Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« The Morning News | On the Radio »

Thursday, February 15, 2007

What He Said

posted by on February 15 at 8:48 AM

Atrios:

I’m puzzled why some religious people seem to get upset by more outspoken atheists. I can turn on the teevee and be threatened with damnation and hellfire. Who cares if Sam Harris thinks you’re stupid? If atheists want to engage in their own brand of proselytizing, good for them. I’m not especially interested in it, but what’s wrong with it? There are Christian missionaries all over the world.

RSS icon Comments

1

You're trying to understand evangical Christians with logic? Won't work. They are an illogical people, and feel threatened by anything that could possibly expose them to facts.

Posted by Enigma | February 15, 2007 9:04 AM
2

Dan, the problem is the total lack of epistemlogical humility. Sam Harris thinks the alleged correctness of his ideas entitles him to be a dick to people. This is the same thing that's wrong with Jerry Falwell. And it's why most atheists I know are embarrassed by Harris.

Ideally, I'd like to see more humility across the board.

Posted by Kevin Erickson | February 15, 2007 9:08 AM
3

Frankly, I'm horribly annoyed by both.

Posted by Gitai | February 15, 2007 9:16 AM
4

You don't think Harris has a bit more of a legitimate claim to correctness than Falwell et al.? Come on now. I'm a bit put off at times by his tone as well, but at least the man can make a cogent argument. All they have is "the bible says!"

Posted by Levislade | February 15, 2007 9:18 AM
5

I agree with the Atrios quote, and I also think that certain outspoken atheists can be just as annoying and maddening as proselytizing fundamentalists. I'm not thinking of Sam Harris, more like Richard Dawkins.

Posted by Gabriel | February 15, 2007 9:32 AM
6

Uh, yeah, Chrisians (and most other religious people) don't operate under the "good for the goose, good for the gander" principle. Go ahead and try to explain it to one...

Posted by Mike in MO | February 15, 2007 9:36 AM
7

@4: here, here!

Posted by Dakota | February 15, 2007 10:13 AM
8

They are right, they don't want anyone else's point of view.

Posted by monkey | February 15, 2007 10:14 AM
9

I find obnoxious behavior irritating, no matter who it is coming from or what viewpoint they hold. It's sometimes tempting to find an obnoxious person who supports your opinions entertaining, but if you ask yourself how you would feel about the same type of behavior if it was coming from someone you didn't agree with (i.e. fundamentalist christians) it swiftly loses its appeal.

Posted by Janelle | February 15, 2007 10:42 AM
10

With you and Atrios, Dan. This item touches on one of my soapbox issues:

Free speech should be a lot freer in practice than it is. A lot of my fellow liberals seem to think that free speech and tolerance mean being polite about any stupid notion out there, even ideas they strongly disagree with. We often don't take full advantage of the free speech that is a tenet of our politics, but religious proselytizers do. We ought to pass a resolution at the next meeting of the liberal conspiracy to start pointing out loudly and publicly that religious ideas are ideas like any other and therefore subject to debate and criticism.

Posted by moose@belltown | February 15, 2007 10:59 AM
11

I've never seen an atheist threaten anyone with eternal torment and damnation. It freaks kids out when they hear it. Sick religious bastards. Or they have their ideas treated respectfully by the media when they try to prejudice my kid against his neighbors and friend's families by saying gays are dirty sinners going to hell. Why shouldn't anyone respond forcefully to this pernicious petri-dish of hatred and intolerance? The general media is way to tolerant of religious based hate.

What's the worst an atheist can ever do? Say, "Show me the proof!"

P.S. I borrowed Dawkin's book God Delusion out of the library and expected it to be dull, but it was quite an entertaining read. Unfortunately, I got distracted by the other 2 books I was reading at the same time and had to return it before I was done.

Posted by mirror | February 15, 2007 11:00 AM
12

I wonder if astrologists get as upset about people who see through their bullshit as the christians\muslims\jews get upset aboout atheists.

Posted by Tiffany | February 15, 2007 11:03 AM
13

P.P.S. The media is ALSO waaay too tolerant of religious based STUPIDITY!

Posted by mirror | February 15, 2007 11:03 AM
14

Far more disturbing to me are organizations like the Discovery Institute. They take faith (rather than fact) based beliefs and wrap them in a thin veneer of science-like language.

