Thursday, March 15, 2007 | Reason : Political | print version

Print | Comments |

God's dupes

by Sam Harris

Thanks to Andrew Greet for sending this in.

Reposted from the LA Times:
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-harris15mar15,0,671840.story?coll=la-home-commentary

Moderate believers give cover to religious fanatics -- and are every bit as delusional.

Pete Stark, a California Democrat, appears to be the first congressman in U.S. history to acknowledge that he doesn't believe in God. In a country in which 83% of the population thinks that the Bible is the literal or "inspired" word of the creator of the universe, this took political courage.

Of course, one can imagine that Cicero's handlers in the 1st century BC lost some sleep when he likened the traditional accounts of the Greco-Roman gods to the "dreams of madmen" and to the "insane mythology of Egypt."

Mythology is where all gods go to die, and it seems that Stark has secured a place in American history simply by admitting that a fresh grave should be dug for the God of Abraham — the jealous, genocidal, priggish and self-contradictory tyrant of the Bible and the Koran. Stark is the first of our leaders to display a level of intellectual honesty befitting a consul of ancient Rome. Bravo.

The truth is, there is not a person on Earth who has a good reason to believe that Jesus rose from the dead or that Muhammad spoke to the angel Gabriel in a cave. And yet billions of people claim to be certain about such things. As a result, Iron Age ideas about everything high and low — sex, cosmology, gender equality, immortal souls, the end of the world, the validity of prophecy, etc. — continue to divide our world and subvert our national discourse. Many of these ideas, by their very nature, hobble science, inflame human conflict and squander scarce resources.

Of course, no religion is monolithic. Within every faith one can see people arranged along a spectrum of belief. Picture concentric circles of diminishing reasonableness: At the center, one finds the truest of true believers — the Muslim jihadis, for instance, who not only support suicidal terrorism but who are the first to turn themselves into bombs; or the Dominionist Christians, who openly call for homosexuals and blasphemers to be put to death.

Outside this sphere of maniacs, one finds millions more who share their views but lack their zeal. Beyond them, one encounters pious multitudes who respect the beliefs of their more deranged brethren but who disagree with them on small points of doctrine — of course the world is going to end in glory and Jesus will appear in the sky like a superhero, but we can't be sure it will happen in our lifetime.

Out further still, one meets religious moderates and liberals of diverse hues — people who remain supportive of the basic scheme that has balkanized our world into Christians, Muslims and Jews, but who are less willing to profess certainty about any article of faith. Is Jesus really the son of God? Will we all meet our grannies again in heaven? Moderates and liberals are none too sure.

Those on this spectrum view the people further toward the center as too rigid, dogmatic and hostile to doubt, and they generally view those outside as corrupted by sin, weak-willed or unchurched.

The problem is that wherever one stands on this continuum, one inadvertently shelters those who are more fanatical than oneself from criticism. Ordinary fundamentalist Christians, by maintaining that the Bible is the perfect word of God, inadvertently support the Dominionists — men and women who, by the millions, are quietly working to turn our country into a totalitarian theocracy reminiscent of John Calvin's Geneva. Christian moderates, by their lingering attachment to the unique divinity of Jesus, protect the faith of fundamentalists from public scorn. Christian liberals — who aren't sure what they believe but just love the experience of going to church occasionally — deny the moderates a proper collision with scientific rationality. And in this way centuries have come and gone without an honest word being spoken about God in our society.

People of all faiths — and none — regularly change their lives for the better, for good and bad reasons. And yet such transformations are regularly put forward as evidence in support of a specific religious creed. President Bush has cited his own sobriety as suggestive of the divinity of Jesus. No doubt Christians do get sober from time to time — but Hindus (polytheists) and atheists do as well. How, therefore, can any thinking person imagine that his experience of sobriety lends credence to the idea that a supreme being is watching over our world and that Jesus is his son?

There is no question that many people do good things in the name of their faith — but there are better reasons to help the poor, feed the hungry and defend the weak than the belief that an Imaginary Friend wants you to do it. Compassion is deeper than religion. As is ecstasy. It is time that we acknowledge that human beings can be profoundly ethical — and even spiritual — without pretending to know things they do not know.

