Militant Atheism

[Robert Tulip]

again, that is probably the most noble interpretation of christianity i have heard, but there are plenty of stories that do the same thing.

I would challenge you to find those 'plenty of stories' that rival the gospels as works of ethical genius. The gospels operate on an archetypal world scale as a model of how to speak truth to power and transform social values. The Gospels have been systematically neutered by church bigots who are in league with the devil, to the point that their real message is almost invisible. As explained by Dostoyevsky in his masterful essay on the Grand Inquisitor, discussed here recently, the church has methodically altered the message of the gospels so as to make it unrecognisable and to serve secular purposes of power and wealth.

Without the a-priori valuing of christian myth as somehow inherently BETTER in some way than all previous or following mythology, there is no reason to try to reform it, or seek out the value while explaining away all the dross.

The 'dross' is the false church distortions of the original allegory. This is precisely what is predicted in the Gospel with the parable of the wheat and weeds, where Jesus says that false teaching (supernaturalism) would be entwined with the truth until the end of the age.

I don't accept that the estimation of the Gospels as unique is an assumption, as it can be justified by evidence. The gospels are an ultimate ethical story for our planet, but that is by no means to indicate any disrespect for other authentic myths. The wonderful thing about Christianity is the way it brought together all the myths of the middle east in order to undermine the moral authority of western imperialism. The Jews could not fight Rome with the sword so they turned to the tongue. This is an awfully subversive message, but one that is defensible by an evidentiary study of the Gospels. The aim was to destroy Rome's legitimacy by an attack on its Gods with the suggestion that the Olympian deities are not real.

The Greco-Roman Gods Jupiter and Zeus Patera effectively fought back against the Gospels by uniting with Jehovah against the truth, allying under the title Deus Pater. However, the messianic core of Christianity, the message that truth is the source of freedom, was always and still remains naturalistic in essence. You cannot come to grips with the true radicality in Christianity, the passion that led Christ to the cross in the archetypal myth, until you see Christianity as demanding a rigorous and clear-eyed vision of reality.

[stahrwe]

And i do have to comment that it seems Dawn has been eating her crazies in the morning. Sam Harris is a monster in the making according to her.

Would you please cite the full quote Dawn posted?

Personally I think Sam Harris is a shrewd opportunist who has figured out how to make money on Christianity. Given his rhetoric, it surprises me that atheists own him. You can and should demand better.

[Dawn]

RT:Dawn, you insinuate that Sam Harris is not a liberal humanist in your suggestion that he would want to 'get rid of' people he disagrees with. You seem to equate American atheism, which is a highly compassionate and evidence-based religion, with traditional communist atheism which sets its faith within the context of class warfare. Harris does not seek to "get rid" of anyone.

Sorry I've been away for a bit---sailing sure beats talking militant atheism for serenity... just a comment here though:
I hear your point about the distinction between 'american' and communist atheism... however the 'highly compassionate' bit is certainly not characteristic of Sam's militant hate-mongering and calling for a world without religion of any kind--not that he proposes doing anything to bring that about except ridicule and hate-mongering. Risky business if you ask me and if history tells any stories worth remembering...(Have you read End of Faith? ) How this is compassionate fails me... and I certainly wouldn't want to be any sort of 'liberal humanist' if I had to share the label with Harris....

And yes, Johnson, maybe I've spent too much time imbibing the likes of Harris and am really going 'crazy' Will leave you to it. But first a recommendation from a more sane and respectful perspective... (Would love to see some reading done here from more well-tempered authors) The Reason for God by Timothy Keller is quite a well reasoned volume. Started it this weekend. Would love to have some 'joiners in' for the read... Do 'militant atheists' ever read the 'opposition'?

[Robert Tulip]

Sam's militant hate-mongering and calling for a world without religion of any kind--not that he proposes doing anything to bring that about except ridicule and hate-mongering

Militant is certainly a loaded word, and interesting to explore in this context. Generally, militant is equated to fanatic, and applied to Islamists who support violent terrorism and ignorant intolerance. Militancy has a long history, as in the Church Militant, to indicate an adamant certainty and desire to transform the world. The communist Russian League of the Militant Godless also indicates how militancy inspires hate.

