Monday, October 8, 2007 | Reason : In the News | print version

Response to My Fellow 'Atheists'

by Sam Harris

Reposted from:
http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/response-to-my-fellow-atheists/

As several prominent atheists have now criticized the speech I gave at the Atheist Alliance conference in DC—without, apparently, understanding it—I thought I would take a moment to clarify the point I was making about the use of the term "atheist."

Is it really possible that PZ Myers and Ellen Johnson think I was recommending that we stop publicly criticizing religion or that I am hiding my own atheism out of "shame and fear"? I would not have thought such a misreading was possible, given the contents of my speech and my rather incessant criticism of religion in my books, articles, and lectures.

My point, with respect to the term "atheist" (or any other), is that the use of a label invites a variety of misunderstandings that are harmful to our cause. There are many people in this country who do not believe in God and who understand that there is conflict between science and religion, but who do not feel the slightest inclination to join an atheist group or to label themselves in opposition to religion. These people are "atheists" by any measure, but you will never meet them at one of our conventions. They have read the writings of the "new atheists," sent us letters and emails of support, are quite fond of criticizing religion whenever the opportunity arises, but they have no interest whatsoever in joining a cult of such critics. And there is something cult-like about the culture of atheism. In fact, much of the criticism I have received of my speech is so utterly lacking in content that I can only interpret it as a product of offended atheist piety.

Here is a way of separating my position from those of my fellow atheists who insist that there is power in a label. Let's call it the "press conference test":

Imagine President Bush announcing his veto of federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research at a White House press conference. A reporter for a major television network can ask one of the following questions. Which would you choose to best strike a blow against religious ignorance in this country?

1. Mr. President, what rational basis is there to worry about the fate of three-day-old human embryos? These embryos do not have nerve cells, much less the nervous systems they would need to suffer their destruction on any level. Your veto, frankly, seems insane to any educated person, and it is painfully obvious that it was the product of religious metaphysics and superstition—not science or morality. Do you ever worry that you may be dangerously misled by your religious beliefs? What can you say to the tens of millions of Americans whose suffering will be needlessly prolonged by your faith-based thinking?

2. Mr. President, as an atheist, let me ask what rational basis is there to worry about the fate of three-day-old human embryos? These embryos don't have nerve cells, much less the nervous systems they would need to suffer their destruction on any level. Your veto, frankly, seems insane to millions of atheists in this country, and it is painfully obvious that it was the product of religious metaphysics and superstition—not science or morality. Do you ever worry that you are failing to represent the interests of millions of atheists who also vote, or that you may be dangerously misled by your religious beliefs? What can you say to the tens of millions of Americans whose suffering will be needlessly prolonged by your faith-based thinking?

Which question would you like to see asked on the evening news? To my mind, (1) is clearly better than (2). Much better. And yet, many atheists are behaving as though they prefer (2). They seem to believe that our goal, as advocates of reason, will be best served by our using the term "atheist" without concern for its associations, thereby removing its stigma. They believe that announcing ourselves as a constituency in increasingly visible ways is the best strategy for success. Well, all I can say is that question (1) would probably have the support of 200 million Americans today. Question (2), while virtually identical in content, would likely alienate 180 million of these people. What is more, if we ever succeed in marginalizing beliefs in invisible gods and magic books, question (2) will seem utterly anachronistic.

So pick your strategy.

Add to del.icio.us Posted: Monday, October 8, 2007 | Permalink

Comments 1 - 50 of 109 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #77100 by nattyadams on October 8, 2007 at 1:06 pm

More wonderful, lucid food for thought from Mr. Harris. I'm still not sure how I feel about what seems to be something of a labeling crisis amongst us non-believers, but I say bravo to Sam for articulating his position so clearly, especially in the face of opposition.

Other Comments by nattyadams

2. Comment #77102 by Henri Bergson on October 8, 2007 at 1:13 pm

Good point, well-made.

There is the problem that the weak who advocate against religion will end up creating a sheep-consoling 'group' (cult) of their own: "Atheism".

One of the main arguments against religion is that it is sheep-like, herding weak-minded people together, giving them consolation. Atheism should therefore avoid such groupings.

Other Comments by Henri Bergson

3. Comment #77103 by glownz on October 8, 2007 at 1:20 pm

I think its impossible to avoid groupings. People work together as groups, thats how humans survive. Perhaps you meant avoid labeling. I think Sam Harris is wrong on the use of the word Atheist. It is not the Atheeists job to defend our position. We know what we stand for and what we don't stand for. But if the word Atheist makes people feel uncomfortable, feel free to change it to something else but whatever "label" you come up with will not endear you to anyone criticising atheisim now. Its not the word Atheist that people dislike or "misunderstand" its what we stand for, ie We see no evidence for a supernatural being. You can change the term but you can't change what we stand for and that in the end is what others dislike or disagree with

Other Comments by glownz

4. Comment #77104 by Zamboro on October 8, 2007 at 1:21 pm

It is true that in modern times, noone feels the need to label themselves as being in opposition to slavery. However in order to achieve the solidarity necessary to end slavery in early America, it was necessary to form an organized movement of 'Abolitionists'.

