Sam Harris: God’s Dupes

Written by Editor/CommonDreams | Filed Under Uncategorized |

http://www.commondreams.org/views07/0316-31.htm

Comments

109 Comments so far

eriugena March 16th, 2007 4:47 pm

What is this infantile, fanatic, bigoted rant doing up on “Common Dreams?” Is this somebody’s idea of a joke?
dang43 March 16th, 2007 4:49 pm

I agree with most points made by Sam Harris, but I wonder how he feels about the mystics? Every religion has members that are non-dogmatic and inclusive of others with different beliefs. And what about Buddhism? Does he view buddhism in the same way as the other religions, or because buddhism is based on direct experience and not faith, is it even a religion?
John Freeman March 16th, 2007 5:04 pm

Here’s how I look at it. Any practice that has a middleman is Religion. When we choose to go direct, that is spiritual practice. Religion packages something that is our birthright (like air!) and sells that inferior product back to us. When we do something other than go direct to the source, how can we hope to receive the real article? Earth Based spiritual arts like the Inka, African and American Indian bring results, Religion seems to feed off poor people and bring war.

John Freeman

(Religion also brings folks to the point that critical thinking is impossible, thus reactions such as the first comment in this thread.)
Flowerchild March 16th, 2007 6:28 pm

I’ve read both of Sam Harris’s books and have spoken of and shared them with others. Those who I really want to share Sam Harris’s logic with are people in my family who I’m afraid just don’t know how to be open to other points of view; too often fear that anything outside of Biblical teaching — the ultimate Word– is of The Enemy (Satan)… they are closed off to ideas which rob them of their certainty. It’s a kind of fear, I think.

I was very happy to come upon Sam Harris’s article here today on Common Dreams. And as I was reading, I wondered, how many people would be willing to lay down their presumptions, and remember that belief is a choice– merely a choice– and get all the way through the article. It’s easy to speak to those with open, curious, critical minds. Also, I am in the ‘choir’– I get Sam Harris. I share many of his feelings and agree with much of what he says and sincerely hope that he continues to speak of these things, and to help us recognize other’s who are willing to stand apart from group-think, like Pete Stark (though this is the first I’ve heard of the man– I hope he has clarity, heart and intestinal fortitude.)

We need this conversation, and it gives me hope when I read this kind of article.

It comes down to this: either a thought is fear or love. Either it is one of separation or One-ness– interconnection. All institutionalized religions separate us from one another.
__________
“There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamed of in your philosophy, Horatio.”

for more hope: visit firethegrid.com
expatincebu March 16th, 2007 7:29 pm

Fundamentalism is a disease.
paulmalfara March 16th, 2007 8:36 pm

Come on Sam,

I’ve got nothing against atheism or agnosticism, have kind of considered myself an agnostic during some periods of my life.
Yes, it took courage for Pete Stark to make his statement in public; what it will do for his political career is a different matter.

However, statements like the following demonstrate that perhaps we should be worshiping you Sam, as you seem to consider yourself “All Knowing”

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

First Sam, what gives you the right to determine who has a good reason to believe in Jesus or Mohammed or little green men? People have their own reasons, and the level of presumptuousness that you rise to in order to make that statement is unbelievable. It reminds me of the enforced atheism adopted by the USSR and China. “You don’t have a good reason to believe in God, so we’re going to make it illegal!!”

Second Sam, how do you connect the dots between peoples’ faith and “Iron age ideas that …divide our world and subvert our national discourse.” Are you sure that all of these terrible dividers are the result of peoples’ faith?

Next Statement from Sam:
“It is time that we acknowledge that human beings can be profoundly ethical — and even spiritual — without pretending to know things they do not know”

Sam, I love the beginning of your sentence, if only you had finished it correctly. I would finish it as follow, only because I was raised in the Catholic faith. I would suggest that you could substitute the fundamental tenets of any religion after the second hyphen and still be right.

It is time that we acknowledge that human beings can be profoundly ethical — and even spiritual — without having Jesus Christ as their personal savior.

Now Sam, as you can see, I have made a statement that in a way undermines the faith, Catholicism, that I was raised in. However, to those Catholics who believe that the only way to eternal life is through Jesus Christ, I say, “I respect your faith.” I don’t say “You’re pretending to know things that you don’t know.” That statement that you make Sam, shows that YOU are the one who is pretending to know things that you don’t know.

PM
kensehested March 16th, 2007 9:27 pm

Way to go, Sam. You really had me going there! Not quite as polished as Trudeau or Colbert. But plenty of potential!
Ron March 16th, 2007 9:55 pm

The Buddha Dharma does not trivialize the cosmos. When you graduate from religion and become an atheist, you are ready to wake up. If you stay at the plateau of atheism, you have a belief system just like that of the true believers in religion.
Alan8 March 16th, 2007 10:01 pm

We live in barbaric times. The majority of the US population believes in magic and supernatural beings. Freud called religion “pathetically infantile”.

I expect a lot of criticism of Sam Harris and Pete Stark by multitudes of superstitious half-wits.
Chuck Cliff March 17th, 2007 12:52 am

Religion is a human artifact, a tool, a compendium of human experiences in a world chaotic and incomprehensible.

We are orphans, born in a wilderness.

The fanatics Sam mentions are NOT the center.

They are like somebody who steals the barber’s razor intended for shaving and uses it sometimes even literally!) to slit peoples’ throats.
Vince Lawrence March 17th, 2007 1:21 am

My father-in-law was a PhD in psychology, the director of a regional mental health clinic, and unfortunately a born-again Christian. I never hid from him (or anyone else) my strong non-belief.

After he had retired and we were spending more time with him he stated that he was making it his mission to convert me. I warned him that it was likey he, and not me, that was going to experience a conversion.

This highly educated and successful man asked me; as an atheist what kept me from being a murderer, a thief, or worse? He prefaced his question by stating that at one time in his youth he too had been an atheist. He was given a choice by a judge to either do hard time in jail or join the Army for the anti-social behaviour that had repeatedly landed him in the judge’s chambers.

I was dumbfounded, but lost little time in detailing to this psychology professsional that what he was describing was sociopathic behaviour - amoralism - and hardly behaviour that is promoted by thinking ethical atheists.

That particular conversation ended rather quickly , but on my next visit he gave me a book that another in-law gave him concerning religious nonsense - Gary Sukov’s “The Seat Of The Soul.” He said that it was way too deep for him and he could not fathom what was there but suspected that I could decipher it for him. Well, after wading through several chapters of Sukov’s tripe I threw it into a corner and laughed for about an hour. The next time I saw my father-in-law I asked him why he doubted his own ability to reason and consider that if it seemed that Sukov’s folderol made no sense then it is because it did in fact make no sense. A slow smile of recognition came across his face.

My father-in-law died a slow painful death brought on by his convincing medical doctor friends to prescibe Lotramin to him for nail fungus with the full knowledge that he was a lifelong alchoholic. I could not go and visit him as he slowly faded away because I did not want to remind him in his final hours of the force of my reasoned non-belief, or to take away from him whatever crutches he was using as he faced the eternal void. I begged my wife’s forgiveness and because she knows that my moral and ethical behaviour is based on reasoned considerations, she understood. I would have liked to say good-bye, but I did not want to cause him doubt.

To paulmalfara: read Ken Wilbur’s “A Theory Of Everything.” Most of us non-believers understand that most believers will always be believers, no matter what. Our main gripe is that the believers have consistently expressed a desire to exterminate us. I have to be accepting and tolerant because I’m in a small minority, while the majority wants to see me banished - or worse.
lpenek March 17th, 2007 3:06 am

People react violently to Harris and Richard Dawkins because these authors dare question a fundamental aspect of people’s lives–very good people, many times.
I myself have, on occasion, grappled with the unreasoned belief structure of some acquantances, people that I considered friends. And sometimes it breaks your heart to see their faces when they realize you’re questioning something fundamental to their lives; it’s like asking why they breathe. Believers have to at least try to realize that to non-believers their faith can seem offensive to human reason, human enlightenment, the pinnacle of what it (should) means to be human. Maybe that impression is a bad thing, but you should try to understand it, because non-believers have had to live with the same stigma for centuries. Walk a bit in those shoes, see how it feels.
Like I say, it can break your heart. It’s like telling a dear friend who is a smoker that smoking is going to kill them, sooner rather than later. Yet smoking is something that supports them, maybe even “completes” them in a way. Nicotine is not only highly addictive; it’s also a rather strong serotonin reuptake inhibitor, a psychoactive antidepressant. So you’re asking them to stop something that they quite possibly think is life sustaining, and they’ll give you that look, often with open hostility: “Why are you doing this?” I’d like to say to them: “I’m not commanding you to do anything; I’m making a suggestion; what you do is up to you, but maybe you needed that push, that impetus.”
Believers: try not to hate Sam Harris. I strongly “believe” his heart is in the right place. Maybe us non-smokers are trying to tell you something.
CDeams2 March 17th, 2007 3:40 am

Sam Harris. Catering to and cashing in on the ignorati by endlessly ranting about the believers and their Literal Jesus. And totally failing to apprehend the alternative, i.e. the seekers and Metaphorical Jesus.

He could choose to become metaphorical and BE JESUS if he had the imagination and the guts to do so. But he doesn’t appear to have that — or anything else — inside himself. And so he cannot.
Essie March 17th, 2007 4:07 am

Just a couple of things for all you God-fearing mortals to ponder: With innumerable wicked and horrible things now happening in the world, one is drawn to think that God is either on vacation or AWOL, or just missing. I have also come to the conclusion that Bush does not believe in God either. Would he have done all he has done to risk being burned in hell many times over if he really believed in God? Give me a beak!
Lobo Gris March 17th, 2007 5:10 am

I think Mr. Harris misses a key point in his treatise.

What everyone believes isn’t the problem. It’s when the actions of members of a certain belief infringe on the rights and beliefs of others that do not believe the same as they do that problems occur.

As an example:

I have no problem with an evangelical church banning gay marriage and/or refusing to acknowledge it within their church. It’s when they try to impose their beliefs on everyone else by getting legislation passed that bans gay marriage within all of society and denies gays the same rights as everyone else who is married has that it is a problem.

The same goes for a womans right to choose in which they attempt to deny rights to women based on the beliefs within their church.

Or their attempt to strangle research in genetics because of their religious beliefs.

Just as bad if not worse happens when some use their belief to excuse actions which not only violate the rules of society but violate the rules of their own stated beliefs.

I don’t know of any Christian for example who could legitimately believe George Bush when he said that God told him to invade Iraq.

I respect Mr. Harris’s right to believe that God doesn’t exist and his right to persuade others through his writings just as long as he doesn’t attempt to deny me my right to believe as I choose.

The founding fathers of this country were absolutely right when they penned the first amendment to the Constitution.

Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Separation of church and state is the key.

Lobo Gris
Lobo Gris March 17th, 2007 5:23 am

Essie March 17th, 2007 4:07 am

“Just a couple of things for all you God-fearing mortals to ponder: With innumerable wicked and horrible things now happening in the world, one is drawn to think that God is either on vacation or AWOL, or just missing.”

I don’t know if this will make any sense to you or not, I guess that probably depends on whether or not you believe in God. Anyway it made some sense to me so I thought I’d post it. This was originally written by a Jewish Rabbi:

God gave man free will, and free will means that man has the capacity to do evil as well as good. For if God didn’t allow evil to happen then it wouldn’t really be free will, would it?

Not sure if those were the exact words but that was the gist of it.

Lobo Gris
Lobo Gris March 17th, 2007 5:36 am

One last point in my ramblings. If God had wanted George Bush to be President as Bush claims, can any Christian believe that he wouldn’t have made it easier for him to get there. That he would have paved the way by making it so that George didn’t have to lie and cheat to get into office?

Lobo Gris
liberata March 17th, 2007 7:56 am

Harris is right. Belief systems have been exposed as the waste of time that they are and have indeed met their end.

True spirituality does not manifest itself in a willingness to believe ten impossible things before breakfast. It is not about how many adherents your church has, how beautifully you adorn its sanctuary, or how meticulously you obey its precepts.

It is about the compassion for our brothers and sisters and the passionate love of life ignited in our hearts.
gmkaake March 17th, 2007 7:58 am

Amen, Lobo!

