Sam Harris Answers The Liberal Complaint Against the New Atheists
I really liked how Sam Harris answered Karen Armstrong's Foreign Policy article right here, although she got the last word. What's wrong with the liberals? Why don't they get it? Sam's sarcastic answer is a much better response than trying to reason with people like her, so it's better than my review of her book, The Case For God. But they just don't get it.
30 comments:
I saw this first reported by the Friendly Atheist, Hemant Mehta.
I love her response which can basically be summed up like this:
1. I used to think like you, but I was ignorant then.
2. After 20 years of studying I becamed enlightened enough to see that I'm right and you're wrong.
3. Even though billions of people practice the type of religious crap Harris criticizes, that's not the fault of religion. Yes, I, too, am concerned about those abuses, but jihad is really about devotion... ?! WTF!
As an ex-nun I'm surprised at how little she knows about religion, her own religion in particular, and fundamentalism. She's just an idealist who thinks all religions can be united and the fundamentalist believers have all got their own religions wrong. She is so ignorant.
I'm just going to throw this out there, don't know if I want to defend it yet, but I noticed it.
Harris seems to really like to point out the excesses of African and Arab religions, as if they are somehow "barbaric." He isn't the only one I've seen do this. On first brush, it looks to me like a little bit of cultural imperialism raising its head again. The white and enlightened know better than the primitive Africans and Arabs.
I'm sure Harris would vehemently deny that charge, but I certainly think that he thinks he has all the answers for that area of the world.
Sam Harris is Lazy, As is Dawkins, Hitchens. Read something more than the Bible !
What does Luke 17:21 say ????
The fact that eating at McDonald's is unhealthy doesn't mean that eating is unhealthy. I am not convinced that religion is inherently bad just because some people use it to justify hateful conduct.
I am an agnostic, but I know many liberal Christians who use their religious beliefs to justify the good lives they lead. On the other hand, I know atheists who insist upon The Virtue of Selfishness.
"Read something more than the Bible !"
Great idea shvt - let's head to Church and see what other books the pastors priests and ministers ask their congregations to open up every Sunday. Let's turn on the TV and radio to the religious stations because surely they have the equivalent of a Book Of The Month club filled with books on how to live religiously, right?
In all honesty though, I've been to the book store. And there ARE books other than the Bible in the religious section. So maybe they should look at those books? But wait - most of those point to verses in the Bible, and of those that don't and try to pain their own portrait of who god is and what he wants... I've never heard a single religious leader say "Yes, this other book describes god much more accurately than the bible".
What are you on?
Brad Haggard-
Nice try. But if you have ever read Sam Harris' Letter to a Christian Nation, you would know that he takes the Catholic Church to task for opposing contraception in Africa.
Sam Harris does the sarcasm pretty well, I remember his response to Jerry Coyne's Edge article earlier this year. It's just brutal reading.
Andre,
I'm not sure that completely exonerates him, but I don't think it's strong enough yet to really make a case.
What I can say, though, is that he resorts to sensationalism way too much, and that usually reveals a lack of rhetorical depth to his arguments.
I think that Armstrong's response is a very strong one. Harris for all his surging rhetoric seeks to understand the world in polarities and dichotomies. His thought lacks subtlety. I have read both Sam Harris and Karen Armstrong and whilst I've enjoyed both of them my personal opinion is that Armstrong is more measured and dare I say it, more reasonable in what she writes.
Brad,
You said,
Harris seems to really like to point out the excesses of African and Arab religions, as if they are somehow "barbaric." He isn't the only one I've seen do this. On first brush, it looks to me like a little bit of cultural imperialism raising its head again. The white and enlightened know better than the primitive Africans and Arabs.
By African religions do you mean the Christianities spreading acrosss Africa?
I applaud someone like Sam Harris who is willing to make his actual ideas, arguments, and intentions public where everyone can assess them. I deplore the everpresent subcurrents that run through the Christianities of everyone else's inherent inferiority. Is that not in and of itself a declaration of other's barbarism and Christian cultural imperialism?
If those other's are not without defects that might be called barbarism then the Christianities shouldn't be so insistent that they be inoculated with Christian doctrine.
If we want to compare barbarisms, I see the Christianities as quite barbaric themselves. It is barbaric to burn condoms by the millions in order to deny people access to them when is known - yeah, it's that terrible science thing again - that their use reduces the likelihood of transmitting HIV by a factor of about 10000. Is it not barbarism to intentionally exacerbate a plague?