Let us hope that Stark's candor inspires others in our government to admit their doubts about God. Indeed, it is time we broke this spell en masse. Every one of the world's "great" religions utterly trivializes the immensity and beauty of the cosmos. Books like the Bible and the Koran get almost every significant fact about us and our world wrong. Every scientific domain — from cosmology to psychology to economics — has superseded and surpassed the wisdom of Scripture.

Everything of value that people get from religion can be had more honestly, without presuming anything on insufficient evidence. The rest is self-deception, set to music.

Posted: Thursday, March 15, 2007 | Permalink

Comments 1 - 45 of 45 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #25874 by Nails on March 15, 2007 at 2:10 pm

pete Stark is a very brave man indeed, to put his lack of faith before his career.
He would definately get my vote.

Other Comments by Nails

2. Comment #25875 by MIND_REBEL on March 15, 2007 at 2:11 pm

"Everything of value that people get from religion can be had more honestly, without presuming anything on insufficient evidence. The rest is self-deception, set to music."

So true, so poetic. Sam Harris is really a wonderful person that could have been successful at what ever he wanted, lucky for us, he decided to dedicate his life to making the world a better place. One in a million.

Other Comments by MIND_REBEL

3. Comment #25877 by debaser71 on March 15, 2007 at 2:14 pm

I added Sam's last sentences to my favorites quote list. Glad to see others seeing how well he put it.

"Everything of value that people get from religion can be had more honestly, without presuming anything on insufficient evidence. The rest is self-deception, set to music."

Other Comments by debaser71

4. Comment #25889 by Monsterbeach on March 15, 2007 at 2:28 pm

"..and it seems that Stark has secured a place in American history simply by admitting that a fresh grave should be dug for the God of Abraham"

Must been the easiest, ever, way to go down in history. (For a politician)
edit: my click finger slipped.

Other Comments by Monsterbeach

5. Comment #25891 by John Pritzlaff on March 15, 2007 at 2:39 pm

I sent Sam an email thanking him for his refreshing truthfulness:

"2007 03 15

Sam, I just want to thank you for the honesty in your latest article. It really is like a breath of fresh air. Us atheists are the first to admit that we may be wrong, but words like those reinforce our confidence to such a strong degree that the opposition seems to be on another planet, on another plane. Thank you, and have a great day today.

-John Pritzlaff"

Other Comments by John Pritzlaff

6. Comment #25892 by alan_s on March 15, 2007 at 2:39 pm

"Must been the easiest, ever, way to go down in history."

No, that still belongs to Monica Lewinsky...

I'll get me coat, sorry!!

Other Comments by alan_s

7. Comment #25893 by John Pritzlaff on March 15, 2007 at 2:41 pm

alan_s, that was genius.

Other Comments by John Pritzlaff

8. Comment #25894 by Bremas on March 15, 2007 at 2:49 pm

alan_s

Thank-you, I needed that.

Other Comments by Bremas

9. Comment #25898 by sane1 on March 15, 2007 at 2:58 pm

Anytime I find a Sam Harris article, I stop what I am doing, read it, and feel like a breath of fresh and brilliant air has swept through the room. This is no exception. I wonder if TV's talking heads will cover this "controversy."

If they do cover it, it will no doubt be depressing.

Other Comments by sane1

10. Comment #25900 by Kevin Ronayne on March 15, 2007 at 3:04 pm

Another classic quote:

"Mythology is where all gods go to die".

Other Comments by Kevin Ronayne

11. Comment #25901 by scottishgeologist on March 15, 2007 at 3:19 pm

Totally agree with the comments so far. Sam Harris seems to have a "way with words". A classic example of the sort of sayings that make you say "wish I had said that!"

He seems to be able to cut right through the BS and summarise things very nicely, pithily and with humo(u)r (that was a sop to conservapedia BTW...)

More Sam, more!!!

Other Comments by scottishgeologist

12. Comment #25908 by shetlandforpeace on March 15, 2007 at 3:50 pm

How beautifully Sam Harris expresses himself. Why can't believers manage to convey what's so precious to them? I'm surely not the only one who would love to read a piece as well-reasoned as this, from a theist point-of-view. Does anyone have a reference for such an article?

