Tuesday, June 26, 2007 | Reason : Science of Religion | print version

In Defense of Witchcraft

by Sam Harris

Reposted from:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-harris/in-defense-of-witchcraft_b_53865.html

Imagine that the year is 1507, and life is difficult. Crops fail, good people suffer instantaneous and horrifying turns of bad luck, and even the children of royalty regularly die before they have taken their first steps. As it turns out, everyone understands the cause of these calamities: it is witchcraft. Not all witchcraft is at fault, of course -- there are "white" witches who use their powers to heal -- but there is no question that some witches have formed an alliance with the Devil. Happily, the Church has produced many learned and energetic men who are equal to this challenge, and each year hundreds of women are put to death for casting spells upon their innocent neighbors.

Imagine being among the tiny percentage of people -- the 5 percent, or 10 percent at most -- who think that a belief in witchcraft is nothing more than a malignant fantasy. Imagine writing a book arguing that magic spells do no real work in the world, that the confessions of bad witches are delusional or coerced, that the claims of good witches are self-serving and unempirical. You argue further that a belief in magic offers false hope of benefits that are best sought elsewhere, like from scientific medicine, and lays the ground for false accusations of imaginary crimes, leading to the misery and death of innocent people. If your name is Sam Harris, you may produce two fatuous volumes entitled The End of Magic and Letter to a Wiccan Nation. Daniel Dennett would then grapple helplessly with the origins of sorcery in his aptly named, Breaking the Spell. Richard Dawkins -- whose bias against witches, warlocks, and even alchemists has long been known -- will follow these books with an arrogant screed entitled, The Witch Delusion. And finally Christopher Hitchens will deliver a poisonous eructation at book-length in The Devil is Not Great.

What sort of criticism would these misguided authors likely encounter? In the following essay, I present excerpts from actual reviews of recent atheist bestsellers, replacing terms like "religion," "God," and "atheist" with terms like "witchcraft," "the Devil," and "skeptic." Observe how much intellectual progress we have made in the last five hundred years:

"[None of these authors] takes time to consider contemporary [witchcraft] in the light of some of its most sophisticated and heroic practitioners.... Moreover, none of them ever put their weak, confused, and unplumbed ideas about [the Devil] under scrutiny. Their natural habit of mind is anthropomorphic. They tend to think of [the Devil] as if He were a human being, bound to human limitations... [These] authors pride themselves on how science advances in understanding over time, and also on how moral thinking becomes in some ways deeper and more demanding. They do not give any attention to the ways in which [magical] understanding also grows, develops, and evolves... It hardly dawns upon them that [witches and warlocks] have been, from the very beginning, in constant--and mutually enriching--dialogue with [skeptics]... The path of modern science was made straight and smooth by deep convictions that every stray element in the world of human experience--from the number of hairs on one's head to the lonely lily in the meadow--is thoroughly known to [the Devil and his familiars] and, therefore, lies within a field of intelligibility, mutual connection, and multiple logics. All these odd and angular levels of reality, given arduous, disciplined, and cooperative effort, are in principle penetrable by the human mind... [Skepticism] cannot be true, because it is self-contradictory. Moreover, this self-contradiction is willful, and its latent purpose is pathetically transparent. [Skeptics] want all the comforts of the rationality that emanates from rational [sorcery], but without personal indebtedness to [the supernatural]. That is why they allow themselves to be rationalists only part of the way down. The alternative makes them very nervous." --Michael Novak, National Review

"What's really bothersome is the suggestion that [witches] rarely question themselves while [skeptics] ask all the hard questions.... The [great warlock] Michael Novak's book "Belief and Unbelief" is a classic in self-interrogation. "How does one know that one's belief is truly in [Beelzebub]," he asks at one point, "not merely in some habitual emotion or pattern of response?" The problem with the neo-[skeptics] is that they seem as dogmatic as the dogmatists they condemn... But as Novak argued--in one of the best critiques of neo-[skepticism]--in the March 19 issue of National Review, "Questions have been the heart and soul of [conjuring] and [divination] for millennia."
--E.J. Dionne, The Washington Post

"The danger is that the aggression and hostility to [magic] in all its forms... deters engagement with the really interesting questions that have emerged recently in the science/[necromancy] debate. The durability and near universality of [witchcraft] is one of the most enduring conundrums of evolutionary thinking... Does [spell-casting] still have an important role in human wellbeing? ... If [sorcery] declines, what gaps does it leave in the functioning of individuals and social groups?... I suspect the New [Skeptics] are in danger of a spectacular failure. With little understanding and even less sympathy of why people increasingly use [the evil eye] in political contexts, they've missed the proverbial elephant in the room. These increasingly hysterical books may boost the pension... but one suspects that they are going to do very little to challenge the appeal of a phenomenon they loathe too much to understand."
--Madeleine Bunting, The Guardian

"If [magic], by definition, exceeds human measure, the demand that the existence of [the Great Horned One] be proven makes no sense because the machinery of proof, whatever it was, could not extend itself far enough to apprehend him. Proving the existence of [the Devil] would be possible only if [he]... were the kind of object that could be brought into view by a very large telescope or an incredibly powerful microscope. [The Devil], however--again if there is a [Devil]--is not in the world; the world is in him; and therefore there is no perspective, however technologically sophisticated, from which he could be spied. As that which encompasses everything, he cannot be discerned by anything or anyone because there is no possibility of achieving the requisite distance from his presence that discerning him would require. The criticism made by [skeptics] that the existence of [Satan] cannot be demonstrated is no criticism at all; for a [Devil] whose existence could be demonstrated wouldn't be a [Devil]; he would just be another object in the field of human vision. This does not mean that my arguments constitute a proof of the truth of [witchcraft]; for if I were to claim that I would be making the [skeptics'] mistake from the other direction. Nor are they arguments in which I have a personal investment. Their purpose and function is simply to show how the [skeptics'] arguments miss their mark and, indeed, could not possibly hit it."
--Stanley Fish, The New York Times