Likewise it is probable that in a few hundred years there will be noone who feels the need to label themselves as being in opposition to supernaturalism, and yet in the present it is very much necessary to form an organized movement of "Atheists" in order to achieve our goals.

Other Comments by Zamboro

5. Comment #77105 by Alex Malecki on October 8, 2007 at 1:25 pm

As articulate and clear as Harris usually is with his words, and as he is in this particular speech, I'm amazed that it has so easily been misunderstood. He is arguing against using the term Atheist as some extra leg on which an argument could stand. He is arguing against using our non-belief as some kind of political trump card the way religious organizations use their belief trump card to say whatever it is that pops into their mind and to justify all their arguments. Good reasons and rationality should always be top priority.

Other Comments by Alex Malecki

6. Comment #77107 by Stormkahn on October 8, 2007 at 1:26 pm

It makes more sense for us to organise as Anti-Theist rather than Atheist, which for me, has a very limit amount to say.

I can't say I'm convince either way at the moment, is there space for both ways in a 2 pronged attack?

Other Comments by Stormkahn

7. Comment #77108 by piousunbeliever on October 8, 2007 at 1:27 pm

It would be a good thing to loose the label "atheist". One problem is that this name is given equal footing with all other religions. As in, there are christians, muslims, buddhists, hindus, etc.... Use of this specific label reduces our carefully thought out position on reality to the same standing as the randomly selected a priori claims of various faiths.

I also think our use of Atheism limits our ability to understand the subjective experience of the human. We only argue against the legitamacy of faith based claims without relizing that through these faulty calims people are learning about themselves. By not addressing our subjectivity, I think many people come off with the impression that we are missing a portion of the human experience.

The orthodox Western spirituality is atrocious, but it can not be replaced with nothing. The agnostic buddhism proposed by Sam Harris and Stephen Batchelor is the best way to approach our human subjectivity. Our subjective experience must be addressed, by the atheist does not have the ability to address it.

Other Comments by piousunbeliever

8. Comment #77109 by Zamboro on October 8, 2007 at 1:30 pm

"The orthodox Western spirituality is atrocious, but it can not be replaced with nothing."

What of nations where it has been already? Sweden, Norway and Denmark come to mind as well as France, Japan and Britain to a lesser extent.

Don't accept the dogma that we cannot do without religion.

Other Comments by Zamboro

9. Comment #77110 by konquererz on October 8, 2007 at 1:33 pm

When ever I get confronted about atheistic labels, I simply tell them that I prefer not to be labeled, but if they insist on labeling me, I prefer to be called "the one who doesn't believe in fairies". This accurately sums it all up. I don't believe in imaginary creatures made up to explain the unknown to ignorant people. This usually ends with the religious person having a seriously stunned look on their face, and me walking away smiling.

Other Comments by konquererz

10. Comment #77111 by Vendetta on October 8, 2007 at 1:35 pm

After reading his books, debates, letters, and watching his videos, I couldn't believe what so many were saying: that Sam was suddenly backing off and endorsing subterfuge. This should help clarify what he was saying (sadly this implies his speech at AAI was unclear, which I don't think it was). Perhaps it was how he prefaced the speech by saying it might not go over well, people may have assumed the worst.

Other Comments by Vendetta

11. Comment #77112 by Eventhorizon on October 8, 2007 at 1:35 pm

I havent heard the talk he's refering to - where is all the footage from the AA conference by the way Josh? - but I kind of know what he means.
I dont think he's saying we should be apologetic when calling ourselves atheists but just to be tactful when we do. Firstly be mindful of when we label ourselves and be smart about it too.

Other Comments by Eventhorizon

12. Comment #77115 by glownz on October 8, 2007 at 1:40 pm

be tactful? Are relgious people tactful when they tell everyone who they are? no. Everyone else is supposed to be tactful about what they call themselves but religous peoples can be as aggressive as they like.

Other Comments by glownz

13. Comment #77117 by somersetsimon on October 8, 2007 at 1:42 pm

I can see Sam's point. To me, this links in with some other articles I have read recently. I am an atheist (I expect most people reading this are too), but being an atheist just defines my point of view on one issue. I'm sure atheists have a wide range of views on various issues, but sometimes there seems to be a drive, both internally and externally, to paint us as a single group with a single fixed set of ideas.

I can understand that 'atheist' can be seen as a negative term as it is a specific rejection of an idea. I prefer to think that my views on life and politics are more based on a positive secular, humanist, liberal philosophy rather than trying to define myself in terms of the rejection of what other people believe.