Isn't it barbaric to introduce into a culture literature which they are told must be considered the literally true absolute word of the creator of the universe, when there exists no legal system to protect the populace from those who like killing people as witches, often their own children, and mobs executing infidels? Without secular controls to inhibit the inhumanity, they act on the assumed absolute authority of the Bible and slaughter ensues.
There is nothing inherently good about the Bible. Nothing. So, without established social controls to constrain Christians in their zeal, it is morally irresponsible and morally reprehensible, to the point of being barbaric, to offer the Bible as a field guide for how to live ethically as a human family. The very notion that a loving father, the Christian God, would drown all, except for eight adults, including every single newborn, infant, and toddler, while it saved cockroaches, rattlesnakes and naked mole rats, is barbarism at its very core.
I think Harris' strategy is to invite conflict with sarcasm as a means of exposing how sacredly held religious beliefs don't really work in the real world.
I for one like it. It clears my head from all the useless mumbo jumbo I once accepted as necessary.
His communication style is no different than Comfort's except his ideas point to reason.
Christian Agnostic:
"Harris for all his surging rhetoric seeks to understand the world in polarities and dichotomies. His thought lacks subtlety."
Could you please try to address the substance of Harris's points? I'm sick and tired of comments on his style, his subtlety or lack thereof, his dichotomous view of the world, his shallow theology, etc. Can you refute his arguments? Good. Then do so. Can you not refute his arguments? Too bad. Then shut up.
"Who among us hasn't wanted to kill and eat an albino?"
OMFGRFLMAO
Best Quote of the Year
Armstrong said,
In the past, theologians such as Rudolf Bultmann, Karl Rahner, and Paul Tillich enjoyed fruitful conversations with atheists and found their theology enriched by the encounters. We desperately need such interchange today. A truly Socratic dialogue with atheists could help to counter many of the abuses of faith that Harris so rightly deplores.
Armstrong fails to understand that the modern world's cheap easy access to quality information constitutes an informational Pandora's Box. The last of her theological trinity, Rahner, died in the mid-80's, nearly a decade before the internet became a practical tool for information interchange. None of them had access to the data we have for assessing the veracity of religious claims.
For example, of all the Christian sects in the US, Roman Catholics and the Protestant Fundamentalists, work the hardest to outlaw abortions for everyone while every year they run neck and neck for the title of Christian Sect Getting The Most Abortions. SMACK! No matter what they say, what they do speaks for itself. It is crucial for these loudest and most outspoken of critics of abortion that abortions must be kept accessible, safe, and legal.
Armstrong's triumvirate may have been great philosophers of religion, but to heed their learned discourse is a foolhardy suffering of fools in the face of empirical evidence demonstrating Christianity to be a significant cause for harm. Let's be real honest here: philosophers of religion make no game-changing innovations of real benefit to mankind. That their profound thoughts are of little consequence is reflected in the fact that most Christian laymen know nothing of these men themselves or the ideas they put forth. The population of the world did not quadruple during the twentieth century due to the everchanging assumptions of philosophers of religion. It's quite understandable that a theologian could benefit from having a thoughtful exchange with an atheist. Having no standards to adhere to, any criticisms by a non-believer can be met by simply changing their assumptions.
Armstrong said,
We desperately need such interchange today.
If all we care about is providing philosophers of religion a sounding board for them to try out their new set of assumptions, then, by all means, let the games begin. Remember, the philosophers of religion put forth the most sophisticated arguments, but those lovely intellectual pursuits are pretty much ignored by laymen.
If we actually care about people then we have a far more powerful tool for deciding courses of action: empirical data. Much of it available to everyone via the internet.
Of course, some Christian religionists like Protestant Fundamentalists have no respect for anything conflicting with the dogma they hold dear. For these Fundamentalists science must be rejected even if it costs them their health or that of their loved ones.
The data shows that among US Christian sects, those self-identifying as Fundamentalists have the lowest incomes, the lowest educational levels, the highest divorce rate, the highest levels of violent crime, including spouse and child abuse, among other undesirable concerns. The numbers could offer them insights to their circumstances and perhaps point the way to a better life. But, what do they do with the data? Reject it. They seem to think their god would never let them be like that, but, as a matter of fact, they are.