"Imagine someone holding forth on biology whose only knowledge of the subject is the Book of British Birds, and you have a rough idea of what it feels like to read Richard Dawkins on [witchcraft]. Card-carrying rationalists like Dawkins, who is the nearest thing to a professional [skeptic] we have had since Bertrand Russell, are in one sense the least well-equipped to understand what they castigate, since they don't believe there is anything there to be understood, or at least anything worth understanding. This is why they invariably come up with vulgar caricatures of [conjuring and divination] that would make a first-year [sorcerer's apprentice] wince...Dawkins rejects the surely reasonable case that science and [witchcraft] are not in competition on the grounds that this insulates [witchcraft] from rational inquiry. But this is a mistake... while [belief in magic], rather like love, must involve factual knowledge, it is not reducible to it... Because the universe is [the Devil's], it shares in his life, which is the life of freedom. This is why it works all by itself, and why science and Richard Dawkins are therefore both possible. The same is true of human beings: [the Devil] is not an obstacle to our autonomy and enjoyment but, as [Aleister Crowley] argues, the power that allows us to be ourselves. Like the unconscious, he is closer to us than we are to ourselves. He is the source of our self-determination, not the erasure of it. To be dependent on him, as to be dependent on our friends, is a matter of freedom and fulfillment. Indeed, friendship is the word [Crowley] uses to characterise the relation between [the Devil] and humanity...The mainstream [witchcraft] I have just outlined may well not be true; but anyone who holds it is in my view to be respected, whereas Dawkins considers that no [sorcery], anytime or anywhere, is worthy of any respect whatsoever. This, one might note, is the opinion of a man deeply averse to dogmatism. Even moderate [occult] views, he insists, are to be ferociously contested, since they can always lead to fanaticism...Such is Dawkins's unruffled scientific impartiality that in a book of almost four hundred pages, he can scarcely bring himself to concede that a single human benefit has flowed from [the belief in magic], a view which is as a priori improbable as it is empirically false."
--Terry Eagleton, London Review of Books

Add to del.icio.us Posted: Tuesday, June 26, 2007 | Permalink

Comments 1 - 50 of 83 | | View Alternate Comment Thread

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #52251 by Alkal on June 26, 2007 at 3:17 pm

The problem is that rational people understand this, the irational will keep on coming back to the circular "But witches are not the same as our god"!

Other Comments by Alkal

2. Comment #52252 by pewkatchoo on June 26, 2007 at 3:20 pm

Sorry, but I just did not see the point of this article. It seemed so childish to me that I stopped reading it after the intro.

Other Comments by pewkatchoo

3. Comment #52257 by ab_initio on June 26, 2007 at 3:24 pm

mind rebel where did our posts go?

Other Comments by ab_initio

4. Comment #52258 by Stella on June 26, 2007 at 3:24 pm

Brilliant.

I will be repeating this meme, stat.

Other Comments by Stella

5. Comment #52260 by Nordic on June 26, 2007 at 3:25 pm

It's funny he brings up this point because I was recently thinking about something along these lines. I feel as "desperate", in a way, as any contemporary Christian would feel if (s)he were brought back to the 15th century were belief in witches was axiomatically accepted. It would be impossible to make society as a whole wake up from its delusion, and that's how I feel about the widespread belief in god.

Other Comments by Nordic

6. Comment #52262 by John Turner on June 26, 2007 at 3:33 pm

I thought this was good, and could help a theist try and see it from an atheists point of view, but yeh,it probably wont.

And ab_initio, yours and mind_rebel's comments are in the 'Alternate Comment Thread', and i dont think mind_rebel was joking.

Other Comments by John Turner

7. Comment #52263 by CanRow on June 26, 2007 at 3:34 pm

The point would be another attempt at re-framing of the kind of thing religion is in the minds of those who believe in it. I don't think this was written for the benefit of atheists, but rather, furthers goal of the new atheist movement - to change how the religious perceive religion (i.e. as a phenomenon no different from any other) in hopes that they might find reason to reject it - not to simply be right about something (speaking of childish).

I applaud Sam Harris for his untiring efforts in 'changing the angle of attack', thereby increasing his chances of gaining access to a wider variety of minds. I believe he and Dennett are best at this.

Other Comments by CanRow

8. Comment #52268 by carnitine on June 26, 2007 at 3:37 pm

This was one of my favorite arguments that he used vs Chris Hedges recently. His point is perfectly valid, and god-worship - witchcraft is perfectly analogous whether the god-worshipers will admit it or not.

Other Comments by carnitine

9. Comment #52269 by Bruno on June 26, 2007 at 3:43 pm

I applaud Sam's efforts here, but the problem I think is that most Fundamentalists actually still believe in witches and other demonic forces. They simply won't "get it." In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if someone takes just the headline of this article and posts it on a Christian website claiming that "See, Sam Harris is in league with the Devil - as are all atheists." Never underestimate the stupidity of extreme religious belief. They generally believe anything.

Other Comments by Bruno

10. Comment #52270 by the great teapot on June 26, 2007 at 3:45 pm

Pewkatchoo,
this is just another version of Richards Thor analogy. No more or less childish.
If extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence then childish propositions only require childish refuting. This fits the bill nicely.
But good point Bruno we are probably underestimating the stupidity of the average believer.

