Login |
New User
Over 1.5 million copies sold
Books by Richard Dawkins
The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing
by Richard Dawkins
The Selfish Gene
by Richard Dawkins
The Blind Watchmaker
by Richard Dawkins
The Ancestor's Tale
by Richard Dawkins
Unweaving the Rainbow
by Richard Dawkins
Climbing Mount Improbable
by Richard Dawkins
Print
Sam Harris seems like a nice fellow, but very confused
by PZ Myers, Pharyngula
Reposted from:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/10/sam_harris_seems_like_a_nice_f.php
Sam Harris responds to the reaction to his speech at the Atheist Alliance meeting.
It's puzzling to be accused of misreading Harris when his misreading of PZ Myers is so far off base; perhaps my name was just tossed in as an afterthought, and he's really trying to address Ellen Johnson's comment. Even there, though, I think he's mangling the point.
And it's highly disappointing that he resorts to using a dishonest rhetorical tactic: rather than addressing the issues we brought up, he invents a hypothetical situation — a reporter asking the president a question about stem cells — and then contrives two hypothetical ways the question could be phrased, 1) a good way that emphasizes the rational, scientific reasons for supporting stem cell research, and 2) a bad way that has the reporter declaring his atheism multiple times in a question that has nothing to do with atheism. And then he declares that all of us atheists seem to be preferring the second, bad way of asking the question.
Victory! He doesn't even have to catch us saying something foolish, he just writes stupid words into our mouths, and presto, our arguments are defeated!
Come on, Sam, at least have the courtesy to deal with what we actually said. I never said everyone must join the cult of atheism, nor do I think atheism is a cult. I even agreed that someday the word would be an anachronism; I agree that multiple strategies are good and necessary.
There was much that I thought was reasonable in Harris's talk, and there was a fair amount that I disagreed with that I let slide. Even in his latest defense, I agree completely that his good answer #1 is preferable to bad answer #2, although he has intentionally rendered #2 as patently absurd to force that choice. What I chose to focus on in the talk was Harris's claim that "We should not call ourselves anything. We should go under the radar--for the rest of our lives." I did not argue that a True Member of the Cult of Atheism is not allowed to do that — it's fine with me if individuals prefer to do whatever. I did not say that every atheist must express his atheism in every situation at all times, which would be a painfully silly thing to do. What I found objectionable was his dismissal of the value of any kind of label or organizing point to rally around, and his specific snub of "atheism" as a word too negative to have any use.
The situation is simply ridiculous. Sam Harris has benefitted greatly from his aggressive, uncompromising attitude towards religion, and yet there he is, a featured speaker at an atheist's conference, telling everyone else to go under the radar, and by the way, they should stop calling themselves atheists. I disagree completely. Everyone should feel free to flash the radar as much as they want, or hide away if they prefer, and I certainly think it has been a good thing for the cause of reason that more and more people are coming out and making their ideas known. Why oppose that?
If Sam Harris would rather not be known as an atheist, that's fine; he can try to escape the label, somehow. I don't know that he can, especially since he is an atheist, and a pretty loud one at that. As for other people, if they want to be known as atheists, who is Sam Harris to tell them they shouldn't? As I said in my original reply, there are lots of different labels, people can use whatever they prefer. Let a thousand flowers bloom. Militant Pantheists of the World, unite and rise up. Happy Agnostics, go forth. Atheists, make a joyful noise unto the world. It's all good. I'm not going to make a speech and tell the agnostics they're harming the cause; why is Sam Harris, atheist, singling out an important and prominent element of the anti-religious contingent and telling them to be quiet?
My other point, one that Harris has so far completely ignored, is that these labels are useful for identifying people who share our values — they allow us to coalesce into larger groups and make our presence known in a culture that would otherwise completely ignore us if we stayed "under the radar". Again, there's no compulsion, anyone can do as they please, but having a simple rallying point for people of similar views is useful.
One last thing that made me laugh out loud with its lack of reality in his latest reaction is something from his two hypothetical questions — the good one, in fact. In it, he says, as an example of the best way to phrase a disagreement,
And then he claims that this phrasing is superior, would not alienate 180 million Americans, and would have the support of those 180 million plus the 20 million overt atheists. Nonsense. This is completely contrary to my experience.
I give lots of talks on evolution, and I handle lots of questions. I rarely go out of my way to use the words "atheist" or "atheism" in them — I'm not reluctant to say what I am if asked, but it's not central to the topic. However, I do not need to use the evil word "atheist" to get certain people angry: all I have to do is dismiss religious explanations for evolution as "the product of religious metaphysics and superstition". A recent example was my talk in Stillwater, where I did not say I was an atheist or demand that others be atheists, but did plainly reject religion as a way to answer questions of our origins, and that was sufficient to trigger the usual foot-stomping and finger-pointing.