Taking the example in the article, I can see why you can make a much stronger case when your particular logical, scientific or moral argument can stand on its own, rather than it just being put forward as a 'standard' atheist stance.

Other Comments by somersetsimon

14. Comment #77118 by admin on October 8, 2007 at 1:43 pm

Eventhorizon,
I am importing tapes as we speak. I imported and edited Andy Thomson's talk first as a test run before importing the rest. I will have Sam's talk (and Q&A) up on the site soon.

Josh

Other Comments by admin

15. Comment #77119 by Nick Good on October 8, 2007 at 1:48 pm

I agree with Sam on this one.

But, that said, I also think there needs to be out there, overt atheists, of which Sam of course, is one. I don't think this is a case of either-or, it's both.

It also seems as if PZ Myers, in his open letter to Sam, rather misrepresented Sam's position. Which I thought a pity, and rather surprising. But this is not damaging because PZ isn't particularly well known outside of the atheist 'echo chamber'.

Rather less serious to the reputation of atheists as balanced, measured and reasonable, than Richard's recent US-Zionist conspiracy theory shtick; one that's raised a goodly few eyebrows....

http://oliverkamm.typepad.com/blog/2007/10/dawkins-secular.html

As for 'spirituality' I don't think the word really means anything. It's rather like the word 'executive'...a padding word devoid of content - a generic filler.

Rather say what you mean ...Contemplative - yes, reflective - yup, empathetic - indeed, compassionate - for sure, filled with wonder and awe - why not....but spiritual....it's tosh.

Other Comments by Nick Good

16. Comment #77123 by Eventhorizon on October 8, 2007 at 1:52 pm

glownz

You also have to be realistic.
Unfortunately religious people have the upper hand at the moment and saying you believe in the supernatural gives you some kind of immunity. I dont like it either but there you have it.
You wont bring people around to our way of thinking, firstly without being tactful and secondly without being smart.

Other Comments by Eventhorizon

17. Comment #77124 by RHR on October 8, 2007 at 1:54 pm

I agree with Zamboro, #77109
It seems to me that in the scandinavian countries religion has to a large degree been replaced by...nothing! It has just disapeared. I'd say that about 90% of my friends are non-religious, but only a few call themselves atheists. Most of them just don't care or think about religion at all.

Other Comments by RHR

18. Comment #77125 by Eventhorizon on October 8, 2007 at 1:54 pm

Thats brilliant.

Thank you Josh

Other Comments by Eventhorizon

19. Comment #77126 by Clappers on October 8, 2007 at 1:55 pm

Let's use Brights, as opposed to Supers

Richard Dawkins first encouraged me to look at the organisation

Sam Harris has endorsed it

Dan Dennett even mentions it in his writing "us Brights"

I know some of you will say that it makes us sound smug and superior, and that Christopher Hitchins disagrees.

But we're all individuals (I'm not)

Other Comments by Clappers

20. Comment #77129 by Zamboro on October 8, 2007 at 1:56 pm

"than Richard's recent US-Zionist conspiracy theory shtick"

What do you mean by this? Perhaps you don't live in the United States, but what he said about the Jewish lobby being disproportionately influential was absolutely correct. It doesn't imply any sinister conspiracy, simply that they are better organized than most.

Other Comments by Zamboro

21. Comment #77130 by hanche on October 8, 2007 at 2:01 pm

I'm afraid I still don't get it. Yes, yes, Sam Harris is absolutely right that (1) is much better than (2). But surely that is because atheism really has very little to do with the subject at hand (embryonic stem cell research)? So if all he is saying is that it is counterproductive to make an issue of our atheism on every occassion, I can agree with that. But what is wrong with using the atheist label while discussing the problems with religion in general, not to mention the plight of atheists in certain parts of the world?

Other Comments by hanche

22. Comment #77131 by Vendetta on October 8, 2007 at 2:03 pm

konquererz-

I understand what you're saying, sometimes it can be liberating to point out exactly what you think of someone's ignorant view.

When I am in that situation I usually reply that I am not superstitious. I could say I don't believe in fairies or unicorns or some other silly thing, but I think this is the point that Sam is making.

If you really want to get people to look at what they believe and get a meaningful dialogue going, it's probably not the best move to start by saying something that they will perceive as pointedly insulting. This is exactly like Sam's example: why insert the loaded label atheist into the statement? Why provoke unnecessarily?

You don't start a debate by saying your opponent is an idiot, even if they happen to be one. This is like a conversation stopper, much like how most of us would look at someone saying that "God is truth and all arguments we can give are simply the devil's work."

That stunned face they have as you walk away smiling isn't them asking themselves if their beliefs can really be compared to believing in fairies. That look is them wondering how you can be so foolish to believe that, combined with bewilderment and pity that you are probably going to hell.