Other Comments by the great teapot

11. Comment #52274 by LeeLeeOne on June 26, 2007 at 3:50 pm

Still lovin' that Sam Harris! Laughed myself silly with this one just because it's very similar to what I tried with a few family members a while back. They didn't get it either! But hey, it was good for a laugh back then too, to see their faces contort and spit and sputter their blah blah blah.

Other Comments by LeeLeeOne

12. Comment #52277 by ab_initio on June 26, 2007 at 3:53 pm

Thanks John Turner,

What is the point of the Alternative Thread?

Other Comments by ab_initio

13. Comment #52280 by bitbutter on June 26, 2007 at 4:00 pm

Good fun! though I think 'witchcraft denier' would work better than skeptic--we might hope that one day 'atheist' sounds just as absurd and redundant.

Other Comments by bitbutter

14. Comment #52282 by the great teapot on June 26, 2007 at 4:02 pm

Alternative sounds nicer than troll atleast.
It strikes me as a little unfair to consign mind rebel to the alternative thread dump. He always offers an honest opinion and never says anything just to irritate. (unless I have misjudged).
If he sympathises with witches more power to his elbow. Perhaps he should substitute the word witch with Thor etc. Sam wasn't attacking witches afterall.

Other Comments by the great teapot

15. Comment #52288 by jonecc on June 26, 2007 at 4:12 pm

I've performed similar rhetorical tricks using the Aztec belief that human sacrifice is required by the Gods to appease them and stop them destroying the world, and King Charles I's belief in the divine authority of kings, that God put him in place to govern and that Parliament's refusal to follow him precisely is a rebellion against God.

I see two main points the trick highlights. Firstly, subjective metaphysical beliefs have to be seen as a product of the society in which they are created, whereas evidence-based beliefs can stand on their own, if they survive trial by falsifiable prediction. If you look at them from outside the paradigm in which they make sense, they just look absurd.

Secondly, popular human beliefs can disappear from the face of the earth. With a very few exceptions, nobody now believes in the necessity for human sacrifice or all-powerful monarchs, and it's entirely possible to conceive of a world where nobody believes in racism, homeopathy - or religion.

Other Comments by jonecc

16. Comment #52290 by jonecc on June 26, 2007 at 4:20 pm

MIND_REBEL:

Alternative comment threads: why, and more importantly, how?

Do you have special powers, or can we all play?

Other Comments by jonecc

17. Comment #52294 by The_Stone on June 26, 2007 at 4:25 pm

Rationalists (Empiricists) are at an extreme disadvantage when called to counter the beliefs of the faithful. Us rationalists know how to conjure a hypothesis, gather data from an impartial experiment, perform analysis, and compose a conclusion. We know how to use the scientific method. This endeavor of science is far too complicated for the believer. They either do not understand its parts and purposes or they are too lazy to find the truth. Until we improve our educational system, and teach these goons how to think, we'll be carrying their water and fixing their problems.

Religion is such a damn hassle.
Isnt it just easier to NOT believe, but know?

Other Comments by The_Stone

18. Comment #52299 by Jack Rawlinson on June 26, 2007 at 4:42 pm

Well, I think this is excellent: a more extended riff on the "You don't believe in Zeus or Odin; I go one god further" routine, and a very mischievous one for using real reviews of the atheist books to make the point.

I may send a link to this to that ridiculous religious apologist Madeleine Bunting at The Guardian.

Other Comments by Jack Rawlinson

19. Comment #52305 by PaulEmecz on June 26, 2007 at 5:05 pm

Philosophers are at an extreme disadvantage when called to counter the beliefs of the scientific. Us philosophers know how to conjure an argument, question the nature of empirical observation, attack assumptions made by empiricists and undermine their conclusions. We know how to use the philosophical method. This endeavor of philosophy is far too complicated for the scientist. They either do not understand its parts and purposes or they are too lazy to find the truth. Until we improve our educational system, and teach these goons how to question, we'll be carrying their water and fixing their problems.

Science is such a damn hassle.
Isnt it just easier to NOT 'know', but to question?

Other Comments by PaulEmecz

20. Comment #52308 by fin on June 26, 2007 at 5:12 pm

Bruno:

I applaud Sam's efforts here, but the problem I think is that most Fundamentalists actually still believe in witches and other demonic forces. They simply won't "get it."

I do not think Harris or Dawkins or Hitchens are trying to convert fundamentalists. Their writings are meant for the non-religious people who have inherited the beliefs of their parents but who are not committed to faith.

Other Comments by fin

21. Comment #52324 by Jack Rawlinson on June 26, 2007 at 6:16 pm

PaulEmecz: I think if you want to troll this site you'll need to do rather better than that embarrassing attempt. I'd suggest that if you want to give it another shot you:

a) Don't make a fool of yourself by making your point hang on the silly suggestion that scientists and philosophers are two non-intersecting sets.

b) Don't delude yourself that merely declaring that your arguments undermine certain conclusions counts for a damned thing other than making you appear to be a blowhard who doesn't back up his claims.

Other Comments by Jack Rawlinson

22. Comment #52327 by Charlie Wiederhold on June 26, 2007 at 6:22 pm

I do not think Harris or Dawkins or Hitchens are trying to convert fundamentalists. Their writings are meant for the naon-religious people who have inherited the beliefs of their parents but who are not committed to faith.

Precisely. Many people seem to assume these writings are out to change the minds of the fundamentalists in any area. Dawkins has even gone so far as to point out this is not his real target audience.