I'm all for religious teachers making their best case so long as scientists can be left unmolested to make theirs. Name calling on either side is just counterproductive.

Posted by golob | February 15, 2007 11:22 AM
15

@9 - To reiterate: people like Harris and Dawkins present facts in a logical way to support their arguments. Religious people have no facts to present, so all they present is fuming, ire, hatred, and the promise of damnation. And we're supposed to freakin' apologize. Sorry, I'm over it.

Posted by Levislade | February 15, 2007 11:22 AM
16

I was always under the assumption that religion was to fill in the blanks to the questions that science and logic has yet to explain and be flexible enough to change when necessary. The problem with both fundamentalists and hard-core atheists is that they both think they have the answers to questions that have no answers, yet anyway. Take the issue of faith. An atheist would never admit it, but much like christian faith that there is a heaven, atheists have faith that that we cease to exist at death.

What is wrong with simply saying that you do not know for sure and having that as your "religion"? Put the faith in ourselves and helping our fellow people rather than concerning ourselves with questions that can't be answered (dead men tell no tales of course) and enjoy and be grateful for all the moments that life and simply existence has to offer. Seems much more peaceful and productive than pushing faith and belief, atheist or not.

Posted by Brandon H | February 15, 2007 1:19 PM
17

Most atheists are perfectly willing to acknowledge they don't have all the answers - they just see no reason to subscribe to a bizarre, fictional set of beliefs just because their parents did. Scientists are the ones trying to find the answers; people of faith are the ones who smugly, self-righteously insist that theirs is the one true answer.

Posted by Levislade | February 15, 2007 1:23 PM
18

@15 - the problem with what you say is that some religious people realize they have no facts. you might not like them either, but as long as some are not fuming with hatred and the promise of damnation, you are painting with too broad a brush. such generalizations are unhelpful.

Posted by infrequent | February 15, 2007 1:33 PM
19

OK, I will try to be clear . . . the point was comparing atheists who offend religious people with religious people who offend atheists.

What atheists do to offend religious people is present well thought-out arguments supported by facts. Perhaps some do this in a strident tone, but perhaps they are merely trying to be heard over the rubbish being spewed by the offensive religious people.

What religious people do to offend atheists is condemn their lifestyles as evil, sentence them to eternal damnation, and, occasionally, attempt to restrict their civil rights. This is supported by a very old, very faulty book (take your pick).

Do you see the difference?

Posted by Levislade | February 15, 2007 1:44 PM
20

Yes, but I'm saying that this 2 sided, us v. them is unproductive and dangerous. You say that you are willing to ceded that you do not have all the answers, but are you open to the (very) remote possibility that the fundamentalist christian is right? Yes, atheists use logic and reason, great stuff that logic and reason. Christians use doctrine and belief. They are both based on preconceived notions, beliefs, and each persons own unique perspective, which is why saying they are wrong or backward is problematic because they perception of the world tells them they are right and you are the one who is backward. Both sides need to see a third way, a way that resides in that gray area in between the two extremes that allows for both to exist and live their lives if they ever want to have any hope in breaking free from this animosity and confrontation. Thats the only thing that I am concerned with right now, is how to move beyond who is right and wrong and figure out a way to create peace. Of course, this does not solve the problem of the Christian who insists all must believe in jesus or burn in hell, but it stands to reason that if I make allowances for a Christian to believe what they believe, then somewhere down the road the Christian might do the same for me or someone else. But even doing that is a matter of faith. But what the hell do I know, I am just another person who is trying to make sense of the world as he sees it just like everyone else, so just take this rumination for what it is, simple thoughts and opinions that are in no way absolute

Posted by Brandon H | February 15, 2007 2:11 PM
21

and why is it that if your declare yourself an atheist among a mixed random crowd, you instictively cower, waiting for the disapproval, but if you announce you're a xtian in the same circumstances, you may do so proudly, confidantly, and without fear of even a "tsk, tsk." it's a form of oppression. i bet a whole lot more people would declare themselves without religion on those surveys if this was not the sort of social censure we live with all the fucking time.

Posted by ellarosa | February 15, 2007 2:19 PM
22

I appreciate your thoughts, Brandon - and maybe it's because I'm hip-deep in Sam Harris's The End of Faith*, but it's not as simple as "let everyone believe what they want to believe and all will be well." For starters, there are very few atheists out there saying that religious folks should not believe what they believe; for the most part we are just trying to explain why we don't believe, and why there is no reason to believe.

