Faith Well Grounded

I saw the below article at cyberkitten's blog. I decided to form a brief response to each point of the article, as originally seen:

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-op-harris24dec24,0,3994298.story?...

10 myths—and 10 Truths—About Atheism

By Sam Harris for The Los Angeles Times

December 24, 2006

SEVERAL POLLS indicate that the term “atheism” has acquired such an extraordinary stigma in the United States that being an atheist is now a perfect impediment to a career in politics (in a way that being black, Muslim or homosexual is not). According to a recent Newsweek poll, only 37% of Americans would vote for an otherwise qualified atheist for president. Atheists are often imagined to be intolerant, immoral, depressed, blind to the beauty of nature and dogmatically closed to evidence of the supernatural.

Even John Locke, one of the great patriarchs of the Enlightenment, believed that atheism was “not at all to be tolerated” because, he said, “promises, covenants and oaths, which are the bonds of human societies, can have no hold upon an atheist.” That was more than 300 years ago. But in the United States today, little seems to have changed. A remarkable 87% of the population claims “never to doubt” the existence of God; fewer than 10% identify themselves as atheists — and their reputation appears to be deteriorating. Given that we know that atheists are often among the most intelligent and scientifically literate people in any society, it seems important to deflate the myths that prevent them from playing a larger role in our national discourse.

So, here we have an article that is apparently written out of fear, and which seeks to lay waste to the myths regarding atheism. As we will see, the author fails to make his point many times over concerning the myths. He compounds the problem by spreading blatant misinformation and myth concerning religion (I will direct the refutations from the perspective of Christianity specifically).

1) Atheists believe that life is meaningless. On the contrary, religious people often worry that life is meaningless and imagine that it can only be redeemed by the promise of eternal happiness beyond the grave. Atheists tend to be quite sure that life is precious. Life is imbued with meaning by being really and fully lived. Our relationships with those we love are meaningful now; they need not last forever to be made so. Atheists tend to find this fear of meaninglessness… well … meaningless.

Here we have our first of many misrepresentations of “religion”. I am yet to meet a doctrinally informed Christian that fears that life is meaningless, or that life is not precious, or that we need eternity to redeem meaning in our life right here, right now. To the contrary, man was created to have abundant life, and we are promised an immensely abundant (continuous and eternal) life through Christ Jesus.

Humanity can find many purposes outside of this intended paradigm. But none of them are what we were designed for, or should settle for.

Mr. Harris’ “fear of meaninglessness” is a straw man of the first degree.

PS: I am ALWAYS suspicious of anyone who starts a sentence with anything resembling: “Those people often…” Check your bigotry, Mr. Harris.

2) Atheism is responsible for the greatest crimes in human history. People of faith often claim that the crimes of Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot were the inevitable product of unbelief. The problem with fascism and communism, however, is not that they are too critical of religion; the problem is that they are too much like religions. Such regimes are dogmatic to the core and generally give rise to personality cults that are indistinguishable from cults of religious hero worship. Auschwitz, the gulag and the killing fields were not examples of what happens when human beings reject religious dogma; they are examples of political, racial and nationalistic dogma run amok. There is no society in human history that ever suffered because its people became too reasonable.

“The problem is that they were too much like religions.” He paints religions as too dogmatic, while true atheism is not dogmatic. He makes these and other statements dogmatically. As a matter of fact, the entire article is a dogmatic sermon against “those people…”

3) Atheism is dogmatic. Jews, Christians and Muslims claim that their scriptures are so prescient of humanity’s needs that they could only have been written under the direction of an omniscient deity. An atheist is simply a person who has considered this claim, read the books and found the claim to be ridiculous. One doesn’t have to take anything on faith, or be otherwise dogmatic, to reject unjustified religious beliefs. As the historian Stephen Henry Roberts (1901-71) once said: “I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.”

And anyone who makes a claim such as this shows only their lack of knowledge about mythology. The Christian God is the only one that relays the story with verifiable, historic facts—i.e. a specific man in the specific time of a specific ruler in a specific place, performing specific actions, making specific predictions with specific fulfillment.

Also-- again, the author seems to be saying, “Point three of my dogmatic article is that atheists are not dogmatic.”

4) Atheists think everything in the universe arose by chance. No one knows why the universe came into being. In fact, it is not entirely clear that we can coherently speak about the “beginning” or “creation” of the universe at all, as these ideas invoke the concept of time, and here we are talking about the origin of space-time itself. The notion that atheists believe that everything was created by chance is also regularly thrown up as a criticism of Darwinian evolution. As Richard Dawkins explains in his marvelous book, “The God Delusion,” this represents an utter misunderstanding of evolutionary theory. Although we don’t know precisely how the Earth’s early chemistry begat biology, we know that the diversity and complexity we see in the living world is not a product of mere chance. Evolution is a combination of chance mutation and natural selection. Darwin arrived at the phrase “natural selection” by analogy to the “artificial selection” performed by breeders of livestock. In both cases, selection exerts a highly non-random effect on the development of any species.

