Posts
Day 3 (Harris): Why Are Atheists So Angry?
By Sam Harris / November 20, 2006
From: Sam Harris To: Dennis Prager Subject: An Irrelevant Argument and Its Imaginary Facts
This debate is fast drawing to a close, Dennis, and you have neither addressed my arguments nor presented any substantive arguments of your own.
I certainly did not claim that I possessed Collins’s level of expertise. I am, however, sufficiently conversant with the relevant science to know that Collins does not hold his beliefs about God for compelling, scientific reasons. You appear rather over-awed by the man’s academic credentials. Let me assure you that even very accomplished scientists can be terrible philosophers.
Collins, as you probably know, has just published a book-length defense of religious faith entitled The Language of God. It is a masterpiece of simple-mindedness. For instance, Collins describes the moment that he, a top-tier scientist, became convinced of the divinity of Jesus Christ:
"On a beautiful fall day, as I was hiking in the Cascade Mountains…the majesty and beauty of God’s creation overwhelmed my resistance. As I rounded a corner and saw a beautiful and unexpected frozen waterfall, hundreds of feet high, I knew the search was over. The next morning, I knelt in the dewy grass as the sun rose and surrendered to Jesus Christ."
A recent profile of Collins in Time adds a priceless detail: The waterfall was frozen in three streams, and this put the good doctor in mind of the Trinity! Earlier you wrote that I would not “even understand” the evidence that a genius like Francis Collins would put forward in defense of his faith. I confess you may be right about this.
I hope it is immediately obvious to you, and to every one of our readers, that there is nothing about seeing a frozen waterfall (no matter how frozen) that offers the slightest corroboration of the doctrine of Christianity. If the beauty of nature can mean that Jesus is the son of God, then it can mean anything at all.
Let’s say I saw that same waterfall, and its three streams made me think of Romulus, Remus, and the She-wolf—the mythical founders of Rome. I just knew, from that moment forward, that Italy would one day win the World Cup. This epiphany, while perfectly psychotic, would actually put me on firmer ground than Collins. (Because Italy did win the World Cup.)
The reason science (especially in America) doesn’t better inoculate its practitioners against the belief that Jesus was the son of God (or that Joseph Smith received God’s final revelation on golden plates from the angel Maroni) is because it is taboo to seriously challenge a person’s religious faith in our society. I wonder what you make of the fact that some significant number of Hindu scientists believe in a plurality of gods. Does this suggest to you that polytheism has been borne out by dispassionate scientific research?
You also appear to have drawn the wrong conclusion from the statistics. There is little question that exposure to a scientific education reduces the likelihood that a person will believe in God, and does so in a more or less linear fashion (about 10% of the general population are atheists/agnostics, 40% of doctors, 60% of research scientists, and 93% of National Academy members).
An article in Nature recently reported that no scientists doubt the existence of God more than biologists, followed closely by physicists and astronomers. I’m not aware of the data you cite on social scientists, but if it is as you report, and they are more atheistic still, it would not surprise me. After all, these people spend a lot of time thinking about things like self-deception, wishful thinking, cognitive biases, and the other enemies of intellectual honesty that keep religion in such good standing in our society.
Tell me why it is more reasonable to believe in Yahweh than in Zeus. I have little doubt that if Francis Collins grew up in a culture in which nine out of ten people venerated the gods of Mount Olympus, that frozen waterfall would have carried a decidedly pagan message (perhaps he would have thought “trident” before “trinity” and hit upon Poseidon as his favorite deity).
Your job is to either produce a rational argument for the unique legitimacy of the Judeo-Christian tradition (one that reveals why one billion Hindus are utterly in error about the nature of the cosmos), or to admit that you cannot do this. I am willing to bet the farm that you cannot.
I raised the teapot argument because you accused me (and all atheists) of being certain that God does not exist, inviting our readers to appreciate just how absurd and intellectually dishonest such certainty is. Russell’s argument reveals why an atheist need never pretend to such certainty (as I don’t). The burden is upon those who believe in Yahweh, Zeus, or celestial teapots to provide evidence in support of their doctrines. Russell’s argument does indeed apply to you. And it will apply to your children’s children if we don’t get our heads straight as a civilization.
