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

Response to My Fellow 'Atheists'

by Sam Harris

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So pick your strategy.

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

Comments 51 - 100 of 109 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

51. Comment #77183 by Tumara Baap on October 8, 2007 at 5:22 pm

Firstly, we already have a plethora of labels out there with overlapping meanings: secularists, skeptics, rationalists, humanists etc. If atheism doesn't fit the bill, for either tactical or political reasons, or simply for what its meaning entails, there are other choices. I think it quite a waste of our time to be trying to soften the impact of labels, in the vein of creationists reinventing themselves as Intelligent Design proponents, or even worse to do away with a label around which people can energize and organize. Labels may eventually become diluted and moot, but they serve a purpose in language in identifying a distinct set of ideas and people. Try to smother a label, and another will effortlessly prop up to take its place.

Secondly, some people don't like to be perceived as a cult. Well what exactly is a cult that we should be so wary of? In an acadmeic sense, it is simply a small nascent group. That it is distrusted by others is not necessarily because the small group is deserving of contempt. Indeed, "cult" in common parlance does imply a group with something sinister about it. If Atheists are perceived as a cult, it is myopic to run around in circles by circulating new labels, such as Brights, coming up with silly ceasefires such as NOMA, or pretending science and religion can co-exist. I'd rather choose to fight and tell them as it is: Atheism embodies reason, science and enlightenment and serves truth with the highest distinction.

Other Comments by Tumara Baap

52. Comment #77184 by Conrad on October 8, 2007 at 5:28 pm

Sadly, after having read Ellen Johnson's piece I can see why he's upset. That was a bit crap, and I'm unlikely to join an organization run by her. I also wasn't impresed when I saw her on Paula Zaun NOW. But again, I don't see anything more than a bit of snark in PZ's when he pokes fun at Sam's role as an aggitator.

Other Comments by Conrad

53. Comment #77186 by NormanDoering on October 8, 2007 at 5:34 pm

sbe wrote:

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

I don't think that makes as much sense as you seem to think it does.

If atheism is a choice, then there should be some alternative choice - or there is no choice. So you should be able to chose to be a theist.

But can you really choose your beliefs? Could you chose to believe in Zeus? In unicorns? Beliefs are supposed to come from our best efforts to determine how the world really works. Beliefs are not supposed to be choices.

Rational people are supposed to come to the same rational conclusion -- but we don't. The only real conclusion is this: "I don't know if there is a God." I don't even know what someone else means by the word "God." But I sure ain't taking that kind of crap on anyone's human authority.

If God wants me to know -- he'll tell me. He hasn't, so the rest of the religious world can shut its trap.

The point of Sam's last essays is not to get rid of the labels, but rather to stop leaning on them like a crutch -- like they were part of any argument. Atheism is the conclusion, it can't be a step in the arguments. No one will consider you open minded if you don't admit you don't know.

Not knowing, however, doesn't mean swallowing all the bullshit religious people throw at you. You don't have to see yourself as an atheist to start rejecting the bullshit. That's where a lot of people are, they're "not knowing" and trying to reason it through.

Other Comments by NormanDoering

54. Comment #77188 by rotaTOR on October 8, 2007 at 5:40 pm

Sam is mostly correct I believe. To me,its pointless to label yourself when it comes to metaphysics. The culture will mature,and like RD has written,the zeitgeist will change. Science and the scientific method are juggernauts. They cannot be stopped.

Other Comments by rotaTOR

55. Comment #77191 by LordZontar on October 8, 2007 at 5:57 pm

I'm sorry, but I must once again state that to relabel yourself as a "Bright" would be about the worst possible tactic imaginable.

Don't believe me? Try debating a real fundamentalist and one who's well used to rhetorical combat and striking at any perceived weakness in an opponnent's argument by any means, whether it be dishonest or not:

"You're an atheist but you call yourself a 'Bright'. Is that meant to say you're superior to the rest of us poor, dumb, God-fearing mortals or do you have something to hide? Why are you ashamed to own up to being an atheist? HMMMM?!"

That is exactly the sort of attack which is in for "Brights". You won't even get the chance to get a word in edgewise before they've demolished your argument by pure hysterical rhetoric and appeals to emotion. The moment they get to suggest you're being dishonest and have to spend most of your time defending your veracity, you've already lost any given debate. Nobody will listen to a word you have to say after that point, either by boredom or loss of credibility or in some forums when the time for argument has expired.