Sam Harris is living in a fantasy world if he thinks he can criticize religion and merely by leaving the A-word off, he will win everyone over to his point of view. It won't. The theists aren't stupid.
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/10/sam_harris_seems_like_a_nice_f.php
Sam Harris responds to the reaction to his speech at the Atheist Alliance meeting.
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.
It's puzzling to be accused of misreading Harris when his misreading of PZ Myers is so far off base; perhaps my name was just tossed in as an afterthought, and he's really trying to address Ellen Johnson's comment. Even there, though, I think he's mangling the point.
And it's highly disappointing that he resorts to using a dishonest rhetorical tactic: rather than addressing the issues we brought up, he invents a hypothetical situation — a reporter asking the president a question about stem cells — and then contrives two hypothetical ways the question could be phrased, 1) a good way that emphasizes the rational, scientific reasons for supporting stem cell research, and 2) a bad way that has the reporter declaring his atheism multiple times in a question that has nothing to do with atheism. And then he declares that all of us atheists seem to be preferring the second, bad way of asking the question.
Victory! He doesn't even have to catch us saying something foolish, he just writes stupid words into our mouths, and presto, our arguments are defeated!
Come on, Sam, at least have the courtesy to deal with what we actually said. I never said everyone must join the cult of atheism, nor do I think atheism is a cult. I even agreed that someday the word would be an anachronism; I agree that multiple strategies are good and necessary.
There was much that I thought was reasonable in Harris's talk, and there was a fair amount that I disagreed with that I let slide. Even in his latest defense, I agree completely that his good answer #1 is preferable to bad answer #2, although he has intentionally rendered #2 as patently absurd to force that choice. What I chose to focus on in the talk was Harris's claim that "We should not call ourselves anything. We should go under the radar--for the rest of our lives." I did not argue that a True Member of the Cult of Atheism is not allowed to do that — it's fine with me if individuals prefer to do whatever. I did not say that every atheist must express his atheism in every situation at all times, which would be a painfully silly thing to do. What I found objectionable was his dismissal of the value of any kind of label or organizing point to rally around, and his specific snub of "atheism" as a word too negative to have any use.
The situation is simply ridiculous. Sam Harris has benefitted greatly from his aggressive, uncompromising attitude towards religion, and yet there he is, a featured speaker at an atheist's conference, telling everyone else to go under the radar, and by the way, they should stop calling themselves atheists. I disagree completely. Everyone should feel free to flash the radar as much as they want, or hide away if they prefer, and I certainly think it has been a good thing for the cause of reason that more and more people are coming out and making their ideas known. Why oppose that?
If Sam Harris would rather not be known as an atheist, that's fine; he can try to escape the label, somehow. I don't know that he can, especially since he is an atheist, and a pretty loud one at that. As for other people, if they want to be known as atheists, who is Sam Harris to tell them they shouldn't? As I said in my original reply, there are lots of different labels, people can use whatever they prefer. Let a thousand flowers bloom. Militant Pantheists of the World, unite and rise up. Happy Agnostics, go forth. Atheists, make a joyful noise unto the world. It's all good. I'm not going to make a speech and tell the agnostics they're harming the cause; why is Sam Harris, atheist, singling out an important and prominent element of the anti-religious contingent and telling them to be quiet?
My other point, one that Harris has so far completely ignored, is that these labels are useful for identifying people who share our values — they allow us to coalesce into larger groups and make our presence known in a culture that would otherwise completely ignore us if we stayed "under the radar". Again, there's no compulsion, anyone can do as they please, but having a simple rallying point for people of similar views is useful.
One last thing that made me laugh out loud with its lack of reality in his latest reaction is something from his two hypothetical questions — the good one, in fact. In it, he says, as an example of the best way to phrase a disagreement,
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.
And then he claims that this phrasing is superior, would not alienate 180 million Americans, and would have the support of those 180 million plus the 20 million overt atheists. Nonsense. This is completely contrary to my experience.
I give lots of talks on evolution, and I handle lots of questions. I rarely go out of my way to use the words "atheist" or "atheism" in them — I'm not reluctant to say what I am if asked, but it's not central to the topic. However, I do not need to use the evil word "atheist" to get certain people angry: all I have to do is dismiss religious explanations for evolution as "the product of religious metaphysics and superstition". A recent example was my talk in Stillwater, where I did not say I was an atheist or demand that others be atheists, but did plainly reject religion as a way to answer questions of our origins, and that was sufficient to trigger the usual foot-stomping and finger-pointing.
Sam Harris is living in a fantasy world if he thinks he can criticize religion and merely by leaving the A-word off, he will win everyone over to his point of view. It won't. The theists aren't stupid.