It's not the fundamentalists that need to be convinced (or even can be convinced). It's the massive group of people sitting in the middle who have simply grown up knowing nothing different or never being exposed to people who show it's both possible and even worthwhile to break out of the mould your parents and/or community provided.

When I debate online, I'm never out to convince the person I'm debating with. That happens so rarely it's not worth hoping for. It's always the audience reading the discussion that is my real goal, even if I never address them directly.

Other Comments by Charlie Wiederhold

23. Comment #52329 by Yorker on June 26, 2007 at 6:38 pm

Have the rules changed? I'm sure the "alternative" thread was set up some months ago to accommodate people who wanted to waste time and space with trolls, now I find comments by long-time regular MIND_REBEL, relegated to this ignominious place. I almost never entirely agree with MIND_REBEL but in the past I've been forced to defend this person against people who clearly see theselves as intellectually superior. I have yet to see a single instance where MIND_REBEL has made an unwise or invalid comment and has tried to defend it after being attacked by those wishing to sully him/her. I asked for a little slack to be given, evidently without success.

Not all us atheists are gifted with insightful abilities, we should encourage people who are with us, not belittle them. I strongly question the motives of those who seek to denigrate our friend MIND_REBEL and others, I see such an attitude as weakening the atheist position, apart from that it's also unwise; let me be blunt, it's fucking stupid! I visit this site less and less these days and things like this remind me why.

So MIND_REBEL, I have no need to apologise to you but perhaps those need to will have the courage to do so, you have the right to expect it.

Other Comments by Yorker

24. Comment #52334 by waxwings on June 26, 2007 at 7:08 pm

What Harris really needs to do is dig up some 'learned treatise' on witchcraft and replace all the references to 'witches' and 'magic' with 'god' and 'religion' and see how similar they are to these apologists.

Better still, take excerpts from both articles on religion and witchcraft, mix up the words, and see if anyone can even tell which is which.

Other Comments by waxwings

25. Comment #52359 by Arcados on June 26, 2007 at 9:02 pm

I found it entertaining, but I doubt it will arise more than a lot of hurfing and durfing from theists.

Also Michael Novak's criticisms of atheism are telling of how little people actually know about the subject.

("[Skeptics] want all the comforts of the rationality that emanates from rational [sorcery], but without personal indebtedness to [the supernatural]")

I don't think he understands that what atheists 'want' has zero bearing on why we don't believe. This is yet another example of how people assume beliefs are 'chosen' (much like homosexuality, right? *rolling eyes*). Maybe we can fault the use of the word 'choose' with respect to beliefs and values in the English language, and perhaps this is where some consciousness raising needs to happen as well. I hope someone understands what I'm nattering on about...

Other Comments by Arcados

26. Comment #52361 by Zaphod on June 26, 2007 at 9:05 pm

The point of the article was to show how ridiculous some of the reviews have been. The evidence for witchcraft is the same for any god so it is an apt comparison. It also serves to deflate the undeserved respect people have for religion, which it is about as reasonable and rational as witchcraft.

Other Comments by Zaphod

27. Comment #52364 by MrEmpirical on June 26, 2007 at 9:12 pm

Daniel Dennett would then grapple helplessly with the origins of sorcery in his aptly named, Breaking the Spell

LOL, Sam Harris you are awesome. I love it how Harris, Dawkins, and Hitchens are so capable of good humour. It's a really endearing feature of their work and it helps dispel the myth that rationalists are just cold, calculating, emotion-less robots.

Other Comments by MrEmpirical

28. Comment #52378 by PaulEmecz on June 26, 2007 at 10:51 pm

Don't make a fool of yourself by making your point hang on the silly suggestion that scientists and philosophers are two non-intersecting sets.

Given the nature of the article (taking a set of comments and replacing a word to see how it hangs), and the nature of The_Stone's original entry (17), I hardly think that's fair!

I could easily repeat the process with your quote, saying it is silly to say that scientists and people of faith are two non-intersecting sets, but you didn't seem impressed when I did it first time...

Don't delude yourself that merely declaring that your arguments...

That's a bit much too. Given that I merely changed a couple of words, they were hardly 'my arguments'. I merely hoped to do what the original article we're discussing did, and give a fresh perspective.

Given your response, I have to stand by 'Isnt it just easier to NOT 'know', but to question?'

Other Comments by PaulEmecz

29. Comment #52384 by MrEmpirical on June 27, 2007 at 12:11 am

PaulEmecz,

Sam Harris replaced one group of concepts with an EQUIVALENT group of concepts (i.e. Witchcraft and theism are equally unproven). But you simply took a group of concepts and substituted them for a group of NON-EQUIVALENT concepts (i.e. substituting scientific terms for religious terms). Thus, your example failed.

Other Comments by MrEmpirical

30. Comment #52388 by api on June 27, 2007 at 12:25 am

I was once given a book for my children called something like, "The Witch Who Made Children Cry", about, well about a witch who made children cry, by playing nasty tricks on them. She gets her come-uppance when the children steal her broom and refuse to return it till she promises to be nice to them.

Anyway, I tried replacing the word Witch with Bishop. Hey - certainly a few in the clergy have certainly made children cry over the years, especially choirboys.

The other adults didn't like it much, even when I explained that the book was another insidious attack on Wicca and witches in general, based on religious persecution during the middle-ages (and even more recently).

Funny how language has the power to challenge and change attitudes.

Keep it up Sam and Richard et al!

Other Comments by api

31. Comment #52404 by scottishgeologist on June 27, 2007 at 1:29 am

These evangelical types are always on about "spiritual warfare" they seem to see demons and witches and "being under attack from the Evil One" or "under assault" all the time

If you want to hear one of these nutters going on about this stuff - try this page:

http://www.kch.org.uk/Media/AllMedia.aspx?speaker=Phil%20Playfoot

And if you can bear it, listen to the "Praying in the Spirit" sermon. Its full of "spiritual warfare" and "speaking in tongues" Guys a nutjob.