Other Comments by shetlandforpeace

13. Comment #25916 by Ben Jennings on March 15, 2007 at 4:39 pm

Sam is utterly peerless as a polemicist, better even than Professor Dawkins, I think. Of course, Richard is more a popular science genius who merely dabbles in polemics in his spare time. :)

Other Comments by Ben Jennings

14. Comment #25922 by Fouad Boussetta on March 15, 2007 at 4:54 pm

Sam is a hero!

Other Comments by Fouad Boussetta

15. Comment #25926 by the great teapot on March 15, 2007 at 5:19 pm

Bush is Sober?
Good god, that's my theory out the window.

Other Comments by the great teapot

16. Comment #25927 by MelM on March 15, 2007 at 5:20 pm

In a discussion about whether or not "moderates" would save us from the Christian Reconstructionists, a commenter had this to say:
http://www.dianahsieh.com/cgi-bin/blog/view.pl?entry=116914134789655909#12
Essentially the answer is: NO.

A similiar note from Ayaan Hirsi Ali:
The same principle is at work in Ayaan Hirsi Ali's answer to a question in an interview (I don't remember where). She said that the radical Islamists always win; they come with their holy books and use them to beat the moderates.

Moderates are helpless:
As I see it, the moderates who don't like what the radicals are advocating can't argue from views inside the ideology and therefore end up pretty much silent. Also, the radicals can always make the case that to be a good "whatever" one must follow the ideology (this, of course, is quite correct).

Jihad recruiting on the Web:
The Pentagon is following the Islamists on the Web and ("be a proper Muslim") is a big recruiting gambit. (Recently on (U.S.) 60 Minutes)
http://60minutes.yahoo.com/segment/47/jihad_online
This is a very interesting and important segment about jihad on the Internet. It's in several pieces and the "proper Muslim" section is near the end. I think it'll be well worth your time to check it out.

Other Comments by MelM

17. Comment #25947 by kkant on March 15, 2007 at 6:51 pm

the great teapot writes:
[[Bush is Sober?
Good god, that's my theory out the window.]]

LMAO. Very nice. :D

Another awesome article by Sam Harris. He is always such a pleasure to read.

Other Comments by kkant

18. Comment #25957 by John Pritzlaff on March 15, 2007 at 8:03 pm

Sam is always talking about the ideal of a dialog untainted by faith, and this is a great example of his ideal.

Other Comments by John Pritzlaff

19. Comment #25963 by Gordon Brown on March 15, 2007 at 8:44 pm

Oh, how refreshing it is to read another Sam Harris piece that just tells it like it is, without varnishing or sugar-coating! What I so admire about Sam's work, apart from his mastery of argument, his breadth and depth of knowledge, and breathtaking literary flair, is that he appears not to abide the notion, put forth in so many textbooks on critical thinking, that we ought always to "temper" our discourse, and make it disinterested and dispassionate. I believe Sam feels, as do I, that we should not always spare the feelings and sensitivities of people who might easily be offended, or manipulated, by such robust uses, and even misuses, of language. On the contrary, I think Sam assumes better of his readers, thinking perhaps that they are not so easily manipulated, and would prefer to carry on within a more libertarian atmosphere according to which we let the reader beware.

Kudos for another well-spoken piece, Sam. Keep up the good fight, and don't ever let religious fundamentalists, liberals, or moderates grind you down!

Sincerely,

Gordon M. Brown
San Diego, California

Other Comments by Gordon Brown

20. Comment #25966 by BT Murtagh on March 15, 2007 at 9:04 pm

"Mythology is where all gods go to die... a fresh grave should be dug for the God of Abraham."

Sam Harris is not only a remarkably clear thinker, he has a real gift for turning a memorable phrase. It's always a deep pleasure to me to read his writing.

Other Comments by BT Murtagh

21. Comment #25969 by atheisticism on March 15, 2007 at 9:48 pm

Ahh, but the thing believers value the most is ONLY offered by religion. That thing is the promise of everlasting life. As empty as that promise might be, it IS offered up, and those who are able to delude themselves to the required extent can escape the discomfort of having to face their own mortality.

Other Comments by atheisticism

22. Comment #25972 by mdoliva on March 15, 2007 at 10:26 pm

Ah, another great article by Sam. It is so nice to have an advocate like Sam Harris who is so diligently writing books and articles and debating believers as often as he does. I believe his words are a ripple though a pond of unreason.