I think Armstrong fails to account for the differences in informational context between today and the lifetimes of her cited trio. In philosophical what-if scenarioes, we can tinker with all the fun-and-games assumptions about gods we like, but when the fun-and-games costs people their lives it's time to get more serious and be more honest. When an eleven year old girl dies in agony because her parents refused to give her insulin, the knowledge that with insulin she could have lived a long healthy life counts for more than all the philosophy of religion ever concocted.
Nicely put, Russ.
Russ:
I totally agree.
Piero...
Certainly I will engage with the substance of what Harris says.
Harris takes aberrant human behaviour like modern-day which burnings, battery-acid torture and the illegal trade in albinos and then blames all these phenomena upon the metaphysical construct religion. In reality, these practices are fringe examples of primitive belief systems that as much represent the average believer as Stalin represents atheists. By focussing on the undeniably backward and primitive behaviour of a minority as a rhetorical device (It sounds impressive and creates an impression of outrage) Harris refuses to engage with the majority of believers who aren't out there killing albinos and burning witches and instead, like you and most ordinary people, are trying to live decent lives. By way of contrast, Karen Armstrong acknowledges fundamentalism as a menace but rightly points out firstly that it is an aberration, and secondly that the kind of polemical attacks that the likes of Harris engage in only serve to polarise the debate and entrench positions on either side rather then seeking a broader understanding of other points of view.
Russ-
I would like to ask you what conclusive empirical evidence demonstrates that Christianity is a 'significant cause for harm'. This has the ring of a groundless assertion and in any case is too vague to have any real meaning.
The data you refer to I would ask has it been constructed to look at variables like social class, levels of education, racial background, church attendance, level of engagement in said church. Just because someone self-idenitifies as a Christian doesn't help us ascertain whether this is a cultural marker or indicates a higher level of commitment.
I also think you underestimate the influence of Tillich, Bultmann and Rahner on the intellectual climate of Christianity. The willingness of these open minded, scholarly Christians to engage with their atheistic counterparts in fruitful and mutually respectful dialogue is held up by Armstrong as a dynamic missing from the contemporary debate and I'm inclined to agree. I have read this blog for over a year now and it remains at the level of the playground in terms of the complexity of the debate. T
Christian Agnostic:
>> Harris takes aberrant human behaviour like modern-day which burnings, battery-acid torture and the illegal trade in albinos and then blames all these phenomena upon the metaphysical construct religion.
That is not his point at all. He was showing the fallacy of Armstrong’s line of reasoning by using the EXACT SAME argument, but replacing “religion” with “witchcraft”. If the argument fails for witchcraft, then it also fails for religion.
The argument, again, is that although religion contains within itself the seeds of fundamentalism, irrationality, and the potential to harm innumerable people, one cannot criticize religion for these aberrations, because there is a core aspect of transcendence and compassion, which is ultimately corrupted by these other manifestations.
When you apply those ideas to witchcraft in Africa, then the argument appears patently ridiculous, because it becomes OBVIOUS that the ignorant brutality of African witchcraft is ENDEMIC to witchcraft itself by virtue of its inherent irrationality and primitiveness.
Why is it obvious for witchcraft, and not for religion? Because we have a tendency to find innumerable excuses for religious horrors such that religion itself is always immune from blame. Using witchcraft allows us to see the blind spot that we are unable to see with regards to religion.
Christian Agnostic,
You said,
I have read this blog for over a year now and it remains at the level of the playground in terms of the complexity of the debate.
Your continuing to read this blog for over a year despite your characterizing it as "playground in terms of the complexity of the debate" tells me it must be serving you in some way. Your repeated returning tells me that Mr. Loftus' Debunking Christianity fills a need for you. Dare I say that Debunking Christianity salves your weary soul?
Let me turn one of your own phrases back on you: This has the ring of a groundless assertion and in any case is too vague to have any real meaning.
Still, let me address the belittling I suspect you hoped to achieve in saying that DC is "playground in terms of the complexity of the debate."
In this regard, if complexity is what you seek, take the DC challenge. John Loftus is ready, willing, and able to deliver deep sophistication, subtle nuance and mind-numbing complexity, all in abundance. If synthesizing your own complexity is not to your liking, then, perhaps you could goad someone you think measures up to your complexity criteria into engaging John, here on DC in the open where we all can observe and learn.
Alternatively, just name those who you contend bear the mark of sophistication rather than "playground," in terms of the complexity of the debate. There might be some here who will pander to your fetish for complexity by discussing their ideas with you.