And yes, it is the father of the girl in the purity ring case!

One final question, why oh why, oh why do these evangie charismatic types keep using the word "just"? eg "Lord we "just" want to say this and Lord we "just" want to thank you for that... and so on.

In fact this has been commented upon on the "Ship of Fools " website: one commentator said "I was also distracted by my habit of counting the number of "just's" and "Lord's" in evangelicals' prayers"

In my faith head days I used to get really hacked off about these mind numbing cliches - like listening to someone who has been programmed rather than thinking for themsleves

Anyway, rant and digression over. :-)))

Other Comments by scottishgeologist

32. Comment #52405 by Philip1978 on June 27, 2007 at 1:31 am

I would just like to add on what Yorker has said, I like MIND_REBEL and his posts and I don't want to see any of his posts thrown off into the alternative thread, I want to hear his views and not see harsh criticism being hurled at him

Yorker, I am sorry you are getting disillusioned with the site as I for one really enjoy reading your posts. Your sense of humour and intellect were something that caught my eye when I first discovered richarddawkins.net and I would be sorry not to have you on here. I understand your reasoning but nonetheless I would miss your presence if you went completely

Loved this article, you could replace those words with anything but like others have said, the faithful would turn around and say but that's not my god! Very interesting though, well done Sam

Other Comments by Philip1978

33. Comment #52409 by pewkatchoo on June 27, 2007 at 1:43 am

I agree with Yorker and Philip. I found myself having to stand up for the Rebel the other day against an unjustified attack. As I pointed out, he is young and speaks with a younger persons viewpoint. But he makes me smile and I am sure that he does that for others too. His points are often valid too. And this is from someone who has had a dig at him once in the past, but came to see the error of his ways. I am a born again Rebeller, lord be praised.

Keep rocking Rebel and stuff the self-righteous.

Other Comments by pewkatchoo

34. Comment #52411 by Tumara Baap on June 27, 2007 at 1:45 am

The impression one comes away with is that [Defenders of the Devil] appear afflicted with a terrible cognitive dissonance. They earnestly rehash debunked views and unconvincingly bandy about unflattering adjectives on [skeptic] intellect. Curiously, whereas they charge [skeptics] with confusion or not being even handed, nary a mention is made of what are, even with alleged flaws notwithstanding, meticulously researched, beautifully lucid, and rigorously argued viewpoints.

A refrain from The Times to The New Yorker has been that [skeptics] fail to mention any good that ever flowed from [witchcraft]. It is an odd point to take given the burden of proof expected by any reasonable person. Given how entwined [witchcraft] has been with culture and the passage of history, according goodness to [witchcraft] is as forceful as linking goodness to language: not undeniable but risibly weak. For a purportedly frighteningly powerful force that pretends to aspire to at least some good, it should have consistently ranked at the apex of benevolence. Yet [witchcraft's] track record has been wantonly shameful. What should be of interest to us is whether [witchcraft] affords an exclusive province to serving a thinking society with both honesty and sublime guidance, beyond what it plausibly may have in asserting marginal social order over a medieval people.

Another complaint often put forth is that avid disillusionment, even through studied deduction, naturally disinterests one from devotion to a field viewed as vacuous propaganda. Thus the thinking goes, this is an automatic disqualification from rendering judgment in the mystical ways of [magic]. Interesting, really! By that token taking any superstition to task should be wrong because one eschewed committing to the insidious mind-f**k by which it takes hold.

If only tawdry entertainment would stop there. Parsing through the [Defenders of the Devil's] pained verbiage reveals quite a remarkable poverty of thought. Yes, there is much anguish, but not an iota of decent refutation. The easily assailable drivel emanates from visceral discomfort, not reason. Indeed, a central point made by several [Defenders of the Devil] boils down to that [Satan] is by nature beyond our full contemplation, and human reason thence is an inadequate yardstick for comprehending [Satan or Witchcraft]. Surely, if the threshold for [belief in magic] were that piddling, [Satan], if there were one, would slap the [Defenders of Devils] in the face. Twice.

Other Comments by Tumara Baap

35. Comment #52441 by Corylus on June 27, 2007 at 3:19 am

I'm really glad Sam picked out Bunting and Eagleton here.

These two writers are vying for the prize of most, irritating, condescending, patronising, self-righteous reviewers I have read. (IMHO Terry Eagleton leads by a whisker, but only due to his whittering on for so much longer).

Paul Emerz. I am afraid I did not understand your post and what point you are trying to make. I have studied philosophy. Part of which is, of course, the philosophy of science. In order to be intellectually honest I had to look into science as well as philosophy in order to so. I have to say I find it very, very hard indeed. (Especially theoretical physics, which so many philosophers of science seem to talk about, I find myself wondering exactly how much they understand).

This is one of the reasons I am on this site, to learn more about science. This is also the main reason I admire Dawkins - I don't agree with him on every point, but I am grateful to him for helping an arts/humanities types like me get their head round scientific concepts.

Anyway, are you saying that:

a) Philosophers and scientists should talk to each other? Completely and utterly agree.

b) Philosophy and science are incommensurate fields? Don't think so, they are both about method (ignoring Feyerabend!). It may be that at some future point human understanding reaches a place at which simply unanswerable questions/conflicts come to light. I honestly don't know the answer to this one. I reckon we should bracket this question for the time being. It will say about this though, that it seems very arrogant to assume that just because we can't understand things no-one ever will.

c) Philosophy is a superior endeavour to science?

or

d) Science is a superior endeavour to philosophy?