Although Harris is militant in the sense of being certain, he is not a hater. Yes, he does drip with contempt for people who hold firmly to ideas that all rational scientists know even a child should reject. But it is wrong to interpret the pity and exasperation he expresses about Christian idiocy as hatred. Harris, as I read him in various books, does see fundamentalist Christianity as a national emergency for the USA, a cancer that undermines capacity to base policy on evidence, but he remains committed to using the methods of reasoned dialogue to shift public opinion.

It is a shame that the middle ground in the religious debates is so sparsely inhabited. Exploring this middle ground was something I tried to raise in my review here of Karen Armstrong's The Case for God, which proposes a rational approach to faith with respect for the mythic content of religion. These sort of rational voices get squeezed out by the loud braying of fundamentalists. I expect Harris would be able to hold a sensible discussion with anyone who does not maintain claims that contradict observation. But the clash of extremes gets the media attention, whereas the more productive agenda of rational dialogue among people who really wish to learn gets ignored.

[Dawn]

Sam's militant hate-mongering and calling for a world without religion of any kind--not that he proposes doing anything to bring that about except ridicule and hate-mongering

Militant is certainly a loaded word, and interesting to explore in this context... Although Harris is militant in the sense of being certain, he is not a hater. Yes, he does drip with contempt for people who hold firmly to ideas that all rational scientists know even a child should reject. But it is wrong to interpret the pity and exasperation he expresses about Christian idiocy as hatred. Harris, as I read him in various books, does see fundamentalist Christianity as a national emergency for the USA, a cancer that undermines capacity to base policy on evidence, but he remains committed to using the methods of reasoned dialogue to shift public opinion.

It is a shame that the middle ground in the religious debates is so sparsely inhabited. Exploring this middle ground was something I tried to raise in my review here of Karen Armstrong's The Case for God, which proposes a rational approach to faith with respect for the mythic content of religion. These sort of rational voices get squeezed out by the loud braying of fundamentalists. I expect Harris would be able to hold a sensible discussion with anyone who does not maintain claims that contradict observation. But the clash of extremes gets the media attention, whereas the more productive agenda of rational dialogue among people who really wish to learn gets ignored.

"he does drip with contempt" is a pretty near neighbor to hatred in my book, no not exactly synonymous, but certainly not helpful to 'reasoned dialogue'. Mockery will shift the public opinion of those who have not learned to think critically when listening to a speech. But it will not bring anyone closer to the truth. This self-assured arrogant tone which delivers scathing, slanderous, and unfounded evaluations of any views that oppose his own, is not designed to help people investigate truth; but to convince them that Sam knows what he's talking about and they should listen to him... I find it odd that he is taken seriously.

As for "ideas that all rational scientists know even a child should reject", this sort of language is so Harris-like. Have you been infected? Do you really believe all rational scientists think this way? Speaking with such hyperbole does not help anyone come to a knowledge of the truth. It just ignores contradicting arguments. Not a scientific means of finding truth.

I see your efforts to find some middle ground by presenting a more 'rational' grounds for faith.... Presenting historical facts as myth is somehow not rational in the minds of many. And these would wonder what is gained by so doing? Peace at any cost? What do you have left after everyone agrees that the emperor has clothes on? A duped people who believe themselves to be 'scientific', 'rational' and very sophisticated.... I'm not convinced that there is an earnest desire to learn anything in many cases (on either side). To desire to learn requires humility and teachability, even willingness to explore viewpoints not your own, all mockery and contempt aside... I would like, for instance to see a wider consideration of books here---with at least the occasional Christian apologist, or a secular but dissenting viewpoint... Authors like Ravi Zacharias, Timothy Keller, C.S. Lewis and countless others have written with excellence and sound reasoning and come to quite contrasting conclusions than those commonly aired at BT. Have we heard them out? Have we cared to? Why not?

[DWill]

I completely agree that atheists/agnostics and believers in God should be able to work together and talk to each other. Where I disagree strongly is that the topic of discussion can ever be the one matter that labels them as religious or not. It's an entire waste of time for the sides to try to argue that there is or isn't a god or God, or to premise any discussion on belief or its lack. Atheists and believers can perfectly well be on committees, have friendships, participate in online groups discussing politics, literature, and many other things, but it's so unlikely that aside from basic, introductory matters, they have anything really worth talking about on the God question.