I am delighted to see discussions like this taking place. Society in general does need to examine certain fundamentalist beliefs that are being forced on everyone, and limiting free will. But don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater! Spiritual pursuits contributes to the evolution of consciousnous in significant ways.
jp March 17th, 2007 8:39 am

I am a lifelong atheist and agree with Sam for the most part. However, there must be some reason for the universality of these irrational belief systems that he doesn’t address. That is why his writing always seems to miss some basic point. I think there is a huge difference between religion, based upon the unquestioned belief in the writings and words of specific people in specific historical circumstances, and spirituality, which seems to be an expression of a seemingly universal need to “make sense of it all,” or to come to terms with mortality.
I see religion as basically an authoritarian ideology that provides people with a social context that helps them define who they are against “others,” supports and legitimates specific power relationships, and is a tremendously powerful mobilizing force in getting people to commit mass acts of violence, either to convert or to purge. Naionalism (a form of religion in many ways) combined with formal religion is perhaps the scariest combination I can think of, because the potential for violence is magnified.
Lobo Gris March 17th, 2007 8:40 am

liberata March 17th, 2007 7:56 am

“Harris is right. Belief systems have been exposed as the waste of time that they are and have indeed met their end.”

But doesn’t that deny them their right to spend their time as they see fit?

What if someone wanted to tell you what you could and couldn’t do with your time?

Lobo Gris
Lobo Gris March 17th, 2007 8:53 am

jp March 17th, 2007 8:39 am

“I think there is a huge difference between religion, based upon the unquestioned belief in the writings and words of specific people in specific historical circumstances, and spirituality, which seems to be an expression of a seemingly universal need to “make sense of it all,” or to come to terms with mortality.”

I am not an atheist but I do agree with you on there being a huge difference between organized religion and spirituality. That isn’t to say that the two cannot exist together, I just haven’t found any evidence that it does in the context that one religion provides it.

Lobo Gris
ezeflyer March 17th, 2007 10:05 am

“The further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge.”

“A man’s ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeeded be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.”

“Scientific research is based on the idea that everything that takes place is determined by laws of nature, and therefore this holds for the action of people. For this reason, a research scientist will hardly be inclined to believe that events could be influenced by a prayer, i.e. by a wish addressed to a Supernatural Being.” [Albert Einstein, 1936, responding to a child who wrote and asked if scientists pray. Source: "Albert Einstein: The Human Side", Edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffmann]

“I want to know God’s thoughts,….. the rest are details..”

“The religion of the future will be a cosmic religion. The religion which based on experience, which refuses dogmatic. If there’s any religion that would cope the scientific needs it will be Buddhism….”

Albert Einstein
iammyself March 17th, 2007 10:47 am

Ah…nothing like religion (or lack of) to further fracture a culture.

Until we’re contacted by that Great Cosmic Messenger and told what the deal is, humans will always invent religions to tell themselves.
voxclamantis March 17th, 2007 11:50 am

Harris is entitled to his two dimension war on religion. His book is a not-very-insightful diatribe which caricatures the most absurd claims of folk religion and contrasts them to the reasonableness of science and technology. But blaming the world’s ills on religious fanaticism is a bit simplistic considering the contributions of secular monsters like Hitler, Stalin, Truman, Mao, Kissinger and Pol Pot, and the technological advancements of nerve gas and daisy cutter bombs and nuclear horror devices and “smart” missiles from the sensible people at Lockheed Martin.

If we are looking for the wellsprings of evil in this world we should be looking in mirrors, at the sources of greed and cruelty that lie in the heart of human nature and not merely in its various religious, psychological and economic expressions.
lpenek March 17th, 2007 3:11 pm

I agree with Vox that religion isn’t the root of ALL evil but it is the source of a big chunk. I don’t think anyone can deny that. As a small objection I refute the notion that Hitler was in any way secular; he moved from Roman Catholicism into a kind of pagan aryan cult. If you view footage of flag processions passing Hitler to be blessed there’s no confusion: Nazis weren’t secular. No, atheism does not a Hitler make. Truman secular? He was certainly no atheist. The case can be made that he supported the formation of Israel through religious rationale, and we’ve seen the result of that.
For those insisting on religious freedom, I’ve read Harris’s books, and I don’t recall any plans for persecution. Harris makes an unblinking case, he’s a strong, irritating, in-your-face writer, and for some of us, quite wonderful to read. It’s a testament to the prohibition of religious criticism that he raises such a stink just by proffering an opinion. I don’t agree with everything he says. For instance he’s quite paranoid of Islam and stops just short of suggesting preemptive action against it. It’s there that he’s on his most precarious ground, and I would have to know more what he means.
Ronald White March 17th, 2007 3:54 pm

Responce to liberata , Stark and Harris . I don’t agree with your generalizations that paraphrase Karl Marx’s famous maxim that All religions are opiates of the masses . Then again , I champion your right to say them .

“It is about the compassion for our brothers and sisters and the passionate love of life ignited in our hearts.”

Read this sentence that eloquently expresses the only alternative mindset to the dogma of irrational , blood-thirsty , fundamentalist religions and let it really sink in . Think of all the ways that a person could physically demonstrate that altruistic mindset .

Now with an open mind as you are telling me to have , open the Bible and read the Sermon on the Mount and tell me that ” It is about compassion…”is not a precis of the sermon.

If you made a recipe for the World’s Best Chocolate Cake and I didn’t follow it…

When in doubt , read and follow the manufacturer’s instructions .

Reciprocally , you and I do not have to justify our respective venue for and application of compassion , brother/sisterhood .

So , I’m a dupe ; I’ve been called and treated worse than that before
ralph 442 March 17th, 2007 4:28 pm

I’m including and post I made a few days ago on a similar topic and indulge myself with another more direct comment on Sam Harris article on a later post.

For years now I have been saying there is little difference between the various religious fundamentalists, be them christian, moslem, hindu, or jewish.

To distill it down to their most fundamental and crude dogma, one could use the phrase, “My God is tougher then your god and He’s going to kick your god’s ass!”

Then a few years ago along comes this U.S. general named Boykin and says almost the exact same thing. Something like “Our God’s bigger then your god” thus reinforcing my thesis.

Basically these groups, at least on the leadership level are all political parties and they exploit the following masses for their own aggrandizement. They have little to do with their prophets true teaching, which can be summarized in all religions as love God and do unto others…. Thus there is almost no new testament (Christ’s part) in the fundamentalist Christian religion. It is all about punishment, retribution, wrath, revenge, and eye for and eye, condemnation, self-righteousness, and so forth.

The only way they can elevate themselves is by pushing someone else down. Thus there are fundamentalist cable programs that spend most of their dialogue about homosexuality, drug taking and abortion. Things that most of the home viewing audience aren’t involved in. There is little in the discourse about their own flaws and how to rectify them. One is religious just by the fact that he doesn’t do these thing and of course profess to have jesus as his personal savior.

They never see the contradictions of their own thinking. Fundamentalists are for the rights of the unborn until they are born and then anything goes. They are firm believers in capital punishment even though jesus himself was killed by the capital punishment of his day.

There is almost no room for love or compassion in fundamentalism unless it’s for your own kind. Once years ago when I was a hippy I went out to a Jehovah Witness rally. I was a huge event at the major league ball park. They claimed the only institution who feed more people was the U.S. Army. Well I looked like a hippy but was into natural health with at the time included fasting . I would go up to the eating tents where they were serving thousand of people (their own kind) and ask for food. I would say I hadn’t eaten in days and lift up my shirt and because I was into yoga I could suck my stomach way back and almost look like I was starving. I tried many times from different cooking locations and no one would give me food. I just laughed because I was a spiritual seeker and new this was not a true path.

Their is little need for internal self reflection among these groups because one is already saved, chosen, and redeemed…. it’s all over accept the rapture and that’s where christ can really kick some ass. Who needs the antichrist when we have fundamentalists of any strip?
bobplatt March 17th, 2007 7:04 pm

The problem is not religion but literalism. The Bible is not history or journalism; it is poetry. It is filled with stories than can teach and comfort us if we understand them as parables rather than as factual reports. For example, the Book of Judges in the old testament tells the story of Jephthah, a mighty warrior who fought against the Ammonites, enemies of Israel:

And Jephthah made a vow to the LORD, and said, “If thou wilt give the Ammonites into my hand, then whoever comes forth from the doors of my house to meet me, when I return victorious from the Ammonites, shall be the LORD’s, and I will offer him up for a burnt offering.” So Jephthah crossed over to the Ammonites to fight against them; and the LORD gave them into his hand. And he smote them from Aro’er to the neighborhood of Minnith, twenty cities, and as far as Abel-keramim, with a very great slaughter. So the Ammonites were subdued before the people of Israel. Then Jephthah came to his home at Mizpah; and behold, his daughter came out to meet him with timbrels and with dances; she was his only child; beside her he had neither son nor daughter. And when he saw her, he rent his clothes, and said, “Alas, my daughter! you have brought me very low, and you have become the cause of great trouble to me; for I have opened my mouth to the LORD, and I cannot take back my vow.” And she said to him, “My father, if you have opened your mouth to the LORD, do to me according to what has gone forth from your mouth, now that the LORD has avenged you on your enemies, on the Ammonites.” And she said to her father, “Let this thing be done for me; let me alone two months, that I may go and wander on the mountains, and bewail my virginity, I and my companions.” And he said, “Go.” And he sent her away for two months; and she departed, she and her companions, and bewailed her virginity upon the mountains. And at the end of two months, she returned to her father, who did with her according to his vow which he had made. She had never known a man. And it became a custom in Israel that the daughters of Israel went year by year to lament the daughter of Jephthah the Gileadite four days in the year.

Is it the moral of this tale that, sad though it might be, murdering his daughter was the right thing for Jephthah to do? That’s what Jephthah, his daughter, and God all seem to agree and it’s the conclusion to which a literal reading points. But I don’t think so; I think this is a parable illustrating the folly of taking your religion too literally. Believing that God was literally a being with whom he had a deal he had to make good on was what brought Jephthah to grief. (And if he was wrong about that, maybe he was also wrong to think he was doing the Lord’s work by slaughtering the Ammonites.)
If asked if they believe in God, most Americans will say yes. But I wonder if they really do, in the literal sense that Harris ascribes to them. Would they agree with Jephthah that he did the right thing in killing his daughter? I don’t think so. Last year in San Francisco, a woman named Leshaun Harris went on trial for murdering her three children; she had thrown them off a pier into San Francisco Bay because, she said, God had told her to do so in order to send them to heaven. It doesn’t seem to have occurred to anyone that that could possibly be the truth; her defense was insanity. If you kill someone in America today and claim God told you to do it, you are considered insane. Whatever people mean when they say they believe in God or in heaven, it isn’t that there really is a Being who might instruct them to send others on to the great beyond.
Religion is an art form. As such, it is no more in collision with scientific reality than music, or the works of Shakespeare. And the good news is, an awful lot of people already know this in their hearts, whether they are quite ready to admit it or not.
justin March 17th, 2007 7:35 pm

The previous post (Ralph) has pretty much summed-up my thoughts on this topic.I am a 62 year old,catholic raised, sceptic of all history, religous or otherwise.The Bible never featured in my schooling and only later did I wonder why not.Upon reading the Bible the reasons become clearer; the teaching priests and brothers obviously thought their students would point out too many contradictions, too many self-serving statements, too many hatefilled opinions,and generally an endless diatribe against various tribes in the then known world.From Genesis on the rubbish is piled on high, yet rarely do you find any debate, discussion, etc.,between the believers and others.
What amazes me , is how the human mind developed at all considering its belief in so much nonsense.Perhaps its a case of “Excreta Tuaras Sapientiam Fulgaet”.*

* Bullshit baffles brains.I’m sure the latin scholars will pick me up on this quote.
tompainesbones March 17th, 2007 7:48 pm

Deism lives.

Read Age of Reason anyone?
panamahead March 17th, 2007 9:18 pm

Sam Harris has very good points to ponder.

The country could really use a wedge to drive between the religious dogmatism that sometimes keeps this country from becoming even better and the scientific reasoning that many others absolutley insist on, with good reason.

The fine line that religion should never cross regarding government and military affairs has been blurred and we all suffer for it. But even Bush tells his religious base to “go pray in the corner.”