Other Comments by mdoliva

23. Comment #25981 by ImagineAZ on March 15, 2007 at 11:31 pm

atheisticism,

Eternal life in paradise is indeed offered up. But so is eternal torment in hell. In my many discussions with religionites, I have seldom run across one who can convince me that he is 100% certain which afterlife awaits. I always sense the doubt.

So the thing that reality can offer up is this: "You will not go to hell."

I think that's pretty powerful.

Other Comments by ImagineAZ

24. Comment #25983 by MelM on March 15, 2007 at 11:32 pm

Weird.
I'm hearing something about "Three Little Pigs" being changed to "Three Little Puppies" in Huddersfield, West Yorkshire??? Self-dhimmitude?

Other Comments by MelM

25. Comment #25998 by Vaal on March 16, 2007 at 2:27 am

Every one of the world's "great" religions utterly trivializes the immensity and beauty of the cosmos.

Utterly true. How small the scope of a world created 6,000 years ago. What a trivial domain that the religious ostriches subscribe to, in their narcissistic illusions. How sad, arrogant and absurd.

Well done Sam, a quote that would have made Carl Sagan proud.

Other Comments by Vaal

26. Comment #26022 by Bonzo on March 16, 2007 at 6:40 am

... the Muslim jihadis, for instance, who not only support suicidal terrorism but who are the first to turn themselves into bombs;

I get the distinct impression that the firebrands of all religions keep themselves out of the firing line. It's the young, gullible ones they co-opt or coerce to do their work.
-
Old Islamic fundamentalists never die. Just young ones.

Other Comments by Bonzo

27. Comment #26027 by simonchase on March 16, 2007 at 7:00 am

great article

what is it with Sam and spirituality though? I don't get it. Spirituality to me implies a spirt. Once you remove the spirit you just get an emotional rollercoaster ride. isn't that enough?

Other Comments by simonchase

28. Comment #26030 by DerrickB on March 16, 2007 at 7:07 am

"what is it with Sam and spirituality though? I don't get it. Spirituality to me implies a spirt. Once you remove the spirit you just get an emotional rollercoaster ride. isn't that enough?"

I agree. Spirituality is exactly what Sam is otherwise demolishing - here are the common definitions:

1. Of, relating to, consisting of, or having the nature of spirit; not tangible or material. See Synonyms at immaterial.
2. Of, concerned with, or affecting the soul.
3. Of, from, or relating to God; deific.
4. Of or belonging to a church or religion; sacred.
5. Relating to or having the nature of spirits or a spirit; supernatural.

Other Comments by DerrickB

29. Comment #26032 by epeeist on March 16, 2007 at 7:11 am

Comment #25983 by MelM

I'm hearing something about "Three Little Pigs" being changed to "Three Little Puppies" in Huddersfield, West Yorkshire???

Now rescinded. The Church of England school organising the event apparently decided on the change in order to be "sensitive" to Moslem feelings but was overruled by the local council.

[rant]And as far as I am concerned it is the West Riding of Yorkshire, not West Yorkshire[/rant]

Other Comments by epeeist

30. Comment #26060 by karlJ on March 16, 2007 at 11:27 am

This is so very tiresome! I can't read anymore of this religious fantasy crap mumbo jumbo . I give up, I'll join anyone that knocks on the door next. Last time is was a fat woman from some group that would reveal the inner order of things, rosen something....I hope it's not her the next time...

Other Comments by karlJ

31. Comment #26078 by atheisticism on March 16, 2007 at 2:41 pm

ImagineAZ: the believers never are certain if THEY are going to heaven of hell, but they are sure of where you are going. They do believe that their faith is the only hope of escaping death. This is what is most important to them, [escaping death] so important that they somehow manage to delude themselves into believing incredible nonsense to somehow be true. Also, the idea of hell being a "fiery pit" has lost a lot of support over the last two or three decades, most believers [even many very serious ones] retreating to a pretty tame version of hell. It is usually described as a simple absense of god, of course, you WILL be distressed greatly by this as you will understand how you were duped by satan. This non-violent hell is yet another in a long line of steps god belief has taken back. Give it another hundred years or so and evolution will not be disputed either.

Other Comments by atheisticism

32. Comment #26084 by Noein on March 16, 2007 at 3:19 pm

"Mythology is where all gods go to die"

What a great quote!