Other Comments by LordZontar

56. Comment #77192 by Jack Rawlinson on October 8, 2007 at 6:02 pm

Frankly, this is a pathetic "defence" of an untenable position. Harris's "Bush press conference" example is pure fallacious hokum. No sane, intelligent atheist would take the absurd line Harris portrays in his second example. Being unafraid of the term "atheist" does not mean we start salting every argument we make with phrases like "As an atheist I believe", neither do we necessarily couch our arguments in terms of what is and isn't good for "millions of atheists in this country." This is pure straw man building by Harris.

It is extremely disappointing to see Harris reduced to the sort of desperate fallaciousness we are more accustomed to dealing with in our arguments with theists in order to defend his regrettable AAI speech. Sam, you screwed up. Please don't embarrass yourself any further. Because you're one of the good guys and we could use you wholeheartedly on our side instead of indulging in these unhelpful and ill-considered headwanks.

Other Comments by Jack Rawlinson

57. Comment #77193 by PaulEmecz on October 8, 2007 at 6:04 pm

I am amazed at the reaction to Sam's comments. I think his response is completely un-necessary, as he spoke very clearly in the first place. If anything, the responses he has received underline many of the points he was making.

I would go further. I think there is an inherent danger in deliberately trying to form a 'movement'. What Sam stands up for is rationality. Let's use reason, then. Let's not try and form such a large group that we start believing and accepting things without question.

I read Sam's comments carefully, then I read the responses on the previous thread. People had misread and misunderstood much of what Sam had said. I have been reading a lot of the articles and comments on this site for a while, and notice that a number of people seem happier repeating the same tired comments again and again, and seem genuinely uncomfortable when being asked to think. You can't stand up for human reason by any method that by-passes rational thought.

I also think that his comments about meditation were perfectly placed. They required people who had got into the habit of dismissing 'religion' to stop and think about one particular issue, rather than arguing unthinkingly against people who had a much better idea of what they were talking about.

Most critics of Sam Harris that I have read have displayed a disappointing lack of reason.

Other Comments by PaulEmecz

58. Comment #77194 by Janus on October 8, 2007 at 6:05 pm

PZ has replied:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/10/sam_harris_seems_like_a_nice_f.php#more

Other Comments by Janus

59. Comment #77196 by Conrad on October 8, 2007 at 6:07 pm

Norman, I would be much more inclined to agree with Sam if it did indeed seem to be that he was only advocating the integration of a new focus, such as reason and evidence, when we speak. (Even though that would seem to change next to nothing in how most of us talk) But when he literally says that we shouldn't call ourselves anything, he doesn't seem to simply be against using the label as a crutch, he seems to against the label altogether. And that is where the contention is and where I'm sure he knew it would be. In opposition to his ideal, well meaning as it may be, I contend that not only is the label not a crutch, but a boon, and is just now at the very begining of gathering steam. This of course, is in regards to the social climate in the US. In England, Sam's views may be more than correct. (I have no idea where you're from by the way)

Other than that little contention, I agree with everything else Sam advocates.

Other Comments by Conrad

60. Comment #77197 by Janus on October 8, 2007 at 6:09 pm

I am amazed at the reaction to Sam's comments. I think his response is completely un-necessary, as he spoke very clearly in the first place. If anything, the responses he has received underline many of the points he was making.

I would go further. I think there is an inherent danger in deliberately trying to form a 'movement'. What Sam stands up for is rationality. Let's use reason, then. Let's not try and form such a large group that we start believing and accepting things without question.

Just as you are accepting without question the assertion that forming a movement necessarily leads to dogmatism and irrationality?

Other Comments by Janus

61. Comment #77198 by Jack Rawlinson on October 8, 2007 at 6:16 pm

PaulEmecz: we had several decades of atheists taking exactly the position you, and Sam, seem to think so highly of. If the typical religious believer was as coolly rational as you and Sam, you'd have a point. But they're not. They're irrational and needy, and they have an agenda to push. And what happened over the last few decades, as we coolly rational atheists sat on our hands and oh-so-casually had the arguments as and when they arose, being careful not to tread on toes or do anything as vulgar, darling, as forming a group?

That's right. Religion made a comeback in the west. ID got itself into schools. The number of "faith schools" in Britain soared, and continues to soar. Stem cell research is vetoed on purely religious grounds. American women's abortion rights hang by a thread - the life of an 87-year old Supreme Court judge. 42% of Americans believe in the literal truth of Genesis. And so on: you know the stats.

