The Problem with Atheism: by Sam Harris

[Ralph Wiggum]

Sam Harris at the Atheist Alliance conference in Washington D.C. on September 28th, 2007.

I haven't read his books, so this may be familiar subject matter to SMP regulars. In case it's not, I thought maybe someone else would enjoy reading this. I quote 3 ideas of his.

1) Advocate reason rather than defend atheism.
[ QUOTE ]

Given the absence of evidence for God, and the stupidity and suffering that still thrives under the mantle of religion, declaring oneself an “atheist” would seem the only appropriate response. And it is the stance that many of us have proudly and publicly adopted. Tonight, I’d like to try to make the case, that our use of this label is a mistake—and a mistake of some consequence.

Attaching a label to something carries real liabilities, especially if the thing you are naming isn’t really a thing at all. And atheism, I would argue, is not a thing. It is not a philosophy, just as “non-racism” is not one. Atheism is not a worldview—and yet most people imagine it to be one and attack it as such. We who do not believe in God are collaborating in this misunderstanding by consenting to be named and by even naming ourselves.

Another problem is that in accepting a label, particularly the label of “atheist,” it seems to me that we are consenting to be viewed as a cranky sub-culture. We are consenting to be viewed as a marginal interest group that meets in hotel ballrooms. I’m not saying that meetings like this aren’t important. I wouldn’t be here if I didn’t think it was important. But I am saying that as a matter of philosophy we are guilty of confusion, and as a matter of strategy, we have walked into a trap. It is a trap that has been, in many cases, deliberately set for us. And we have jumped into it with both feet.

So, let me make my somewhat seditious proposal explicit: We should not call ourselves “atheists.” We should not call ourselves “secularists.” We should not call ourselves “humanists,” or “secular humanists,” or “naturalists,” or “skeptics,” or “anti-theists,” or “rationalists,” or “freethinkers,” or “brights.” We should not call ourselves anything. We should go under the radar—for the rest of our lives. And while there, we should be decent, responsible people who destroy bad ideas wherever we find them.

Well, rather than declare ourselves “atheists” in opposition to all religion, I think we should do nothing more than advocate reason and intellectual honesty—and where this advocacy causes us to collide with religion, as it inevitably will, we should observe that the points of impact are always with specific religious beliefs—not with religion in general. There is no religion in general.


[/ QUOTE ]

2) Atheism often treats religions even-handedly. Rather we should point out differences between them for 2 reasons. Maybe, we can find some common ground with Christians against Mormonism & Islam.
[ QUOTE ]

First, these differences make all religions look contingent, and therefore silly. Consider the unique features of Mormonism, which may have some relevance in the next Presidential election. Mormonism, it seems to me, is—objectively—just a little more idiotic than Christianity is. It has to be: because it is Christianity plus some very stupid ideas. For instance, the Mormons think Jesus is going to return to earth and administer his Thousand years of Peace, at least part of the time, from the state of Missouri. Why does this make Mormonism less likely to be true than Christianity? Because whatever probability you assign to Jesus’ coming back, you have to assign a lesser probability to his coming back and keeping a summer home in Jackson County, Missouri. If Mitt Romney wants to be the next President of the United States, he should be made to feel the burden of our incredulity. We can make common cause with our Christian brothers and sisters on this point. Just what does the man believe? The world should know. And it is almost guaranteed to be embarrassing even to most people who believe in the biblical God.

The second reason to be attentive to the differences among the world’s religions is that these differences are actually a matter of life and death. There are very few of us who lie awake at night worrying about the Amish. This is not an accident. While I have no doubt that the Amish are mistreating their children, by not educating them adequately, they are not likely to hijack aircraft and fly them into buildings. But consider how we, as atheists, tend to talk about Islam. Christians often complain that atheists, and the secular world generally, balance every criticism of Muslim extremism with a mention of Christian extremism. The usual approach is to say that they have their jihadists, and we have people who kill abortion doctors. Our Christian neighbors, even the craziest of them, are right to be outraged by this pretense of even-handedness, because the truth is that Islam is quite a bit scarier and more culpable for needless human misery, than Christianity has been for a very, very long time. And the world must wake up to this fact. Muslims themselves must wake up to this fact. And they can.


[/ QUOTE ]

3) Harris has another problem in how atheism's inability to relate with the core experience across religions. I like this point. As someone who grew up religious, this inner happiness kept me defending religion for a long time interpreting it as "I have a personal relationship with God". However, I often find many atheist are completely dismissive about the "spiritual" experience.
[ QUOTE ]

If we enjoy some great professional success, our feelings of accomplishment remain vivid and intoxicating for about an hour, or maybe a day, but then people will begin to ask us “So, what are you going to do next? Don’t you have anything else in the pipeline?” Steve Jobs releases the IPhone, and I’m sure it wasn’t twenty minutes before someone asked, “when are you going to make this thing smaller?” Notice that very few people at this juncture, no matter what they’ve accomplished, say, “I’m done. I’ve met all my goals. Now I’m just going to stay here eat ice cream until I die in front of you.”