Add to del.icio.us
Posted: Monday, October 8, 2007 | PermalinkComments 1 - 50 of 86 |
Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers2. Comment #77215 by Janus on October 8, 2007 at 7:33 pm
Uh, Sam did say that.http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/sam_harris/2007/10/the_problem_with_atheism.html
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.
Other Comments by Janus
3. Comment #77219 by CruciFiction on October 8, 2007 at 7:38 pm
I wholeheartedly agree with PZ.But more importantly, WTF is up with Harris and this shocking critical failure of his to reason realistically? Having been among his most ardent fans up to now, this really leaves me greatly disappointed.
Other Comments by CruciFiction
4. Comment #77222 by denoir on October 8, 2007 at 7:43 pm
Sam's main point, as I see it, is that defining ourselves as an outraged minority is a losing strategy. Opposition against religion is a special case of a much more universal principle: reason. We should concern ourselves with advocating a general methodology rather than defining ourselves as opponents to a specific kind of irrationality. It should be done through rational discourse and not by slapping a label on ourselves and demanding minority rights.I do think that there is a worrying trend in the community today with it becoming a self-righteous closed club whose primary purpose is asserting how intelligent the members are and how stupid the rest of the world is. Instead of being a nexus for the advocacy of reason, the community is getting centered around the standard us vs them idea. That trend needs to be fought so that the atheist community doesn't become just yet another cult.
Other Comments by denoir
5. Comment #77223 by yyuryyub on October 8, 2007 at 7:48 pm
These petty, circular debates are surely part of the reason so many people are turned off by the label 'atheist'. I use the term freely myself though I see absolutley no need to become a whining pedant when someone has a different view...It reminds me of Monty Python when Brian is about to be crucified and, instead of doing something, the Front have a meeting about coming to a form of words that suits all members before action on those words can be taken. So very tedious...
Other Comments by yyuryyub
6. Comment #77235 by obscured by clouds on October 8, 2007 at 8:12 pm
Wow something that I disagree with PZ Myers on. I was afraid of becoming a head bober. I have to agree with Sam Harris on this issue, if for no other reasons then my personal experience. For 32 years I nearly never used the word Atheist, I was of course. Though in the last few years I have often used it. I never liked that word, leaves a bad taste. Not for any deep held philosophical reason but more of semantics of language. It's how you get there, not where you are, that is important. Why are you an Atheist should be the question? Though the only requirement is that you do not hold a belief in god. Our current use and the definition of Atheist only reflects that you do not believe in god. It makes no attempt to clarify the positions.
But there are many things that I do not believe in. Should I introduce myself with a long list of "disbelief's". Why just Atheist, why not the fact that I do not believe in Leprechauns is just a valid, or that I do not believe in Aliens.
Which misses the point I think. For labels I like and use the word Skeptical.
I would love to see a debate between Myers & Harris....!
Other Comments by obscured by clouds
7. Comment #77236 by Quine on October 8, 2007 at 8:13 pm
I would hope that Sam comes to understand that it is very important for there to be a core of respected folks who stand up against the wind and say "We are Atheists, and here is what we find to be true from rational thought ..." At the same time, it is fine for some others to fly below the radar. The first group of troopers are necessary so the second group can say things like "Them Atheists ain't going anywhere, but they did get me thinking about this one thing ..." Other Comments by Quine
8. Comment #77240 by NormanDoering on October 8, 2007 at 8:25 pm
Janus wrote:Uh, Sam did say that.
Well, I blew it.
I'm really surprised and disappointed that he would say that.
Other Comments by NormanDoering
9. Comment #77249 by Paine on October 8, 2007 at 8:53 pm
Without trying to sound confused, I would have to say they are both right. PZ in the short term, and Sam in the long one.It is an issue of simple demographics. As long as we are in a minority, we will be labeled, like it or not. But the moment we reach a majority (or a substantial proportion) of the population, I think we should speedily and wholeheartedly rid ourselves of the word.
'Abolitionist' used to be a term of ridicule in the Old South. Then people adopted it as label of pride. Now it is completely unnecessary. 'Atheist' should go the same way.
Other Comments by Paine
10. Comment #77251 by madhatter on October 8, 2007 at 9:08 pm
'Abolitionist' used to be a term of ridicule in the Old South. Then people adopted it as label of pride. Now it is completely unnecessary. 'Atheist' should go the same way.
Paine,
Well said!