On the other hand, too much of an instant gratification ME culture that couldn’t care less for “Godliness with contentment” and the country suffers as well.

Too much of anything is no good. I caution against throwing the baby out with the bath water.
Coyotita March 18th, 2007 12:32 am

Religion is a man-made tool; spirituality is the consciousness of our spirit. They are not the same, or even equal. When we express our spirituality in community we do it as a religion. Unfortunately, when we do religion, it is not often spirituality.
Coyotita March 18th, 2007 12:38 am

Spirituality is the intimate connection with that that cannot be named, as the native indians have always said. Too sacred, too vast and unfathomable, and also that from which we are created, and drawn back to; the greatest of mysteries.

Religion steps off that path when man seeks to be its center; disasterously destructive.
Lobo Gris March 18th, 2007 1:01 am

panamahead March 17th, 2007 9:18 pm

“The fine line that religion should never cross regarding government and military affairs has been blurred and we all suffer for it. But even Bush tells his religious base to “go pray in the corner.””

I haven’t heard that he told his religious base to go pray in the corner, but even if he has he is throwing them goodies while they are there.

Bush has done more than any government official I know of to not just blur the line but cross it with his “faith based initiative”, and his restrictions placed on stem cell research as two of the most egregious examples.

Lobo Gris
lpenek March 18th, 2007 2:41 am

It says a lot about the level of intelligence of CD readers that this hasn’t become a shouting match. Just visit some of the atheist or Christian apologist web sites if you don’t think this is special. Maybe there’s hope after all…
Jan March 18th, 2007 8:38 am

I like the comment by Ipenek at 2:41 am.

I have been reading these discussions for a while now and never quite got around to registering to make a comment. Over the last few days I was even thinking how much I tended to agree with the majority of the comments in these discussions after each article. I also had started feeling more and more at home reading the selections of articles on Commondreams.com and these discussions…

However it has recently started to occur to me that perhaps I was becomiing a bit too comfortable continually getting my own views reinforced by what I read on Common Dreams. I was starting to suspect that all that unanimity might make me intellectually complacent if not even a bit smug about my own views that are continually being affirmed.

THEN I read this article and the majority of comments here, and I thank the Common Dreams people for having run it. I have been provoked from my sleep, registered here and have to tell you that I believe in God.
Poet March 18th, 2007 10:02 am

Bravos to Jan, Ipanek, and Coyotita. My problem with this piece is that I suspect that Harris of making the same mistake that so many in this country are making about Muslims. He is generalizing from the worst extremists about anyone of faith. His own generalizations about people of faith being as bigoted as those he chides.

That being said I agree that organized human heirarchies that seek to establish their own superiority (be they religious, political, racial, gender-based or whatever) by exclusion of any consideration of others not of the same persuasion are worthy of contempt. The idea that one has everything to teach and nothing to learn is something we should all hope to outgrow before the end of adolescence.
ezeflyer March 18th, 2007 10:19 am

“We have names for people who have many beliefs for which there is no rational justification. When their beliefs are extremely common we call them “religious”; otherwise, they are likely to be called “mad,” “psychotic,” or “delusional.” ”
Sam Harris, The End of Faith
Poet March 18th, 2007 12:37 pm

We also have many names for people who worship at the altar of rational justification. Fascinsts, Communists (think Pol Pot, Mao’s cultural revolution, and the Leninist-Stalinist Soviet Union), and Social Darwinists, objectivists, and other assorted totalitarians.

My point is that each extreme needs the other to have any meaning (like: up-down, hot-cold, east-west, etc.) Each alone of and by itself is meaningless to the point of insanity. Each needs the other to illumine its virtues and moderate its vices.
LeeAnnG March 18th, 2007 12:48 pm

I recently had a discussion about religion with a good friend who is a Mormon. We have always agreed to disagree about religion. I jokingly refer to myself as a “militant” agnostic - I don’t know and you don’t either, and she has respected my point of view. However, when we got to talking, there was a certain attitude of “someday you might get to see the light.” I told her that I’ve heard that from other friends, and I find it as offensive as my saying that maybe someday she will wake up and become rational.

After a few minutes of discussion, she agreed with me and even said that sometimes she thinks, and worries, that perhaps what she believes in is just a fantasy. Because her religion brings joy, tolerance, and meaning to her life, I told her that it doesn’t matter if it’s really true, but that it would not do for me what it does for her.

Joseph Campbell has written and spoken extensively about mythology and the world’s religions. He called all religions “mythology” and found meaning in them. His view of the western religions (funny how so many Christians think Islam is not a western religion) was that they are exclusive rather than inclusive and, therefore, their mythologies are not as informative concerning human existence. In addition, he proposed that mythology at its best is not about what happens when we die, it contains guidelines for how to live and how to give meaning to our existence.

I agree that Sam Harris’s anti-Islam message borders very closely on a phobia. I was offended by his vehemence. However, I agree completely that the cultural and social restrictions on criticizing religion need to be modified so that non-believers have as much leeway to declare their lack of belief as believers do to promote theirs. If I put a “militant agnostic” sticker on my car or if I made fun of someone’s belief, Christians are seriously offended. But they think nothing of telling me I will wind up in a lake of fire or other such absurdities.

To me, it’s not that we need to eliminate religion, which probably has its place in society. It’s that we need some kind of acceptance of those of us who do not choose to believe in texts that were written in a land long ago and far away by people who thought the earth was flat.
Vince Lawrence March 18th, 2007 1:28 pm

Just a few observations.

I agree with those posters who are encouraged that we can have this debate without it turning into a name-calling shouting match.

Several years before Joan Didion published her book reflecting on her personal loss after the death of her husband I had formulated my conclusion that: it is almost impossible for an ordinary human being to contemplate their own non-existance. I was encouraged to hear her express this same sentiment, word for word in a televised interview. This to me is the origin of religious faith, the soul, the afterlife, etc. We believe there has to be some purpose, some reason for our cognizance, our sentience, our awareness.

With my oldest son I was hands-off concerning my beliefs as I was still exploring every possible error in my reasoning. But with my youngeer son, having become firm in the foundations of my non-belief, though not forcing him to accept my conclusions I laid out fully what I thought and believed. After going through the arguments leading to the possibility that there may be no God, no afterlife, no soul, I then told him that still does not answer the question of what may be the purpose of human life. I was gratified that he did not even hesitate to say “survival.” My exact conclusion. Not our inidvidual survival, but our survival as a race. Survival so that we can continue this debate into the future. Having the reins of power in the hands of those that adhere to magical thinking, unseen and unnamed forces, virtually guarantees that we will not achieve this survival.
lauriejewett March 18th, 2007 1:34 pm

Harris has given flesh to the little thought embryo that has been incubating in my head for years. Thank you, Harris. This is a beautiful article that I will share with whomever I can.
vp March 18th, 2007 1:50 pm

Some readers here, believers and non-believers alike, misunderstood Sam Harris’s analysis, I’m afraid, accusing him of being bigoted in his leveling all the people of faith. Which is not so, for Sam is well aware of differences between tolerant, liberal believers and fundamentalists on the other end of the spectrum. Sam makes a clear distinction between them and even illustrates it by drawing those concentric circles, each of them representing another degree of intolerance. His conclusion is that outer circles create a habitat for the inner-circles people, and that outer-circles people by their very existence protect those from inner, less tolerant, circles. In the end, I read both Sam’s books and didn’t get impression of him fearing Islam, indeed, he is generally against radicalization of religions.
edladysmith March 18th, 2007 2:28 pm

hmmm… scientifically, wouldn’t the spectrum be probablistic, not concentric? sorta like the one for believers in mysteries yet unre-memembered, from those extreme outliers who are absolutely sure there are none, to those who seek them without or within
voxclamantis March 18th, 2007 2:42 pm

Just so it doesn’t get omitted from this otherwise admirable string of comments, the word “religion” comes from the same root as “ligament” and means to reconnect or rejoin. As a human activity it reflects the need of many people to discover and reconcile with the ground of their being. Neolithic people felt this need, as do pure scientists who are motivated by the wish to discover the underpinnings of the reality in which we find ourselves. In and of itself I can imagine nothing wrong with this kind of search, and will resist anyones agenda which seeks to deny me that personal right.

I do agree that we tend to become dogmatic about whether our source is a material thing, a historical thing, a mathematical thing, a spiritual thing, an intentional thing, an accidental thing, etc. And I agree that the larger the collective (so-called organized religion, which includes neo-atheism) the greater the need to codify our beliefs and the dopier and less sophisticated these canons become. I agree with Harris that when we are socially identified with these articles of faith we can become dangerous. But I also maintain that the characters he disparages are fanatical dogmatists and not actually religious people.

Thomas Merton was religious and never harmed a soul. George Bush is “churchgoing”, but not religious by any stretch of the imagination. Neither is General Boykin, because he is concerned with killing his enemies and not with discovering his source.
WernerS March 18th, 2007 2:46 pm

I never heard of Sam Harris before and liked his article.I value reason, proof and “reality.” Mysticism has its unscientific place as a nonexplainable irrational childlike romanticism but I don’t believe in ANY religion. I see most of the big ones as historically doing infinitely more harm than good, except for Buddhism. But I consider myself Spiritual, appreciating the wonders of Nature, and the mystery of the Cosmos. I have become, at 74, increasingly suspicious at man’s ability to ultimately prevent the total destruction of the world as we know it given the proliferation of Nuclear Weapons….and my dear homeland’s militaristic posturing makes me most nervous of all!! That’s it!
Lobo Gris March 18th, 2007 4:27 pm

Vince Lawrence March 18th, 2007 1:28 pm

“Survival so that we can continue this debate into the future. Having the reins of power in the hands of those that adhere to magical thinking, unseen and unnamed forces, virtually guarantees that we will not achieve this survival.”

You don’t clarify who you are talking about as to who holds the reins of power, is a magical thinker, and adhers to unseen and unanmed forces but on the off chance it is Bush, I personally don’t believe he is religious. I think he uses religion as an excuse for his actions, actions which violate the laws of society as well as the laws of religion. So while I am not religious myself nor do I believe in organized religion I believe that it is a mistake to blame religion for Bushes actions. As I believe I stated earlier in this thread, I don’t beleive any Christian could rationally believe Bush when he stated that God told him to invade Iraq.

Lobo Gris
Lobo Gris March 18th, 2007 4:46 pm

vp March 18th, 2007 1:50 pm

Some readers here, believers and non-believers alike, misunderstood Sam Harris’s analysis, I’m afraid, accusing him of being bigoted in his leveling all the people of faith. Which is not so, for Sam is well aware of differences between tolerant, liberal believers and fundamentalists on the other end of the spectrum. Sam makes a clear distinction between them and even illustrates it by drawing those concentric circles, each of them representing another degree of intolerance.

His conclusion is that outer circles create a habitat for the inner-circles people, and that outer-circles people by their very existence protect those from inner, less tolerant, circles.

I believe that you have misread what Mr. Harris has said; rather than outer outer circles protecting anyone from the inner more radical ones he states; directly from the title of his article:

“Moderate believers give cover to religious fanatics — and are every bit as delusional.
by Sam Harris”

He further states within the article itself that each outer circle protects the next most inner one from outside critizism rather than the other way around.

Lobo Gris
vp March 18th, 2007 5:30 pm

“His conclusion is that outer circles create a habitat for the inner-circles people, and that outer-circles people by their very existence protect those from inner, less tolerant, circles.”

Make it read:

“His conclusion is that outer circles create a habitat for the inner-circles people, and that outer-circles people by their very existence protect those IN inner, less tolerant, circles.” - and it gets the intended meaning.

English prepositions are my weak point.
rjhuntington March 18th, 2007 6:28 pm

Everyone — and everything — is “God”; there’s nothing else to be. As for religion, it’s a sham, a means of control, a socio-political tool. God created science, including evolution. But wait, we’re God. Exactly. Welcome to the playground.

Hey, why not?
johnkotch March 18th, 2007 8:19 pm

My view is that there is nothing wrong with religion. Religion is your “personal” relationship with whatever, or whomever you wish to view as diety.

My problem is with “organized” religion.

ALL organized religions.

By “organizing”, you accept and embrace a religious heirarchy that almost always leads those at the top to power and corruption, and eventually fundimentalism and often murder.