I would view it as another lost opportunity to educate the ignorant... but that's just my opinion. We're both on the same side :)

Cheers!

Other Comments by Vendetta

23. Comment #77133 by glownz on October 8, 2007 at 2:13 pm

To be frank, im not interested in converting the fundamentalist to my way of thinking, even if that was possible, which its not. I don't care if they get offended by the word Atheist. I have no respct for the Fundamentalists of any religion. They have caused a lot of damage to humanity. And as for the "moderates" they enable the fundamentalists to get away with "murder".

Other Comments by glownz

24. Comment #77134 by glownz on October 8, 2007 at 2:15 pm

Im a proud atheist because I would like to think that before i "believe" in something I find conclusive evidence. And even then its not a belif, its KNOWING.

Other Comments by glownz

25. Comment #77136 by sbe on October 8, 2007 at 2:20 pm

Maybe if Sam Harris' point were put in a different way, it might be more comprehensible to some people who are having difficulty with it:

It's not about you, it's about the task at hand.

It really doesn't matter what people who support reason, science, and secularism call themselves, as long as we achieve our goals. And Sam's point is that what we call ourselves is vastly less important than acheiving our goals and, furthermore, if what we call ourselves actually hinders what we're trying to accomplish, well then the name simply has to go.

This may be surprising to some, but this argument doesn't even conflict with Richard Dawkins Out Campaign. Because Dawkins' campaign is not about yelling about being an atheist, but coming out as someone who wants to live in a secular world ruled by reason -- you can come out for that and still call yourself anything you like.

I can't say much about Ellen Johnson, but PZ Myers is a clown in my opinion. I stopped reading his blog a long time ago. He rarely has anything interesting to say and, to me, he mostly comes off sounding like a nut. And Myers is the poster boy for the argument that atheism is rapidly becoming a cult.

Sam Harris is really the only person who seems to be thinking about the secularist movement in a truly strategic way. I hope people can break free of the group think that dominates much of the online atheist community and take a sober look at what Sam Harris is trying to say.

On a tangential note (with all due respect for Dawkins and Harris), I really find it creepy to compare the "plight" of atheists to the very real plight of gays and blacks. Unlike being gay or black, atheism is a choice, but then so it religion. No one has ever said "I can't help being reasonable, I was born this way" any more than someone is likely to say "I can't help being pentecostal, I was born this way."

Actually, I think atheists/secularists are missing an opportunity to turn the tables on the fundamentalist canard that being gay is a "lifestyle choice"--no it isn't, but being an intolerant ignoramus is. Sure, being an atheist can get you killed in some places in the world, but so can drinking alcohol during ramadan. In the western world, being an atheist might cause you some trouble in certain places and situations, but it's hardly the same hardship that gays and blacks have faced. Let's keep a little perspective here.

Other Comments by sbe

26. Comment #77137 by skee360 on October 8, 2007 at 2:21 pm

This argument sounds like a episode of, South Park!

Other Comments by skee360

27. Comment #77138 by BicycleRepairMan on October 8, 2007 at 2:29 pm

Harris is a brilliant arguer, and its kinda hard to disagree with him when he puts it like this. However, I think there is room for, and need for, both approaches. Obviously, acting as if only an ATHEIST (that loudly) could have the brains to understand why stem-cell banning is wrong, is obviously a bad idea. At the same time, its time to stand up and be counted, to come out, and thus passify and destroy the nonsensical myths about atheism that is clearly in abundance in America, the same could be said about stem-cell research itself, people need to know what it actually is, and not the religious mythical version of it. Many religious people, until you fair and square tell them "I dont believe there is a god." simply havent even CONSIDERED that your kind of people exist, and I guess if they do exist, they are these suicidal, nihilistic, demon-possessed Stalinists that you'd best stay away from..

Surely, we dont have to shout "atheist!" while trying to reason with people, and as in the example, it can be outright counter-productive in most cases, however, to stand up and be counted on a general basis, saying stuff like "Here we are, we're just people like you" is not counter-productive, and I think its an important part of being recognized.