Other Comments by Noein

33. Comment #26087 by Eamonn Shute on March 16, 2007 at 4:13 pm

>>> The Church of England school organising the event apparently decided on the change in order to be "sensitive" to Moslem feelings but was overruled by the local council.

So they do not mind offending Jews then! :-)

Other Comments by Eamonn Shute

34. Comment #26090 by agedheretic on March 16, 2007 at 6:22 pm

Comment #26027 by simonchase on March 16, 2007 at 7:00 am
"what is it with Sam and spirituality though?...."

After reading Sam's book "The End of Faith..." I don't have the slightest concern that he believes in "Spirits" of any kind. If I thought he did, I would be gone in a moment. I take his meaning to be wonderment for the beauty and mystery of the cosmos. As an unwavering atheist for 45 years I have become moved by this meaning and feeling too. It seems to mesh well with my reverence for all of life.

Other Comments by agedheretic

35. Comment #26094 by ralcock on March 16, 2007 at 6:49 pm

Reference three posts earlier- I am afraid evolution will be fought by the religious diehards for far longer than 100 years. Religious people hate the theory of evolution and by extension the age of the planet and solar system. Why would an omnipotent being capable of creating the universe by design take so long about it? No, only when the theory of evolution and the age of the universe is accepted and understood by the majority of the world's population will religion be dead and the god delusion be cured. That is going to take 500-1000 years and many, many religiously inspired violent deaths from here to there.

Other Comments by ralcock

36. Comment #26137 by weavehole on March 17, 2007 at 7:00 am

Hey, why the pessimism ralcock? [500-1000 yrs] Have some faith! ahem

Other Comments by weavehole

37. Comment #26145 by atheisticism on March 17, 2007 at 8:00 am

Ralcock is being rather optimistic about religion being dead once evolution is accepted. I don't believe ANYTHING will ever cure the god delusion!

Other Comments by atheisticism

38. Comment #26161 by Luthien on March 17, 2007 at 9:57 am

The rest is self-deception, set to music.

I'm soooo gonna use that one all the time ;)

Other Comments by Luthien

39. Comment #26218 by roach on March 17, 2007 at 6:32 pm

I agree with agedheretic. I've seen some question Sam's use of the word "spiritual" and his hopes for a universal human spirituality that is open-ended and scientific. But we must remember he is using the word in much the same way Carl Sagan did. Here's a paragraph from Sagan's The Demon Haunted World (I've just started reading it and it's awesome):

"Spirit" comes from the Latin word "to breathe." What we breathe is air, which is certainly matter, however thin. Despite usage to the contrary, there is no necessary implication in the word "spiritual" that we are talking of anything other than matter (including the matter of which the brain is made), or anything outside the realm of science. On occasion, I will feel free to use the word. Science is not only compatible with spirituality; it is a profund source of spirituality. When we recognize our place in an immensity of light-years and in the passage of ages, when we grasp the intricacy, beauty, and sublety of life, then that soaring feeling, that sense of elation and humility combined, is surely spiritual. So are our emotions in the presence of great art or music or literature, or of acts of exemplary seflsess courage such as those of Mohandas Gandhi or Martin Luther King, Jr. The notion that sciene and spirituality are somehow mutually exculsive does a disservice to both."

Other Comments by roach

40. Comment #26253 by Homo economicus on March 18, 2007 at 4:06 am

I think, from reading The End Of Faith, that Harris is talking about spirituality:

'that there is a form of well-being that supersedes all others, indeed, that transcends the vagaries of experience itself.'

He talks about the embarrssing definitions, and mentions that he means it in a restricted sense:

'our discussion will focus on a specific insight that seems to have a special relevance to our pursuit of happiness.'

(Ch.7 Experiments in Conciousness)

Other Comments by Homo economicus

41. Comment #26461 by Red Foot Oakie on March 19, 2007 at 1:01 pm

Go get 'em Sam!