Wake up. This is a culture war. This is no longer merely personal: it is political too. Harris, and you, are depressingly out of touch with the reality of the current religious threat. No matter how much it goes against our grain as intelligent, independent thinkers, we need to GET ORGANISED. Because we've seen what happens when we blithely assume that isn't necessary. Do it for your children, if not for yourself.

Other Comments by Jack Rawlinson

62. Comment #77199 by Janus on October 8, 2007 at 6:18 pm

Well said, Jack.

Other Comments by Janus

63. Comment #77200 by Conrad on October 8, 2007 at 6:22 pm

Janus you hit the nail on the head. In attempting to start a movement that holds highly rationality and evidence, it would seem odd to simply assume that any such a attempt would lead to irrationality and dogmatism.

Moreover, this is not a movement that every atheist must join. We have no scriptures dictating that all must attend an atheist group or convention. As atheists all we agree on is that we don't believe in gods. Otherwise we can be, objectivists, communists, left leaning libertarians, nihilists, you name it. So, If you find people that share your views, maybe you'd want to group up.

If not, don't. But the idea of a group is not a priori bad.

Other Comments by Conrad

64. Comment #77202 by Jack Rawlinson on October 8, 2007 at 6:25 pm

By the way, PZ's reply (linked by Janus, above) is great, as always.

I'm embarrassed for Harris, I truly am.

Other Comments by Jack Rawlinson

65. Comment #77207 by Russell Blackford on October 8, 2007 at 7:17 pm

PZ quite correctly makes the point that these words - "painfully obvious that it was the product of religious metaphysics and superstition" - are still going to offend people. There's no non-offensive way to ask the question. But a better way to ask it would be to say:

Mr. President, I'm Sam Schmarris from Snarky Rationalist Magazine. Sir, what rational basis is there to worry about the fate of three-day-old human embryos? These embryos do not have nerve cells, much less the nervous systems they would need to suffer their destruction on any level. Your veto, frankly, seems insane to any educated person, and it is painfully obvious that it was the product of religious teaching - not science or anything that is acceptable as a public morality within a modern, pluralist society. Do you ever worry that you may be dangerously misled by your religious beliefs? What can you say to the tens of millions of Americans whose suffering will be needlessly prolonged by your faith-based thinking?

Even this will cause offence, but there's no need to go out of your way to do so by referring to superstition. The real question is what kind of morality is acceptable as a public morality in a modern, pluralist society (outside of America, I'd say "a liberal society" or "a democratic liberal society").

On the other hand, it's true - as has been said above - that it's quite correct to associate yourself with Snarky Rationalist Magazine or Humanist Unity or People Against Theocracy or The Alliance of Uplifted Atheist Sea Otters, or whatever it might be. There's no reason to hide allegiances and we do need labels.

So, I think Sam's ideas need a little fine-tuning.

Other Comments by Russell Blackford

66. Comment #77209 by philos on October 8, 2007 at 7:19 pm

Mr. Harris has a strong point. Reason and critical thought are good & well enough & will stand a much better chance than affronting oneself as an (angry) atheist - they'll shut their minds the moment you open your mouth, otherwise.

A few years ago Dawkins hardly ever mentioned god or atheism and made it clear - he wouldn't debate creationists as it would be similar to (we've all heard this from him before, many times, yawn) a Reproductive Specialist debating someone defending the Stork Theory of Reproduction. Now since it's a hot market & he's making millions - he's forgotten his own convictions.

Additionally, I think we all agree debate is good & absolutely necessary but there needs to be civilized debate - as you would see in Dawkins' favourite examples rolled out in front of us as to two people debating Keynesian economics, global warming or politics, etc. However, religion is NOT treated the same as Dawkins' Keynesian economics or politics; how often do you see educated, scholarly opinions calling the opposing side, 'ignorant fools'. They'd state their opinion, based on evidence, and that would be that. Much more respectful, don't you think?
The religious will notice this with instant defences ready. Get into their minds, slowly, by reason and evidence and you can't lose.

Professor Dawkins, I am a long time fan & agree with what you say but please tighten up your language and distance yourself a bit from the teuthologist, PZ Myers, is a bit more rough than I'd like.

Gentlemenly discourse, please.

Other Comments by philos

67. Comment #77210 by Russell Blackford on October 8, 2007 at 7:23 pm

Philos, I don't think it helps to attribute venal motives.

Other Comments by Russell Blackford

68. Comment #77211 by philos on October 8, 2007 at 7:28 pm

Just trying to keep the prof straight.