Other Comments by BicycleRepairMan

28. Comment #77139 by eXcommunicate on October 8, 2007 at 2:30 pm

"I'm Black" is also a "loaded label" to many bigots, but would Harris suggest African Americans stop using the term? "I'm a Republican" would be a loaded statement in New York City. "Liberal" would be a loaded label in a conversation with a conservative. It's not the problem of those that the label applies to - its the ignorance of those that perceive the label in a bigoted manner. Attitudes do change regarding labels. Isn't that what we're striving for in the first place? To change the zeitgeist and affect real change in hearts and minds? Essentially we want to change the amount of respect accorded to the labels Christian, Muslim, Wiccan, and others, so why not also change the level of respect accorded to the label "Atheist"? I'm not saying Sam is advocating we roll over and play dead - far from it! But I see real value in sticking to our guns and not abandoning a term that adequately and rationally describes the beliefs or lack thereof of the majority of non-believers. Add additional words to the movement if you like; I even prefer the term "Rationalist Movement" to encompass all kinds of views, including atheism; but "atheist" still applies to me, to Sam Harris, and to most of us at this website and I for one am still going to use it. ;)

I am with BicycleRepairMan in that we don't have to bring atheism into every political subject. Atheism is only part of Rationalism. We must first and foremost approach things from a Rationalist standpoint and if Atheism is part of the equation then apply it. No need to run from the term, but no need to cloak everything with it either. I am reminded of the term "Progressive" that liberals not unlike myself have coined to relabel themselves because "liberal" has politically become a "dirty word." The reason it's become a dirty word is two-fold: 1) The abdication of the language of debate to conservatives, and 2) Many liberals used the term to beat upon their opponents, creating a backlash against it. It's an interesting parallel to this "atheist" discussion and something we can learn from.

Other Comments by eXcommunicate

29. Comment #77141 by AdrianT on October 8, 2007 at 2:47 pm

...in other words, Sam seems to be saying, many who don't believe in god see atheist gatherings as something resembling Star Trek conventions LOL! Oh dear, it wasn't that bad was it?!

I agree with his points though - in any case most people just want to get on with their lives but they want competent, honest, transparent, fair and rational government. Atheism is actually a very personal thing as well - for those who haven't thought about it, I can imagine it's a bit unpallatable. Keeping god out of the White House is one thing, but facing up to the fact we don't survive our death is another...some people find it a relief, others find it devastating!

Other Comments by AdrianT

30. Comment #77142 by Steven Mading on October 8, 2007 at 2:56 pm

Harris' approach is much better than that of "KeepTheReason" over in the forums.
KeepTheReason: STOP SAYING ATHEIST!!! LABELS ARE IMPORTANT! Use this New Label Instead!!! Everyone who does not agree clearly is a moron. (Okay, so it's not expressed that clearly in his actual posts, but I think I have summarized the point accurately).

Harris: Labels in general aren't important, period. Don't swap atheist for some other label, just don't bother with a label in the first place.

I find myself much more likely to agree with Harris.

Other Comments by Steven Mading

31. Comment #77143 by Nick Good on October 8, 2007 at 2:59 pm

sbe wrote: Unlike being gay or black, atheism is a choice

I agreed pretty much with the rest of your post; but not this specific point. Some of us can't really 'choose' to believe in any god, any more than we can 'choose' to believe in Zeus or Santa.

We just didn't get there by 'choice'. I became a religious sceptic at about 13 because I couldn't get anyone to point out satisfactorily to my young mind, despite my good-faith questions, a satisfactory reason why 'faith', in the religious sense, was a good thing. I became hung-up on the faith verses evidence dichotomy, funnily enough, because it was quite plain to me that 'faith' contradicted directly what I was being taught in science classes about the scientific method for parsing reality and approaching truth.

My atheism flowed from that fault line; Christianity started seeming more and more trite. This wasn't a conscious choice, and I couldn't ignore it. At 14 I dropped out of confirmation classes in my minor, English Anglican boarding school in Sussex, because I thought it dishonest to go through with confirmation when I didn't believe in any god.

Other Comments by Nick Good

32. Comment #77144 by Hugo on October 8, 2007 at 3:06 pm

Don't agree at all.

Sam's example is frankly childish after reading some of his books I'd have thought he was on a bit higher level.
Atheists don't go around proclaiming they are atheists at all times (and it's not what the current movement is about).
I don't end every sentence with '... and I'm an atheist' but when I talk about or am asked about religion I do not hide my atheism and that is what it is about.
The question to Pres. Bush should be asked in the first way because it is a human interest question any sane educated person should ask that question regardless of religion.
Now if Bush in return were to ask me my position on stem cell research I'd proclaim my atheism and tell him that if he thinks that doing research on 3 day old human embryo's is like abortion then sneezing is abortion too.

Just own up Sam, you made a mistake.

Other Comments by Hugo

33. Comment #77145 by Hugo on October 8, 2007 at 3:09 pm

sbe wrote: Unlike being gay or black, atheism is a choice

It is not, I never had religion and I can not force myself to belief religious dogma.
I can fake belief and do the rituals, it would be a lot easier than faking sexual orientation but it would be faking!

Other Comments by Hugo

34. Comment #77146 by Nick Good on October 8, 2007 at 3:17 pm

I had to go to casualty on Saturday - I heroically stubbed my little toe and wasn't sure if I'd busted it.

I had to fill in some forms - I'm in South Africa, between Pretoria and Jo'burg. One of the questions was ...Religion?