I have no statistics, but it is not unreasonable to assume that most “violent” or even “dogmatic” religous people have never actually read and understood thier perspective “bibles”.

Take GWB… if this guys doesn’t read a newspaper… do you really think he actually ever “read” the bible? I truly doubt he knows how to read (since he clearly doesn’t know how to speak). He’s a silver-spooned, self-rightous imbicile who’s only purpose in life is to be the “likeable-face” of some seriously evil people such as Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, etc…

GWB attending a church is a classic example of the average “Christian” who has no idea what it means to be “religious” or “spiritual”. They just accept what they’re being told, do what they’re told to do, vote how they’re told to vote, and ultimately kill who they’re told to kill either by pulling the trigger, or looking the other way while someone else pulls the trigger in “God’s” name.

Religion is all about peace. Peace with yourself, and peace with others. What could any religion possibly have to do with murdering tens of thousands of innocent people with automatic weapons and cluster bombs?
edladysmith March 18th, 2007 8:37 pm

… with those tending toward normal in the middle, who don’t know, or don’t care
Lobo Gris March 18th, 2007 10:10 pm

There is something which has been bothering ne about the subject dealt with in the article and on this thread. It in fact appears to be the impetus for Mr. Harris to write the article. But I couldn’t put my finger on it until today.

The first paragraph

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

And then he goes on to praise Mr. Stark for his candor and states that he hopes others will do the same, breaking the spell that Mr. Harris assumes exists in the majority of the population.

The fact is that Mr. Stark’s belief or non-belief in God shouldn’t be a public issue but rather a private matter. The only thing that should be of concern is how he represents his constituents which can be best determined by his voting record in Congress. The fact that Mr. Stark has chosen to make a private matter public is what has stricken me as being odd. His revelation and that of others who are in the minority in their beliefs and for example those who have a different sexual orientation than what is generally considered to be the norm.

The only conclusion that I have been able to come to is that they want to be judged on the issue, possibly in the context that it doesn’t affect their job performance so it should be a non-issue. But by making it an issue they IMO defeat the purpose of trying to make it a non-issue which it already was prior to the announcement.

My point being that if you take what is a non-issue and make and issue of it, an issue in which you disagree with 83% of the rest of the population as in Mr. Stark’s case, you probably shouldn’t be surprised or disappointed if it generates a negative reaction. I hope that it won’t but it may do just that. I wish Mr. Stark the best and respect his right to believe as he chooses , I just think he would have been better served if he had chosen to let private choices remain private.

This getting a little long winded but I think it is important so I hope you will bear with me while I give one more example.

The actress Anne Heche chose to make the announcemnent that she was gay and in doing so made an issue of it. Because of that announcement her career seemed to an outside observer (myself, I don’t know her and had only seen her in her roles as an actress) to not do well. I myself quit watching her movies, not because I am prejudiced because of her publicly announced sexual orientation, but because her job as an actress was to make the roles she played beliveable. Many of the roles she played were in romantic comedies opposite male leads, and quite frankly after her public announcement I found it difficult to find her roles in that type of movie believeable.

Lobo Gris
ezeflyer March 18th, 2007 11:16 pm

What’s the difference between superstition and religion?
lpenek March 19th, 2007 2:32 am

Lobo,
From this article and what I’ve read in Harris’s books I think what he’s saying is that a non-believer who attempts to gain high office like president will be actively discriminated against if he or she openly admits atheism. I think it’s pretty plain that a presidential candidate who professed atheism would not succeed against a Christian candidate, if only because he/she would instantly eliminate a huge chunk of support. Next we have to ask Why? And the conclusions start to become unsettling. More than likely people would have issues about his/her morality, his/her trustworthiness, his/her ability to do right, etc. A pretty big block of America would think he/she was fodder for Satan.
In the end this is a matter of bigotry and discrimination, pure and simple. The fact is, contrary to your conclusion, the issue of whether a candidate admits atheism “may” be private, but it should NOT be lethal to success.
In an odd way you’re almost advocating a “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy re belief. If a person is so brazen as to admit disbelief, he/she is expelled from eligibility. And that’s just wrong.
Re: Anne Heche– What? didn’t you see “Six Days Seven Nights”? Total believability. I never once thought she would rather be with Harrison Ford’s girlfriend. If you start tying suspension of disbelief to Hollywood sexual behavior you might as well stop going to the movies.
Lobo Gris March 19th, 2007 4:53 am

lpenek March 19th, 2007 2:32 am

“From this article and what I’ve read in Harris’s books I think what he’s saying is that a non-believer who attempts to gain high office like president will be actively discriminated against if he or she openly admits atheism.”

How can it be discrimination when the person who is an atheist is the one making an issue of it by pointing it out? By pointing it out they are making themselves an advocate for that position and making what should be a non-issue an issue in their campaign.

It would be discrimination or attempted discrimination if a candidate were to reveal that his/her opposing candidate is an atheist and voters shouldn’t vote for him/her based on that when it has no bearing on their qualification to serve.

“I think it’s pretty plain that a presidential candidate who professed atheism would not succeed against a Christian candidate, if only because he/she would instantly eliminate a huge chunk of support.

As I stated in my earlier post, if you take what is should be a non-issue and make and issue of it, an issue in which you disagree with 83% of the rest of the population, you probably shouldn’t be surprised or disappointed if it generates a negative reaction. And yes your making an issue out of a non-issue might call into question how you would act as their representative. For instance: Would you advocate or try to pass legislation to ban religion which 83% of them believe in? That wouldn’t be representing 83% of your constituents that you had asked to vote you into office would it? What you are advocating is when a candidate makes an issue of something that 83% of their potential constituents disagree with that they should disregard it and go ahead and vote for that candidate anyway even though that candidate has made him/herself an open advocate for that issue with which they disagree. And if they don’t, well they’re obviously bigots.

“In an odd way you’re almost advocating a “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy re belief. If a person is so brazen as to admit disbelief, he/she is expelled from eligibility.”

No what I’m saying is that if a candidate makes an issue out of a non-issue then they open up that issue for consideration because they have made themselves an advocate and the voter rightly considers it in their decision on how they will vote.

Re: Anne Heche– What? didn’t you see “Six Days Seven Nights”? Total believability. I never once thought she would rather be with Harrison Ford’s girlfriend.

While you might not have thought that she would rather be with Harrison Ford’s girlfriend it misses the point. After her open statement I found it hard to believe that she wanted to be with Harrison Ford. Which was the main point of the movie.

“If you start tying suspension of disbelief to Hollywood sexual behavior you might as well stop going to the movies.”

I am not tying suspension of belief to Hollywood sexual behavior. I am again saying don’t make an open issue of what shouldn’t be an issue. Because by doing so you in this case you are inviting disbelief, and you are impairing your ability to make your audience believe.

Lobo Gris
Lobo Gris March 19th, 2007 6:10 am

lpenek March 19th, 2007 2:32 am

“Lobo,
From this article and what I’ve read in Harris’s books I think what he’s saying is that a non-believer who attempts to gain high office like president will be actively discriminated against if he or she openly admits atheism. I think it’s pretty plain that a presidential candidate who professed atheism would not succeed against a Christian candidate, if only because he/she would instantly eliminate a huge chunk of support.”

Let me give you a couple of examples which I think may better illustrate my point.

In 1959 when Kennedy ran for President he didn’t stand up and say I’m a Catholic and if you don’t vote for me because of it you are a bigot. He ran on the issues that were important to the voters at the time. The press were the ones that attempted to raise it as an issue by asking whether or not Kennedy could be elected because he was Catholic. We know the answer to that one because if I remember correctly he was elected in a landslide.

Much more recently:

MINNEAPOLIS - Voters elected a black Democrat as the first Muslim in Congress on Tuesday after a race in which he advocated quick U.S. withdrawal from Iraq and made little mention of his faith.

Ellison said his race and religion weren’t as important as issues such as Iraq and health insurance for all. “We still have 43 million American uninsured. This is a problem for everyone in the United States,” he said.

Lobo Gris
tlcs_3 March 19th, 2007 8:08 am

Two ideas to consider:

Free Will

Compassion

I didn’t take too well to Harris’s article because right off he calls others who believe differently dupes.

I read the rest of the article with a bit of a chip on my shoulder, as I have read others who begin with their superiority relying on their reducing the other to foolishness or ignorance.

Here’s the thing - neither side can be proven - atheism or theism. So they are both a matter of Faith.

From free will we decide what we will accept from our point of view. Our faith may have little affect on us or much; but I don’t think a compassionate atheist nor theist would choose to act violently against another.
So our actions have less to do with faith than with our compassion.

Harris’s postulate lies in the fact that violent people hide within the society in which they find themselves. Would he accept that a violent non-believer finds shelter within his intolerant atheism?

Religion has long been the means to define us and thus to divide us. But look at who is fighting the current war - not the peaceful adherents of any faiths involved, but those who accept violence as a viable means to gain their objectives.

Continuing to divide humans into their little circles and tribes may prove to be the undoing of our species. We need to evolve further from our reptilian brains because we have the technology to destroy ourselves.

If it means I accept the compassion of Christ and it can help me change my violent nature for a more compassionate one, then I think that is very reasonable. Maybe if more people turned to compassion as a way of life then we would have a more “heavenly” world.

But it is free will -
If that be foolishness, then I am duped, happily!

Peace!
tlcs
peachmcd March 19th, 2007 8:53 am

Fundamentalism is, indeed, dangerous (and, from the standpoint of religious tradition, blasphemous and heretical). Religious folk who decline to name fundamentalism as the dangerous error they know it is, who hesitate to say categorically, “this is not Islam (Christianity, Hinduism)” in attempt to respect others’ beliefs, ARE giving cover to what they already know is evil.

But I have a similar issue with fundamentalist atheists like Mr. Harris, who arrogate to themselves the certain knowledge of what is humanly unknowable. These fundamentalists state categorically that anyone who does not totally reject the possibility of truth that is not material or empirically verifiable has cast hirself into delusional darkness, and ought to be considered dangerously insane.

I will gladly join Martin Luther King Jr, Nelson Mandela, Sojourner Truth, and all the saints in Mr. Harris’ opprobrium. The ‘insanity’ I would give my life for has already given His Life for me, and submitted Himself to far more painful humiliation than Mr. Harris’ disdain.

This nation has made gods of Money and Stuff, and has promulgated a religion of Individualism. It vaunts self-seeking, inward-directed, self-empowering spiritualities that aver ‘you are God. I am God.’ If that is the case, will you godlets please stop the war, improve the situation of the farmworkers, and reverse global warming?

These horrors are, in my opinion, predictable results of our human selfishness and arrogance. Not on an individual level, but on a societal level. The healing must also be corporate, not individualistic.

But individualistic fundamentalism looks with derision and suspicion at any way of worship that requires us to work together with and worship in a community. It points to the failings of the human institutions of organized religion and calls for their abolition. Shall we also abolish labor unions, political action groups, and governments because of their manifest imperfections, errors, and heirarchies?

Left to myself, I could easily delude myself that I’m truly wise, humble and spiritual… that I’m doing everything in my power to bring the Kingdom of Heaven to earth. In a community of faith, I’m taught constantly that I’ve got a long way to go. I’m helped along the way by others, and occasionally am privileged to help someone else along. And as a congregation, we can tackle (and heal) problems that are beyond the ability of even the most fervent and brilliant individual.

I’m required to acknowledge my solidarity with whoever walks in the door, and greet hir as if ze were Christ. I’m required to enact Christ’s love toward folks I really don’t like at all (on a human level, for my own petty reasons). Good practice for creating a better world, but completely unnecessary for the Individualist Seeker, who looks with pity and disdain upon those who have not acheived hir level of enlightenment. I meet many of my fellow irrational religious folk at peace marches, social justice rallies, and environmental workshops, but the individualists and atheists prefer to pretend we aren’t there, swelling the ranks. They look for us (and see plenty of us) where they expect to find us.

Mr. Harris is right in this respect: I can’t defend a belief I can’t prove. Problem is, I can’t discard it either. I’m one of those poor truly insane folk who has actually been given grace to see Christ alive. I didn’t go looking for visions and voices. I was another Janis Joplin, desperately looking for pharmaceuticals and other means of chemical oblivion. The Empiricist Fundamentalist can easily argue that drugs have warped my brain. If so, I should be on a ’scared straight’ tour to all the high schools. (You like drugs? You too could end up IN SEMINARY!!)