Among the defenders of religion the clamoring for "sophistication" and "complexity" is incessant. Why is that? Does anyone think that the arguments coming from philosophers of religion and theologians - no doubt arguments absolutely reeking of sophistication, complexity, refinement, subtlety, nuance, penetrating thoroughness, and profoundly obscure insights - actually resolve any of the issues they address? They don't.
Calls for complexity are red herrings, intentional distractions from dealing with a reality that refuses to accommodate the foolish notions of religion. How can one call for complexity when the target intellect for the purported author of the Bible was roughly that of today's simpleton?
The Bible's author wanted nothing to do with complex or sophisticated. The Bible wasn't intended for the Chinese, Greek or Indian philosophers of the time. The level of understanding reflected in the content of the Bible is only that of what prevailed at the time and in the place it was written, it was aimed at an ignorant and superstitious people. A vast abyss looms between what we know the audience for the Bible to have been and all the complexities and philosophical adornments seemingly required to explain what the words from the creator of the universe really meant.
It appears we're being told that the word of the Biblical god must be forever inscrutible for all but the most educated. Why is it that we are to think that the Christian god's meaning can only be teased out by those arguing like persons with degrees in philosophy? Why does the paid philosopher, like William Lane Craig, get to "know" the mind of the god under whose threat of eternal condemnation he lives, while the desperately poor single mother of twelve in the London slums, burdened with the same threat, does not?
Christian Agnostic
Her lot in life is that of theological crash-test dummy or lab rat where experiments run on her provide the almost obvious answers to hypotheses such as "raising twelve children is easy if you have faith," "abstinence only sex education works," and "watching twelve children starve is bad, but having only three well-cared-for children is worse if you used contraception." For the theologians she's just another breeder sow turning out piglets as future experimental subjects. She's a victim of the mindset that asks for complexity thinking answers lie there inherently. As these philosophers and theologians divulge their often mutually-contradictory conclusions that their complex ponderances have produced, the message to this poor struggling mother, living largely by her wits, comes through loud and clear, "Shut up and do as you're told."
Much of the complexity in religious reasoning is deceit or lies, carefully crafted to mask the myriad flaws in religious claims. Some religious claims are so cherished that believers refuse to abandon them even though faced with sufficient countervailing evidence to do so. To account for the failure of the claim while still maintaining it to be true, the only option becomes explaining away the evidence by shrouding it in layer upon layer of mumbo jumbo. Complexity certainly results from the quantity of mumbo jumbo and the conceptual distance it puts between the original claim and reality, but it adds nothing to the veracity of the claim.
Prayer is a good example. The Bible says it works; reality demonstrates it doesn't. But, it is one of the bedrock superstitions of Christianity and cannot be abandoned, making it necessary to explain away the observation that it doesn't work. When reality contradicts beloved superstition, one of them must go. The realist let's go of the superstition, whereas, for the theologian it's reality that gets the boot. The theologian will do or say whatever he deems necessary to shut out the reality that prayer doesn't do anything beyond what's seen with other forms of meditation. In theology it seems that every reality has a million workarounds.
The Bible says unequivocally that prayer works, but look at all the layers that exist in theology-speak accounting for why it doesn't appear to. We build up plenty of complexity, but we never arrive at the point where prayer actually works.
Here's a sampling of verses supporting the idea that a god in the Bible answers prayers.
Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you.(Matthew 7:7)
Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven.(Matthew 18:19)
And all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive. (Matthew 21:22)
Therefore I say unto you, What things soever ye desire, when ye pray, believe that ye receive them, and ye shall have them.(Mark 11:24)
If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him? (Luke 11:13)
And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it. (John 14:13-14)
And in that day ye shall ask me nothing. Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name, he will give it you. (John 16:23)
For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.(Romans 10:12)
For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father. (Ephesians 2:18)
Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need. (Hebrews 4:16)
Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus. . (Hebrews 10:19)
And this is the confidence that we have in him, that, if we ask any thing according to his will, he heareth us: And if we know that he hear us, whatsoever we ask, we know that we have the petitions that we desired of him. (1 John 5:14-15)
These Bible passages say there can be no question that the Biblical God promises to answer prayers. For the theologian, then, the task becomes that of supplying creative reasons for why prayers aren't answered. I find it odd that religious laymen don't question why theologians have such a vast literature dealing with why gods don't answer prayer. Could it again be that laymen ignore theologians? It's clear that the Biblical god says it will answer prayer, but rather than actually answering prayers, Biblical god spends its time explaining to those in positions of power and authority all the reasons it leans on when refusing to answer them.