Other Comments by madhatter
11. Comment #77254 by chrisrkline on October 8, 2007 at 9:38 pm
I am not sure I understand this whole controversy. Obviously everyone has to decide on their own what to do. But let's be realistic. What were all of you doing before? Were you all meeting in dusty free-thinkers bookstores plotting to write really angry letters to the newspapers? Or maybe editing that little response on these forums that will send that poor theist home crying? I mean are you going to quit your humanist groups, or whatever group you are in, so that people won't get riled up? Or maybe you will change the name to the rotary club or something. Do we meet in the street and draw a half a fish (but with little feet) hoping to meet someone else who will draw the other half?I mean seriously, what do we do? I don't meet people and announce I am an atheist. But I get asked all the time what I believe, because everyone is looking to get you to their church. I have family and friends who are religious and I am OK with that. But who is Sam talking to? It can't be your average local atheist (at least here in the states) because away from universities and some rare communities, they are about on their own. He must be speaking to the big Atheists in these large groups. No wonder they are a little miffed.
PZ is right. We are not going to get away from our label. If you critique religion in any serious way, you better be a member of a moderate religious group, or they will find out. And over here, they don't like or trust atheists who critique religion. And they will like you less if you are found out and they think you are not being honest. In the area of science, it is probably appropriate to keep atheism out of it--or is it. We right now face the problem that even moderates can't go very long in a science debate without invoking some back door god to explain the big picture. That is not going away.
Other Comments by chrisrkline
12. Comment #77255 by Damien White on October 8, 2007 at 9:55 pm
I've been following this debate with interest, because I agree with what Sam says. Non-belief in religions is the normal rest-state of all life. Why does it need a name? Labelling it 'atheism' simply makes it seem like the opposite of theism. It's like referring to a field of grass as an a-tree.Other Comments by Damien White
13. Comment #77262 by Prieten on October 8, 2007 at 10:49 pm
Dear Damien,No, no, no, no. Non-belief in religions is not the normal rest-state of all life. We non-believers in religion (atheists) are a very, very small minority in the world.
The normal rest-state of all life seems to be belief in the religion you were brainwashed with since your early childhood. Maybe someday, if we atheists don't give up and crawl underneath a rock (like Sam Harris wants us to), the word "atheist" won't be needed anymore. The comparison to the word Abolitionist is very apt.
Until that day comes (probably not in my lifetime, I'm 48) non-believers need to get in the face of the believers and say, "No, belief in religion is not the only option. You can try to be an adult and stop talking to imaginary friends."
Will this make the believers happy? Of course not, but then I am not interested in making believers happy, unlike Sam Harris. I tell all the Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses who knock at my door: "No, thank you, we are all atheists in this house." The shocked look on their face is just priceless.
PZ Myers is so right! Hurray for him!
Other Comments by Prieten
14. Comment #77263 by BeauHMcLendon on October 8, 2007 at 11:01 pm
PZ Meyers comes across as whole heartedly disingenuous. Is it not obvious, whether one agrees with the Atheist terminology or not, that Meyers simply tries too hard to be iconoclastic and consequently falls flat, every time. To even criticize Sam Harris' response at the AAI conference is to beg attention, to direct the spotlight right back onto himself while consciously aware that his banter will be read and nothing more. PZ Meyers' every post is a memetic attempt at establishing some vacuous, personal longevity. This is all completely unrelated to what Sam Harris had actually said and PZ Meyers should honestly feel embarrassed by his inane response. Not to mention that he could ever consider himself at the same level as Harris intellectually. What's the point of the whole "Dangerous Ideas" make-up other than to present something that may or may not be of substance? It just seems where Sam Harris takes an intellectual step forward, PZ Meyers takes an infantile step backward.Other Comments by BeauHMcLendon
15. Comment #77265 by christianjb on October 8, 2007 at 11:04 pm
Prieten:Well- I don't agree with Harris here- but atheism is in fact the default state for all animals (including newborn humans).
Other Comments by christianjb
16. Comment #77269 by eric.malitz on October 8, 2007 at 11:23 pm
I see points in both their arguments, but..I think everyone should just ignore this debate. The strides that have been made and will continue to be made by the "new atheists" is real and very good.
I guess in that regard I agree with Myers.
Other Comments by eric.malitz
17. Comment #77273 by JamesDB on October 8, 2007 at 11:49 pm
This controversy is both hilarious and ironic. Did anyone happen to see the two south park episodes that had richard in them. Part of it is about the future where the whole world is religion free but there are groups that are at war. The groups are two separate atheist populations and they are at war over what to call the collective group of atheists. South Park can teach all of us a valuable lesson, who cares what we call ourselves as long as everyone knows what position we have on the subject of religion. Other Comments by JamesDB
18. Comment #77274 by icanus on October 8, 2007 at 11:54 pm
Personally I see the "Label" as largely an irrelevance - if Sam doesn't want to call himself an atheist, fine. If others of us do, that's fine too.The real issue is continuing to confront sloppy thinking and uncritical faith-without-evidence (an area in which Sam sets a fine example).