If I’m now insane, deluded, and dangerous by Mr. Harris’ definition, it’s a small price to pay for the Life I’ve been given. I would be dead, but I am alive, beloved, and (alongside atheists, agnostics, individualists, and random deluded religionists) joyful in the struggle for peace, for true democracy, and for social and environmental justice.
Richard Posner March 19th, 2007 3:19 pm

George Bush is about to become Emperor of America. Our planetary life support system is being systematically destroyed. The United States is about to become the newest third world country. Hundreds of thousands of people are being wantonly slaughtered all over this planet every day. This religious prattle is what gets the biggest response of any article on CD?
I’ve never seen so much babble about such a trivial subject. It’s almost as bad as the OJ trial or Anna Nicole Smith! Jesus Christ! You can believe whatever the hell you want! Just don’t try to shove it down everyone else’s throat!
Vince Lawrence March 19th, 2007 5:05 pm

lobo gris: No, not for one minute did I ever believe that GW was a true Christian. I come from a Christian family, and I know the difference between a poser and the authentic item. My brother-in-law is a Lutheran minister who has devoted his life to pursuits that Jesus would have approved of. However…

By adopting a Christian stance he (GW) has duped, as Harris tried to point out, many Christians of divers degree faith and belief.

Had I known earlier in life just how important matters political and governance are to me I would have entered that field. Again, however, I doubt whether I could have gotten elected dog-catcher because of my beliefs. I’ve stated that I am an atheist, but that isn’t quite true, it was just simpler for the purpose of this forum. Actually I’m a true agnostic. In my heart I do not believe there is any entity or being even slightly resembling what any of the major religions hold by tradition. However, my mind tells me that there is no proof either way for belief or non-belief, and as an earlier poster stated, it is all a matter of faith. Most people are unwilling to live with this determined suspension of judgment, but you get the knack for it after awhile.

As for Richard Posner’s blast, here again we have another hue in the spectrum of belief. Since, unfortunately we all die, we all have our own bleiefs in what this is all about. This is not an idle discussion as we see the effects of religious intolerance at work every day in this assinine war in Iraq. I know, I know, the aura of religion is only a sheen, like the difracted spectrum caused by oil on water and what’s going on there truly has nothing to do with religion or belief but with power and, well, oil.

But many of the fighters on both sides truly believe they are engaged in God’s work, so how do you separate it? Not in a forum like this where you state part of what you know and realize in several paragraphs, and then await the inevitable dissection for your lack of completeness.

I was in DC on that cold January day before we invaded Iraq and though there were many Socialists (perennial protesters,) free-thinkers, and non-believers in attendance, I was surrounded by a majority of true Christians who simply did not want to see what GW was determined to do, done in their name. Out of simple Christian humanity. I was ashamed that humanists did not have an official presence.
lpenek March 19th, 2007 6:06 pm

Vince Lawrence:
“Not in a forum like this where you state part of what you know and realize in several paragraphs, and then await the inevitable dissection for your lack of completeness.”

That’s very true, but I think one can make a satement that stands on its own sometimes, something that is axiomatic. In fact I’m about to try:

To Lobo Gris:
I’m sorry I don’t have the time to think out and fully respond to your objection, but…

In a nutshell, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it’s probably a duck. I agree that one should base electability on things like foreign and domestic policy, experience, etc. The question is (and really the topic of the article) can an atheist be outspoken and not expect to be shot down at the polls? What do you call it when a person is excluded because of a trait that has nothing to do with qualification? Descrimination. What do you call a person who does it? A bigot. Religion is like the old pulp action hero “The Shadow”: it has the power to cloud men’s minds. It has been given such a pass and untouchability throughout history that bigotry based on it can sit right in front of smart people twiddling its thumbs and they don’t notice. No, actually a worse effect that that: they call bigotry something else, like “decision making.”

Also, remember Kennedy also had to go public and assure people that he would govern based on his conscience and not via edict from Rome.

Apologies for my brevity; you deserve a better responce (and I deserve a better defense).
AC3 March 19th, 2007 6:19 pm

I believe strongly in the concept of reason, and I applaud Sam Harris for presenting the concentric circles of reasonableness concept.

However, he does not seem to be interested in equating reasonableness with risk- he doesn’t seem to be interested in subjecting moderate beliefs to a risk: benefit analysis, preferring to associate them with fundamentalist beliefs in a sweeping generalization. He also seems to be suggesting that atheists are uniquely qualified to call themselves “reasonable”- as though scientists are unified in their beliefs regarding the perceived risks and rewards of various scientific pursuits.

Associating moderates with extremists and refusing to acknowledge that faith in scientific pursuits are beliefs- beliefs that may be fundamentally irrational and downright dangerous- do not make the world a better place. Why not appeal to all (religious, atheists and agnostics) who claim to strive for true reasonableness, which respects uncertainty and acknowledges the unknown?

Another militant (and amused that others are familiar with the term) agnostic
Richard Posner March 19th, 2007 6:42 pm

The My God Song
(sung to the tune of the Kennel Ration dog food jingle)

My God’s better than your god.
My God’s better than yours.
My God’s better yeah He gets veneration.
My God’s better than yours.

My God’s better than your god.
My God’s better than yours.
My God’s better at pure pontification.
My God’s better than yours.

My God’s better than your god.
My God’s better than yours.
My God’s better and He will raze your nation.
My God’s better than yours.

My God’s better than your god.
My God’s better than yours.
My God’s better at global inundation.
My God’s better than yours.

My God’s better than your god.
My God’s better than yours.
My God’s better at plague and pustulation.
My God’s better than yours.

My God’s better than your god.
My God’s better than yours.
My God’s better He’ll crush your population.
My God’s better than yours.

My God’s better than your god.
My God’s better than yours.
My God’s better He won’t grant you salvation.
My God’s better than yours.

This could go on forever as, regrettably, the single most divisive instrument in the history of the human race seems bound to do.
Don The Engineer March 19th, 2007 10:40 pm

“…blaming the world’s ills on religious fanaticism is a bit simplistic considering the contributions of secular monsters like Hitler, Stalin, Truman, Mao, Kissinger…”

Are you serious?!! Hitler was an Uber-christian, …and issinger is Jewish!! Hardly secular monsters. Nope, you gotta own them.

Hey Paul Malfara, read the book and you might get it.

I actually pity those who have truly studied religion and still believe in it. Mostly because they behave like they’re completely ignorant of Jesus’ teachings the other 167 hours out of a week.

Sam’s point was it is not OK to believe in anything you want to if you are willing to act on those beliefs. At some point those beliefs must jive with the needs of the whole society or they could be the end of it. It is not OK for one to believe that it is ok to kill your neighbor and eat his brain if you are willing to act upon that belief.

God said to depose Saddam Hussein? Pretty much the classic definition of hubris to believe that god gives a damn about some penny ante dictator on one single planet in the entire universe. Oh yeah, but some believe that ours is the only inhabited planet ever.

What justified all the killing in the name of Jesus from the cursades, through the inquisition, to Hitler to Bush?!!! Someone didn’t believe in him? Or Mohammed? If that’s as close to getting it as they can come, who needs it?

At least the Buddha showed some the way. The rest will keep coming back and making the place over and over again in their own image. Lovely thought.

Our Rabbit’s foot,
which art in my pocket,
hallowed be thy black little nails.
Thy fate surely will come
Thy will to eat and be left alone.
On earth
as it is
on some planet orbiting a yellow star in the outer reaches of orion’s nebula.
Vince Lawrence March 19th, 2007 10:46 pm

Ipenek: before I pressed “Submit Comment” I expected your (or another’s)correct criticism. And lobo gris criticism of my remarks was also well-deserved. I also did not answer his(?) direct question because I couldn’t find the words to do it briefly. But just what sort of abdication is tendered by the words “In God We Trust”? And every speech has to be attended with the words “…and may God bless America.” Who sneezed?

Please forgive my pedestrian eruditon and wit. I really am trying not to be what AC3 calls a “militant agnostic.” It’s tough. Hey Richard -lighten up.
lpenek March 20th, 2007 2:22 am

There’s nothing pedestrian about anyone’s contribution to this blog. That’s why it’s fascinating–religious/nonreligious people talking frankly about their beliefs and interaction. Is there any historical precedent? The greatest trick religion ever purpetrated is to convince people that its practice is private and innocuous. (My apologies to those who see the obvious paraphrase.) Richard Posner, are you listening? Let a hundred flowers bloom!!!
Lobo Gris March 20th, 2007 2:49 am

Vince Lawrence March 19th, 2007 5:05 pm

“Had I known earlier in life just how important matters political and governance are to me I would have entered that field. Again, however, I doubt whether I could have gotten elected dog-catcher because of my beliefs.”

I think that is where many sell themselves short needlessly, and I think we are all more than likely worse off for it. I gave Ipenek a couple of examples where brand of religious faith, and faith out of the mainstream were not bars to people being elected.

People, myself included, I believe are far more concerned about what a candidate stands for and ultimately how they govern once in office than they are about that persons religious faith or non-religious beliefs.

The best example probably being the candidate who happened to be a Muslim that was elected last year. At this point in time with all of the denigration of people in the Middle East and their faith, if there ever was going to be discrimination over that issue it would be now. But it didn’t happen.

Lobo Gris
Lobo Gris March 20th, 2007 5:28 am

lpenek March 19th, 2007 6:06 pm

“Also, remember Kennedy also had to go public and assure people that he would govern based on his conscience and not via edict from Rome.”

And rightfully so.

Separation of Church and State is a fundamental concept outlined in the bill of rights.

I would not want a Catholic governing by edicts from the Vatican any more than I would want any other President taking governing edicts from his church, or an atheist governing by his belief that there is no God.

In other words keep religion or non-religious beliefs the h*ll out of legislation.

One of the things I am mad about is having a President who has injected his religious beliefs into the Governing process through “Faith based initiatives”

That is my tax dollars being used to fund religion.

Lobo Gris
Lobo Gris March 20th, 2007 5:49 am

Vince Lawrence March 19th, 2007 10:46 pm

I also did not answer his(?) direct question because I couldn’t find the words to do it briefly. But just what sort of abdication is tendered by the words “In God We Trust”? And every speech has to be attended with the words “…and may God bless America.” Who sneezed?

We also had slavery which is antithesis of a democratic society, and hundreds if not thousands of other inconsistencies throughout the country’s history. Perfection doesn’t exist. I think that at the time those phrases were introduced that a universal belief in God was assumed with only denominational differences existing. They were considerd non-denominational and therefore inoffensive. That being said I think the best one can hope for is to correct inconsistencies as the country goes along. I would certainly agree that the time has come if not already long overdue to eliminate such phrases from use.

Lobo Gris
Lobo Gris March 20th, 2007 7:40 am

Richard Posner March 19th, 2007 3:19 pm

I’ve never seen so much babble about such a trivial subject. It’s almost as bad as the OJ trial or Anna Nicole Smith! Jesus Christ! You can believe whatever the hell you want! Just don’t try to shove it down everyone else’s throat!”

Don’t you think we can do more than one thing at once Richard?

You need to go to a Republican site for that. They are the ones that still can’t wrap their heads around the idea that you can support the troops without supporting the war or the lawbreakers that sent them.

Lobo Gris
tompainesbones March 20th, 2007 10:42 am

Is Deism a relic of the past? I consider myself a Deist and I agree with a lot of things Sam Harris has to say and I applaud his stance of taking so called moderate Christians and Jews to task for giving validity to the Bible, the tool used by extremists. I just don’t understand atheism or even agnostics. Is an atheist someone who looks at nature and refuses to see that what has been created came from something that created it? And an agnostic is someone who doesn’t care?
AC3 March 20th, 2007 11:21 am

An agnostic is *not* someone who doesn’t care. The only defining characteristic of agnostics is their willingness to concede that the existence/ nonexistence of god(s) has not been proved. No position on the belief spectrum or level of conviction can safely be assumed from this concession.