Other Comments by philos

69. Comment #77216 by Conrad on October 8, 2007 at 7:33 pm

philos, you wouldn't happen to be the horribly vile, banned, poster on PZ's site are you?

If not, then I'll add that you're dangerously close to concern trolling.

Other Comments by Conrad

70. Comment #77217 by Jack Rawlinson on October 8, 2007 at 7:35 pm

philos: you want to actually criticise some of PZ's points, rather than just insulting him? Or would that not meet your idea of "gentlemanly discourse"?

If you're going to troll, smarten your bloody ideas up a bit, eh?

Other Comments by Jack Rawlinson

71. Comment #77218 by Jack Rawlinson on October 8, 2007 at 7:38 pm

Hmm. I just noticed the quotes around 'atheists' in the title of this piece.

Damn, it really looks like Harris is ashamed of the word, doesn't it?

Other Comments by Jack Rawlinson

72. Comment #77220 by CruciFiction on October 8, 2007 at 7:40 pm

SAM!!! Are you losing your mind?

Other Comments by CruciFiction

73. Comment #77224 by philos on October 8, 2007 at 7:50 pm

And, I'm not even religious and I do have to admit - most religions are good for societies - it's just the extremists that give it a bad name. Whether it's the local religious schools giving some sort of 'life lessons' of behaviour modification into young adulthood (public schools all but ignore these lessons), giving to the needy, helping the elderly, mission trips, money sent abroad or your neighbourhood soup kitchen, most religious people you and I know are truly nice. Don't you agree?

Note this has nothing to do if whether it is true or not.

If America were a truly rich, educated country, atheism may get some leeway as in Scandinavia, but face it, America is wholly uneducated in science and reasoning and the more educated you are the less religious you usually are. Similarly, the less educated you are in science and reasoning, the more religious you are likely to be. Unfortunately, that is alot of America. Take religion away from this majority and no one gives a crap anymore with no surveillance camera in the sky. Religion, although non-sensical, helps bond people together in many good, and some bad, ways.

Unfortunately, independent minded atheists don't band together and would find it difficult to mirror these truly necessary societal organizations for the needy.

As Steven Weinberg forgot to say, "And for bad people to do good things, that takes religion"

I suppose a lesson book of moral philosophy could bootstrap a bad person to do good things, but not likely - a few out of 100, maybe. You'll need power in numbers and brotherhood and societal 'belonging' to get the young on the right track of morality. Again, it will be hard for atheists to get organized and get people to listen, especially when evolution is so conceptually hard for the common man to understand.

Other Comments by philos

74. Comment #77227 by NormanDoering on October 8, 2007 at 7:56 pm

Conrad wrote:

...But when he [Sam] literally says that we shouldn't call ourselves anything, he doesn't seem to simply be against using the label as a crutch, he seems to against the label altogether. And that is where the contention is and where I'm sure he knew it would be. In opposition to his ideal, well meaning as it may be, I contend that not only is the label not a crutch, but a boon, and is just now at the very beginning of gathering steam. This of course, is in regards to the social climate in the US.

I hope you're right. I hope it picks up steam. However, I don't share your confidence. One of the things that happened in the polling done after all the atheists books came out was that more people decided they wouldn't vote for an atheist president.

I only hope they'll stop voting for fundy presidents.

The label is only as good as the hearer's comprehension of its meaning and most people, especially theists, don't comprehend it. They don't know how the brain "believes" anything:

http://normdoering.blogspot.com/2007/09/how-religious-mindfuck-really-works.html

On the other hand it is a "flag" we're all gathering under and there is no other good alternative. So, you've got a good point and you might be right.

Other Comments by NormanDoering

75. Comment #77228 by VivaCriticalThinking on October 8, 2007 at 7:56 pm

I think it is a mistake to put too much emphasis on a specific leader or spokesperson for any cause, including this one. Unlike religions, rationality is advanced by good ideas, rather than appeal to authority.

Sam Harris, for all his brilliance, has previously shown a flaky side. For example, most of the chapters of "End of Faith" are as good as it gets. But then there are some, completely un-necessary and off-topic, discussions on torture and mysticism that distracted from the main points of the book. In debates, Sam often has to pay the price for these views, at the expense of the main points he wants to argue.

In his latest speech and the response, he made many good points, but also created a lot of confusion and got distracted on meditation, which has nothing to do with the topic. Having said that, I think we should forgive Sam for being imperfect, like the rest of us.