But certain people, for whatever reason, are led to suspect that there is more to human experience than this. In fact, many of them are led to suspect this by religion—by the claims of people like the Buddha or Jesus or some other celebrated religious figures. And such a person may begin to practice various disciplines of attention—often called “meditation” or “contemplation”—as a means of examining his moment to moment experience closely enough to see if a deeper basis of well-being is there to be found.

As someone who has made his own modest efforts in this area, let me assure you, that when a person goes into solitude and trains himself in meditation for 15 or 18 hours a day, for months or years at a time, in silence, doing nothing else—not talking, not reading, not writing—just making a sustained moment to moment effort to merely observe the contents of consciousness and to not get lost in thought, he experiences things that most scientists and artists are not likely to have experienced, unless they have made precisely the same efforts at introspection. And these experiences have a lot to say about the plasticity of the human mind and about the possibilities of human happiness.

So, apart from just commending these phenomena to your attention, I’d like to point out that, as atheists, our neglect of this area of human experience puts us at a rhetorical disadvantage. Because millions of people have had these experiences, and many millions more have had glimmers of them, and we, as atheists, ignore such phenomena, almost in principle, because of their religious associations—and yet these experiences often constitute the most important and transformative moments in a person’s life. Not recognizing that such experiences are possible or important can make us appear less wise even than our craziest religious opponents.


[/ QUOTE ]

[InTheDark]

[ QUOTE ]
Given the absence of evidence for God, and the stupidity and suffering that still thrives under the mantle of religion, declaring oneself an “atheist” would seem the only appropriate response.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm regularly troubled by the arrogance of atheists, most particularly those looking to spread the 'good' word. There exists no significantly atheist/secular country that has a birthrate above replacement level, in fact the more secular the country, the lower the birthrate, in general. I can think of few more telling indicators of the health of a philosophy than its tendency to extinguish itself.

[tame_deuces]

You think atheism leads to lower birthrates?

[InTheDark]

[ QUOTE ]

You think atheism leads to lower birthrates?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm certain it correlates. I believe it causal.

[tame_deuces]

Well, sale of icecream almost always correlates very well with amount of drowning deaths (this is true, and it is also obvious why) - but there is ofcourse low/no causality. I'm fairly certain you will find plenty of third variables to account for your birthrates.

Oh, and if anyone wonders about the icecream thingy I'll put a hint in white here: <font color="white"> Hint: Temparature/season. </font>

[luckyme]

Harris -
[ QUOTE ]
to merely observe the contents of consciousness and to not get lost in thought, he experiences things that most scientists and artists are not likely to have experienced, unless they have made precisely the same efforts at introspection.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have a lot of comments by scientists/artists to tear out of books if Harris is right about this, since the lying SOBs claim to have very 'spiritual' experiences.

luckyme

[Jamougha]

[ QUOTE ]
Harris -
[ QUOTE ]
to merely observe the contents of consciousness and to not get lost in thought, he experiences things that most scientists and artists are not likely to have experienced, unless they have made precisely the same efforts at introspection.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have a lot of comments by scientists/artists to tear out of books if Harris is right about this, since the lying SOBs claim to have very 'spiritual' experiences.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe he is talking about something more than the typical experience of loss of self. There's an interesting piece expanding on this here; http://www.slumdance.com/blogs/brian...es/001324.html

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
2) Atheism often treats religions even-handedly. Rather we should point out differences between them for 2 reasons. Maybe, we can find some common ground with Christians against Mormonism &amp; Islam.

[/ QUOTE ]

But atheism isn't about beaing "against mormonism". There is nothing about not believing there is a god that says you need to be opposed to somebody else doing so.
It's true that atheists tend to be 'for' rational thought and realism but that is a mere tendency and it's not a part of atheism. One can be an atheist and believe in elves.

Harris is making errors that he warns about in his #1. That of thinking some philosophy goes along with being an atheist. It doesn't. Any more than not believing Bin Laden is alive brings any philosophy with it.

luckyme

[Drag]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Given the absence of evidence for God, and the stupidity and suffering that still thrives under the mantle of religion, declaring oneself an “atheist” would seem the only appropriate response.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm regularly troubled by the arrogance of atheists, most particularly those looking to spread the 'good' word. There exists no significantly atheist/secular country that has a birthrate above replacement level, in fact the more secular the country, the lower the birthrate, in general. I can think of few more telling indicators of the health of a philosophy than its tendency to extinguish itself.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't you think that low birth rates is a good thing rather than a bad one?

I know about several examples where overpopulation caused great problems, lead to great problems or even the extinction of a society (Rwanda is the most recent example). And I don't know about any society which became extinct due to the voluntary low birth rates, not to be confused with low birth rates due to economical reasons.

Your argument, that atheism leads to lower birthrate is in fact a very strong reason to 'practice' ateism on the state level.

P.S.
And if you assume that such low birthrates would continue indefinetly and lead to extinction of secular countries you are deluding yourself. As soon as there is less economical pressure due to a smaller population people will have more children.

[bluesbassman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

You think atheism leads to lower birthrates?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm certain it correlates. I believe it causal.

[/ QUOTE ]

Even if true, so what? Are you claiming God must exist because more atheistic populations have lower birthrates?

Lower birthrates are probably also correlated with a higher degree of education and literacy. Does it therefore follow that an educated, literate populace is undesirable, or that one should strive to be uneducated?