Troll Kingdom

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

10 myths -- and 10 truths -- about atheism

Tyrant

New member
10 myths -- and 10 truths -- about atheism
By Sam Harris, SAM HARRIS is the author of "The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason" and "Letter to a Christian Nation."
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.

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.

http://www.latimes.com/news/printed...719494.story?page=1&track=mostviewed-homepage

huh?
 
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."

But atheism is dogmatic. It is the process of relying on a universal negative for a belief system and most are unwavering and preachy when it comes to the belief they subscribe to.

Atheism skips a certain number of possible perspectives in it's assumption that God does not exist. It is the denial of God. Complete skepticism is a logical mess. I'd much rather subscribe to a doctrine of degrees of probability.

I call myself an agnostic to remove myself from the label of atheism because I am not interested in the dogmatic aspects of it.

You can be an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist.

For all atheists I'd ask how you can truly differentiate yourself suitably from agnoticsm without being blindly dogmatic.

Theism is pretty much a belief (or guess) that there is a God.

Atheism is pretty much a belief (or guess) that there are no gods.

Agnosticism is acknowledgement that we do not know...and further acknowledges that we do not have enough unambiguous evidence about the nature of REALITY specifically to include or exclude the notion of gods.


My problem specifically arises due to the fact that to stamp such a specific belief on something so much larger than ourselves (the nature of reality), is arrogance in the first degree.
 
Agnosticism is acknowledgement that we do not know...and further acknowledges that we do not have enough unambiguous evidence about the nature of REALITY specifically to include or exclude the notion of gods.

Actually, Menty, that really is atheism, but atheism comes with one caveat: "Until I have evidence, I've no reason to believe it. Without evidence, there's no reason to even say 'maybe'."

Agnosticism is "Well, maybe there is and maybe there isn't."

Atheism is "Since there's no evidence, there's no reason to say there is. So until some evidence comes along, there isn't."

It's not a matter of believing there's no God, any more than I exercise any kind of faith that someone hasn't hidden a dead leprechaun in my sock drawer while I wasn't looking.

For all atheists I'd ask how you can truly differentiate yourself suitably from agnoticsm without being blindly dogmatic.

That's easy; agnosticism and atheism are actually the same thing. Most people, though, and this unfortunately includes a lot of self-professed atheists, are actually anti-theist. I think there's a difference there that needs to be pointed out.
 
That difference, simply put, is this: Theists see the positive effects God has on their lives; atheists see the positive effect belief has on theists' lives; anti-theists are openly hostile to the effect belief has on theists' lives.

And here's a point to ponder -- anti-theists, in my experience with them, are actually hostile toward God, sometimes openly personifying God while venting their hostility.

You can't hate God and not believe in Him.
 
The Question said:
Actually, Menty, that really is atheism, but atheism comes with one caveat: "Until I have evidence, I've no reason to believe it."

Agnosticism is "Well, maybe there is and maybe there isn't."

Atheism is "Since there's no evidence, there's no reason to say there is. So until some evidence comes along, there isn't."

It's not a matter of believing there's no God, any more than I exercise any kind of faith that someone hasn't hidden a dead leprechaun in my sock drawer while I wasn't looking.

That's weak atheism which is pretty much indistinguishable from agnostisim anyway.

But it's still a belief. Agnostics are saying the lack of emperical evidence for or against is not reason enough to take a specific stance, since we cannot percieve the Universe on enough levels to make the lack of emperical evidence a compelling argument for the non-existence of a deity or deities.
 
That's easy; agnosticism and atheism are actually the same thing.

This is true for the most part.


The Question said:
That difference, simply put, is this: Theists see the positive effects God has on their lives; atheists see the positive effect belief has on theists' lives; anti-theists are openly hostile to the effect belief has on theists' lives.

And here's a point to ponder -- anti-theists, in my experience with them, are actually hostile toward God, sometimes openly personifying God while venting their hostility.

You can't hate God and not believe in Him.

Which is otherwise known as strong atheism. Which is the belief that God/s do NOT exist. Which is the same logic trap as theists fall into.
 
We're going to have to agree to disagree on this. I personally define belief as "preferential acceptance of a claim based on partial or flawed evidence." To me, then, non-acceptance of a claim = non-belief. IMO, you can't believe a negative any more than you can prove a negative. Just as cold is merely the absence of heat, atheism is simply an absence of belief in or about God.
 
The Question said:
We're going to have to agree to disagree on this. I personally define belief as "preferential acceptance of a claim based on partial or flawed evidence." To me, then, non-acceptance of a claim = non-belief. IMO, you can't believe a negative any more than you can prove a negative. Just as cold is merely the absence of heat, atheism is simply an absence of belief in or about God.

But surely you believe that your non-belief in God is rational and correct? Which is a belief that your non-belief is the correct position. :P
 
Mentalist said:
But surely you believe that your non-belief in God is rational and correct? Which is a belief that your non-belief is the correct position. :P

Hey hey hey, now! You're driftin' toward existentialism now, and you know we can't go into that territory without some really good hash and a proper stockpile of munchies. :D
 
^^Oh, they're both wrong. The only way to get into Heaven is to pay the cover. And then once you're in there, you'd better have enough cash on hand to tip the girls, because you don't even want to know what kind of transaction fee their ATM is gonna hit you for.
 
Mentalist said:
Which is otherwise known as strong atheism. Which is the belief that God/s do NOT exist. Which is the same logic trap as theists fall into.

No it isn't. Strawman? Perhaps unintentional. There are many factors or 'arguments' that can show that this is not the same logical trap. I will have to find the link...it was rather interesting. IIRC, it was on Secular Web some years ago.

Invisible, pink Faeries who push the sun across the sky falls in the same category as God to atheists. I say these invisible, indetectable faeries do NOT exist because the evidence is so utterly lacking. Keep in mind, I do not take a 100% absolute stance of this non-existance of God. Nor would many other atheists really. Even science is not 100% absolute but I feel pretty damn confident in stating that God does not exist.

So, Mentalist, should follow your lead and say: "Well, invisible pink faeries could exist. I just don't know."

??????
 
Messenger said:
If you're so logical, why haven't you shut TQ up yet about the Holocaust?

Because when it comes to that particular hot topic, he's just as emo, ignorant and gullible as any useful idiot around.
 
Cranky Bastard said:
Can you give me the short version of this? :|

Do a search for a thread entitled, "I am shocked and appalled by The Question!"

In short, it is a long thread where Daniel tries to give his best Borat impression implicating the evil, hook nosed Jew deleting his holocaust argument from the entire USENET.
 
Top