Other Comments by VivaCriticalThinking

76. Comment #77229 by Dr Benway on October 8, 2007 at 7:58 pm

PaulEmecz:

I think there is an inherent danger in deliberately trying to form a 'movement'. What Sam stands up for is rationality. Let's use reason, then. Let's not try and form such a large group that we start believing and accepting things without question.

On our team now? Or just trying your hand at concern trolling.

Other Comments by Dr Benway

77. Comment #77230 by pzmyers on October 8, 2007 at 8:03 pm

I have no idea who Philos is, and no one of that name is banned at my site. This, though...

Professor Dawkins, I am a long time fan & agree with what you say but please tighten up your language and distance yourself from the wanna-be-atheism-frontispiece of a trainwreck, PZ Myers.

Gentlemenly discourse, please.

...is high comedy. Do you think he was trying for the effect, or was entirely oblivious?

Other Comments by pzmyers

78. Comment #77231 by Conrad on October 8, 2007 at 8:06 pm

Yeah, Norman, your point is the tipping point. Either we'll make the term better, or it'll continue to get worse on it's own with the upsurge of fundamentalism. At least that's how I view it. And I guess it would be hard to make the term any worse huh?

Other Comments by Conrad

79. Comment #77237 by philos on October 8, 2007 at 8:18 pm

PZ - sorry -I changed my wording - just got a bit worked up.

I stand corrected.

Other Comments by philos

80. Comment #77238 by Dr Benway on October 8, 2007 at 8:20 pm

My problem with the word "atheist" is the popular view that an atheist is certain there is no God. The agnostics get all the uncertainty. Entirely unfair, but there you have it.

I see an advantage in calling ourselves, "atheists and agnostics." Two words are not as neat as one. But on the plus, we snag some of that sweet, sweet uncertainty. Four out of five metaphysicians surveyed recommend it.

Other Comments by Dr Benway

81. Comment #77241 by scatheist on October 8, 2007 at 8:26 pm

SH "My point, with respect to the term "atheist" (or any other), is that the use of a label invites a variety of misunderstandings that are harmful to our cause."

I could not find this sentence in the transcript of the speech. Is the transcript faulty? Of course it is not. Although I accept that this might summarize the intended message of the speech, the actual content did not convey the message that our *emphasis* should be on facts and rationality.

SH "In fact, much of the criticism I have received of my speech is so utterly lacking in content that I can only interpret it as a product of offended atheist piety."

Offended atheist piety? Freethinkers, humanists, etcetera could also be offended, though they are often the same people who self-identify as atheists. Much of the protest that I have read concerned the fact that atheism has become the rallying label for individuals who share dismay at religious violence to persons and to reason.

I think that the germane point concerns the actual content of the speech, which followed anti-religion exhortations with a suggestion of going under the radar as 'atheists' to avoid being "viewed as a cranky sub-culture", as though this would fool theists. Even if were all to do as Sam suggested and cease to label our position, religionists would continue to label us as though atheist, liberal, or environmentalist (to name a few) are dirty words.

Other Comments by scatheist

82. Comment #77246 by Russell Blackford on October 8, 2007 at 8:41 pm

The long post over on my blog was written before this latest from Sam Harris, or at least before I saw it. But it all ties in to these discussions about goals and tactics, and I think that we have to have them.

PZ has made a good comment over there, about how in an ideal world we'd have a freethought coalition that includes agnostics, pantheists, deists, etc., but some of those other factions get upset with uppity atheists. I'd go even wider than PZ and have an anti-theocratic coalition that includes some genuinely moderate religionists. But what I'm not prepared to do is frame my views in a way that hides them. I have no belief in any deity, which makes me an atheist by the most popular definition around here. Indeed, I give a probability approaching zero to the existence of any deity proposed so far, ot that I can imagine, including the anodyne deist deity. I'm not going to hide that, and acceptance of this is important if anyone wants to join a coalition with me.

However, it's true that I have more in common with some nice, reasonable theists than with some kinds of atheists.

Other Comments by Russell Blackford

83. Comment #77256 by bladeScythe on October 8, 2007 at 9:59 pm

I may be a bit late on the boat, but it would like to point out that genes are not the only thing you don't have control over. SBE claims that atheism is a choice where as having high melanin content in your skin or orange pigment is not. I would also argue that contract skin cancer, or the flu are also not your choice. These things can be influenced but the choices you make, but simply by insuring your own survival you may as a result develop these conditions. I argue that in the same way just by being exposed to information in your environment it can become clear that a rational discourse is the best for ascertaining understanding, leading you to being an atheist.