Personally, I'll continue to refer to myself as an atheist when I think the situation calls for it, but I don't feel the need to go out and have it tattooed on my forehead or anything.
If there were no theists, then obviously "atheist" would cease to have any useful meaning, but I suspect religion will be with us for some time to come, so a term to define our viewpoint can be useful, even if we are defining ourselves in terms of what we don't believe.
Other Comments by icanus
19. Comment #77275 by Damien White on October 8, 2007 at 11:57 pm
Prieten,Religion is a virus. Like all viruses, it is contracted. We do not start life with it.
People seem to be misinterpreting what Sam Harris is saying. He is not saying that we should be ashamed of our non-belief, but instead that we should be asserting that our non-belief is natural, and that it is religion which is an altered state of humanity.
Other Comments by Damien White
20. Comment #77277 by Tumara Baap on October 9, 2007 at 12:00 am
There is a strategic aspect to the labels and titles we use. Depending on one's agenda, they can lull or impart a desirable spin. When the administration sought to undermine the Clean Air Act by stealthily introducing loopholes and relaxed benchmarks that would result in greater emissions, increased arsenic and mercury levels, and all against the grain of scientific evidence, they first needed a new name. It was called the Clear Skies Act. What a name! Maybe "rationalist" is a more positive term than "atheist". But to do away altogether with a label that draws heavy fire ? As tempting as it seems, it's tantamount to reversing the conciousness of those ideas in the public sphere. Excising vocabulary would obliterate focus on core ideas that would otherwise be refined, modulated and advanced for our well being. One could then argue that gender treatment should only be viewed from the vantage of equality. And that "feminism" ought to be dropped because it is too shrill and may serve to caricature proponents as addle headed zealots. Such an argument would never do net justice to the cause as any axing of the feminism label would irreparably evaporate our sense of awareness of the issue. A label embodies a certain emotion and cognizance. As with all vocabulary, it is around which further thinking pivots. To advocate a judicious choice of label is reasonable. But to eliminate its use is an outrageously stupid proposition. What in the world were you thinking, Sam?Other Comments by Tumara Baap
21. Comment #77278 by Dog Boots on October 9, 2007 at 12:00 am
This argument seems to me to be mostly about semantics. I think they're not far apart and it's maybe just Sam's rhetoric that Myers took offense to. I agree with Sam that we should at least raise the non-believers' awareness of the weaknesses of the A-label, and of labeling in general - and make the rest of the world aware of it's superfluousness (the A-word's, not the rest of the world's).Other Comments by Dog Boots
22. Comment #77284 by Richard Morgan on October 9, 2007 at 12:39 am
Richard Dawkins :We cannot prove that there is no God, but we can safely conclude the He is very, very improbable indeed.
We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further.The word "atheist" defines me as far as all the gods that I have have heard of are concerned.
Perhaps we at last need to place this word in various cultural contexts in order to effectively measure it's usefulness.
I can't go very far here - we're going to need help from other posters in different time-zones.
"I am an atheist." would likely be understood, or provoke the following reaction
USA : "I have no morals, masturbate in the toilet and eat babies for breakfast."
France : "....So what?"
Australia :...
New Zealand :...
Romania :...
U.K. :...
etc
(I'm not sure about the USA version. I'm just guessing based on what I've read - here, and elsewhere. Please correct me if I'm mistaken.)
EDIT : Overhead in the RD Net clothing department : "If everybody starts agreeing with Sam Harris, what the fuck're we going to do with the 230,000 T-shirts we've got left? Do you think this guy Myers will buy them?"
Other Comments by Richard Morgan
23. Comment #77286 by matlot on October 9, 2007 at 12:45 am
Ok, there are far more important things for Sam, Myers and Johnson to be talking about. Either Sam's thinking on this is off-base and some atheists are making a bigger meal out of it than they have to (you can see Sam's point (whether you agree with it or not, surely)). I personally disagree with Sam on this (although I understand his thinking) but surely this bickering over semantics is distracting from the effort of confronting ignorance and delusion in the world. Sam, we know you hate losing an argument, but, on this occasion, please shut the f*** up and move on - we still love you geezer.Other Comments by matlot
24. Comment #77292 by Cyboman on October 9, 2007 at 1:08 am
I agree with Sam. The word 'atheist' is semantically illogical (as others have said). To be an atheist is to approach a religious claim the same way you would approach any claim. That is, with a justifiable measure of skepticism. So it makes as much sense as the word 'afairiest' does. I think that we are debating this is silly though. If you want to call yourself and atheist there is no reason not to. Despite it being inherently illogical it is, in the context of our world, undoubtedly useful. However, I think it is useful advice to just consider oneself rational, justifiably skeptical and therefore not persuaded by religious claims.Other Comments by Cyboman
25. Comment #77301 by dbunker on October 9, 2007 at 1:46 am
Hard to believe that Harris would recommend going "under the radar" when his message has been delivered more often in a B-52 than a Stealth Bomber. But there are times when being discreet is more usefull to the cause of reason than a a label that may end the conversation. I'm confident that most people know when and how to use the "A" word effectively.Other Comments by dbunker
26. Comment #77303 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on October 9, 2007 at 2:11 am
23. Comment #77286 by matlot on October 9, 2007 at 12:45 amOk, there are far more important things for Sam, Myers and Johnson to be talking about. Either Sam's thinking on this is off-base and some atheists are making a bigger meal out of it than they have to (you can see Sam's point (whether you agree with it or not, surely)). I personally disagree with Sam on this (although I understand his thinking) but surely this bickering over semantics is distracting from the effort of confronting ignorance and delusion in the world. Sam, we know you hate losing an argument, but, on this occasion, please shut the f*** up and move on - we still love you geezer.