The author seems to sidestep the fact that our two choices are either “planned, or “unplanned”. There is an excluded middle there. He is copping out.

As to the chance in evolution: First, he connects abiogenesis with evolution then doesn’t deal with it. The only way for life to have begun in Darwinist evolution is through chance—BEFORE any kind of replication and thus before natural selection. Secondly, he conveniently leaves out the fact that natural selection is not the only mechanism proposed. It relies on (yep, you got it…) CHANCE mutation.

Mr. Harris, you have no chance of eliminating chance.

5) Atheism has no connection to science. Although it is possible to be a scientist and still believe in God — as some scientists seem to manage it — there is no question that an engagement with scientific thinking tends to erode, rather than support, religious faith. Taking the U.S. population as an example: Most polls show that about 90% of the general public believes in a personal God; yet 93% of the members of the National Academy of Sciences do not. This suggests that there are few modes of thinking less congenial to religious faith than science is.

The above is either incredibly misinformed, or an exercise in intellectual dishonesty—either of which is reprehensible in an article written for the NY Times.

It is historic fact that Christianity is both mother and midwife of our modern scientific methodology. It was a belief in an immutable God that formed the basis for belief in immutable natural laws that can be studied.

“This suggests that there are few modes of thinking less congenial to religious faith than science is.”

No. It doesn’t. It suggests that there are few modes of thinking less congenial to religious faith than philosophical naturalism is. There is a big difference between metaphysical presuppositions and scientific endeavor.

6) Atheists are arrogant. When scientists don’t know something — like why the universe came into being or how the first self-replicating molecules formed — they admit it. Pretending to know things one doesn’t know is a profound liability in science. And yet it is the life-blood of faith-based religion. One of the monumental ironies of religious discourse can be found in the frequency with which people of faith praise themselves for their humility, while claiming to know facts about cosmology, chemistry and biology that no scientist knows. When considering questions about the nature of the cosmos and our place within it, atheists tend to draw their opinions from science. This isn’t arrogance; it is intellectual honesty.

I find it interesting that by now in his article, atheism = scientists = atheism. Pretty slick there, Mr. Harris. Of course, this is not the case.

Now… Note Mr. Harris’ definition of arrogance. Also note that later in the article [point 8], he makes the statement:

“They also can admit that if brilliant extraterrestrials exist, the contents of the Bible and the Koran will be even less impressive to them than they are to human atheists.”

Keeping in mind his definition of arrogance:

He has either invited aliens over for philosophical discussions concerning their views of religious doctrine, or he has perpetrated the specific instance of arrogance he seeks to disprove.

In point 9, he alludes that “any religious doctrine” is “wishful thinking” and “self-deception.”

By claiming belief in God as “delusional”, he has made a statement that God does not exist. To know a negative, he must know all positive. He must know everything. So, he either made another statement of arrogance as he defined it, or he is the God that he claims doesn’t exist.

7) Atheists are closed to spiritual experience. There is nothing that prevents an atheist from experiencing love, ecstasy, rapture and awe; atheists can value these experiences and seek them regularly. What atheists don’t tend to do is make unjustified (and unjustifiable) claims about the nature of reality on the basis of such experiences. There is no question that some Christians have transformed their lives for the better by reading the Bible and praying to Jesus. What does this prove? It proves that certain disciplines of attention and codes of conduct can have a profound effect upon the human mind. Do the positive experiences of Christians suggest that Jesus is the sole savior of humanity? Not even remotely — because Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims and even atheists regularly have similar experiences. There is, in fact, not a Christian on this Earth who can be certain that Jesus even wore a beard, much less that he was born of a virgin or rose from the dead. These are just not the sort of claims that spiritual experience can authenticate.

“What atheists don’t tend to do is make unjustified (and unjustifiable) claims about the nature of reality on the basis of such experiences.”

Except, of course when it comes to the beliefs of aliens that may or may not exist, or the (lack of) existence of a Creator/God as the cause of everything we experience. Aside from this, atheists would never dream of speaking about that which they do not know. Oh… And, of course… When it comes to the beliefs of “those people” that they obviously haven’t studied enough to actually know doctrinally what “those people” believe.

“There is, in fact, not a Christian on this Earth who can be certain that Jesus even wore a beard, much less that he was born of a virgin or rose from the dead. These are just not the sort of claims that spiritual experience can authenticate.”