You wrote: “In the West, people and societies who reject the God of Judeo-Christian religions are more likely to become morally confused and foolish than believing Jews and Christians are.”
As you are well aware, the United States is unique among wealthy democracies in its level of religious adherence. It is also uniquely beleaguered by high rates of homicide, abortion, teen-pregnancy, STD infection, and infant mortality. Southern and Midwestern states, characterized by the highest levels of religious literalism, are especially plagued by the above miseries, while the comparatively secular states of the Northeast conform to European norms. Clearly, strong religious commitment does little to guarantee moral behavior or societal health.
But there is a far more important point for you and our readers to understand. Even if your claim about the link between faith and morality were true, it would offer no support whatsoever for your religious beliefs. Even if atheism led straight to moral chaos, this would not suggest that the doctrine of Judaism is true. Islam might be true in that case. Or all religions might function like placebos. As descriptions of the universe, they could be utterly false but extraordinarily useful. Contrary to your opinion, however, the evidence suggests that they are both false and dangerous.
I suspect, Dennis, that you and I agree about many questions of morality. I trust we both feel that slavery was an abomination, despite the fact that no matter how you squint your eyes the Bible tells us that it is okay to keep slaves. (Who decides what is good in the Good Book? Answer: We do. Our moral intuitions are still primary. It makes absolutely no sense, therefore, to think that we get our basic sense of right and wrong out of scripture). We surely agree that political correctness has undermined the intellectual and moral integrity of much of our discourse, both within our universities and elsewhere.
But the linkage you have drawn between immorality and atheism is spurious. And, needless to say, the taboo that got Lawrence Summers fired is the same taboo that would keep an atheist professor from criticizing the lunatic religious convictions of his students. What we need, across the board, is intellectual honesty—not more dogmatism.
It seems that your attachment to religion results, at least in part, from your abhorrence of moral relativism. I fully share your concern here and spend a considerable portion of my professional energies trying to free secularism from the dangerous nonsense with which it is often entangled. I strongly suspect that you and I have similar views of the risks posed to civilization by the spread of Islam. We probably draw some of the same lessons from the failures of multiculturalism in Western Europe: All the backwardness and barbarism that goes by the name of European Islam (the forced marriages, honor killings, anti-Semitism, hostility to free speech, and so forth) has to be reamed out of those immigrant populations or the whole continent is headed over the falls.
But it is clear from our debate that you and I differ on the location of the problem. In your view, the problem must be that Europe has lost the moral backbone that only religion can provide (and Islam just happens to be the wrong religion.) In my view, our world has been shattered, quite unnecessarily, by religion itself. As I said, even if you were right, and the only people who could summon the moral courage to fight the religious lunatics of the Muslim world were the religious lunatics of the West, this would suggest nothing at all about the existence of the biblical God. It would only show that a belief in Him might be politically necessary, in a given time and place, to motivate people to fight (as our inimitable President says) “the evildoers.”
I am reasonably sure you are wrong about this. But again, this is quite irrelevant to the question before us.
Next E-Mail: Secularism's Useful Idiots
POST A COMMENT
Shortimer
Apparently my posting skills haven’t been honed yet. Why did it post without proper paragraph indentions? I’m new at this.
Shortimer
You are mostly right, but having been in the Texas prison system I speak from experience. Most came in with their belief in God and the supernatural. I was in a dorm of (on average) 68 men, and at any given time there were no more than one or two heretics in the mix. Often times I was the only un-believer there. I took a lot of heat for my unwavering stance as an atheist. I was shunned, scoffed at, ridiculed, and threatened from time to time as I would try to engage in debate about the existence, or nonexistence of the biblical God.
These men sit on their bunks day and night reading scripture, or writing letters to their pastor, or priest, depending on whatever religion they subscribe to requesting prayer for early release, or release from their tomented minds. If they received early parole, or parole at all, their prayers were answered, if not, then God was testing their faith. They are adament about their faith, and will argue amongst themselves as to who has the one true god. The "my god’s bigger than your god" idea. If a fight breaks out over these credulous arguments a quick left to the jaw will make a believer out of anyone.