I don't agree with either statement and I will refrain from using rude words concerning them.

e) Are you simply just saying that Sam's analogy above is overextended? That's debateable, but I am reading it only as a charming piece of rhetoric and more about humour than argument.

f) Is Jack Rawlinson correct? Are you merely trolling? I do hope not.

Re: Trolling. Why on earth is Rebel on a troll thread? In agreement with Yorker and others on this one. I don't always agree with Rebel, but then I don't always agree with just about everyone one here. I myself, of course, am always right... ;)

I understand Rebel's first language is not English. I am in really impressed. The day I go on a website and start talking philosophy in a second language is the day I criticise Rebel - and that day is not coming anytime soon.

Other Comments by Corylus

36. Comment #52448 by GBile on June 27, 2007 at 3:53 am

MIND REBEL back !!

Sorry mr. Harris, great article !

Other Comments by GBile

37. Comment #52479 by HunterZolomon on June 27, 2007 at 5:37 am

"Ridicule is the only weapon that can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them."

Thomas Jefferson

I love that quote and Sam effectively demonstrates its use here. Bravo!

Other Comments by HunterZolomon

38. Comment #52497 by PaulEmecz on June 27, 2007 at 6:20 am

Corylus,

I was really responding to 17., using the technique that Sam Harris used. The_Stone was making a point about 'the faithful' that I felt was unfair, and mirrors much of what I hear many people on this site saying about people of faith. The assumption The_Stone is making is that people of faith cannot be empiricist, do not understand science, and are not rational.

I have to say I completely disagree with The_Stone about this. I don't think that any weight is given to his point of view when people publicise songs recorded by dangerous Christian sects on this site. The fact that some or many Christians or people of faith are irrational does not mean that they are necessarily so.

So, I asked him to consider how it would be if this sort of approach were used against scientists. The criticism would be that scientists are unaware of the assumptions implicit in science, and unable to question these; that scientists deal with what we see, without realising that a great deal of processing of sense data has already happened by the time it reaches our consciousness etc.

Now, I would not have made this point myself. The reason is that, although there are clearly a very large number of ignorant people who misuse scientific language, speaking of 'scientific fact' without any understanding of what this really means, it isn't necessarily so. Good scientists, like good theologians, are aware of the nature of their assumptions and the limitations of their field of inquiry.

I hope you did feel insulted as a scientist at being told you were not questioning, thinking, reasoning beings. That is exactly how it feels as a person of faith to be told that I just don't understand, that I am too lazy etc.

Why are so many people upset at what I said (quite rightly so) and not upset at what The_Stone said?

As to whether I was trolling, I think, being quite accurate, that I was. Just as I believe that Sam Harris was trolling. I like what Sam was doing, and was merely using this as a way of making people think about how they refer to people of faith. I did want an emotional reaction from The_Stone, and others who would agree with his post. Then I want them to question HIS original post and see whether it is unfair in the same ways that mine was unfair.

Is it all right to question our assumption that it is wrong to troll, under these circumstances? I think it is always right to question assumptions.

Other Comments by PaulEmecz

39. Comment #52512 by L.Minnik on June 27, 2007 at 6:53 am

MIND_REBEL, I tried to post a comment for you on the other thread, but apparently it doesn't work like that. Hope you read all these messages from people appreciating your posts who don't agree with what happened.

Cheers

As for the article, if anything, the change of wording seems to highlight how illegible they really are. And adding some "evolutionary thinking" and "the ways in which [magical] understanding also grows, develops, and evolves..." ugh

Other Comments by L.Minnik

40. Comment #52547 by konquererz on June 27, 2007 at 8:46 am

I don't often agree with Mind Rebel, but I don't think he should have been bumped.

Any how, I have realized through experience that ridicule is the only thing that gets through to Christians. They can simply let "logic" and "reason" roll of their backs and keep believing. If you tell them that their faith is stupid and small minded and ignorant, then the battle is on! Then, you really get the chance to break down their arguments, which in turn breaks them down for a bit.

Other Comments by konquererz

41. Comment #52567 by Steven Mading on June 27, 2007 at 9:52 am

I didn't even notice there was such a thing as the "alternative content" comment page until people pointed it out here and I explicitly looked for the link on the page. I disagree with "mind_rebel" much more often than I agree, but I don't see how his comment *this time* was worthy of bumping off like that. *This* time it wasn't that bad at all. Granted, I'd still say he's wrong, but this time around his case was put forth politely so it could be politely argued against.

Other Comments by Steven Mading

42. Comment #52571 by Rtambree on June 27, 2007 at 10:06 am

Rather than a fictitious defence of witchcraft and other extinct superstitions, there must be actual arguments some in the historical record that some scholars/academics have access to: actual contemporary defences of the Greek or Roman pantheons, etc. These would make amusing reading today, as does the defences of slavery, racism, colonialism, etc often given by the chief "intellectuals" of the day.

Other Comments by Rtambree

43. Comment #52586 by Aaron SF on June 27, 2007 at 11:16 am

Ok, who else wants to have sex with sam harris now?