Philosophers and theologians have basic categories of reasons like,
"you don't understand the context,"
"god didn't really mean that,"
"you are not faithful enough,"
"you're not washed in the blood,"
"you have unconfessed sins,"
"you must come in Jesus' name,"
"you must be a child of god,"
"you are not living for the lord,"
"you are behind in your tithes,"
"you are not at peace with others of god's children,"
"you haven't attended church regularly,"
"god answered it, but you don't recognize it."
The supernatural schema for prayers, as well as other miracles, fabricated by theologians is compatible with all outcomes - if you prayed for it and it happens, it's answered prayer; if not it's gods will - but still the obfuscating runs amok to include things like those above. The theologian absolves the Bible and its god by blaming - abusing or victimizing is more to the point - the credulous believer whose fault lies in believing the words of the Bible as they earnestly ask for a lessening of their burdens by one they have been led to believe has the power and desire to do so.
Surely, complexity allows the theologians to feel they've sidestepped the pitfalls that reality places in their paths. Those of us not subjected to living by their contrived dictates can see them for the deceptions they are.
Russ-
My "avatar" is Chrisitian Agnostic...that should be some indication as to my thinking around this subject.
I am not a dogmatic fundamentalist convinced I have sole access to the truth. I often don't know what I really believe and have learnt to be relatively content with that.
And you are right about this blog. I enjoy reading it, and in a way it does soothe my weary soul. I enjoy the provocative content. I enjoy a good bit of fundy bashing myself. I was a student at a Southern Baptist creationist misssionary school from the age of 8 to 14 so I'm a first hand survivor of the kind of indoctrination John seeks to debunk and I applaud his efforts. As for the DC challenge I have already taken it after a fashion. I've read John's book twice, Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Robert M Price, Richard Carrier, Daniel Dennet, Michael Shermer. I have enjoyed these authors immensely and would recommend them to any mature Christian.
You use my own words against me, and with some justiciation. I said that DC is a "playground in terms of the debate". That was a a rhetorical conceit I seem to be prone towards. After all, this is a blog set up to debunk 'Evangelical' Christianity so to debate on those terms will limit the scope. I have no doubt that Mr Loftus is a thinker of subtlety and nuance capable of engaging with the most complex of concepts. I have no doubt that were we to engage in a serious debate he would emerge victorious.
So I hold my hands up. I like this blog, I enjoy the fireworks of demolishing fundamentalist shibboleths like biblical inerrantism, creationism, end times, day of judgment and I applaud them. However, I still think there are serious flaws with the new atheist approach to truth, and a serious lack of complexity and subtlety in general. To return to Sam harris and his complaints against practitioners of witchcraft and albino murder. In the African context, it is actually the conversion of former witch doctors to Christianity which is making a positive difference. There is ample, scholarly evidence that people who previously held animistic beliefs and were under the control of a network of witchdoctors were empowered by conversion to Christianity and were able to leave behind damaging patterns of behaviour and belief.
It is the refusal to acknowledge that religion as much as it is a force for evil can also be a force for good that marks the new atheism.The tagline Christopher Hitchens' (Who I enjoy immensely) book "How Religion poisons everything" is an apt case in point. There is a determined refusal to engage with the positive ways that religion can enhance human existence.
You write movingly about the plight of the impoverished. This hypothetical example of suffering can be found all over the globe. So can religiously motivated aid, charity and humanitarian workers. The much-maligned Catholic church is one of the leading providers of free medical care in African continent. In South America, Catholic priests stood alongside the poor and disenfranchised against corrupt governments, often to the cost of their lives.
The attempt to dismiss as meaningless the experience of so many people is doomed to fail. The religious impulse is innately human. We can't help asking questions and seeking transcendence. We need the John Loftus's of this world to point out the excesses and the stupidities of religion, but not at the expense of recognising that there is a whole other side to this debate.
Christan Agnostic:
"The attempt to dismiss as meaningless the experience of so many people is doomed to fail. The religious impulse is innately human."
Are you claiming that atheists are less than human? (Rhetorical question: I know you are not. But then, why do you state something you don't really believe?)
Christian Agnostic,
Thank you for your considered response.
You said,
I am not a dogmatic fundamentalist convinced I have sole access to the truth. I often don't know what I really believe and have learnt to be relatively content with that.