[Dexter]

I completely agree that atheists/agnostics and believers in God should be able to work together and talk to each other. Where I disagree strongly is that the topic of discussion can ever be the one matter that labels them as religious or not. It's an entire waste of time for the sides to try to argue that there is or isn't a god or God, or to premise any discussion on belief or its lack. Atheists and believers can perfectly well be on committees, have friendships, participate in online groups discussing politics, literature, and many other things, but it's so unlikely that aside from basic, introductory matters, they have anything really worth talking about on the God question.

Well said. In fact, it's a good thing that most believers don't take their faith all that seriously (that is not meant as an insult, it seems to be a pretty well-established empirical fact). I am ignorant of the religious beliefs of most people I interact with, and that is surely a good thing.

[Robert Tulip]

"he does drip with contempt" is a pretty near neighbor to hatred in my book, no not exactly synonymous, but certainly not helpful to 'reasoned dialogue'. Mockery will shift the public opinion of those who have not learned to think critically when listening to a speech. But it will not bring anyone closer to the truth. This self-assured arrogant tone which delivers scathing, slanderous, and unfounded evaluations of any views that oppose his own, is not designed to help people investigate truth; but to convince them that Sam knows what he's talking about and they should listen to him... I find it odd that he is taken seriously.

Dawn, you may have noted the comment by Israel Finkelstein quoted by Tat in recent discussion, that he treats people who disagree with him as like advocates of a flat earth theory. This is the sort of contempt that Harris has for fundamentalists. The main axiom of science is that consistent evidence is reliable. People who persist in believing things that contradict the consistent picture provided by evidence, even after their error is explained to them, are incapable of reasoned dialogue.

You may say that Finkelstein is mocking people by associating them with flat earthers, but he has a serious point. If you start from the axiom that the Bible proves the existence of supernatural entities, you will build a foundation upon the sand, not on rock, in the famous parable. Everything you build upon a false foundation will be subject to mockery.

The foundations of American atheism are in the Declaration of Independence, with its axioms that all are created equal and have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Of course atheism assumes that the term 'creator' is a metaphor. But the point is that culturally, atheism in the USA is part of a cultural tradition that sought to leave the old religious emnities of Europe behind, by respecting everyone's right to freedom of opinion. So Harris has a baseline of respect, except this respect is not returned by fundamentalists who insist their errors are the sole truth. It means the middle way of seeing the kernel of scientific truth in religion is squeezed out by the clash of opposites.

As for "ideas that all rational scientists know even a child should reject", this sort of language is so Harris-like. Have you been infected? Do you really believe all rational scientists think this way? Speaking with such hyperbole does not help anyone come to a knowledge of the truth. It just ignores contradicting arguments. Not a scientific means of finding truth.

I am "infected', to use your loaded word, by the assumption that consistent evidence is reliable. Consistent evidence shows that young earth creationism is entirely false and that life on earth has evolved over about four billion years. All rational scientists agree with this conclusion. Anyone who disagrees is not rational. Children should be taught the truth.

I see your efforts to find some middle ground by presenting a more 'rational' grounds for faith.... Presenting historical facts as myth is somehow not rational in the minds of many. And these would wonder what is gained by so doing? Peace at any cost? What do you have left after everyone agrees that the emperor has clothes on? A duped people who believe themselves to be 'scientific', 'rational' and very sophisticated.... I'm not convinced that there is an earnest desire to learn anything in many cases (on either side). To desire to learn requires humility and teachability, even willingness to explore viewpoints not your own, all mockery and contempt aside... I would like, for instance to see a wider consideration of books here---with at least the occasional Christian apologist, or a secular but dissenting viewpoint... Authors like Ravi Zacharias, Timothy Keller, C.S. Lewis and countless others have written with excellence and sound reasoning and come to quite contrasting conclusions than those commonly aired at BT. Have we heard them out? Have we cared to? Why not?