Agnostics may be more open- minded than atheists and theists in some respects, and rarely rise to militancy before experiencing repeated accusations of intellectual dishonesty.
Don The Engineer March 20th, 2007 1:51 pm

Hey Tompaines bones:
You can call me an atheist if you need to classify me. My parents “created” me, not some spirit that followers of religion want to believe is in their own image and who also hates others who don’t believe the same thing and wants them killed by his followers.

Similarly, for the tree in my back yard, it came from a similar tree that was likely somewhere within a bird’s flight before it. Explain new species, you ask? OK, each new item comes from a genetic mutation combined with punctuated equilibrium. You can trace all of them genetically back to the primordial ooze of amino acids produced by lightning and proteins. No god involved. No hocus pocus or magic. Just 4 billion years of evolution after the first super nova seeded the universe.
Lobo Gris March 20th, 2007 2:42 pm

Don The Engineer March 20th, 2007 1:51 pm

“You can trace all of them genetically back to the primordial ooze of amino acids produced by lightning and proteins. No god involved. No hocus pocus or magic.”

If whatyou say is true then why is it that scientists have been unable to create life from those same materials in the laboratory?

Lobo Gris
tompainesbones March 20th, 2007 2:43 pm

I would say a deist believes in rational thought. The scientific method. Cause and effect. We have the universe. We can observe it. Something caused it. I don’t read anymore into it than that. It seems atheists and agnostics do not accept this line of thinking. Don’t misinterpret what I am saying. I don’t believe in any “revealed religions”. Nature is my bible.
Lobo Gris March 20th, 2007 6:21 pm

What if the Bible was looked at in a different context? I believe that there is one that clears up the iconsistencies and makes rational sense of what was written.

Lobo Gris
Vince Lawrence March 20th, 2007 10:07 pm

Thank you AC3 for that concise explanation. By the way, Thomas Aldous Huxley coined the term “agnostic” as he colaborated with Charles Darwin as the latter struggled with the forseeable consequences of the “theory” he had devised.

For me (and only for me) agnosticism is the only truly honest intellectual stance.

If you are truly interested in pursuing the ongoing discusion and debate of these matters you could do worse than obtaining a subscription to “The Skeptical Inquirer.” They’d love it, and it is not as militant as “The Skeptic.”
Vince Lawrence March 20th, 2007 10:11 pm

Those suggestions were directed towards tompainesbones.
lpenek March 21st, 2007 2:24 am

Literally agnostic means (as most people can deduce) a- (without) -gnosis (knowledge, whether from scientific or intuitive source). So in essence an agnostic has looked at the universe and has come to the conclusion that human knowledge is not sufficient (at this time) to know if there is a God. It becomes interesting when you also consider that agnostics can believe that knowlege of God is beyond human comprehension, which moves them rather interestingly into the Christian camp. Christians believe in a string of omni’s: an omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient God who’s nature is beyond real human understanding. He is perfect and complete, infinite and unerring. In short He is something that humans can never understand in any full way. Kind of sounds like agnosticism. As one author I’ve read stated: “When Christians speak of God they quite literally don’t know what they’re talking about.” Just about the only difference between Christianity and agnosticism is that Christians–and you could generalize this to the monotheisms–DO believe the unknowable God exists; they have no clue as to his nature, but they believe he’s out there. It’s an interesting perspective.
Lobo Gris March 21st, 2007 5:05 am

What if God is/was an alien or more correctly a race of aliens that have mastered interstellar space travel and all of the mastery of technology and science that that implies.

We already know through recent discovery that planets exist around other stars. It isn’t even a stretch to believe that some of those planets hold intelligent life or that some of those lifeforms could be much more advanced than we are.

Let’s apply that theory to the book of genesis in the bible. The bible tells us that God created the earth in six days. But then the bible also tells us that one of God’s days is equal to a thousand of our years. Six thousand years to terraform planet earth, not a stretch either. We are already talking about doing the same thing with Mars.

What about Adam and Eve? We already have advancing genetic scientific knowledge and the ability to clone animals. It isn’t a stretch to believe that someone more advanced than ourselves could create life through advanced genetic knowledge. We also know that Adam and Eve were not the only ones on earth. The bible tells us that when Cain was expelled that he went to the land of Nod and took a wife there. Which is important because we know that it is unreasonable to believe with what we know of genetics that all of man sprang from a single pair whose only offspring were two sons.

What about the miracles in the bible? Not a real problem for a race that would be advanced enough to master interstellar space travel.

Ezekiels visions? We already know that time is relative and that time travel is at least theoretically possible although we are far from mastering it. Astronauts watches run slower in space than they do on earth at a measly 18,000 MPH.

Seems that time travel could give advanced knowledge of events that would happen here as is oulined in Revelations although Revelations is but one timeline and I don’t believe that timelines are unchangeable any more than time is.

Does any of this discount evolution. Not by any stretch of the imagination. But it doesn’t rule out the possibility that someone intervened at some point either.

Sam Harris says;

The truth is, there is not a person on Earth who has a good reason to believe that Jesus rose from the dead or that Muhammad spoke to the angel Gabriel in a cave.

But then what I’ve outlined here has at least the potential to change that picture.

It also makes it realistically possible that God is more than just an “imaginary friend” as Sam Harris claims him/her to be.

What about God’s return? Well if he/she has been here once he/she could definitely return.

What I’ve outlined here of course is purely theoretical but it is based on scientific fact and it resolves the conflict between the Bible and science which has confounded many for decades.

Just some food for thought

Lobo Gris
Vince Lawrence March 21st, 2007 7:49 am

Oops. Glad I could correct this before someone corrected it for me. Last night’s post should have read “Thomas Henry Huxley” not Thomas Aldous Huxley. Aldous of course was the author of that required reading in hs literature classes of the 60’s “Brave New World,” and was the grandson of Thomas.

By the way, have you seen the new statistics concerning the rise of alzheimers, and has anyone seen my keys?
Vince Lawrence March 21st, 2007 8:15 am

lobo: Have you, by chance, read the speculative fiction “Calculating God” ? (Don’t recall the author’s name.)

To me there is much more hope embodied in the realization that Jesus was just an ordinary (though eminently enlightened) human being like you or I. This points to another of the basic tenets of my non-belief. This is what I meant by asking what form of abdication was tendered by the words “In God We Trust.” We are the authors of all the good and all of the bad in this world, not angels or demons or God or Satan. Jesus was an “ordinary” human being and this thought gives me great hope.

Over the years when I have at times been exasperated by the antics of fundamentalists and new-agers I have dreamed up many possible constructs and speculations, but I won’t repeat them for fear that some huckster may pick up that ball and run with it and create a new preposterous cult.
Vince Lawrence March 21st, 2007 8:31 am

Ipanek: had to read your post several times to realize what bothered me about it. Your remarks concerning agnostics are quite off the mark. I simply know that I DON’T KNOW.

I’m not Blaize Pascal and am not about to hedge my bet on my deathbed.
Lobo Gris March 21st, 2007 10:06 am

Vince Lawrence March 21st, 2007 8:15 am

“lobo: Have you, by chance, read the speculative fiction “Calculating God” ? (Don’t recall the author’s name.)

To me there is much more hope embodied in the realization that Jesus was just an ordinary (though eminently enlightened) human being like you or I.”

No I haven’t read it. The title is interesting. I won’t promise I’ll read but I may try. I used to read quite extensively but some of the medicatins I am on now interfere with my concentration and I haven’t read anything over about 10 or 11 pages in 8 to ten years now.

As for your question about Jesus. He may well have been a mortal. Just an idea but suppose he was an alien walking among us. That would make him at least seem very enlightened and probably he would be in comparison to the people he was among, and could well account for the miracles he was given credit for having performed. Not saying that is a definitive answer but in my case at least it fits in with my theory as to who we are, and how we got here.

Just caught the last of a program this morning on the science channel “hunt for alien planets” Seems as though we are going to deploy a much larger space telescope in 2011. It still won’t be able to detect earth size planets but will be able to detect the mid-sized ones such as Saturn. Jupitor and larger are the best we can do now.

Also interesting was the fact that the yellow suns like ours seem to all have planets orbiting around them.

And then you get into the enormous magnitude of the mathematics of it all. 200 billion stars just in our galaxy alone.

Here is another thought for everyone. If my theory is correct. Cain was banished and took a wife in the land of Nod. There is no description of how many people were there but I imagine it wasn’t an overly large amount and there isn’t any description as to whether there were other lands and tribes either. But consider his for a moment, it is quite possible that to some extent in the gene pool at least some of us are descendants of a murderer. (grin) Kinda puts the humbleness factor right out there in the open doesn’t it?

Lobo Gris
lpenek March 22nd, 2007 2:39 am

Vince,
I didn’t mean to imply as much about agnostics as about Christians. The fact is that there is quite a lot of agnosticism “absence of knowledge” in their belief. Christians are the first to admit that the ways of God are unknowable and ultimately mysterious, an open admission of agnosticism.

Lobo Gris,
Your hypothesis (I wouldn’t go so far as to call it a “theory”) is fun and imaginative, but like other hypothesis, like Panspermia, supported by Francis Crick, it lack direct and conclusive evident. If any were ever found, I would be the first to join you in celebration. Speculative notions that attempt to explain Biblical history by other means are very popular these days, just observe the mania surrounding the “Da Vince Code”, etc.
I remember reading a sci fi novel once where a man traveled back in time to 30 AD and gradually became aware that he was Jesus Christ. Could’ve happened.
Here are some hypotheses of my own: Jesus was haploid, and haploid humans have superpowers. Hey, it explains everything: Jesus was cloned from Mary (virgin birth) but without a father only had a singe chromosomal complement. His haploid super-powers appeared as miracles.
The problem is if you place too much emphasis on any of this you turn your “theory” into — what else — a religion. If you want weird, just look into scientology. No thanks, I’ll keep to my strong skepticism.

From a few posts back:
“If what you say is true then why is it that scientists have been unable to create life from those same materials in the laboratory?”

The task of a priori creating life is far, far beyond human science today, but that shouldn’t be used to argue that life is not completely of materialistic origin. To claim otherwise is to resurrect the notion of “vital force” or a supernatural basis for life.

Craig Venter has proposed something “like” creating new life. By editing out all the inessential pseudogenes and scrap DNA from a very simple bacteria he proposes to create a novel life form, the simplest possible. If successful, this would be the first truly engineered life form, even though the individual gene designs would come from nature. I not sure where the project is (or if it is).
Lobo Gris March 22nd, 2007 9:17 am

lpenek March 22nd, 2007 2:39 am

Lobo Gris,
Your hypothesis (I wouldn’t go so far as to call it a “theory”) is fun and imaginative, but like other hypothesis, like Panspermia, supported by Francis Crick, it lack direct and conclusive evident.

Theories are theories precisely because there isn’t any direct conclusive evidence. If there was they would be sientific fact.

We know that evolution occurs in living creatures from observed scientific phenomena. But evolution does not answer how life started on Earth. Until the creation of life can be duplicated there is no direct conclusive evidence that that is what happened and evolution as an explanation for how life started will remain a theory.

“The task of a priori creating life is far, far beyond human science today, but that shouldn’t be used to argue that life is not completely of materialistic origin.”

And why shouldn’t it, there isn’t direct conclusive evidence to support it?

You can’t have it both ways. You can’t legitimately argue on one hand that the lack of direct conclusive evidence shouldn’t be used to argue against a theory and that on the other hand it should.

BTW, The DaVinci Code is a novel, not a scientific treatise.

Lobo Gris
Lobo Gris March 22nd, 2007 2:06 pm

lpenek March 22nd, 2007 2:39 am

“Here are some hypotheses of my own: Jesus was haploid, and haploid humans have superpowers. Hey, it explains everything: Jesus was cloned from Mary (virgin birth) but without a father only had a singe chromosomal complement. His haploid super-powers appeared as miracles.”

I was trying to figure out what the heck you were talking about and or /referring to this morning. (grin)

I think I figured it out but it would help me tremendously if you would refer to what section or paragraph of my post you are arguing against if you wouildn’t mind.

Assuming on my part that you were talking about my statement that the aliens in my theory would be able to duplicate the miracles performed in the bible I wasn’t trying to claim that they would be supernatural or have super powers. My claim was that they would possess technology that would be able to duplicate the miracles. I probably wasn’t clear enough about that.