This strikes me as the most sensible position. Storm in a teacup, and not terribly edifying for anyone involved. Moving quickly on ...
Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen
27. Comment #77305 by Richard Morgan on October 9, 2007 at 2:13 am
Oh, no!Is this the beginning of the "Durum schism" we all dreaded?
If so, I just won't be able to believe in atheism any more.
Which will make me a non-theist anti-atheist?
Shit, this is getting complicated, brethren!
Other Comments by Richard Morgan
28. Comment #77315 by Mr DArcy on October 9, 2007 at 3:23 am
For what it's worth, I prefer to describe my views as materialist, as opposed to the idealist ones expressed by the world's religions. Other Comments by Mr DArcy
29. Comment #77316 by dvespertilio on October 9, 2007 at 3:27 am
Much ado about nothing. Get a life, all of you!Other Comments by dvespertilio
30. Comment #77317 by Duff on October 9, 2007 at 3:33 am
When asked if I'm a believer, I reply, "What? Do I look stupid?" The asker is then left to decide whether a handsome, intelligent looking devil like myself is a believer or an infidel. It is amazing how many equate stupidity with being a believer rather than the other way around.Other Comments by Duff
31. Comment #77323 by USA_Limey on October 9, 2007 at 4:00 am
Schism:1. division or disunion, esp. into mutually opposed parties.
2. the parties so formed.
Start picking sides everyone!
Other Comments by USA_Limey
32. Comment #77338 by decius on October 9, 2007 at 4:54 am
Sorry, but the last thing we should do is squabbling about labels and semantics and having two of our most prominent intellectuals at that. Let's concentrate on the real issues, instead. Other Comments by decius
33. Comment #77357 by coretemprising on October 9, 2007 at 5:57 am
IanG:I am in awe of your post here. Truly. Who ARE you anyway? A direct descendent of Socrates? You make me proud to be an athe... wait, a secu... umm, a human being!
Other Comments by coretemprising
34. Comment #77377 by PeterK on October 9, 2007 at 6:48 am
How long will it be before an evangelist hears wind of all this and goes on about how "Now those godless atheists can't even agree on what to CALL themselves, Praise the Lord!"Harris makes a good point. However, he probably should have presented his ideas as more of a suggestion, rather than appointing himself as one who speaks for all atheists.
Other Comments by PeterK
35. Comment #77382 by doodinthemood on October 9, 2007 at 7:12 am
Hopefully this disagreement will dissuade the people who do little more than mirror everything the four musketeers say from taking everything they read/hear for granted, and actually analising critically, not just concepts they disagree with, but concepts they agree with.I disagreed with much of "the end of faith" but it didn't change the fact that it was brilliant, thought through, well worded and logical.
Free-thought shouldn't be left for four men to be getting on with. Let each individual do likewise and end the platitudes once and for all!
Other Comments by doodinthemood
36. Comment #77383 by Veronique on October 9, 2007 at 7:17 am
33. Comment #77335 by IanGI wasn't going to bother posting on this thread. I have said what I wanted to on the original thread on SH's AAI speech.
You don't post much do you? I am glad you did this time. Well said and thank you:-)
Cheers
V
Other Comments by Veronique
37. Comment #77385 by Fire1974 on October 9, 2007 at 7:20 am
I wholeheartedly agree with both Sam and PZ. They're both making the same point from opposite corners of the ring. The painless solution is for US to say, "Call me what you will, this is my position..."WE'RE better off putting this bantering behind US before WE split into denominations,(Dawkholics? and Harrisians?). Yes, WE have a common cause. But WE don't all have to wear the same T-shirt! I like the "A" shirts and I would gladly stand behind Sam on any platform while wearing one.