Your comment here raises the debate about whether Jesus Christ actually existed as a historical individual. Because this assumption is so central to orthodox Christian faith, many Christians react with fear and loathing to scientific investigation of it. Real humility requires that we try to set aside our assumptions and investigate them objectively. The astounding thing when this scientific humility is applied to study of the Bible is that there is not a shred of objective evidence for the existence of Jesus, and there is abundant opportunity, motive and means for the church to fabricate the story of the gospels. The authors that you mention lack true humility, because they assume their supernatural faith is true and apply circular reasoning to rationalize their assumptions.

[Dawn]

RT:"The authors that you mention lack true humility, because they assume their supernatural faith is true and apply circular reasoning to rationalize their assumptions."

Robert, Have you read them? What evidence do you have that these authors have not examined their assumptions at least as objectively as you have yours?

[Robert Tulip]

RT:"The authors that you mention lack true humility, because they assume their supernatural faith is true and apply circular reasoning to rationalize their assumptions."

Robert, Have you read them? What evidence do you have that these authors have not examined their assumptions at least as objectively as you have yours?

Let's look at Mere Christianity by CS Lewis.

The Case for Christianity
Lewis spends most of his defense of the Christian faith on an argument from morality, a point which persuaded him from atheism to Christianity. He bases his case on a moral law, a "rule about right and wrong" commonly known to all human beings, citing the example of Nazism; even atheists believed that Hitler's actions were morally wrong. On a more mundane level, it is generally accepted that stealing is violating the moral law. Lewis argues that the moral law is like the laws of nature in that it was not contrived by humans. However, it is unlike natural laws in that it can be broken or ignored, and it is known intuitively, rather than through observation. After introducing the moral law, Lewis argues that thirst reflects the fact that people naturally need water, and there is no other substance which satisfies that need. Lewis points out that earthly experience does not satisfy the human craving for "joy" and that only God could fit the bill; humans cannot know to yearn for something if it does not exist.

A logic fail from the start. Wishing does not make it so. Our 'yearning' for a moral law can be entirely satisfied, and better satisfied, by a cosmology that restricts claims to the natural without speculating about supernatural entities. The popularity of this gush derived from Lewis's ability to present an avuncular exploitation of the moral basis of the war against Hitler in suitably reassuring Christian tones.

After providing reasons for his conversion to theism, Lewis goes over rival conceptions of God to Christianity. Pantheism, he argues, is incoherent, and atheism too simple. Eventually he arrives to Jesus Christ, and invokes a well-known argument now known as the "Lewis trilemma". Lewis, arguing that Jesus was claiming to be God, uses logic to advance three possibilities: either he really was God, was deliberately lying, or was not God but thought himself to be (which would make him delusional and likely insane). The book goes on to say that the latter two possibilities are not consistent with Jesus' character and it was most likely that he was being truthful.
Lewis claims that to understand Christianity, one must understand the moral law, which is the underlying structure of the universe and is "hard as nails." Unless one grasps the dismay which comes from humanity's failure to keep the moral law, one cannot understand the coming of Christ and his work. The eternal God who is the law's source takes primacy over the created Satan whose rebellion undergirds all evil. The death and resurrection of Christ is introduced as the only way in which our inadequate human attempts to redeem humanity's sins could be made adequate in God's eyes.

This trilemma is just twee Anglicanism aimed squarely at the parish vicar. It entirely begs the question it seeks to justify by simply assuming that Jesus Christ existed as a historical individual, despite the complete absence of objective evidence for this claim.

God "became a man" in Christ, Lewis says, so that mankind could be "amalgamated with God's nature" and make full atonement possible. Lewis offers several analogies to explain this abstract concept: that of Jesus "paying the penalty" for a crime, "paying a debt," or helping humanity out of a hole. His main point, however, is that redemption is so incomprehensible that it cannot be fully appreciated, and he attempts to explain that how God atones for sin is not nearly as important as the fact that he does.

Here we see the 'pat little Johnny on the head' version of theology with the argument that 'how' is less important than 'that'. Oh, atonement is all far too complicated for ordinary people to understand, so don't worry your pretty little head about it, uncle CS will fight off all those baddy satanists and atheists for you, no need for you to think for yourself.