Other Comments by Red Foot Oakie

42. Comment #26525 by post humanity come! on March 20, 2007 at 5:52 am

Well, let's see where God went wrong. He created a perfect, beautiful, and wonderfully abundant planet. He entrusted it to humans, beings He engineered with a capacity for nobility, creativity, wisdom, reason, love, morality, and great pleasure. Then He instructed them to sow justice, love, truth, joy, harmony and peace. He even let them in on His plan for a yet grander and more blissful eternal existence! Humans, however, foolishly promulgated myths, arrogantly exalted themselves, greedily exploited the planet, ruthlessly oppressed billions, senselessly ravaged the biosphere, and recklessly destroyed each other in world conflicts. Consequently, they now frantically search the cosmos for more advanced beings that can save them from themselves. Oh, I think I see the problem�

Other Comments by post humanity come!

43. Comment #26695 by alexander77 on March 21, 2007 at 7:37 am

Pete Stark is a new hero and I wish him good luck for his further career!

Other Comments by alexander77

44. Comment #31197 by 7027A on April 11, 2007 at 10:22 am

It's unfortunate that the first US Congressional atheist fulfills the boring and predictable stereotype of a grubbing popular socialist whose aim is to replace an omnipotent God with an omnipotent State in the lives of the electorate. How can so many here cheer a politician who wants to crush individual liberty simply because he publicly admits his atheism? Show some discretion in whom you endorse, people. This bum Stark's public admission is a political setback for atheism, if the goal is to get more politicians out of the closet.

Other Comments by 7027A

45. Comment #95806 by Calilasseia on December 9, 2007 at 8:39 am

As well as the last line, the immediately preceding words struck me as compelling:

Every scientific domain � from cosmology to psychology to economics � has superseded and surpassed the wisdom of Scripture.

Which reminds me in turn of this by Carl Sagan:

How is it that hardly any major religion has looked at science and concluded, 'This is better than we thought! The Universe is much bigger than our prophets said, grander, more subtle, more elegant'? Instead they say, 'No, no, no! My god is a little god, and I want him to stay that way.' A religion, old or new, that stressed the magnificence of the Universe as revealed by modern science might be able to draw forth reserves of reverence and awe hardly tapped by the conventional faiths.

I think Sam Harris is to be commended highly for his latest wielding of the mighty pen, and Stark in turn for having the courage to put intellectual honesty before career. Not least in the light of something I said in the forums, which I shall reprise here:

I once wrote a piece in another thread which lamented the fact, that in a supposedly technologically sophisticated, industrially advanced 21st century superpower, it was impossible for someone to attain political office if that person made the mistake of revealing that they possessed a critical world view of the kind espoused here [in the forums]. It would not matter if that person were a proven genius with an IQ of over 200, a spotless ethical record and a proven track record of success in delivering carefully thought out policies that enriched the lives of the electorate and delivered fair and wise social justice to the visible and manifest mutual benefit of all, the moment that person became associated with the word "atheist" in the political arena, that person's career would be over. On the other hand, uneducated hicks, snake oil salesmen and outright criminals can ascend the greasy pole all the way to the White House simply by making the right noises about god. The political landscape has been so thoroughly diseased across the Atlantic by the cancer of religious fundamentalism, that it is not impossible to imagine at some future date the realisation of the nightmare scenario of "President Hovind" - he certainly has enough palsied and addled followers, including followers who would be willing to back his campaign financially, to propel him sufficiently into the limelight to render the probability of this event to be nonzero. Admittedly he won't be campaigning in 2008, but sometime after 2015, when he's released from jail, there are enough loons out there to back him should his vainglorious ego have learned no salutory lessons at the hands of the Federal Bureau of Corrections. Indeed, if his utterly turgid blog is an indication, not only does he seem not to have learned basic lessons about ethical behaviour, but seems to be urging more and more dribbling hordes of bolt-through-the-neck self-propelled waxwork dummies to preen his ego and fuel his fantasies to a pathological extent. I do not doubt for one moment that if someone suggested that he ran for the White House upon release, he would launch into this endeavour in a flash, and his gibbering acolytes would beaver away with a masturbatory degree of obsession to realise this warped ambition. By comparison, Albert Einstein, were he alive today, wouldn't get past first base.

Stark is perhaps the first step toward making the nightmare of a future "President Hovind" or other arch-charlatan propelling Western Civilisation toward an anachronistic Second Dark Age, recede into the realms of zero probability. More power to his elbow for that, and more power to Sam Harris for standing up for him so publicly.

Other Comments by Calilasseia

Reload Comments | Back to Top