As this appear to be the case atheism can be a result of environmental exposure (as opposed to genetic) and as such is not necessarily a choice, but just a result of adopting a rational world view.

Other Comments by bladeScythe

84. Comment #77257 by Nazgul on October 8, 2007 at 10:03 pm

The way I look at it is like this: The hyphen or space was taken out of the word Athiest, I don't know when, but as far as the english language is concerned, it does not mean A - Thiest... without-God any longer. It has a new meaning now: rational thought. Not unlike the scarlet "A" means from this web site. If everyone could agree on one label, I think it would have more power. All this "Secular", "Humanist", "Agnostic" etc, is confusing. Yes, the unlearned person thinks Athiests believe in nothing, but as time passes, and more are educated, that will change. I understand Sam's argument, but an all-encompassing label, I think, is a positive one.

Other Comments by Nazgul

85. Comment #77259 by mmurray on October 8, 2007 at 10:22 pm

In his latest speech and the response, he made many good points, but also created a lot of confusion and got distracted on meditation, which has nothing to do with the topic. Having said that, I think we should forgive Sam for being imperfect, like the rest of us.

Actually it had lots to do with the topic. His point was that a lot of people who turn to religion could have their `spiritual' needs met by meditation. By rejecting their needs as not appropriate in some atheist materialist utopia we lose a lot of potential supporters just as (he seems to feel) we lose supporters by calling ourselves atheists.

Michael

Other Comments by mmurray

86. Comment #77260 by Conrad on October 8, 2007 at 10:23 pm

Actually, PZ, on your Killfile Dungeon a chracter named "philos" is at the very bottom listed as "Being a demented fuckwit and world-class asshole." It has a link to the post about the bridge wreck in Minn.

So I just had to check.

Other Comments by Conrad

87. Comment #77264 by pzmyers on October 8, 2007 at 11:03 pm

You are quite right -- I toss them in the dungeon and forget about them.

If this is the same Philos -- and just using the same pseudonym is not enough to condemn him -- he was pretty vile. This was a guy who rushed to my site after the 35W bridge disaster urging atheists to rush to the site and tell the survivors and those who had lost loved ones that there is no god, more or less dancing on the corpses to mock those who didn't believe in his god.

If this were the same Philos, he's trolling this site hard.

Other Comments by pzmyers

88. Comment #77267 by Prieten on October 8, 2007 at 11:17 pm

"We should go under the radar for the rest of our lives."

That is the most cowardly thing I have heard in a long time. I guess even Sam Harris isn't perfect.

I don't think Atheists ever preface their spoken opinions with, "I'm an atheist!" but just about every atheist has had this screamed into his face, "Oh, you're an atheist!" in an ad hominem avoidance of the argument.

I have never heard Atheists suggest that religious meddling is an affront ONLY to Atheists. If something was annoying to ONLY such a small minority of the world, I don't think anyone would care. Religious meddling is almost always an affront to all OTHER religions, reason, women, the constitution, etc. This also covers Sam Harris's last underlined passage.

Sam Harris should really apologize to the Atheist Alliance. I think PZ Myers's analogy of the Abolitionists hits the nail on the head. Sam Harris goes to a convention of the Abolitionists and says, "You know, that word Abolitionist really is a red flag to the slavery crowd. We should drop it, go underneath the radar, and stay there for the rest of our lives..."

Other Comments by Prieten

89. Comment #77268 by Conrad on October 8, 2007 at 11:18 pm

True, after, reading philos' other posts (this philos) I doubt that he could be the same guy. But boy, if he WERE, I'd be a damn sight impressed!

Other Comments by Conrad

90. Comment #77271 by roach on October 8, 2007 at 11:40 pm

This all strikes me as almost a complete waste of time. I'll go along with Harris because I think he is funnier.

Other Comments by roach

91. Comment #77276 by Bonzai on October 8, 2007 at 11:58 pm

I think they are the same Philos.

It sounds familiar. His recurring theme (actually only theme) is that even though he doesn't need religion, religion is necessary for the "uneducated masses" to be good (see his post #75). He makes the repeated claim on many threads that there is no atheist charitable organization and that atheists are not donating or volunteering as much etc.

His posts are always written in a smug, mocking tone which I find highly offensive. His whole idea seems to be that atheism may be "right" but it is almost synonymous to nihilism for the "uneducated masses". It is completely conceivable that he would rush to a disastrous scene to mock atheists.