The overwhelming wave is in the other direction, as most religions, at their base, teach that those who do not believe are at best going to hell and at worst should be helped along the way (i.e., killed) by the true believers. This is a problem, and it's not just 2 equally valid ways of seeing the world.

And it's great that some religions have evolved beyond the point where they feel the need to kill non-believers, and it would certainly help if they all evolved to that point, but the only way they have ever evolved is by being faced with incontrovertible fact from the secular side. There is nothing inherent in any religion that allows for change or evolution in doctrine; they are by definition conservative, sometimes violently so.
_________________________________
*Which I highly recommend, by the way; it might be a good tool in your thinking on this topic, and it certainly is more thorough than I can be.

Posted by Levislade | February 15, 2007 2:25 PM
23

@20: I'm all for animosity and confrontation, Brandon H. A little of both of those is inevitable when people with different sets of assumptions really get down to an exchange of views.

Too much making allowances means too much obliviousness, making for too much peace, which leads to too much surprise and fear when we DO find out what each other is thinking.

Better to shout about it on a regular basis. Then christianists won't be surprised to learn that atheists still think they can be patriots, and liberals won't be surprised to learn that torture can be considered christian.

Posted by moose@belltown | February 15, 2007 3:16 PM
24

@21 ellarosa -

i don't know, if you announce you are a xtian in most places around town you will get tsk'd. i really cannot imagine a place i've been within the city limits in the last year where this is not true. that means, when given the majority (and therefore the social power), we aren't doing much better than the xtians.

i agree with brandon, while the burn in heller's who will not listen to your view, or allow you to have another view shouldn't be tolerated, a general hostility towards anyone who espouses faith.

@19 - yeah, some "believers" say rude things, but i've heard many an atheist say "because i'm not an idiot" or "your faith is like a flying spaghetti monster" or something, when their audience may not deserve it. that is not dialog. i'm just saying both parties are guilty.

IF both parties were civil, then you would never have to worry about offending the wrong sort. if they offend, just ignore them. or politely address the particular flaw they are promoting in that instance.

and i'd go as far as to say the vast majority of the religious in the USA do not find it acceptable to convert or kill. so to raise that in a discussion about xtians vs atheists seems somewhat like a straw argument...

Posted by infrequent | February 15, 2007 3:18 PM
25

Yes, atheists use logic and reason, great stuff that logic and reason. Christians use doctrine and belief. They are both based on preconceived notions, beliefs, and each persons own unique perspective

Bzzt. Wrong.

You've fallen into the classic rhetorical trap laid by most xtian fundamentalists.

Logic and reason are processes. They rely on obervation, and though belief may certainly guide reason, but reason dictates that beliefs are always subordinate to observation.

By definition, the opposite is true for doctrine.

Posted by A Nony Mouse | February 15, 2007 3:32 PM
26

Brandon H. wrote (@16):

An atheist would never admit it, but much like christian faith that there is a heaven, atheists have faith that that we cease to exist at death.

Not quite. When you watch a piece of wood burn, do you have faith that the log ceases to exist as a log and has become a pile of ash?

I feel that I know that plants and animals cease to live at death, and that they cease to exist even as un-living blobs of organized matter when their bodies decompose. There's no faith involved there.

Some people have faith in the idea that we humans exist beyond our lives and our bodies. Some people have faith that there are superhuman beings floating around observing us. Disbelieving these things because of an insufficiently convincing body of evidence of their existence does not require faith; it is simply the default view of the unconvinced.

By Brandon's logic, we must have some faith that every single thing or concept that we do not specifically acknowledge or believe in does not exist. I don't think so. I don't have faith that there are not space monsters in Brandon's back yard, or a yeti up in the mountains; I simply haven't been convinced that these things are so.

Imagine that someone was born and raised in an isolated location without being exposed to any religious mythology, and never comes to suppose that any gods exist. I would consider that person to be an atheist. How could he possibly have faith that a god does not exist if he has never even been exposed to the idea?

Faith, in the context of this discussion, is the belief in a religious system revolving around the existence of a deity. Atheism is not faith in the inaccuracy of that belief, it is simply the absence of such belief.

Thoughts?