I didn't write 'atheist', I put 'none'; that was the honest answer, the question was not what I didn't believe in! And I am not of the school that posits atheism as a religion! Anyway, it was no big deal.

When I was commissioned into HM forces back in 1980, same thing. I put 'None' on the religion question on the huge form, I received a phone call from some clerk saying that 'none' was not on the list of recognised religions....I didn't argue, I changed it to 'agnostic', a bit of a cop out I confess. Still caused me shiite though!

Other Comments by Nick Good

35. Comment #77147 by quork on October 8, 2007 at 3:18 pm

I think Harris is on the wrong track here.

If your point is that phrasing your communications carefully will get them better accepted, then accusing those who do not understand or agree with you of being a "cult" undermines your message and your point. Obviously you are not someone who is an expert in effective communication.

Does Harris really think that someone could criticise "religious metaphysics and superstition" and "faith-based thinking" and not be instantly categorised as an atheist?

Other Comments by quork

36. Comment #77148 by Dr Benway on October 8, 2007 at 3:20 pm

I agree and disagree with Sam. Many do not feel, sense, or believe in God, and may self-describe as "atheists." I see no harm in that. Theists often do feel something they call "God." In a secular world, we could all say, "vive la difference!"

I just spoke with a 10 year-old boy who's been hearing devils whispering to him during the day. The devils say things like, "kill him!"

I do not believe the devil is speaking to this boy. I think his brain isn't working properly. Luckily in this case, both he and his adoptive mother agree with me. No killing is likely to happen.

Is it possible I am wrong? Do devils sometimes whisper to children? Perhaps. Seems unlikely however.

For the sake of argument, let's imagine that occasionally, devils actually do whisper to people. Were I to insist otherwise, I'd be trampling on someone's real experience with my preconceptions. I'd be like those townspeople telling the young boy that he's not actually seeing the Emperor's bare butt.

I'd prefer not to make that mistake if I don't have to. And I don't.

Secularism is the answer. Yours, mine, ours. Those things we can corroborate are "our truth." Those things only you can corroborate are "your truth." Where your truth contradicts our truth, I will favor the latter, and I expect you to do the same when the shoe is on the other foot. Evidence that can be independently corroborated deserves greater respect than anyone's purely subjective experience, given how quirky our brains can be.

Perhaps God reveals Himself to a few lucky or unlucky souls, inwardly, in their feelings and thoughts. When someone tells me of these events, I form an opinion. But I recognize that I can't corroborate another's subjectivity. I don't presume to judge others with the same confidence as myself.

An atheist bears witness to his lack of subjective evidence for God's existence. Does an atheist insist that God is likewise absent from everyone else's subjectivity? He may suspect that's the case, that what people call "God" is something else entirely. But he can't corroborate anyone else's subjective experience. He can't present his opinions or suspicions as established fact.

I am an atheist. But I have no interest in converting others to my point of view. Others must bear witness to their own subjectivity, which might or might not contain something called "God." If God is there, let's hear about Him or it. Better to bear honest witness to something strange than to hold back for fear of bullying. Let's not build a world where conformity is a higher value than honesty.

BTW, if ever God reveals Himself to me, I will try to give an account to RD.net. I will likely add the caveat that either I encountered God, or my brain was playing a few tricks. As a secularist, I will allow you all the right to form your own opinions.

If everyone, religious or not, recognized our collective need to favor claims we can corroborate over claims we can't, real peace might become a possibilty.

Other Comments by Dr Benway

37. Comment #77149 by AlmostCertain on October 8, 2007 at 3:24 pm

If we are to have a label, perhaps it would be better to have one that is not defined in terms of that which we oppose.

I found Bill Maher's recent use of rationalist to be quite effective.

Aren't all atheists rationalists?
Aren't all theists not rationalists, by definition?

Rationalism - that's what we support, is it not?

Other Comments by AlmostCertain

38. Comment #77150 by Bonzai on October 8, 2007 at 3:24 pm

I expect the RRS to go after Sam Harris as a secret Christian agent very soon.

Dr. Benway,

Excellent post.

Other Comments by Bonzai

39. Comment #77152 by Machinus on October 8, 2007 at 3:38 pm

Sam - I'm sure you won't read down this far, but you should not doubt the necessity of positivist metaphysics.

We need to stop telling the supernaturalists that they need to replace their beleifs with ours. We should start telling them to give up belief altogether, and acting the part.

Other Comments by Machinus

40. Comment #77155 by artemisa on October 8, 2007 at 3:44 pm

How about a new definition for atheism?

Atheism = process by which clear thinking or reason is used to verify the truth or falsity of a premise religious or otherwise.

Other Comments by artemisa

41. Comment #77158 by Corylus on October 8, 2007 at 3:51 pm

There is a flip side to all this worrying about our terminology, in that it is often just as interesting to ask what believers would like to call us.