OUR diversity is unavoidable, and OUR greatest asset. LET'S get past this. And do it quickly.
Other Comments by Fire1974
38. Comment #77386 by phasmagigas on October 9, 2007 at 7:21 am
oh dear, if famous atheists start to argue/misunderstand each other its going to be used as 'evidence' that god does exist! Other Comments by phasmagigas
39. Comment #77393 by paulifa1 on October 9, 2007 at 7:44 am
On a completely lighter note, this arguament is beginning to remind me of that episode of South Park with future warring atheist factions!!Come on guys, don't give the faith heads any ammo...
Other Comments by paulifa1
40. Comment #77403 by Elli on October 9, 2007 at 7:56 am
IanG, thank you for your brilliant post. I am in total agreement with your comments. Bravo. Other Comments by Elli
41. Comment #77406 by VanYoungman on October 9, 2007 at 8:07 am
For what it's worth IanG, me too. Other Comments by VanYoungman
42. Comment #77411 by GoneGolfing on October 9, 2007 at 8:26 am
The ideas presented by Sam are without a doubt very near and dear to him. He simply had to run them by the big guns and what better place than at the conference?. Although approval is gratuitous, it is likely very important for him to look at the head table and hopefully see the nods and smiles of his peers. Its obvious that the term atheist has become incongruous to him, and it appears that he may be on a personal search for some type of nirvana?. Maybe a year or two with some Buddhist monks might help? :-)He most certainly couldn't have expected everyone to climb aboard with these postulations and I'm sure he didn't, so any aggressive defense to rebuttal would probably be more detrimental to him than he would want. He needs to sit back have a scotch and let the gang chop him up a bit before getting too excited :-) Myers simply did a bit of pruning that all people, no matter who they are, should be willing to go through and in fact invite.
There's much at stake, and you'll most certainly have controversy, when you suggest to people to erase a word that may be the best description, to them, of who they are.
Concerning oneself for their entire life with things for which no evidence has ever been available is a burden which no one should bear.... This fact and helping these individuals is where Sams' focus should remain steadfast.
Presenting these specific ideas at this event may not have been his most brilliant move, but I admire him for his courage to do so and still agree that his forte is done with eloquence, conviction, and persuasion.
GG
Other Comments by GoneGolfing
43. Comment #77419 by wednesdayguevara on October 9, 2007 at 8:42 am
Wow, IanG. I was really upset about this, but your gorgeous post has calmed me down quite a bit. It's going to be okay. We're going to get past this. Thank you so much.Other Comments by wednesdayguevara
44. Comment #77420 by Vendetta on October 9, 2007 at 8:45 am
Thank you for your post, IanG. It was well thought out and makes many good points for us to consider. I would say that for "us" (atheists, brights, agnostics, secularists, rationalists, non-theist anti-theists, whatever you want to call or not call yourselves) to be successful in overcoming superstitious thought, it is going to take ALL kinds on all fronts.
There are many things I disagree with Sam on, but that doesn't diminish my view of him in the slightest. He wasn't trying to establish the atheist agenda at the conference, he was pointing out inherent problems with the term atheist that some people might not have fully considered. If you have already wrestled with those issues yourself, good for you. He prefers not to proclaim himself an atheist. He also is very much into meditating and neuroscience. He points out moderates are a HUGE problem (which I agree with), but he demonizes them (which I don't agree with). I don't have to agree with every one of ideas to look up to him.
PZ makes some good points in his responses, but could he come up with a more patronising and condescending title? Come on guys, just agree that you disagree on a few points and move on, there are bigger battles to be fought with fundies and moderates everywhere.
Or maybe we should get RD and Hitch to join this 'debate' and all four could go in circles for a few weeks over what rational people should (or should not) call themselves, and who misrepresented whom. This would be like re-arranging the deck chairs while the Titanic sinks.
Other Comments by Vendetta
45. Comment #77422 by coretemprising on October 9, 2007 at 8:57 am
Now just to keep the arguing going, because that's what humans still do best:Richard Morgan, get over yourself why don't you?
As if all your past gratuitous rudeness was not enough, you can't even offer a compliment to someone without making it sound like it was all your own idea. And if IanG's ideas were your own, then why don't you show us more of that instead of all your attempts at simply cleverness?
Other Comments by coretemprising
46. Comment #77433 by steveroot on October 9, 2007 at 9:41 am
48. Comment #77422 by coretemprising on October 9, 2007 at 8:57 am
Now just to keep the arguing going, because that's what humans still do best:
Richard Morgan, get over yourself why don't you?