Posted by Phil | February 15, 2007 3:38 PM
27

What about Buddhism? It allows for change and evolution, even in its most conservative form and is not a theistic religion.

I did not mean "let everyone believe what they want" so much as I meant "everyone needs to allow for everyone to believe what they want", including Christians in this case. This dichotomous "us against them" is pointless and even deadly as you point out. While I am in no way advocating laying down our opposition to fundamentalism (if someone is threatening you, you should be able to fight for your survival), I am saying that we need to change our thinking if we as human beings ever hope to move beyond this battle, and so far from what I have observed Christians and Atheists are both guilty of perpetuating this fight. Even "letting everyone believe what they want" does not mean we are not allowed to oppose injustice in the form of forcing beliefs on other people against their will.

Personally, I see Atheism as being way to confrontational and absolute in it's ideas, almost to the point of being to the opposite extreme. The entire basis is everyone is wrong and we cease to exist when we die, we are right and your an irrational idiot for believing anything else (per Mr. Dawkins if i am understanding him correctly), which is a dangerous mix when coupled with a christian who has decided to go on a mini crusade (a la Jesus Camp) even if Atheists are ultimately in the right. You said that you are only trying to explain why you believe what you believe, but that belief is a threat to what a christians believes, just like how a christians belief is a threat to yours. I suppose what I am trying to think of is a way to minimize this back and forth threatened feeling on both sides of this, and the only way that I can think of right now is to change my own thinking regarding these issues.

Posted by Brandon H | February 15, 2007 3:45 PM
28
Posted by hyperlinker | February 15, 2007 3:47 PM
29

#25, that is the confrontationalism I was refering to. Anyway, Logic and reason depend on our perception of reality and is based on our belief that we are real and we really do exist when that may or may not be true. That is why I see it as a belief (even if a very very good, very popular, and useful one in my own personal perception of reality). For the record, I am not an Xtian, just a hopeful agnostic who's read a few books on buddhism and feels like mouthing off.

Thanks everyone for allowing me to speak.

Posted by Brandon H | February 15, 2007 3:53 PM
30

Brandon:

As an atheist, here's my take on it. If I have no proof of something then I have to assess the probabilities.

For example, I have no proof that if I look outside the window right now I will see a bicyclist riding by, but the probability of such a thing isn't anywhere near absolute zero based on my direct experience of seeing people riding bikes on my street and my knowledge gleaned from other sources, such as newspapers and websites, that people ride bicycles all around town. In that same vein, I would have so say that the likelihood of my looking out into the side yard and seeing someone riding a bike is considerably less, but possible, and I have a slight memory that I may have even seen a kid doing it once even though its bushy and rough.

As to the existence of a supernatural deity, I have seen no proof whatsoever offered of such a thing that doesn't have an alternative explanation that fits with natural laws as understood based on science. Furthermore, I have no direct experience or knowledge of any other direct experience or study that leads me to believe the probabilities of such a thing existing are more than the teeniest tiniest smidge above zero. Certainly, the probabilities of my looking out my window and seeing a Kangaroo bounding down the street are monumentally higher. See, I can imagine all sorts of ways a Kangaroo could somehow get on my street and none of them would require suspension of natural laws as understood through science.

As to reincarnation or life after death, I have to say the based on current scientific evidence the probabilities of such a thing are so small as be equally near zero (some odd scientific breakthrough that allowed consciousness to be stored in another receptacle, although there is no indication that such a thing is possible or on the horizon), so near zero that one has to live and speak as though it is not possible.

I do not have FAITH that there is no life after death. I simply have no evidence to suggest even slightly that such a thing is so. Similarly, I have no FAITH that I will or wont win the lottery tomorrow. I simply analyze the probabilities of my winning or not and do or don't base my financial future on the likelihood of successful outcome. Of course, with the lottery there is at least some evidence suggesting I could win. I read about people winning in the paper. I've won a dollar myself. I've seen signs in convenience stores about people who bought a winning card there. It could all be a total scam I guess, but there is some evidence that there is a lottery in WA.

(For the record, I find it easier to imagine proof for reincarnation than to imagine where it might exist for heaven and hell, but that doesn't mean I see any more proof, and I try to be honest with myself about it.)

If I heard of a cult of people who planned their whole lives around winning the lottery, i would have to say they were pretty wacky and warn my friends and neighbors to try to protect their kids from getting involved in it because it is likely to cause them to make crazy decisions.