If, for example, I am chatting with someone who calls me a skeptic or a rationalist then I know precisely what I am dealing with.

If they merely call me an atheist I take no offence (I have no problem with the term and use it myself). I merely try to tease out whether they buy into any (possible) negative connotations.

If they want to call me inherently insulting terms (we all know them, e.g. infidel etc...) Well then... all I can say is that this says infinitely more about them than me.

---

What really pisses me off though is 'fundamentalist atheist' - a certain beloved troll is back and I am resisting the desire to feed him :-(

Other Comments by Corylus

42. Comment #77164 by Theocrapcy on October 8, 2007 at 4:05 pm

This is a battle over semantics and one I think is ultimately pointless. I'm surprised Sam is so stuck on this issue, especially when we're trying to encourage people to "come out".

Other Comments by Theocrapcy

43. Comment #77167 by sbe on October 8, 2007 at 4:16 pm

To clarify my earlier comment about atheism being a choice:

Whether people like to believe it or not, atheism is in fact a choice. Even if you "just always knew god didn't exist", you still arrived at a conclusion about religion and the supernatural and *CHOSE* to accept the non-existence of god/the supernatural as the most plausible or obvious conclusion.

If you think you were "born reasonable" or if you're one of those people who think atheists/rationalist/secularists have certain innate qualities in the way that people who believe their horoscopes think Leos and Aries have unique and innate qualities, well then you've got other issues you need to deal with before you turn to the comparatively academic question of whether to call yourself an atheist or not.

Other Comments by sbe

44. Comment #77168 by Cwazy Cat Lady on October 8, 2007 at 4:22 pm

Sam is right. We must challenge faith for sure but not just because there is no evidence of God, but because we are concerned for a larger goal: creating a culture that values critical thinking, reason and skepticism. By nurturting such a society we would anyways deal a heavy blow to the faith-based religions of the world...

When I read Sam Harris I wonder why no one has ever said it before... It all seems so utterly CLEAR!!

Other Comments by Cwazy Cat Lady

45. Comment #77170 by Goldy on October 8, 2007 at 4:24 pm

Whether people like to believe it or not, atheism is in fact a choice. Even if you "just always knew god didn't exist", you still arrived at a conclusion about religion and the supernatural and *CHOSE* to accept the non-existence of god/the supernatural as the most plausible or obvious conclusion.

I'm still not sure. It was never a choice, it just was. I went through motions at school, singing and chapel and all that, but belief never was there. I didn't chose - I was.
Quick edit - unless you mean running around proclaiming athiesm. That could be a choice. But the non belief...no. How can it have been a choice?

Other Comments by Goldy

46. Comment #77171 by treeman17 on October 8, 2007 at 4:25 pm

This guy is good. I really enjoy reading from people like this who give me that "Oh, yeah" sensation.

Other Comments by treeman17

47. Comment #77174 by Janus on October 8, 2007 at 4:30 pm

The reason Sam thinks he's being misunderstood is that his thoughts as stated in his speech were muddled and confused.

For example, what was PZ Myers supposed to think when he read this:

"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."

And this new reply does nothing to make Sam's point clearer and easier to understand. In fact, the point he's making now seems completely different from the point he was trying to make in his speech. Now he seems to be saying that emphasizing the fact that we're atheists when we're criticizing irrational ideas is stupid because atheists aren't the only ones who are against irrational ideas, religious people can be against certain irrational ideas too. Well, what can I say to that except DUH. No fucking shit Sam, I think we all know that, and no one has ever suggested doing such a thing. Why on Earth would we talk about atheism where stem cell research is concerned? On the other hand, there are certain topics where atheists stand pretty much alone, in which case it would certainly be appropriate to emphasize the fact that atheists aren't a negligible minority, and an atheist movement would certainly be useful to support that assertion.

The rest of Sam's reply is an expression of his paranoia about the forming of an atheist community and movement; apparently he fears that such a movement might turn into a "cult". As if movements always turned into cults.

Sam doesn't want atheists to form a recognizable union under the name "atheists" or any other name, but he's yet to produce a coherent argument to support this.

Other Comments by Janus

48. Comment #77178 by Russell Blackford on October 8, 2007 at 4:55 pm

Sam Harris is obviously correct with the example he gives. Where he's wrong is thinking that we should do away with all labels - "atheist", "humanist", "rationalist", whatever. That's unrealistic: movements and ideas do need labels.

But he'd be right if he just said that some people make a fetish out of the word "atheist".

I'll give a clear and specific example. Udo Schuklenk is an eminent academic, editor (or maybe co-editor) of the important journal Bioethics (disclosure: I sometimes act as a referee for that journal ... but its importance is not in doubt). He is pretty much as hardline a secularist and critic of religion as Richard Dawkins. However, he prefers to call himself an agnostic.