Oh-oh... looks like a containment breach is imminent! ;-)
Steve
Other Comments by steveroot
47. Comment #77434 by Vendetta on October 9, 2007 at 9:46 am
Nah, Richard's used to it. I've seen him call himself a prick :) Other Comments by Vendetta
48. Comment #77448 by canatheist on October 9, 2007 at 10:39 am
It's unfortunate that the English language is so impresice and that semantics and rhetoric lead debates as a result. I too am struggling to come up with a valid and acceptable label to call myself. I am an Atheist, by which I simply mean, I do not believe in God(s). However, that label does not express what I (and in this case Sam Harris) would like to achieve as a result of our atheism. Likewise what I would like to achieve (freedom from religion) is probably different than what other Atheists would like to achieve. Consequently, there are a number of exiting terms used (eg: Brights, secular humanists, etc..) and I am sure there will be new ones in the future. Just as Catholic, Islamic, Jewish, or Protestant don't fully define how all followers of each faith define themselves, the term Atheist is too vague to define someone who doesn't believe in God and also .... fill in your own objective here...
What bothers me, significantly more than this semantical debate, is the degree of brainwashing being successfully conducted by the religious right, and that we (whatever you want to call yourself) are not doing enough to stop it.
So, please folks... let's focus on the real issues out there... how do we collectively, get the rest of the world to see reason when they don't want to see it!
Other Comments by canatheist
49. Comment #77450 by coretemprising on October 9, 2007 at 10:48 am
Ian wrote:"By the way I took Richard Morgan's post as being complimentary. I read it as wryly appreciative, but maybe I just missed the point. In which case I guess I'm just not "bright" enough!
:)"
Ian, it's obvious that you're bright enough--but maybe just more willing to attribute benevolent motives than I am. Personally, I'd like to be able, in person, just once, to slap the smirk right off his face. GOD, that would be great!
But of course, we all just need to get along. Of course.
;)
Oh, and has he really called himself a prick? Good for him.
Other Comments by coretemprising
50. Comment #77467 by scooternyc on October 9, 2007 at 11:37 am
I find it amusing that I just came from a shoot where another gentleman and I spoke for about an hour on this issue. He saw me reading, Piety and Politics, which provoked the conversation. My response when he asked my belief: "I don't believe in anything, I accept reason and logic based on evidence which draws a natural conclusion. The supernatural isn't anything I'm interested in."
When he tried to re-word the question regarding belief, I simply stated that "everyone is an atheist then if we are to be defined by your explanation of the word". With that he directed the conversation elsewhere related to the topic of politics and religion.
What does it say?
It says that disallowing others to label us helps support the "reason and logic" precepts needed to draw rational conclusions.
By simply responding as I did it merely moved the conversation away from the "you gotta prove god doesn't exist" argument (as though I never heard that before).
I'm glad I heard Sam's speech that night; I'm glad he's taking this to the next level; it's too bad that some others want to criticize their own inability to understand this next level; a very important one at that.
The label atheist is a religious label utilized to describe me regarding something I'm not a part of - religion.
I wouldn't think of empowering the religious with their own terminology to fit me into their narrow view of their world - which is what calling someone an atheist is all about - "this is how I fit you into my narrow view of the world in which I live - by labeling you and then assuming everything about you because of that label - how you think, how you act, what you eat, how you sleep, what kind of children you have, et. al."
No.
Better that I define myself outside of that rhetoric which encourages the conversation further to seek clarification. This propagates opportunity to speak reason and logic on the topic rather than now try to advance past a preconceived idea rooted in their heads.
It gets even better when I start adding politics to the conversation because I'm not for any one party, so then they can't do anything except listen and learn - which more often than not, happens.
Other Comments by scooternyc
Comment Entry: Please Login
Register a new account
This article is reposted from a website that accepts comments.
Why not share your comment on the article there as well? CLICK HERE
Upcoming Events:
Mailing List
Enter your email:
DVDs
'The Enemies of Reason: The Uncut Interviews' DVD
'Voices of Reason' DVD
'Richard Dawkins: Appearances & Events 2007-2008' DVD
'Enemies of Reason' DVD
'Root of All Evil?' DVD
'Root of All Evil? The Uncut Interviews' DVD
'Growing Up in the Universe' DVD
'Voices of Science' DVD
'The Four Horsemen' DVD
'Break the Science Barrier' DVD
1. Comment #77212 by NormanDoering on October 8, 2007 at 7:28 pm
PZ claims that Harris said:I don't recall that "for the rest of our lives" part being said by Sam. Now, who is using a dishonest rhetorical tactic rather than addressing the issues brought up?
Sam was muddled in his little essay and talk, that's all you have to call him on: "What the hell are you talking about, Sam? Please explain what exactly you think we should do?"
I tried to interpret him here:
http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,1723,Response-to-My-Fellow-Atheists,Sam-Harris,page2#77186
But people are making some good points against that interpretation.
Other Comments by NormanDoering