Is religion less delusional? Is it really less harmful? Or is that something we all agree not to talk about so as not to offend those planning their retirement based on the lottery?

Ooops. too long.

Posted by mirror | February 15, 2007 4:47 PM
31

When I say faith, I don't mean religion or some kind of quasi-christianity, I mean faith as in treating something as certain (assuming) that you do not know is 100 percent certain. Since nothing has yet to be 100 percent certain, including our own perception of reality and the universe and whatnot, believing we exist is an act of faith (not in the religious sense) in that we assume it to be true given the situation we are in, probability, and the alternative choices (not existing). I only bring up this idea of faith to show commonality with christianity, not to disprove Atheism.

But I don't really want to be opposing atheism because a lot of it makes sense and is useful in understanding what we see as reality. It is a rational, scientific way of looking at things that at the very least tries to be honest unlike a lot of christianity. Perhaps I misspoke when I said Atheism has faith in our ceasing to exist (An atheist wouldn't believe that, they just wouldn't have any proof that there is an afterlife), but it does not change my point about setting on the path to reconciling our religious differences (not eliminate them, but reconcile), even if we don't reach the destination.

Posted by Brandon H | February 15, 2007 5:25 PM
32

@ No. 30: Bingo. Precisely.

Brandon wrote:
"When I say faith, I don't mean religion or some kind of quasi-christianity, I mean faith as in treating something as certain (assuming) that you do not know is 100 percent certain. Since nothing has yet to be 100 percent certain, including our own perception of reality and the universe and whatnot, believing we exist is an act of faith (not in the religious sense) in that we assume it to be true given the situation we are in, probability, and the alternative choices (not existing). I only bring up this idea of faith to show commonality with christianity, not to disprove Atheism."

This seems like a pointless argument, because it equates the infinitesimally small probability of the existence of gods with the very high probability that, say, the sun will not explode tomorrow.

I mean, yes, absolute knowledge about anything is impossible, true, so to an extent everything we hold to be fact is belief. But trying to show commonality between my "belief" that the things that (I think) I see with my eyes are actually there and Christians' belief that all the dead people are hanging out on a cloud somewhere with ice cream sundaes is preposterous.

Science is based on probability. Humans operate in their everyday lives by presuming that things of high probability are true and things of low probability are not. If you're calling that "faith" of a sort religious people have, we're just having a semantic argument. And it's one I think you'd have a hard time winning.

(Apologies if the tone of this is confrontational; not intended as such. Like many other atheists, I'm just sick and fucking tired of fielding dirty looks when I wear a shirt proclaiming myself atheist, of feeling that acknowledging my atheism is like proclaiming myself gay in small-town Texas [and for that matter, of feeling that atheism is something to be "acknowledged," like a disease], of holding my tongue and respecting other beliefs. As soon as there's been an atheist president [never happen] and atheists are accorded the same degree of respect as Christians are in this country, then I'll respect their beliefs.)

Posted by Superfurry Animal | February 15, 2007 7:12 PM
33

Umm...What was the question? Honestly, what were we talking about? Get real. (Not to anyone in particular...)

Posted by larry clark | February 16, 2007 3:56 AM
34

larry @ 33

Thanks for saying what I was trying to say so clearly and succinctly.

"Get real."

Posted by mirror | February 16, 2007 9:37 AM
35

".... A lot of my fellow liberals seem to think that free speech and tolerance mean being polite about any stupid notion out there, even ideas they strongly disagree with.... religious ideas are ideas like any other and therefore subject to debate and criticism."

To Moose: I really appreciate your comment here and I share your position. It's a real discussion-thwarter when "liberals" (I consider myself left of liberal) and other like-minded people muzzle themselves. I think people keep silent for fear of looking like an unenlightened oppressor, but disagreeing is not the same as disrespecting or silencing another's point of view--why does that distinction so often get lost?

In my experience arguments from religious fundamentalists boil down to: "because I say so." I tried to debate fundamentalist Christians online and was merely barraged by quotes--it was kind of similar to having a conversation with someone who keeps replying: "I know you are but what am I." When I asked why they had chosen the quotes they did or what these quotes meant to them, I was ignored.

Posted by mcat | February 17, 2007 9:20 AM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).