That idea stems from the technological advances that we have made just in the last 50 to 60 years. Along with the astounding illusions our magicians are able to perform.

IE:

Lasers, which range from large ones that can knock missles and airplanes out of the sky to handhelds used as pointers. And not all of them work in the visible spectrum.

Communications, Where the phone was once a huge device that hung on a wall, we now routinely walk around with a device no larger than a candy bar that is not only a phone but can take pictures , text message others, and access the internet.

Flight, we have gone from propeller driven planes with a max speed of 450 MPH to jumbo jets that can carry 500 passengers and others that can reach 3 times the speed of sound.

Space flight, from nothing to landing on the moon, putting orbitors around mars, and landing robotic explorers there. Mir and the international space ststion. The sending of satellites to the further reaches of our solar system.

Computers, from huge devices such as eniac that operated on vacuum tubes, filled a whole room, and could only compute the trajectory of an artillery round to laptops, and desktops, that are infinitely more powerful and much less expensive.

Non lethal weapons, from non-existent to new weapons that can direct sound and make it so painful for an attacker or attackers that they will be forced to cease tha attack. Another one that directs energy that makes your body instantly heat up and makes you feel like your skin is on fire.

Robotics, from non-existent to simple robots that assemble our automobiles and humanoid robots that are getting very realistic in mimicing our motion and gestures. One from honda that can escort visitors and serve them drinks and food while waiting. That may not seem like much but is astounding when you consider what the complexities of the motions and actions are. With more computing power which is arriving rapidly they will be able to do even more.

Illusions; From pulling a rabbit out of a hat to making the Statue of Liberty and whole train cars seem to disappear.

With these advances in just the last 50 years, what will the next thousand bring. Provided of course that we don’t blow ourselves up or do something else equally stupid.

BTW, I missed it but yesterday a magician on the Science channel was going to try to duplicate the miracles in the bible. Hope to catch it next time it’s on.

Lobo Gris
Don The Engineer March 22nd, 2007 2:25 pm

Hey Lobo you asked:
Don The Engineer March 20th, 2007 1:51 pm

“You can trace all of them genetically back to the primordial ooze of amino acids produced by lightning and proteins. No god involved. No hocus pocus or magic.”

If whatyou say is true then why is it that scientists have been unable to create life from those same materials in the laboratory?

Scientists have been able to form the building blocks of simple life from this very experiment. And please don’t ask for the test tube grown human from this. Time is also required, and a whole lot of it.

I would direct your attention to a 4 episode presentation on NOVA called “Origins” narrated by NEIL deGRASSE TYSON, famous astro-physicist. They show the experiment you ask for around episode 3 or 4.
tompainesbones March 22nd, 2007 2:59 pm

Back to deists, atheists, and agnostics. Let me try to ask in another way. I see myself as a deist believing in cause and effect. The effect is the universe and everything within it (including aliens). Therefore there must be a cause. God is the easiest term to use but carries too much baggage. I’ll just use this symbol (?). So is an atheist someone who thinks what this symbol (?) refers to is nothing? And an agnostic thinks that since we can not comprehend (?) we can not even give it a symbolic designation? Both, with this definition anyway, denies cause and effect.
lpenek March 22nd, 2007 3:52 pm

tompainesbones,
What “causes” a hurricane, for instance? Not one single thing. If you expand “cause” to plural “causes” one can postulate an infinite number of causes of everything. In fact, everything causes everything. Therefore the universe brings itself into being. QED.
That proof, perhaps absurdly simple, should make more sense to you as a deist than most other people. If you don’t follow something like it there will always be that fly in the ointment: What causes God, or the deity?

Lobo Gris,
It seems scientists and creationist have been arguing the semantics of hypothesis-theory-fact forever. I wish someone would convene a congress and hammer the definitive one out. My definitions: Everyone seems to agree on “fact,” that’s easy. “Hypothesis” is anything anyone wants to utter, basically. It helps if it’s based on scientific reason, but intuition also seems popular. “Theory” is the bone of contention. Creationist love to repeat “HA, evolution is only a theory!” Evolutionists say it’s “fact”. I prefer to use “theory” to mean bodies of scientific knowlege that are confirmed beyond reasonable doubt, like “theory of evolution” (which IS confirmed beyond reasonable doubt, in case you’re wondering), “theory of gravitation”, “theory of relativity”, “theory of Newtonian or Quantum mechanics”. Before you object that Newtonian mechanics was superceded by Quantum physics I would say that on a macroscopic scale Newtonian mechanics is quite correct still.
With my definitions your hypothesis is a hypothesis or conjecture. The idea that Jesus was an alien doesn’t have the stature of “theory”.
My HYPOTHESIS that Jesus was haploid was an attempt at a joke. Many lifeforms have cycles where certain phases are completed as haploid individuals, they have half the normal number of chromosomes. So I just conjectured that Jesus was the single human who ever had 23 chromosomes and that it gave him superpowers. I wasn’t arguing any point of yours, and you can just forget the whole thing.

Your review of technology is impressive. I have no qualm with the idea that a sufficiently advanced civilization would appear to 1st century denizens (or us) as godlike. The old Clarke adage: “any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic”. For that matter OUR technology would appear godlike to them.
tompainesbones March 22nd, 2007 7:58 pm

Ipenek,
We have the ability to go back in time. We haven’t been able to go back all the way to the begining of the universe but they have a good idea to where it leads ie. the big bang theory. Again, I denote a symbol (?) to represent the “cause” of the Big Bang. This symbol (?) is a mystery to man. To determine the cause of an unknown entity (?) is beyond reason. But to recognize (?) as the cause of the Big Bang is reasonable.
Dave Summers March 22nd, 2007 10:14 pm

I read “God’s Dupes” by Sam Harris soon after he notified me it had been written. Also, I have followed the comments of the dupes of whom he writes & the clear reason of atheists who responded to his Atheist Manifesto & to God’s Rottweiler Barks (his critique of the Popes nonsensical allusions to superior Catholic & inferior Islamic “reason”), and I commend Harris, yet again, on his clear statements of truth. That no “God” exists but always has been a figment of human longing & imagination should be obvious, augmented by history, the multiplicity of “creator” types, the inconsistencies, the fabrications, etc. Thus all who disagree with Sam are delusional or overwhelmed by denial or braindrenched from a lifetime of fantasy, devoid of reasoning, reality-acceptance & abilities to engage in critical analysis. Religion’s effects, from antiquity to the present, have been fundamentally execrable, sustasined by fear & ignorance and perpetuated by myths of omnipotence, omnibenevolence, omniscience & omnipresence of a being which does not exist, nor could he, she or it possess those qualities simultaneously nor even successively. Spirituality has its merits, yes, but religion or fantasy is not its only source; “the yellow streak of dawn out of the misty deep is glory enough”, not only for Zora Neale Hurston but also for me, for Sam, for Carl Sagan, for Einstein, for Hawking and for 21st century humankind in its entirety. Truth & reason, not myth, lies & religion, should be taught from birth until death, and during our temporary, living visit to our planet, we must share with William Blake & Robert Browning & Khalil Gibran & others the fact that humans have never worshiped anything nor anyone except themselves, but projected/fabricated as “otherworldly” or “unseen” or necessarily “mysterious”. “And take with you all [humans]; for in adoration you [we] cannot fly higher than their hopes nor humble yourselves [ourselves] lower than their despair” (Gibran) and
“Mercy, pity, peace & love/ Is God our father dear;/ And mercy, pity, peace & love/ Is man his child and care” (Blake). The dupes of religion are neither more nonsensical nor more unreasonable than believers in Peter Pan, Cinderella & Harry Potter; but the faith believers have spilled far more blood and harbour far worse
legacies than all nontheist fantasies and fanatics combined.
tompainesbones March 22nd, 2007 11:37 pm

Dave Summers,

I’m still having a hard time figuring out how atheists deal with what caused the universe. Maybe it’s just semantics that I’m stumbling on but it seems to me that by using reason I can only conclude that the universe (effect) had a cause. I’m not giving this cause any attributes other than what we can observe is the result of this cause. This mystery, this essence that permeates nature is what makes the sciences so exciting and poetry so compelling.
You seem to write with an arrogance or maybe a surety that nontheistic thought is superior to other views of life. I also view with disdain any attempts to control human thoughts and activities through fairy tales and irrational thought. Is it not possible though, for me to conclude that your atheism is a product of your rejection of those religions you describe in your post and not necessarily the truth? Are you not rejecting the key that has unlocked so many mysteries of nature, the concept of cause and effect?
lpenek March 23rd, 2007 2:36 am

tompainesbones:

“To determine the cause of an unknown entity (?) is beyond reason. But to recognize (?) as the cause of the Big Bang is reasonable.”

I disagree with your first sentence. As analogy: In the early 19th century not even scientists would have imagined that a full explanation for the sun would ever be evident; they thought it was some kind of giant flame and that it “burned”. Yet by the early twentieth century it was largely explained: It’s a huge fusion reactor and no more “burns” than does a microwave oven (though a microwave can still overcook your meal).

It is presumptuous to conclude at this stage that we will never know the nature of (?). It is quite possible that tomorrow some genius working in a basement will concoct a mathematical formulation that is so compelling that everyone will agree exactly to how the universe came into being – even if it was from nothing at all. This would be on par with the Einsteinian relativistic revolution, but it wouldn’t exceed it. And that is my point.

On the other hand I agree wholeheartedly with your second sentence and I would go you one further. We recognize the necessity of (?) AND there is no reason to think that one-day we will fully understand its nature.

BTW – I have read (parts) of Age of Reason. I don’t hold deism in any kind of disdain. If we one day discover that the universe is a kind of “deity,” then so be it. But supporting “deism” with cause-and-effect arguments is simply another religious appeal to ignorance, and very easy to shoot holes in.
lpenek March 23rd, 2007 2:43 am

Oops, I meant:

“and there is no reason NOT to think that one-day we will fully understand its nature.

Left as-is that would kind of kill my point.
tompainesbones March 23rd, 2007 10:41 am

I think it’s the scientific community that is supported by cause and effct arguments, not relligion. Reason only appeals to those ignorants that want to lessen their ignorance. Religion wants to reject reason. Deism embraces reason.
Dave Summers March 23rd, 2007 8:25 pm

To “tompainesbones”:

In my view the big bang theory of cosmological beginnings is far more plausible than the multiple & variable fables (i.e. myths, lies, imaginations & delusions) imposed by Islam, Christianity, Judaism & other faiths. And the zenith of cause & effect discourse has been shown by science alone - by its method, wherein facts are constrained w/i reality, thereby unveiled as evidence or truth & subsequently reproducible in a consistent fashion by other investigators who use the same method. In my field (neurology or medicine), causes must be based on appropriate studies, on past knowledge & on information elicited in “here & now” settings — not on wishes, yearning, prayer nor magic. But the latter 4 domains are typical of religion, just as its “God” beliefs are clearly not “monotheistic” (Allah is not Yahweh is not a Trinity, etc.), yet all faith-heads claim to know one God, billions of yrs old, male gender by human input alone, jealous, envious, genocidal yet kind & loving. Do you also believe such nonsense? Not arrogance but reason & common sense support a god’s nonexistence, while those claiming “Sheheit” exists (my contraction of she, he or it) cannot prove their delusion & the burden of proof rests w. proving a positive, not a negative. Moreover, neither Dawkins (The God Delusion) nor Vic Stenger (God: The Failed Hypothesis or GTFH) nor Harris (The End of Faith & Letter to a Christian Nation) has falsified the truths about humankind, about reality & about truth. “Existing scientific models contain no place where [a] God is included as an ingredient in order to explain observations”, states Stenger in his 2007 analysis, GTFH. Nor is it necessary to invent a God, as conceived or manufactured by Islam, Christianity & Judaism, to explain “that which is”. Certainly we need not explain our world, our Cosmos nor life by “that which is not” — gods, a God, a creator, etc. “[Man] created [a] God in his [man's] image, in the image of [man] created he [himself]“, not vice versa.
tompainesbones March 24th, 2007 1:39 am

Dave Summers,
I believe I have the same sentiments as you when it comes to religions. But I don’t think I’m making my point as well as I could and I fault myself for that. Let me try another approach. Let’s throw all concepts of god out the window. Let’s also say there is a planet of scientists that all they do is study their natural surroundings while developing the technology to continually improve their knowledge of the universe they live in. And as they delve farther and farther into the past towards the beginning of the universe they also see a “big bang” as being the most plausible explanation of their rigorous observations. Would it not be reasonable to conclude that they would entertain the thought that there was a “primal cause”? Something that “ignited” the big bang? I want to use this analogy to try to give this “primal cause” a clean slate. No religious connotations. No godlike characteristics. Just a recognition of its probability.
lpenek March 24th, 2007 2:44 am

Butting into your question to Dave Summer, I just have to comment that “cause and effect” is a common-sense notion that fits our human environment, but there’s no reason to think it has a cosmic significance. We already know from Quantum Mechanics that reality can operate in ways counter to human intuition, in fact reality can be downright bizarre. Most atheist objects to religion pertain to the very human nature of religion. Religions purport otherworldliness, but they are very “worldly”. If a religion included Dirac’s principles or a solution to String Theory maybe they would start getting atheist attention.
I would go so far as to say that “cause and effect” is FALSE as a general principle. Try to wrap your mind around the idea that something can exist without a cause. It’s not a very radical notion. Relativity is much more counterintuitive than that.
Dave Summers March 24th, 2007 1:39 pm

To tompainesbones:

If I were you, Bonesey, I’d prefer being the brain & eloquence & powers to simplify & to emphasize essentials in “times that try men’s souls” instead of descending to skeletal, noncognitive perpetuity; but I digress & must apologize for my diversion from your right to remain anonymous.