One evening while watching the Discovery channel there was a documentary on Darwin’s life and his theory of evolution. One of the believers exclaimed, "Oh yah, well how do you explain getting white milk from black cows eating green grass?" I had to leave the room to laugh as I knew he was in for assault, and did not want to be another of his assaultees, and although he claimed love and tolerance of all men dictated by his Christian beliefs, love and tolerance went out the window if one did not see things from his perspective.
Many are uneducated. Infact most are without a high school degree, but some will get a GED while there just to present to the parole board. Many do not. Some are mentally ill and dangerous, but that still does not keep them from their faith. Often times outside ministers, preachers, or priests will visit, and they are allowed in without scrutiny from prison officials, because after all, they are men of God. The inmates will gather around like children to listen to the ramblings of these men talk about how their incarceration is just a test of a loving God, and soon his mercy will be revealed. They’re not being forced to listen because it looks good to the parole board, but because they are, and were,believers before they got there. They also fight over their belief that THEY have the one true God. A sharp left to the jaw will make anyone a believer apparently.
There is much brutality and resentment there from the inmates as well as the guards. Most of the guards are believers as well, and seem to enjoy tormenting inmates they know cannot fight back at risk of having their sentences lenghtened. The schoolyard bully mentality of many guards is ever present, and very little Christian charity resides there among them. The only decent guard I knew was an agnostic.
On one particular occasion I was reading a book on evolution and two young inmates inquired as to what I was reading. I explained the book to them as best I could as both had limited learning capacity, but there was a guard listening to my every word. She pulled both of these young inmates aside out of my earshod, then told them both to disregard everything I said to them. She knew it was hard to accept the bible for its literal truth, but they would just have to believe, because God was watching their evey move. We laughed later when she wasn’t around.
There are prayer meetings every night among inmates, the only time races mix,as there is an ample amount of xenophobia in the prison system. It is a tenuous gathering even as they are holding hands and reciting the Lord’s prayer together, because more often then not a fight breaks out shortly thereafter. What happened to all that Christian love that was there just moments ago? Was it all just BS? Just a way to pass the time, or is there something more sinister at work? If you ask the inmates that took part in the prayer meeting what happened, they’ll tell you, "the devil works to destroy God’s plan," but even the most ‘spiritual’ among them is inclined to fight if he feels disrespected. Disrespect is the excuse they use for stabbing, cutting, beating, and brutalizing one another. Disrespect constitutes anything from a minor infraction, to an insult, or a petty theft of a personal item. Being an old man they pretty much left me alone, as it is considered disrespectful to beat up an old man mostly. I say mostly because some don’t care who you are, but there are those who will step in for you if you’re getting on in years.
I found the smell of faith permeating every pore of the prison system from the governor, to the prison administration, right down to the reason prisons are built in the first place; the inmate. Are prisons necessary? Yes. Do they need to be filled with credulous believers? Not really, they just are.
The reason you don't understand how he saw the trinity in the waterfall is because it is unexplainable. The Holy Spirit (of the trinity, which you may be aware of :) "speaks" to people in His time, according to His will.
What makes you think that God would be explainable? Oh, I forgot, you are quite certain that He doesn't exist.
Have you ever thought that you might be wrong? What then? Even before I was a Christian, I certainly didn't have to audacity to go around encouraging and promoting non-belief.
Just because you haven't ever experienced God for yourself, doesn't mean he doesn't exist. Have you ever thought about asking the Holy Spirit to make His presence known to you? You know, just for kicks?
I guarantee you that the Lion of the Tribe of Judah will show up and it will indeed be "unexplainable".
I bless you in the name of Jesus to "lean not onto your own understanding"
And all those people who messed Christianity up out of fear, pride and bitterness are exactly what many Christian's today REBUKE. It is called the spirit of religion, and it has no place in God.
one atheist's atrocities vs the tyrant of germany, who was a self professed christian.
need i mention Bush is a self professed christian, and an utter moron to boot?
i supposed the eradication of the templar and the cathars don't count as an atrocity committed by the christian leaders of their time? atrocities that christianity committed to itself?
the dubious nature of mankind results from being just that. Man. one need look no further than darwin on this case. we may be human, but we're still animals, regardless of how intelligent we get, how morally sound we are, etc, the only judge for mankind's morals is mankind itself.Â
as far as social science goes, that's an appeal to population. the majority think this, so it must be true. and like going to war in iraq based on faulty intel shows, the majority can, and is often, wrong.Â
i cant help not answering this bit of incorrectness.
if you read mr harris book youwould have not said this…………….
