists ignore the fact that religion is extremely beneficial to society. Those who emphasize the good effects of religion never seem to realize that such effects fail to demonstrate the truth of any religious doctrine. This is why we have terms such as “wishful thinking” and “self-deception.” There is a profound distinction between a consoling delusion and the truth. In any case, the good effects of religion can surely be disputed. In most cases, it seems that religion gives people bad reasons to behave well, when good reasons are actually available. 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?
10) Atheism provides no basis for morality. If a person doesn’t already understand that cruelty is wrong, he won’t discover this by reading the Bible or the Koran — as these books are bursting with celebrations of cruelty, both human and divine. We do not get our morality from religion. We decide what is good in our good books by recourse to moral intuitions that are (at some level) hard-wired in us and that have been refined by thousands of years of thinking about the causes and possibilities of human happiness. We have made considerable moral progress over the years, and we didn’t make this progress by reading the Bible or the Koran more closely. Both books condone the practice of slavery — and yet every civilized human being now recognizes that slavery is an abomination. Whatever is good in scripture — like the golden rule — can be valued for its ethical wisdom without our believing that it was handed down to us by the creator of the universe.
About Me
- CyberKitten
- I have a burning need to know stuff and I love asking awkward questions.
5 comments:
Actually, I think that many atheists and agnostics (agnostic being someone who believes that the existence of gods and prime causes are unknowable) are arrogant. I certainly am. I mean, when people start mumbling about any of the brands of Christianity that I have looked at, I regard them to be generally either doctrinally ignorant or as being willing to swallow particularly large horses (along with even large quantities of the manure they produce). Furthermore, I consider myself generous in calling them "ignorant", when the label "stupid" is likely more apt for those who would question my lack of beliefs before questioning their own beliefs (though I readily exclude those who also question their own beliefs while still maintaining them), "foolish" for those who would proclaim their beliefs without spending enough effort and time to know what those proclamations entail, or "gullible" for those who actually swallow whole all of the stories about the "miracles." Since I have looked at a lot of religions, the populace covered in my sweeping generalizations is pretty common.
I also have to take the blame for number 9 (atheists ignore the fact that religion is extremely beneficial to society). It is possible to define "beneficial" and/or "society" in terms that would make "religion" able to broadly claim such a virtue. If you did, I'd say that you're a fool to think so. We're getting back to that bit about "arrogance" again, I believe.
Further, I would also say that the religious have the right on claim number 10: atheism provides no basis for morality. It does not. In fact, many people--e.g., cultural anthropologists--would go so far as to define "morality" as those sets of taboos, misdemeanors, imperatives and other rules for behavior which are culturally derived (with religion predominating most cultures). While there are common cultures among atheists--I have heard lots of atheists say, for example, that their idea of right and wrong generally devolves to "the golden rule" and "looking after your own first"--atheism (and/or agnosticism) does not comprise a culture in its own right. Atheism (or, in my case, agnosticism) does not prevent a basis for a code of ethics, but it does not mandate it. I suppose that, in the end, one could say that atheism provides a basis for an ethical code in the sense that everyone still able to breathe has an ethical code at least in the most flexible sense of the phrase (e.g., "me before all others who can't beat me up or who can kill me before I kill them" is an ethical code), but I am fairly certain that this is not what Mr. Harris had in mind.
In fact, Mr. Harris likely could not have formulated his claim for #10 in a manner that would not become a mockery of what any religious person with a decent education would say he believes. I admit that I have met Christian Fundamentalists who actually asked something like, "if you do not believe in God, what keeps you from stealing, raping and killing?" (and who laughed and nodded when I affirmed, "you mean: other than the fact that the police would haul my ass out of virgin territory?"), but these people were people who believed in miracles, had not educated themselves in the doctrine of their own religion, and who did not question their own beliefs. I doubt that any such people are likely to make it all of the way to #10 on their own, so I believe that by this point the audience Mr. Harris was writing to please was himself...making him also guilty of #6.
6) I think Harris is pretending to know things about faith-based religion that he doesn't know.
7) a. Atheists don't believe in the spirit world but are open to spiritual experience? Love is a spiritual experience? I'm confused. Harris is doing some pretty serious equivocating here.
b. It's true that positive experiences do not suggest Jesus is the sole savior of humanity—and that's not what Christianity claims. This is another case of Harris's pretending to know things he doesn't know.