I’m reminded of the “mysticism” which my sociology Professor emphasized when I raised a question about the start of the universe; all theories, he claimed, eventually end in an unknowable realm, so why not accept the Biblical explanation? (which I’ve never swallowed, nor that of Navajos or Asian Indians or Australian aborigines - all fiction not unlike “sacred text” nonsense). Maybe the unknowable of agnosticism is the best scientific modernism can offer! Stenger, however, alludes to the brute probability that “something” was more likely to have been (primally) than the instability of “nothingness”, yet again rendering any God superfluous (which you & I accept - apparently). And with something more likely than nothing, that something, as in the Stenger view of “the search for a world beyond matter”, may have been particles & subparticles, electrons & neutrons & positrons, etc., reacting chemically & physically, both known to be spontaneous, inevitably so. Nor does Stenger equate the indeterminacy of quantum physics w. any immaterial or supra-natural substrate. So those of us inclined to favor agnosticism over atheism may, with Huxley, have a plausible argument — that unknowable realm of billions of yrs ago. Or ? my sociology mentor was courageous & not cowardly to admit the mysticsm into which all theists may retreat. Yet, secular humanism, science, modern medicine, etc. must deal w. the Bard’s “to be”, refraining from the unreason & nonsense of “not to be” — accepting “that which Is” in preference to yearning for “that which is not”. To the Rodney King query, Can’t we all just get-along?”, theists clearly answer “no” & will continue to resist peace as long as their “sacredness” is followed; but free inquiry, science, secular humanism & the joyful eupraxophy of Paul Kurtz may prevail if religion’s execrations are abandoned by the masses, and if all concur w. the great Ingersoll that morality is derived from human needs & human experience, and not “from the clouds” nor from the barbarians who invented texts to live by.
lpenek March 25th, 2007 2:40 am

Dave Summers,
That was very good. I think perhaps Tom Paine has abandoned us. Once the blog scrolls, interest lolls. Just wanted you to know someone had read and appreciated
it.
tompainesbones March 25th, 2007 4:06 pm

Dave Summers,
Sorry for the unavoidable delay.
The reason I use Tom Paine’s name is not because of his political writings but because he was possibly the first in American history to not be just simply admitting, as Sam Harris credits Pete Stark, “that a fresh grave should be dug for the God of Abraham — the jealous, genocidal, priggish and self-contradictory tyrant of the Bible and the Koran”, but acutally picking up a shovel and digging it. Without much success obviously.
As far as my last post descending to skeletal, noncognitive perpetuity, (isn’t this a religious person’s greatest fear?)
you may be right but I’m not afraid of making an attempt at clarity.

Ipenek,
I don’t think “cause and effect” is a false principle it just may not explain certain observations aptly. But maybe that is where I’m stuck. I can’t wrap my mind around something that is observable (the universe) lacking a primary cause. Is it inevitable that I will fall into mysticism?

Respectfully,

Larry Winter
lpenek March 27th, 2007 4:13 am

Maybe mysticism is a wish, or (uhg) a prayer that what we believe is (please, oh, please) right. In that case we’re all mystics. Best Wishes.
Dave Summers March 27th, 2007 9:16 am

To Ipenak & tompainesbones:

Thanks, both to Ipenak & to “Tom Paine’s Memory” for your responses. Rather than mysticism, our emphasis must be on the here & now, on a “humanhood” of Homo sapiens (humanhood includes both brotherhood & sisterhood for all), on uplifting or improving the human condition, and like Jefferson, preferring an allegiance to the future over retreats into the past. And if we join Thoreau in equating conservatism w. caste & class and Emerson in answering why we were born, we may (from the Sanskrit) “make every yesterday a dream of happiness & every tomorrow a vision of hope”, via remaking, renouncing & reforming, to “restore truth & good”. Secular humanism, secular democracy and the principles of the Humanist Manifesto & the eupraxophical ideals of Dr. Kurtz are to be favored over both mysticism & religion, and if science is left free to gather ever more knowledge, even an original cosmological cause may be unveiled. But I would not descend to the “prayers [that] end in the air which they uselessly agitate” (Ingersoll), but join Paine for his courage & devotion to truth and Jefferson for leaving reason “free to combat [especially sectarian] error[s] of opinion”. This still should be an “age of reason” and we need to recognize religion as its foremost enemy and to share w. Jefferson the promise of the future. Cheers!.
chuber March 28th, 2007 7:47 pm

How do atheists explain the origin of the universe? Who cares. Believers must show the evidence that the ultimate origin of the universe has a thing to do with tithing, regulation of sexual behavior, etc. An atheist understands there is zero evidence of supernatural beings mucking about in the affairs of humans. Or, that such beings can be detectably influenced by the thoughts, words, or actions of humans. And they are dupes - those who allow other humans to dictate trivial matters, irrelevant to the general social good. “Don’t eat meat on Fridays in Lent”, “Don’t marry outside your faith”, “Don’t eat the meat from animals with cloven hooves”. All utter nonsense.
When the actual evidence is presented of beings superior to ourselves, atheists will be the first to promote it.
bnsacewyvyro December 11th, 2007 11:24 pm

titvokozapuku…

exsyvoheroti…
bnkyhenynapa December 12th, 2007 8:58 am

titxixyxypiwa…

exwopozevyku…

Join the discussion:

You must be logged in to post a comment. If you haven't registered yet, click here to register. (It's quick, easy and free. And we won't give your email address to anyone.)

generic cialis viagra cialis minuteviagra com viagra online cheap tadalafil side effects
generic tadalafil viagra after a big meal generic drugs for viagra
Levitra Talks: how viagra works by levitra mail.com
levitra alternatives buying fake viagra tadalafil india
erectile dysfunction viagra in woman sildenafil generic
levitra shipping ups in use viagra woman and Ships Genuine Bayer.
levitra insert package viagra cialis online Aricles on Levitra
sildenafil citrate levitra asperin levitra bestellen
levitra free laptop ace inhibitor and viagra vardenafil levitra
garden for prairie or cheap viagra generic in uk viagra
generic tadalafil buy viagra macular degeneration caused by viagra
at Jebel Ali. Variety is viagra online of Essar Oilfields are
generic line sold viagra prescription viagra discount tadalafil
vardenafil generic order viagra erectile dysfunction drug
online pharmacy buy viagra online sublingual online
community pharmacy purchase viagra fred meyer pharmacy
of Intelligent discount viagra generic keyword viagra
levitra levetria generic viagra tadalafil side effects
buy viagra overnight viagra levitra bestellen
joke levitra viagra drug tadalafil tablets
generic female viagra purchase viagra online get viagra
tadalafil online order viagra online levitra/buy cheap levitra online
generic keyword viagra viagra for sale of Intelligent
erectile dysfunction forums cheap viagra online blindness levitra
cialis viagra comparison buy viagra cheap tadalafil 20 mg
gel generic tab viagra blue pill mail online order viagra
of Intelligent sildenafil citrate Anytime
generic keyword viagra generic sildenafil gel tab viagra
vardenafil levitra buy sildenafil generic in uk viagra
funny viagra stories sildenafil citrate tablets Levitra Talks:
online pharmacy sildenafil online at Jebel Ali. Variety is
Create a seamless cheap sildenafil and Lauren Graham are set to
generic brands viagra online order sildenafil discount tadalafil
erectile dysfunction doctor sildenafil tablets generic in uk viagra
erectile dysfunction purchase sildenafil buy tadalafil
geneic viagra erectile dysfunction drugs erectile dysfunction doctors
of Essar Oilfields are erectile dysfunction medication of Essar Oilfields are
levitra e-shop where you can erectile dysfunction treatments Comment on The
college of pharmacy erectile dysfunction drug liquid tadalafil
generic low price viagra erectile dysfunction device effects of viagra
levitra site submit buy cialis Funhouse Mirror
generic home viagra cialis joke levitra
generic home viagra tadalafil levitra shipping ups
sublingual online generic tadalafil generic leave reply viagra
levitra Order - buy tadalafil discount tadalafil
erectile dysfunction doctors cheap tadalafil mail order viagra online
eckerds pharmacy tadalafil 20mg luxury hotel rome womens viagra
erectile dysfunction doctor tadalafil online at Jebel Ali. Variety is
cialis viagra comparison tadalafil soft tabs funny viagra jokes
erectile dysfunction disorder tadalafil tablets Impotence Drugs and treatment
cheap tadalafil discount tadalafil mail order uk viagra
liquid tadalafil tadalafil softtabs full levitra information
erectile dysfunction disorder order tadalafil macular degeneration caused by viagra
cialis viagra comparison cialis cheap generic information viagra
Anytime cialis online fred meyer pharmacy
cheapest tadalafil prescription cialis levitra/coupon levitra
Aricles on Levitra order cialis get viagra
Comment on buy cialis online erectile dysfunction forums
vardenafil levitra purchase cialis sildenafil
generic cialis viagra discount cialis community pharmacy
online pharmacy generic cialis generic low price viagra
generic cialis pills versus generic viagra overnight cialis vardenafil hcl
liquid tadalafil cialis drug lauren. Buy Online -
tadalafil india purchase cialis online generic leave reply viagra
sildenafil generic order cialis online mail order viagra online
Three deep rigs cialis for sale critic chat levitra
viagra sildenafil cheap cialis online lozenges viagra
levitra/buy cheap levitra online buy cialis cheap mail order uk viagra
female viagra buy levitra levitra alternatives
cheapest viagra levitra levitra e-shop where you can
levitra insert package discount levitra tadalafil online
generic cialis pills vs generic viagra generic levitra generic keyword viagra
macular degeneration caused by viagra cheap levitra by Buy sublingual online
Funhouse Mirror levitra online generic for viagra
blindness levitra buy levitra online by levitra mail.com
mad tv viagra levitra sales generic cheap viagra
mail online order viagra order levitra ace inhibitor and viag
Design by Order levitra drug sildenafil
vardenafil hcl levitra price online pharmacy
generic female viagra purchase levitra sildenafil
compounding pharmacy levitra prices levitra bestellen
gel generic tab viagra herbal levitra levitra levitria
funny viagra commercials levitra pens funny viagra stories
tadalafil india levitra no prescription generic home viagra
full levitra information kamagra buy viagra online

NewsCenter.org is an online forum where the Progressive Community can come together to discuss the news & views of the day. NewsCenter.org is a project of CommonDreams.org

To post a comment you need to log in. To login you first have to register (which is easy and free.)

What do you think?

NewsCenter.org is a new project of CommonDreams.org aimed at engaging readers in a lively discussion of the day’s progressive news and views. We welcome your suggestions for how we can make this a meaningful forum for you. What do you think?

Mar

16

Sam Harris: God’s Dupes

Comments

109 Comments so far

Join the discussion:

What do you think?

Recently Written

Links

Log In/Log Out

Search