STALIN, MAO AND POT POL WERE MANIACS AND MASS MURDERERS, AND HAPPENED TO NOT BELIEVE IN A GOD, BUT THEY DID NOT DO THE HORROBLE THINGS THEY DID BECAUSE OF RELIGION OR BECASUE THEY WERE ATHEISTIC,  HILER STALIN AND MAO, AND KIM JON -IL WERE/ARE DELUSIONAL, MEGALOMANIACS.
THEIR REGIMES ARE LITANIES OF DELUSIONS, ………..WHAT THEY DID WHERE NOT EXAMPLES OF "WHAT ATHEISTS DO"…………..THOSE HORRORS ARE EXAMPLES OF THE DANGERS OF NOT THINKING CRITICALLY ENOUGH ABOUT SPECIFIC SECULAR IDEOLOGIES.    HITLER AND STALIN WERE EXTREMEISTS, AND ONE OF THIER CRIMES WERE THAT THEY WERE UNREASONABLE…TO THE HIGHEST DEGREE…….RELIGION, OR LACK THERE OF,
 HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THEM OR THEIR MOTIVES……..THAT WOULD BE LIKE FINDING A BUS CRASH………..LOOKING AT ALL THE BODIES AND FOUND THAT THEY ALL HAD ONE THING IN COMMON……THEY ALL WERE WEARING WATCHES……….AND BLAMING THE BUS CRASH ON WATCHES………
ATHEISM HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH HITER, STALIN MAO–MADNESS DID
This is a pretty bad debate. Seems more like an argument between who can pull in more side points that confuse the main point and who has more credentials.
Atheists argue there is no evidence for any of the following:
1- God
2- Soul, spirit, etc.
3- Mircacles
4- That someone born of virgin raised a few deaths.
5-That there is something beyond matter which interferes with matter. This includes God, prayers, soul, demons and of course tooth fairies.
So, atheists can’t prove to believers that God does not exist, as believers can’t prove to atheists that God does exist. Waste of cyberspace.
Come on, Harris. You’re making atheists look bad. Surely you can do better than this.
One reason why prisons are packed with believers has to do with the way that parole boards adjudge rehabilitation. If a killer, rapist, robber or thief is convicted and sentenced, one of the most important things that he or she can do is to find God and profess to have opened his/her heart to the teachings of Jesus. This leads the parole board to see the prisoner as having undergone real change and opens the door for an earlier parole than if the prisoner were to say: “Well, in the four years I have been here, I decreased my body fat to 11%, read works by Plato, Aristotle, Sun-Tzu, St. Augustine, Hobbes, Hume, Leibniz, Wittgenstein and learned to play the viola.”
There is an acceptance, all to frequently a blind acceptance, that one who claims to have been “saved” is somehow a better person, particularly if that person was particulary nasty prior to the conversion. Accepting Christ as one’s savior may not get you out of jail free, but it probably will speed the process along.
This article from the magazine Skeptic reports the results of a study examining the relationship between a nation’s religiosity and its “moral health.” Although common wisdom suggests a positive correlation between national religiosity and national moral health, in fact, that appears not to be the case. The example of the United States is most striking, where Americans are among the most religious people in the Western world, and yet we have among the highest rates of homicide, abortion, and teen pregnancies.
Click here to read more.
I can’t help but to wonder about the implications of the statistics of prison populations. If atheists are truely lacking morals then it should follow that there would be many more atheists in prisons and jails than believers. This does not seem to be the case, in all the surveys I’ve read there is a very high concentration of believers in the prison system, even more concentrated in the rest of the society.
mr harris provides no evidence that religion has broken society. he lumps in Islam as a valid portrayal of the Judeo Christian God, which unfortunately has not been addressed by Mr Prager.
again, he has not addressed the atheistic views of Stalin and the murder of millions.
now why wouldn’t mr harris address these and then refute them if indeed religion causes all of the problems?
Wanna post your own comments? Gotta log in first!