I think that you not being convinced you have sole access to the truth is a good thing. No sane human being who is somewhat well-informed could make that claim if they were at all honest. Unfortunately, there are many, well-informed or not, who are not quite so honest, and they seek to force you, me and everyone else to live by their imaginary revealed truth that they do have sole access to. That there are those who have been taught to think that their reading of their own internal experience is so compelling that they are empowered to strongarm all others into compliance with it does not mean that any of us is obliged to fall line with their beliefs or to accept that their internal experiences have meaningfulness beyond the confines of their own minds. That different groups believe mutually incompatible things based on their internal experiences tells us clearly that they are making it up.
That billions of people live good lives of love and compassion without Christianity tells us that though believers relish it, it is in no way essential to human thriving, except as defined in the specific Christianities themselves. That Christians in no way distinguish themselves as more loving, more caring, compassionate or generous, tells us that, for all its claims, it effects no observable benefits on its followers. As I pointed out, many Christian groups do, in fact, distinguish themselves as less well off than their surrounding societies.
There are many online resources which cite books and scholarly journals that corroborate my claims. Just compare the US to other far less religious countries. If Christianity could possibly showcase its affects on believers, the US would be the place to do it. What we find, however, is that while the US has lots of Christianity, it has grave social ills compared to the similarly developed countries that have largely abandoned religion.
Ironically, in the US, Christians are the most vocal opponents of national health care. Why? Humanitarian aid, a human activity, not a Christian-specific activity, by the way, is their propaganda claim to fame. A US national health care system would snuff out much of Christianity's marketing muscle.
Read the United Nations Human Development Reports and compare religious countries to non-religious ones. It's night and day. Religion isn't doing its adherents any favors. Theocracies are the most oppressive and one Christian one is Uganda where law, created by those following gentle Jesus meek and mild, penalizes homosexuality with death.
Your country, England, has people dying in the Middle East because of wars brought about via religious justifications. It's unfortunate, but the religious mania in the US adversely affects humankind the world over. What you've got now is George W. Bush's religious manipulation. If you get Sarah Palin next, through no fault of your own, you get someone who wants the world to end in a blaze of glory, who gives money to African clergy hunting witches, and who believes US military and economic power should be used to spread Christianity and initiate Armageddon. Nice, huh? that religion outside your country has the potential to quite adversely affect your life.
------
You said,
I have enjoyed these authors immensely and would recommend them to any mature Christian.
If it was possible to define "Christian," I'd ask what it meant to be a mature one.
If, as I suspect, you mean someone so deeply inculcated with sect-specific dogma that they are no longer psychologically capable of seeing beyond the borders of their particular version of Christianity, then I reject the notion of "mature Christian." I don't equate ideological imperviousness with maturity. I don't see Fred Phelps of the Westboro Baptist Church as mature. I don't see the Pope or his fellow Roman Catholic clerics who failed to protect children from institutional rape as mature. They are guilty of a crime against humanity. I don't see televangelists or faith healers as mature. I don't see anyone as mature who would lie to a child about the age of the earth for ideological reasons. I don't see as mature Cardinal Trajillo, the Vatican's Pontifical Counsel for the Family, who lies outright when he says that condom use causes AIDS. It's not HIV infection at all; it's been condom use itself all along that caused the AIDS pandemic.
If you want to point to Christians who perform humanitarian aid as being the mature ones, we can look at the 85% of humanity which is not Christian and see the same results. Many of the African aid workers lack the moral sense to hand out condoms despite the church's condemnation. The church has left them unable to function as a moral entity seeking the best welfare for others they have vowed to help. That's not mature.
You said,
You use my own words against me, and with some justiciation. I said that DC is a "playground in terms of the debate". That was a a rhetorical conceit I seem to be prone towards. After all, this is a blog set up to debunk 'Evangelical' Christianity so to debate on those terms will limit the scope.
While you might see the scope as limited, we see that asking Christians of all stripes for evidence that any of their claims are true, leaves them mumbling about supernatural this and faith that, but providing nothing that counts as evidence. Not all of us remain ignorant, barbaric and superstitious due entirely to traditional allegiances and social pressures. I often wonder if religion in the US could even survive if children weren't under constant threat of losing their parents love for thinking for themselves and leaving religion.
Science has shown itself to be a much better arbiter of what is and is not real, and what is reliable for mankind's benefit. By trying to take into account all possible outcomes related to a particular phenomena, science separates the real from the superstitious. By intentionally ignoring some possible outcomes related to a particular phenomena, religion leaves holes in its picture of reality. The contents of the holes gives them their cherished answered prayers and miracles.