Other Comments by Aaron SF

44. Comment #52587 by BicycleRepairMan on June 27, 2007 at 11:17 am

I know [brackets] are common courtesy when changing quoted text, but somehow they make it impossible for me to read this fluently, I think this one time, they could be excluded to better make the point, as the brackets sort of imply that "here I replaced something reasonable with something whacky"

Heres my version, I also re-replaced some of it, to attempt to make it better:

"What's really bothersome is the suggestion that witch-burners rarely question themselves while deniers of witchcraft ask all the hard questions.... The great warlock Michael Novak's book "Belief and Unbelief" is a classic in self-interrogation. "How does one know that one's belief is truly in witchcraft," he asks at one point, "not merely in some habitual emotion or pattern of response?" The problem with the neo-witchdeniers is that they seem as dogmatic as the dogmatists they condemn... But as Novak argued--in one of the best critiques of neo-witchdenying--in the March 19 issue of National Review, "Questions have been the heart and soul of conjuring and divination for millennia."

This was fun, we should do this to every little flea that pops up :D

Other Comments by BicycleRepairMan

45. Comment #52597 by Yorker on June 27, 2007 at 12:15 pm

33. Comment #52405 by Philip1978 and other MIND_REBEL supporters.

Thanks to all who backed me on this issue, let's hope that reinstatement to full "commentary status" will swiftly follow for MIND_REBEL! Now I'll shut-up lest I suffer the same fate for being off-topic!!

Other Comments by Yorker

46. Comment #52609 by swamijie on June 27, 2007 at 1:38 pm

Philosophers are at an extreme disadvantage when called to counter the beliefs of the scientific. Us philosophers know how to conjure an argument, question the nature of empirical observation, attack assumptions made by empiricists and undermine their conclusions. We know how to use the philosophical method. This endeavor of philosophy is far too complicated for the scientist. They either do not understand its parts and purposes or they are too lazy to find the truth. Until we improve our educational system, and teach these goons how to question, we'll be carrying their water and fixing their problems.

Science is such a damn hassle.
Isnt it just easier to NOT 'know', but to question?

I've got to say, if this is what you believe, then you have absolutely no understanding of what science is. The very top academic degree that scientists strive for, the Ph. D. or Doctorate in Philosophy, is, as the name suggests, an academic degree suggesting top level mastery in philosophy. Scientists use the very same techniques in logic and criticism in investigation that any other "non-empirical" philosopher would use, attempting to (if not always successful in) using logical proofs and avoiding logical fallacies in their investigations. In fact, the earliest scientists were philosophers (or vice versa, depending on how you want to view it), from Aristotle to Bacon, Descartes, Leibniz, etc. A scientist's report of an investigation must be based on conclusions drawn on formal logic (i.e. must have consistency, soundness and completeness). Conclusions can be drawn from deductive or inductive reasoning or both. True statements are drawn from empirical observations or data, or theories based on conclusions about hypotheses drawn from previously analyzed data. Theories provide descriptions or predictions of phenomena, hypotheses are testable statements or predictions and every scientist worth his or her salt knows theories and hypotheses are never proven but supported or falsified by the data. Therefore, your last statement, implying that scientists believe they know and don't question is an invalid implication.

By the way, I don't know if all of you "philosophers" do it the same way, but scientists don't "conjure" an argument only to "attack" an assumption and "undermine" conclusions (which is suggestive of an argument formulated to prove an a priori assumption), they formulate an argument in order to examine the reliability of an observation and the validity of data, then, based on the conclusions drawn from the argument and formal statistical analyses will either conclude that the hypothesis is either supported or rejected

Science IS a hassle precisely because scientists don't know and must question

Other Comments by swamijie

47. Comment #52612 by NormanDoering on June 27, 2007 at 1:54 pm

Tumara Baap wrote:

A refrain from The Times to The New Yorker has been that [skeptics] fail to mention any good that ever flowed from [witchcraft]. It is an odd point to take given the burden of proof expected by any reasonable person. Given how entwined [witchcraft] has been with culture and the passage of history, according goodness to [witchcraft] is as forceful as linking goodness to language: not undeniable but risibly weak. For a purportedly frighteningly powerful force that pretends to aspire to at least some good, it should have consistently ranked at the apex of benevolence. Yet [witchcraft's] track record has been wantonly shameful. What should be of interest to us is whether [witchcraft] affords an exclusive province to serving a thinking society with both honesty and sublime guidance, beyond what it plausibly may have in asserting marginal social order over a medieval people.

What you seem to be talking about is "social capital." That is one thing Christians will claim to have provided with their supposed "honesty and sublime guidance." We don't really get the witch's viewpoint because the church controlled the reports. Witchcraft for those who thought of themselves as witches, was what was left of the older pagan religions which certainly did provide ancient communities with social capital. By the time of their burning and hanging they had become socially disengaged loners.

In some ways they suffered the fate of anyone outside the community's belief standards -- just like atheists today:
http://normdoering.blogspot.com/2007/06/numbers-ive-got-good-news-and-bad.html

Other Comments by NormanDoering

48. Comment #52629 by PaulEmecz on June 27, 2007 at 2:50 pm

swamijie,

I refer you to my later comment, 39, where I said:

I would not have made this point myself. The reason is that, although there are clearly a very large number of ignorant people who misuse scientific language, speaking of 'scientific fact' without any understanding of what this really means, it isn't necessarily so. Good scientists, like good theologians, are aware of the nature of their assumptions and the limitations of their field of inquiry.

I wasn't making a point about scientists. I was making a point about how people of faith are referred to in this and other discussions. Please re-read 39.

Other Comments by PaulEmecz

49. Comment #52643 by Corylus on June 27, 2007 at 3:38 pm

Warning: long boring philosophy post. Anyone not into such things: feel free to skip.

PaulEmecz

Thank you for clarifying: your statement makes so much more sense as a response rather than a statement.