Other Comments by Bonzai

92. Comment #77282 by icanus on October 9, 2007 at 12:16 am

I think the "Choice" comes a step earlier in the process:

I chose which evidence I would assess (and was fortunate enough not to have the available selection of evidence too severely pre-selected for me by family/community), and used my judgment on how much weight I assigned to each piece of evidence.

Beyond this, however, I don't think there was a choice - the evidence pointed me toward atheism, so that's where I ended up. This is not necessarily the conclusion I would choose - there are certain implications of the atheistic viewpoint (particularly the "no afterlife" bit - that gave me many sleepless nights in my mid-teens) that I don't actually like, but I still think they're true, based on the available evidence.

To make an analogy, if I could choose to do so, I'd like to believe I am a musical genius. Ten minutes of failing to force an "F" out of my guitar makes this choice non-viable.

Other Comments by icanus

93. Comment #77298 by hungarianelephant on October 9, 2007 at 1:22 am

philos - 'life lessons' of behaviour modification into young adulthood (public schools all but ignore these lessons), giving to the needy, helping the elderly, mission trips, money sent abroad or your neighbourhood soup kitchen

... sexual abuse of kids by priests, an unquestioning congregation that puts them there, Magdalene laundries, beatings from the Christian Brothers, social death of anyone who leaves an abusive marriage, no contraception, no abortion for rape victims, preaching the virtues of poverty ...

Whether most religious people are "truly nice" or not has nothing to do with the damage religion can wreak when it's allowed free rein. Don't you agree?

Other Comments by hungarianelephant

94. Comment #77366 by Logicel on October 9, 2007 at 6:17 am

My recollection of philos' genre of posting here is the same as Bonzai's. In addition, I remember philos droning on about how he/she could not imagine not living next to religious folks. My diagnosis? philos is creepier than even religious moderates (sorry, Russell B, I have never yet met a moderate with whom I could work, perhaps in the future I will) for philos may not be addicted to religion (if his/her word can be taken to count) but is addicted to religious folks--he/she just ain't comfortable without have deluded, intellectually dishonest sheep about.

As for Sam Harris' point of contention: he may be taking himself or his grand plan of secularism too seriously. As it has been pointed out many times during discussions here, there are many ways to skin a cat, and honestly, Sam H's approach is beginning to sound pretty rigid to me. And his reference to atheists being a cult, I thought, was a lame attempt at humor. I could be wrong.

Other Comments by Logicel

95. Comment #77381 by wednesdayguevara on October 9, 2007 at 7:10 am

ARRRRRRRRRRGH!!!!!

This is, seriously, the dumbest, most petty disagreement in the recent history of dumb, petty disagreements. What a waste of time and intellect.

Sam, baby, love, sweetie, darling. You pup-eyed silver-tongued smarty-pants juggernaut. What the hell are you trying to accomplish with this? Is this your way of announcing that you are going 'under the radar'? Does this mean you're off the public speaking teat and on to studying brains for the rest of your life? It's my greatest dream to see what you can discover about the human brain when you're not preoccupied with combatting irrationality on the public stage.

(OK, that's kind of a lie. My greatest dream is to wake up one morning thirty pounds lighter, ten or fifteen IQ points smarter, a few million dollars richer, and to suddenly bear a striking resemblence to Grace Kelly. But when I think about the world in which this dream takes place, it's one where you're studying brains instead of explaining to the next two-bit Aquinas how [again] Hitler was totally woo and how [yet again] Stalin thought he was God.)

There I go again rambling on. Sorry. Look, the point is well taken (I think). Labels are ridiculous. And I feel a little icky about having to group up, too, for whatever weird and admittedly unexplored reason. But we need to think about what is going on politically in the United States and elsewhere, and bite the bullet and deal with it together. This doesn't mean we all need to march in lockstep. It just means we need to avoid these ultimately pointless disagreements over semantics and strategy as much as we possibly can.

In short: Now is not the fucking time.

Other Comments by wednesdayguevara

96. Comment #77399 by Just Plain Cliff on October 9, 2007 at 7:53 am

"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 how will this avoid alienating 180 million Americans?

Other Comments by Just Plain Cliff

97. Comment #77444 by MrsCogan on October 9, 2007 at 10:23 am

I generally refer to myself as a humanist rather than atheist because humanism *is* something. But I kind of enjoy being called an atheist (it's pushy and outrageous. Where's the down side?) and I think the bickering is silly. I knew Sam would take heat for that part of his talk. I'm surprised he didn't take heat when he pitched meditation.