8. When theists say atheists don't believe there is anything beyond human life and understanding, we don't mean atheists don't think there could be extraterrestrial beings, for crying out loud! What is Harris thinking? We mean atheists don't believe in a spiritual dimension, an afterlife, or a transcendental Creator.
9. Maybe Harris should ask some of those people who are doing humanitarian work in God's name why they are doing so. What makes him think they are doing it for some personal reward or to avoid some personal punishment? They show compassion because they have received compassion and they feel compassion. Again, Harris is pretending to know.
10. Christianity doesn't claim that morality originated at Mt. Sinai. Christianity claims that morality originates with God not the bible. Harris is right, if ever so briefly, that morality is hard-wired into us (just like the bible says). God put objective moral standards in our very nature, which is why even those who don't believe are reliably moral.
So what is the atheist's basis for morality? Did Harris explain? We don't need the bible to be moral. Right. So what? He said we've made considerable progress. How have we made progress? What accounts for this progress? Aimless, unguided, purposeless evolution? Does that fit the theory? He points to slavery as an example of our moral progress. Who lead the charge against slavery, atheists or Christians? Were these Christians going against the teaching of Scripture which Harris predictably maintains that it condones? There are people in slavery today, are they in bondage to Christians?
***
I'm waiting for an explanation of the atheist's basis for morality—well actually, I'm not, it's just that Harris didn't give one). Some of the most influential atheists of all time acknowledge that no God means no morality. Very few are happy about it, most dispair of it. Nominal atheists think atheism provides a basis for morality because they haven't thought it through. To them, it seems, the biggest consequence of there being no God is that they can sleep late Sunday mornings. Most atheists who have thought it through choose not to live a life consistent with it, for the most part, and for that we can be truly thankful.
laughing boy said: Atheists don't believe in the spirit world but are open to spiritual experience?
Beats me.... What exactly is a 'spiritual experience'..?
laughing boy said: Love is a spiritual experience?
I wouldn't describe it as such - though I have seen it so described. As I'm not exactly sure just was a 'spiritual' experience *is* I find it difficult to answer questions like this.
laughing boy said: It's true that positive experiences do not suggest Jesus is the sole savior of humanity—and that's not what Christianity claims.
I think that the idea of a sole saviour (or any other kind of saviour) of mankind is quite bizarre. Firstly it assumes that we - as a pecies - can be 'saved' (from what or for what?) and it also assumes that someone can 'save' us. As I said: quite bizarre.
laughing boy said: When theists say atheists don't believe there is anything beyond human life and understanding, we don't mean atheists don't think there could be extraterrestrial beings, for crying out loud!
That was my understanding too...
laughing boy said: We mean atheists don't believe in a spiritual dimension, an afterlife, or a transcendental Creator.
Very true.
laughing boy said: They show compassion because they have received compassion and they feel compassion.
Helping others is all part of the Creed isn't it. It's something theists take on when they become theists. It may not get them into Heaven but it is expected of them is it not?
laughing boy said: Christianity doesn't claim that morality originated at Mt. Sinai. Christianity claims that morality originates with God not the bible.
Strange. I have 'met' several Christians who firmly believe that morality is taken from The Bible and only The Bible. I guess they are mistaken.
laughing boy said: God put objective moral standards in our very nature, which is why even those who don't believe are reliably moral.
If that is the case then why are their different moral standards around the world? Why does moral thought change over time - indeed why do we need moral thought and teachings at all if we all have 'objective moral standards from God'? Why do I have different moral standards from you (I'm guessing here. We'll probably actually agree on quite a lot of moral thinking). Why do I have different moral standards than my brother or my Mother or my friends? If we all have the same in-built standards how do you explain difference?
laughing boy asked: So what is the atheist's basis for morality?
I guess that would depend on the atheist in question.
laughing boy said: He said we've made considerable progress. How have we made progress? What accounts for this progress? Aimless, unguided, purposeless evolution?
I don't believe in moral progress. Morality certainly changes over time - sometimes very quickly - but there's no reason why morality can't go 'backwards' as well as 'forwards'.
BTW - There are other mechanisms than evolution. Evolution cannot explain how back in the 1950's illigitimate children were often shunned and villified. 50 years later they are normally accepted without a second thought. Evolution moves at a speed that make glaciers look like racing cars. So genetics cannot explain *cultural* 'progress'. The moral landscape changes because of cultural shifts not genetic ones.
laughing boy asked: Who lead the charge against slavery, atheists or Christians?