Like the electromagnetic spectrum has in it visible and non-visible portions, so, too, do the religious balkanize the real world. They partition out the spectrum of possible outcomes in the real world into things that are visible - the ones they accept - and things that are invisible - the things they ignore, reject or intentionally mischaracterize. The real-world things they choose to ignore, reject or mischaracterize are the raw materials for miracles and answered prayers.
Want a miracle? then play the religionists game called Let's Be Stupid About Medicine. How do you turn medicine into miracles? Ignore the natural cure rate, and, what do you get? Miracles! Ignore the cure rate using modern medical intervention, and, what do you get? An even bigger crop of miracles! Ignore medical diagnosis errors. Miracles!
We can broaden the scope of religious conversation as much as we like, but the way of the religious is that of not facing up to the world as it is. Take in what the natural world world presents in its entirety and the miracles go away. The religious can't accommodate that.
You said,
I have no doubt that Mr Loftus is a thinker of subtlety and nuance capable of engaging with the most complex of concepts. I have no doubt that were we to engage in a serious debate he would emerge victorious.
This offers some food for thought. Pit two Christian theologians with differing views on some topic against one another in a public debate. When one of them is declared the winner, have we established the truth of his perspective? No, we haven't. Has anything actually been confirmed or disconfirmed about the topic? No. Will either of them admit to having his mind changed by the other? Not likely. Will the laymen and clerics who heed what these theologians have to say change their minds out of fear for their everlasting souls? No. Why not? If it actually has eternal consequences, why not? Can we not apply Pascal's Wager on a restricted basis to establish the foolishness of not believing every single thing ever uttered by a theologian? Aren't you better off believing it all, just in case one happens to be right? How then do we resolve mutually exclusive conflicts? So, then must we concede it to be impossible to believe all the theologians?
You said,
However, I still think there are serious flaws with the new atheist approach to truth, and a serious lack of complexity and subtlety in general.
Complexity, schmomplexity. Will having complexity in the arguments of the hypothetical theologians above resolve their dispute? No, it won't. Will increasing the complexity guarantee one to be right? As I explained above I see the call for complexity as a distraction, a red herring. Once you stop arguing based on where people live, the real world, and move off to theology land, you're sure to get lost, entangled and ensnared in two thousand years of complexity, evolved specifically to avoid dealing with the world as it is. The complexity is its own end.
Reality has these weird things called "facts" that the religious can't seem to get a handle on. The first line of defense against factual data is itself a miracle of sorts: deny, ignore, reject, and mischaracterize observed facts about your religion and you are forever exactly as you imagine yourself to be. Do these tactics somehow nullify the facts? No. What to do? Drape it all in complicated theological garb and still the facts remain. Then, do whatever is necessary to obscure the facts. Get away from the real world and move the discussion to issues that theologists can never resolve. That way the sounds of the facts are drowned out. Reality becomes a mist-shrouded mountain, a realm you can keep yourself from ever seeing if you want to. This sounds rinky-dink, but it's exactly what happens when you engage theologians concerning real-world facts and figures. Their eyes glaze over. They tense up. You can watch the fog roll in. Then, as you realize the real world you wanted to discuss, has been swallowed by their fog, you see them relax. Ahh, more facts put to rest.
You said,
There is ample, scholarly evidence that people who previously held animistic beliefs and were under the control of a network of witchdoctors were empowered by conversion to Christianity and were able to leave behind damaging patterns of behaviour and belief.
Please understand that those who are torturing and killing their own children as witches are Pentecostalist Christians, many second and third generation. I am not talking about animists. On this blog we've had the likes of Pentecostalist Minister Harvey Burnett tell us that he performs exorcisms, he casts out demons and he believes people become witches.
If we consider the human community in toto we can see that people do not need to be Christians of any stripe in order to know that witches are not real and so no one need be killed as one. But, we also see that conversion to Christianity of certain stripes makes it far more likely that one will believe in witches and kill them. I'm convinced that it would happen here in the US, I'm in Lansing, Michigan, if our secular legal system became compromised.
You said,
It is the refusal to acknowledge that religion as much as it is a force for evil can also be a force for good that marks the new atheism.