Other Comments by MrsCogan

98. Comment #77547 by fonex_86 on October 9, 2007 at 3:43 pm

I'm somewhat disappointed in how poorly Sam has written this response. As others have pointed out, no sane, rational, intelligent person would choose the second question to ask the president. Why bring up atheism when it has no relation to the issue at hand? It's exactly what dyed-in-the-wool fundies would do. But if the discussion eventually gets to the point where a discussion of beliefs is relevant, then why not? It seems you're starting to play with straw men here, Sam, and I really don't like it. You are right, of course, that there is the danger of "atheist fundies" (for lack of a better term), but you are really doing a great disservice to the majority of rational and intelligent atheists by tarring us all with the same brush.

In fact, much of the criticism I have received of my speech is so utterly lacking in content that I can only interpret it as a product of offended atheist piety.

What kind of responses, Sam? PZ Myers's? Ellen Johnson's? No, Sam, theirs made more sense than yours.

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.

Not possible? This pathetic attempt to wriggle out of your rotten ambiguous speech is honestly making me sick. If you think it was impossible, why admit that it could be "misunderstood" in the first place? What else would we think when you tell us to "go below the radar"?

Wake up Sam, many of us are not as dumb as you think.

Other Comments by fonex_86

99. Comment #77559 by Russell Blackford on October 9, 2007 at 4:49 pm

Logicel, Richard Dawkins has worked with at least one Anglican bishop in defending the teaching of sound evolutionary biology. I can easily imagine examples like that. There are lots of liberal Jews and Christians, some of whom are very strong on defending the separation of church and state. The Eastern Orthodox churches seem to have a lot of scope for very liberal attitudes to the bioethical and similar issues that are one of my main sets of interests.

Working with liberal Muslims may be harder - some really do seem quite liberal in many ways, but I'm still trying to come to terms with their mind-set. Islam has such a different cultural and political history, and has developed such a different vocabulary of political concepts, that it's difficult to get mutual understanding when secularists talk to them. For them, the whole idea of a separation of church and state is very foreign and confusing. Developing good working relationships with those refined, educated Muslims we keep hearing about (and who do exist) will probably not be easy, and may not be achieved quickly, but it's probably worth trying.

And I should add in fairness that there do seem to be elements in classical Muslim thought that are not greatly dissimilar to Lockean notions of religious tolerance and separation of church and state; a dialogue with the more moderate or liberal Muslims may not be futile.

I have no trouble at all working with Buddhists.

Other Comments by Russell Blackford

100. Comment #77784 by Teratornis on October 10, 2007 at 1:59 pm

Wikipedia has some interesting articles relating to this discussion:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euphemism - in particular, see The "Euphemism Treadmill"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dysphemism - and see The "Dysphemism Treadmill"

The take-home lesson is that the negative or positive connotations of a given word continuously evolve, and various interest groups have the power to influence that evolution. If we concede that theists have irreparably scarred the word "atheist," permanently transforming it into a pejorative label, then we are conceding that our opponents define us. Hopping onto the Euphemism Treadmill offers only temporary respite, because whatever forces managed to stigmatize the last label will do the same to the next label, unless other forces counter them.

I say we take the long view, and draw a line in the sand right here. It's up to us to demonstrate what "atheism" means. If we leave the definition up to religious liars, of "atheism" and "Brights" or "rationalists" or whatever other terms we try to popularize without defending, then theists will keep us running endlessly on the euphemism treadmill, because we will have demonstrated our fear of words. (Humans are predator apes, and predators instinctively attack the weakest prey at their point of weakness. If they discover they can scare us into relabeling ourselves, they will make us do that again and again, until we stop. It's as easy to stop right here as it will be to stop anywhere in the future.)

People will always use labels. That's what they do. If you refrain from getting drunk, in a land of drunks, then you are a "teetotaler." Instead of getting worked up about the scorn reserved for teetotalers by all the drunks, just take their scariest pejorative and show you aren't bothered by it.

Besides, "atheist" isn't nearly so bad as the scariest pejorative label of all, one so scary that we can only refer to it by its initial letter "N" in polite company. You may note that the hip-hop community has enthusiastically embraced that very label, cementing it into urban pop culture, much to the chagrin of the Civil Rights old guard that has tried so hard to teach their young to fear this particular combination of letters, thereby advertising their intellectual submission to anyone who might speak it in their presence (particularly anyone with pale skin, for whom uttering the word remains verboten).

Other Comments by Teratornis