The question of facial hair is not the question. The question is whether there is historical evidence for the claims and actions of Jesus. There is.

Also note the double-standard of evidence that Mr. Harris uses. He claims that God does not exist, but could never know that “for certain”, but if we make a positive claim without knowing “for certain”, then we are delusional.

Nicely done, sir…

8) Atheists believe that there is nothing beyond human life and human understanding. Atheists are free to admit the limits of human understanding in a way that religious people are not. It is obvious that we do not fully understand the universe; but it is even more obvious that neither the Bible nor the Koran reflects our best understanding of it. We do not know whether there is complex life elsewhere in the cosmos, but there might be. If there is, such beings could have developed an understanding of nature’s laws that vastly exceeds our own. Atheists can freely entertain such possibilities. They also can admit that if brilliant extraterrestrials exist, the contents of the Bible and the Koran will be even less impressive to them than they are to human atheists. From the atheist point of view, the world’s religions utterly trivialize the real beauty and immensity of the universe. One doesn’t have to accept anything on insufficient evidence to make such an observation.

I’m curious what difference it makes that the Bible does not reflect the best understanding of that which we do not fully understand. If the Bible differed from that which we fully know, then I may have to reevaluate my beliefs. The fact that it differs from opinion and other metaphysical beliefs is a non-argument.

Note also that this is the very point containing knowlege of aliens that may or may not exist.

9) Atheists ignore the fact that religion is extremely beneficial to society. Those who emphasize the good effects of religion never seem to realize that such effects fail to demonstrate the truth of any religious doctrine. This is why we have terms such as “wishful thinking” and “self-deception.” There is a profound distinction between a consoling delusion and the truth. In any case, the good effects of religion can surely be disputed. In most cases, it seems that religion gives people bad reasons to behave well, when good reasons are actually available. Ask yourself, which is more moral, helping the poor out of concern for their suffering, or doing so because you think the creator of the universe wants you to do it, will reward you for doing it or will punish you for not doing it?

Here we have another misunderstanding and miscommunication of Christian doctrine. We are called to love everyone: our neighbor, our family, our enemies, even Mr. Harris. We love them because we were first loved, not because of fear or compulsion. We recognize those in need because we recognize that we were helpless and in need. We recognize the value of human life because God recognized that value enough to become flesh and perform the work of salvation that we are incapable of performing.

It has little to do with earning anything, since what we have was given by grace. It has to do with a character of love inherited from our Father, just as much as my son’s red hair and brown eyes were inherited.

10) Atheism provides no basis for morality. If a person doesn’t already understand that cruelty is wrong, he won’t discover this by reading the Bible or the Koran — as these books are bursting with celebrations of cruelty, both human and divine. We do not get our morality from religion. We decide what is good in our good books by recourse to moral intuitions that are (at some level) hard-wired in us and that have been refined by thousands of years of thinking about the causes and possibilities of human happiness. We have made considerable moral progress over the years, and we didn’t make this progress by reading the Bible or the Koran more closely. Both books condone the practice of slavery — and yet every civilized human being now recognizes that slavery is an abomination. Whatever is good in scripture — like the golden rule — can be valued for its ethical wisdom without our believing that it was handed down to us by the creator of the universe.

It’s interesting that Mr. Harris uses an absolute moral standard to disprove God, when an absolute moral standard proves God. (See: http://www.faithwellgrounded.org/apologetics/argument-moral-law).

One of the misunderstandings is that the Bible is not bursting with “celebration” of cruelty. It is full of reports of cruelty. It is also full of admonishment and instruction, such as the entire book of Philemon that deals with the treatment of and request to accept and free a runaway slave.

It is also full of the reports of judgment by God. Using the Bible as testimony of this judgment, it also testifies that God is fully just; the only perfect Judge, and uses His perfect judgment to do so. It also testifies that He is longsuffering and merciful.

Now, what we have here is another atheist that seeks to put themselves in the place of God while trying to discredit Him. Mr. Harris, if you could fathom and act as God, then He would not be God. You would.

So, there we have a look at the 10 myths. It is my opinion that Mr. Harris did himself nor any atheists any favors in writing this article. It does little more than live up to the stereotypes it seeks to abolish. Further, it promoted many other untrue stereotypes toward “religion”. In effect, all it did was make accusations and muddy the water when clarity is needed if these sorts of discussions are to have any positive effect.

With all of that said, I wanted to end on this note:

I love you Mr. Harris.

I don’t know you, but I love you. I disagree with you, but I love you. I love you, not out of compulsion, nor out of fear, not out of delusion. I love you because He first loved me.

custom-pager custom-pager-1 custom-pager-blog