Thank you also for providing a 'first' – I have never before seen anyone; when being accused of trolling; actually admit it! I have to say that I find your honestly on this matter hugely refreshing :) As to whether it is ever right to "troll". I would say that you might get away with it on occasion as long as you are polite. (There is a spectacularly rude troll leaping about on other threads at the moment that has got even me cross: and I don't rile easy). In general though I think the GIGO principle will apply… garbage in, garbage out…

Anyway, to work. Re the question of philosophy and science and rationality in general. You seem to have got the idea that I am a scientist. Nope! For the record my background is psychology (undergrad) and philosophy (postgrad). N.B. the debate about whether psychology is a science or not I will save for another day.

You said

I hope you did feel insulted… being told you were not questioning, thinking, reasoning beings. That is exactly how it feels as a person of faith to be told that I just don't understand, that I am too lazy etc.

Well, I never make that sort of statement about people of faith. I am perfectly happy to admit that they can be completely rational in many areas of their lives. That is not the issue. The issue is whether or not faith itself is rational. I would say no, and no again! I would then point to people of faith who are honest enough to admit this. Kierkegaard did not talk about 'fear and trembling' for nothing. Faith is non-rational – that is entirely the point! Faith is about when discussing evidence is not enough – it is about working on trust. It is about 'giving over' to God. Please don't make the mistake of thinking that atheists don't understand faith. I for one do: and that is one of my motivations for not "doing" God.

I think also that one of the reasons people on here get wound up about point this is because some of the propaganda that is coming out of the US at the moment. There is a buzz phrase currently making the rounds known as 'reasonable faith'. It is being used by the evangelicals, in a fit of (I darkly suspect Orwellian inspired) dishonesty they are attempting to give arguments credence by calling things the opposite to what they actually are.

For example, "Liberty University" (a place when young students are brainwashed into naïve creationism). "Intelligent Design" (I don't understand how everything is so darn complicated: I guess a magic man did it). And now, "reasonable faith". I actually think such a term demeans faith and makes it sound way easier than it is or ever should be.

(BTW. If you decide to stick about on this site - There is a poster on here called "Bizarro Dawkins". He is a very bright young man at the aforementioned Liberty University. He thinks that the universe is 6000 years old and this is a 'reasonable' statement. He has been completely brainwashed and his mind is being stunted – in a manner that even a heathen like me wants to call "sinful". I truly fear for the state of his mental health when he realises the extent to which he has been lied to. If there is one thing that I wish one of our believing posters would do it is to engage with him, find common ground and get through to him. If he crops up when you are about, please give this some thought.)

Now, re your statement…

So, I asked him to consider how it would be if this sort of approach were used against scientists. The criticism would be that scientists are unaware of the assumptions implicit in science, and unable to question these; that scientists deal with what we see, without realising that a great deal of processing of sense data has already happened by the time it reaches our consciousness etc.

Yes, I actually do understand where you are coming from on this. Epistemology is a hugely interesting and very complicated subject. Unfortunately, you will find that your non-contentious point above has also been shameless hijacked and twisted by third-rate thinkers that give even thinking a bad name. Listen to this.

http://richarddawkins.net/article,684,Lewis-Wolpert-and-William-Lane-Craig-on-Religion,Today-Programme-BBC-Radio-4

This is a debate between a scientist (Lewis Wolpert: an individual prone to making sweeping and insulting generalisations about philosophers: and yes I can understand why such statements irritate you). Unfortunately, his opponent is a brain dead cretin who appears to believe that 'brain in a vat' thought experiments among to "proof" of faith.

I can understand how people of faith can look at look at people (for example those people in the "musical" video on here) and say "That is not a Christian: that is an idiot!" However, I do hope you can, in turn, understand how I a philosophically inclined individual like me can look at a Christian philosopher and say "That is not a philosopher: that's an idiot!" Especially when they attempt to peddle the lie that faith is "reasonable".

Anyway, it is late and I have twittered on for long enough. Again, thanks for clarifying.

Other Comments by Corylus

50. Comment #52652 by PaulEmecz on June 27, 2007 at 4:18 pm

Corylus,

An interesting response - thank you. It is so nice to hear someone thinking (I didn't even have to listen too closely!). People around here seem to spend such a lot of time merely repeating things unthinkingly that it is refreshing to sense real thought.

Might it not be rational to behave non-rationally?

I mean, if you push a scientist, s/he might admit that we cannot know anything about what happened before the big bang, and therefore know nothing about why the universe is here, what caused it etc. Given this vacuum, doesn't it make sense to speculate about what might have caused it?

I am a teacher. Imagine that something appeared on my desk (I have no energy to make this an appropriate analogy, so please bear with me), and for some reason I have no way of finding out how it got there. Did a student create it and leave it there, or did it appear in a different way that I can't even guess at?

If I assume that it was a student, careful examination of it might tell me quite a lot about the student. Given that the choice is 'Someone designed it' or '?', why is it irrational to choose the non-rational assumption that someone made it?

Just to clarify, I do understand how evolution works, but I am talking about the existence of this universe with its specific structure etc. I do know how we got here, but I'm talking about how the universe got here in the first place.

Another question - you are a philosopher, so are intellectually free to choose either option. There are two options - God, Not God. The God package has some undesirable content, but the Not God package lacks morality, any purpose or point to life, etc. In fact, the Not God package requires far more intellectual weakness, because you have to pretend that Hitler was wrong to kill millions of Jews, homosexuals, gypsies etc. With the God package, you are surrounded by people saying (and singing) stupid things, but why is it the less reasonable option?

Do you not think that many people choose 'Not God' without committing themselves to the philosophical implications of their choice?

Sleep well.

Other Comments by PaulEmecz

Reload Comments | Back to Top

More Comments: 1 2 | Next | Last