Considering the time when the abolition of slavery took place I would be amazed if there were that many atheists involved (or around). At the time I would say that the vast majority (in excess of 99%) of people would have been theists with the majority of them - on both sides of the Atlantic - being Christians. So yes, Christians where indeed in the forefront of the move to abolish slavery. However, those opposed to that abolition where *also* Christians. As were the slave owners, the plantation managers, the ship owners, the slave market owners and those who made their fortunes by trading in human life and human misery - for hundreds of years. Their faith seemed to have no influence on that fact....
laughing boy said: Some of the most influential atheists of all time acknowledge that no God means no morality.
..and they were wrong.
laughing boy said: Nominal atheists think atheism provides a basis for morality because they haven't thought it through.
Atheism does *not* provide a basis for morality. Atheism is a sceptical response to the God Hypothesis. What atheism *does* say regarding morality is that it cannot be based on religion or God. Atheism says that we must derive our morality from non-supernatural sources. But, certainly as far as I know, it doesn't say what sources we *should* use for our moral standards.
laughing boy said: Most atheists who have thought it through choose not to live a life consistent with it, for the most part, and for that we can be truly thankful.
Really? I think that's a presumption on your part. From what you've already said I presume you mean that atheism leads to a life without morals - therefore as most atheists seem to lead a moral life they must be rejecting the moral implications of their atheism?
Except that atheism does *not* mean a life without morals. It just means a life without a *religious foundation* to morality. There are, after all, other ways to derive a moral framework.....
Firstly it assumes that we - as a species - can be 'saved' (from what or for what?)...
From the wrath of God.
...and it also assumes that someone can 'save' us. As I said: quite bizarre.
Only God can save us from the wrath of God. I think it's astounding rather than bizarre.
Helping others is all part of the Creed isn't it. It's something theists take on when they become theists. It may not get them into Heaven but it is expected of them is it not?
Yes, it is expected, but not out of duty. It's expected that I do something nice for my ever-loving mother on her birthday. It's not like, oh damn, has it been a year already? God loved us. We are thankful because we don't deserve it. We show our gratitude by loving others. It's a pretty simple concept.
Strange. I have 'met' several Christians who firmly believe that morality is taken from The Bible and only The Bible. I guess they are mistaken.
I guess so. Morality is related through the bible (though not solely) but it does not originate from the bible. The bible is a book. A book unlike any other maybe, but it ain't magical. The origin of morality is the Author of the bible.
If that is the case then why are their different moral standards around the world?
I think the idea is that generally we all know certain things are right and certain other things are wrong and that these standards apply to every human being regardless of culture or era.
Why does moral thought change over time...
Are 'moral thought' and 'moral standards' equivalent? I expect you think so, but I don't, obviously. I think we humans have adhered to various of the objective moral standards to greater or lesser degrees through time, but I'm not sure the basic moral principles have changed. It's like asking why people obey certain laws more so now (or less so) than in the past. The law hasn't changed, just people's desire to adhere to it.
...indeed why do we need moral thought and teachings at all if we all have 'objective moral standards from God'?
Because we defy God.
I guess [an atheist's basis for morality] would depend on the atheist in question.
Perhaps. But what does atheism as an ideology lead to? How much atheism an individual atheist is willing to abide in himself is a personal matter. As I have stated, most don't abide by much. Those that have followed it to it's end have not come back happy. For example Kai Nielsen writes,
"We have not been able to show that reason requires the moral point of view, or that all really rational persons, unhoodwinked by myth or ideology, need not be individual egoists or classical amoralists. Reason doesn’t decide here. The picture I have painted for you is not a pleasant one. Reflection on it depresses me. ...Pure practical reason, even with a good knowledge of the facts, will not take you to morality.
The atheist philosopher Richard Taylor writes,
"To say that something is wrong because it is forbidden by God is perfectly understandable to anyone who believes in a law-giving God. But to say that something is wrong even though no God exists to forbid it, is not understandable. The concept of moral obligation is unintelligible apart from the idea of God. The words remain but their meaning is gone."
Morality certainly changes over time - sometimes very quickly - but there's no reason why morality can't go 'backwards' as well as 'forwards'
I would say adherence to standards fluxuates. Standards, by definition, do not.
Their faith seemed to have no influence on that fact...
Yes, Christians can live inconsistently with their ideology as well.
Atheism does *not* provide a basis for morality...it doesn't say what sources we *should* use for our moral standards.