If any such refusal exists, it is the refusal that actions taken by the religious are somehow more favorable than the same actions taken by the non-religious. We're always being told by Christians that Christian giving is superior to giving by us atheists because they sweeten it with a dollop or two of Jesus. No evidence exists showing Christians to be better people or that sprinkling some Holy Spirit on the bread they hand out makes it more nourishing. Christians giving humanitarian aid refuse to admit that the God-bothering they throw into the mix is not for the recipients of the aid; it's for the Christian himself; it's his payment, his bus token to heaven.
The tagline Christopher Hitchens' (Who I enjoy immensely) book "How Religion poisons everything" is an apt case in point. There is a determined refusal to engage with the positive ways that religion can enhance human existence.
You cannot name a thing of importance to mankind that has not been adversely affected by some religion. Human health, happiness, knowledge, understanding, food, social gatherings, games, music, art, science, technology, charitable giving, attitudes toward fellow man. It's true that not all religion poisons everything all the time, but all things are poisoned by some religion. All of mankind is poisoned by Christianity itself. Listening to the distinct claims made by the myriad Christianities, not one man is exempt from hell.
I see it as a pedant's folly to take the word "everything" to its absurd extreme. Is a particular iron atom in a particular galaxy 13 billion light-years away poisoned by religion? Maybe not. But, then again, maybe so if we read the Bible literally and lie to children telling them that it's no more than 6000 light-years away.
So can religiously motivated aid, charity and humanitarian workers.
Humanitarianism is a human universal. It is far more common than religion and more common yet than is Christianity. If we watch what people do we realize that human compassion is motivation enough. We do not need religion to be loving, kind, caring or generous. Those traits, too, are human universals, far more common than religions. Think of the sad state mankind would be in if Christianity was actually a requirement for people to care about each other, as so many Christians claim. According to the United Nations Human Development Report, Sweden is both the least religious nation and the most generous per capita.
The attempt to dismiss as meaningless the experience of so many people is doomed to fail.
I agree. The challenge facing modern man is to explain that experience in the light of a more advanced understanding of ourselves and the world we live. Mankind has paid an inordinately high price for the ignorance and superstition codified and set in stone by religion and their megalomaniacal priesthood. Now, we recognize that the feelings, emotions and mental and psychological experiences claimed as their exclusive domain by the religious are no such thing.
Religion is not innately human as you claim. Awe, wonder, and transcendence are. Steal those internal states from the man by attributing them to otherworldly causes and you've debased and diminished the man to give him religion.
The Bible is not a "good" book, and it is immoral to keep pretending that it is. If the contents of the Bible are to be taken as factual, then the Bible observably wrong, and no one should live by it. If it's to be taken as metaphor or allegory then we should treat it as we do any such text. There exists no reason at all to think the Bible is true.
The religious impulse is innately human.
Religion is not - NOT - innately human. Google "Piraha" or "Hadza" or see this video about the Piraha,
[http://fora.tv/2009/03/20/Daniel_Everett_Endangered_Languages_and_Lost_Knowledge]
We can't help asking questions and seeking transcendence.
True. But, today we have ways of answering questions that are closer to the truth, and we now know that transcendence is a material neurological phenomenon seized by religious leaders for their own purposes. Transcendence can be turned on and off in the lab, chemically and electromagnetically, and has been shown to be affected by injury and disease. Having questions and wanting transcendence is no excuse for accepting answers that can only be described as bizarre.
We need the John Loftus's of this world to point out the excesses and the stupidities of religion, but not at the expense of recognising that there is a whole other side to this debate.
Should we consider the excesses and stupidities of religion as being out the ordinary consequences of what is written in the holy books? When the holy books say to kill apostates, do we dutifully kill apostates or do we not? Well, for the most part, not. Why not? Because we don't believe the holy book, that's why not. If we think the holy book is wrong there why believe it on heaven, hell, homosexuality or original sin.
What is this "whole other side to this debate"? As I see it the only difference between the religious and others is that the religious give really bad answers for why they do things and why the universe, including us, is as it is. Everything religionists do - aside from their sect-specific kneeling, bowing, praying, and talking gibberish, etc. - non-religionists do also. Clearly the supernatural metaphysical overhead is not needed to be a very human human being in bringing about the same goodness, if any, the religious might effect.
The religious don't have miracles. Thus far the only known way to conjure up miracles is to play that same religionist's game of compartmentalizing the real world so that miracles can be construed. If the way they conduct themselves in bringing benefit to others is a miracle, then non-believers have just as many miracles, so the belief is not needed. What we see is that religionists use exactly the same 100 percent supernatural-free resources as atheists do, but the religionists
Post a Comment