The other day, he turned up to make some comments at Pharyngula (on the thread about the original Harris talk), and explained his position in a courteous manner as if talking to his intellectual peers. He was attacked quite nastily for it by at least one pseudonymous person. I mean "attacked"; I don't mean "disagreed with" or "argued against".

It's getting to the stage where some fans of the so-called New Atheists are insisting on a position far more narrow and dogmatic than the positions of the New Atheists themselves, which are actually subtle, diverse, and developing. Next thing, even Richard is going to be attacked by some for being insufficiently atheistic. This is not healthy.

By all means call yourselves "atheists" - I think Harris is wrong about that - but don't become so narrow in your thinking that you shut off all hope of forming useful alliances and coalitions with other reasonable people who may be just as opposed to theocracy as you are.

More here:

http://metamagician3000.blogspot.com/2007/10/fundamentalism.html

Other Comments by Russell Blackford

49. Comment #77179 by Donald on October 8, 2007 at 4:57 pm

Sam Harris is as brilliant and eloquent as usual. And his AA talk makes many many good points, as usual.

But his talk at AA is unbalanced.

In focusing on some negative aspects of the label "atheist", and some disadvantages of the grouping around atheism as a common cause, he distracts attention away from the positive aspects.

The positive aspects seem very important to me. Here are some of them.

First, there is enormous benefit to individuals who feel that they are "isolated exceptions in their society" to know that there are many many more people who share their disbelief in religious stories, or disbelief in god. The publicity accompanying "atheism as a grouping" encourages people to "come out" as atheists and find they are not alone.
Second there is the community aspect. Religions are packages, not only only of religious memes, but also of social activities. Atheists tend to be disadvantaged by this. I never felt able to join a church community because the church community was based on things I did not believe in, and it was required that community members should profess those things, and I did not feel comfortable "living a lie" in order to gain the social benefits. Atheist organisations and internet forums may be a poor substitute for rich religious communities, but they are better than nothing. (Of course, we hope atheist organisations will be temporary arrangements in the longer term scale of history - but they may be appropriate until humanity overcomes religious influence.)
Third, the intellectual dimension of this struggle. "Atheism" provides a focus for people to share and refine the rebuttals to the wide range of arguments provided by religious proponents. The arguments against religious absurdities are as old as the religious myths themselves, but they are hard to find in one place, unless one is a scholar of religious philosophy. I find that the current surge of "atheism" has enabled me to find and deploy arguments that I would not have previously had to hand, and that a community of "atheists" is the source of this useful information.

So, how does this relate to Sam's illustrative questions to Bush?
Well, Sam's second version is a caricature for effect. A more realistic version would be:
"Joe Scribbler, Atheists Alliance. Mr President, what rational basis....[as in version 1]"

I.e., the questioner would self-identify as atheist, but the question itself would be the same.

Then the issue is: what effect does the explicit association of the questioner with atheism have? The negative side is that it invites a knee-jerk reaction from religious defenders, who may otherwise have treated the question more objectively. The positive side is that is makes atheists more visible, thus encouraging other atheists to speak their view on future occasions.

Atheists will vary in their judgement here. I think that given the current state of the world, and the current extent of religious influence, the explicit promotion of an atheistic viewpoint is more valuable than the improved effect of the question on the immediate issue. YMMV.

I'd rather see atheists organisations grow in visibility and strength until humanity has left religious belief far behind. Atheists organisations will then wither or mutate of their own accord. No need to discourage atheists from banding together while it is beneficial to do so.

And if I find myself shouted down by Sam's fans, so be it. I'm a major Sam fan myself. I just think he seriously over-stated a particular line of thought in writing this particular AA talk.

Other Comments by Donald

50. Comment #77182 by Conrad on October 8, 2007 at 5:18 pm

Here is the main crux of PZ's argument "It seems to me, though, that there is no conflict at all between being decent, responsible people who destroy bad ideas wherever we find them and also finding common cause with like-minded people and working together to promote that same decency, responsibility, and critical thinking publicly. In fact, I think such coordinated (and proudly labeled) action by a group would be more effective than similar action by modest individuals."

I can't see where Sam feels attacked here. I also can't see where Sam gets the idea that he's interpreted as wanting atheists to "stop publicly criticizing religion." That's an unsupported assertion that isn't backed up anywhere in PZ's reply to Sam.

Lastly the idea that those who dissent with him can only be interpreted as "a product of offended atheist piety" is more than irritating, and the suggestion of cult-like tendancies is silly. I hold Sam in just as high esteem as any other worthwhile public intellectual, but I disagree with his current assertions.

So for that Sam... I'm taking down my altar of your photo's and putting up another of PZ's...

Other Comments by Conrad

Reload Comments | Back to Top

More Comments: 1 2 3 | Next | Last