This is food for thought.
I presume you mean that atheism leads to a life without morals...
I contend that atheism logically leads to a life without morals.
...therefore as most atheists seem to lead a moral life they must be rejecting the moral implications of their atheism?
Yes, that's what I'm saying.
There are, after all, other ways to derive a moral framework...
Sure there are. "Do what feels good" can be a moral framework. Ayn Rand's moral framework was to live totally for self, life is too short to jeopardize it by acting out of anything but pure self-interest. Kill all Jews (Gays, Americans, Christians, Muslims) is a moral framework. The world's flush with moral frameworks.
***
P.S. This conversation could have turned bad easily, but you didn't let it. Thank you. This has been good.
laughing boy said: [Saved]From the wrath of God.
..and why would God need to feel particularly wrathful? I thought that He was a more loving & forgiving God of the New Testament rather than the "Blood 'n Guts" God of the Old.
laughing boy said: Only God can save us from the wrath of God. I think it's astounding rather than bizarre.
You say 'astounding' I say 'bizarre'. Actually that statement makes it even more bizarre. Only God can save us from His *own* wrath? Maybe He just needs to decide not to go all wrathful on our asses?
laughing boy said: We are thankful because we don't deserve it. We show our gratitude by loving others. It's a pretty simple concept.
I never really 'got on' with this idea that we're "unworthy" and "poor sinners" and all that jazz.... As to being grateful that God doesn't smite us because of it.... hardly.....
laughing boy said: The bible is a book. A book unlike any other maybe, but it ain't magical.
I think that quite a few of your fellow Christians would disagree with you...
laughing boy said: The origin of morality is the Author of the bible.
You mean Author(s) don't you?
laughing boy said: I think the idea is that generally we all know certain things are right and certain other things are wrong and that these standards apply to every human being regardless of culture or era.
Make that *very* generally! I suppose that all human cultures have something in common - though that's probably debatable in itself - probably because they have their humanity and biology in common but their are also profound differences between cultures separated by time and space too. If we all have a general understanding of morality shouldn't that morality be generally similar in all cultures?
laughing boy said: I think we humans have adhered to various of the objective moral standards to greater or lesser degrees through time, but I'm not sure the basic moral principles have changed.
Would you like to be more specific on these 'basic moral principles'?
laughing boy said: Because we defy God.
Really...? I mean... really? *Who* defies God? All of us? As probably in excess of 90% of people on the planet are theists of one flavour of another surely there should be very few acts of 'defiance'? Is the majority being (possibly) punished or in fear of punishment for the acts of the few? That doesn't sound like the act of a fair & just deity...
laughing boy said: But what does atheism as an ideology lead to? How much atheism an individual atheist is willing to abide in himself is a personal matter. As I have stated, most don't abide by much.
I think that's your prejudice talking. You think [please correct me if I've misunderstood you] that atheism negates morality - therefore moral atheists aren't really atheists at all. Nonsense.
laughing boy quoted Kai Nielsen who said: Pure practical reason, even with a good knowledge of the facts, will not take you to morality.
Never heard of him... oh & I happen to disagree. Many philosophers have 'reasoned their way' to morality. Maybe it's just that Nielsen disagreed with their conclusions?
laughing boy quoted Richard Taylor who said: The concept of moral obligation is unintelligible apart from the idea of God. The words remain but their meaning is gone.
Rubbish.
laughing boy said: Yes, Christians can live inconsistently with their ideology as well.
...and constantly re-interpret it.
laughing boy said: This is food for thought.
Always happy to give food for thought....
laughing boy said: I contend that atheism logically leads to a life without morals.
...and I *so* disagree with you [grin]. I contend that a God-fearing person cannot be truely moral.
laughing boy said: The world's flush with moral frameworks.
Indeed it is - Theism in all it's *many* flavours being some of them. The question is: How do we choose between them?
laughing boy said: This conversation could have turned bad easily, but you didn't let it. Thank you. This has been good.
It's obvious that we fundamentally disagree with each other about several very important things. That being so I fail to see how calling each other names or just being rude about each others beliefs would be in any way productive. I like to learn. One way you can learn a great deal about your own ideas is by debating them with people who disagree with you. This makes you think more deeply about what you think you mean or believe. It does nothing but good. I have certainly firmed up a lot of my ideas because of conversations I've had with you & other theists. Thank you & long may it continue.
Post a Comment