News of disasters, natural or man-made, inevitably include scenes of the sufferers at worship. I have yet to see victims of tragedies cursing their god publicly or destroying their temples in retaliation for their god’s attempts to destroy them.

The human need to assign meaning to the meaningless, to seek solace for fear and helplessness hasn’t evolved since our pre-historic ancestors hunkered down in their caves trying to figure out what a thunderstorm was.

Consciousness enabled the development of mythologies to systematize the unknown but consciousness has not evolved to the point where the mass of humanity can move beyond myth. A consequence of this is that most of the thought and the art of all cultures has been directed toward embellishing and expanding mythologies into religious dogma.

The tools of rational thought, logic and science, provide explanations but do not provide psychological comfort and the need for that comfort is so powerful that it requires the maintenance of what I can only call delusional states of mind.

Attempting to bring awareness of this human condition to discussions of faith is pointless. No one will accept the idea that their beliefs are just the result of thousands of years polishing the idols.

It is a kind of sad fun to watch the wheels grinding in the minds of the faithful when they are confronted with the obvious contradictions, hypocracies, and tragic foolishness of our world as they strive desperately (except for pros like Falwell) to fit it into their pre-digested beliefs, to rationalize the absurd.

Unless they are willing to look honestly at first causes, people of faith will forever be stuck in the closed loop of thought that sustains their brand of mythology.

Harris is so demonstrably right that all those who disagree brand themselves as ignorant simply by doing so. At a practical level, this is all really simple. Whatever the source of moral structures, they can all be distilled down to easy fundamentals based on the equal, shared and unarguable sovereignty of individuals. Don’t hurt anyone or anything. Keep your beliefs to yourself. Don’t expect your beliefs to govern anyone else.

Sam Harris’ “An Atheist Manifesto”  article comes under a banner heading with the rhetorical question: “Imagine there’s no Heaven” .  This is the title of one of the essays by Salmon Rushdie in his remarkable book entitled “Step Across This Line”.  Rushdie’s essay imagines speaking to the Six Billionth Living Person and explaining why it is both wrong and unnecessary to succumb to the pressure to accept traditional religious dogma of one kind or another.  Rushdie suggests that “. . . freedom is that space in which contradiction can reign, it is a never-ending debate.  It is not in itself an answer to the question of morals but the conversation about that question”.  He ends by suggesting that “. . . we could refuse to to allow priests, and the fictions on whose behalf they claim to speak, to be the policeman of our liberties and behaviour.  Once and for all we could put the stories back in the books, put the books back on the shelves, and see the world undogmatized and plain.  Imagine there’s no heaven, my dear Six Billionth, and at once the sky’s the limit.”

Although Rushdie’s essay covers much the same territory as Harris’ article it is a lot less strident and never once mentions the word atheism and does not need to do so. Despite Harris’ truly superb article which draws attention to many aspects of American culture which need attention there seems to be an inherent confusion about what it is that causes man’s inhumanity to man. The truth is that dogmatic atheism and dogmatic religion are closer to each other than meets the eye. Any claim to know all the answers is a false claim and Rushdie is right in suggesting that freedom and contradiction belong together.
In the end, there is very little to choose between Hitler, Stalin, Mao & Pol Pot and the religious fanatics that cause interminable suffering in Israel/Palestine, the Balkans, Ethiopia/Eritrea, Kashmir, Sudan and elsewhere.  In all these cases unsubstantiated and mindless dogma – whether religious or irreligious—results in unbridled and totally unnecessary suffering.

Whilst Harris is correct in saying that to a large extent “One’s convictions should be proportional to one’s evidence” this contention loses sight of the fact that – time and time again – the evidence available is ambiguous.  Thus it is that I prefer to be classified as an agnostic rather than an atheist. Whilst I reject the overlapping concepts of God espoused by the worlds major religions I find it inappropriate to claim that I know all the answers regarding the nature of ultimate reality. Harris claim that “ Only the atheist recognizes the boundless narcissism and self-deceit of the saved” is thus patently absurd.
In his discussion of the impotence of education to reduce the level of human conflict Harris may well be overstating the case.  Certainly, in a negative sense, an educational system which does not ensure a proper understanding of the scientific method does a good deal of harm and serves to encourage nonsensical religious beliefs.  And it is by no means illogical to suggest that if the American educational system ranked higher than it does in world wide comparisons (of numeracy and literacy) this would result in a far larger percentage of Americans accepting what Harris rightly describes as “the biological fact of evolution.” 

Let me not close on a negative note.  Harris’ dissection of the dangers and illogicality of moderate religious tolerance is truly superb. And his statistics about the gap between rich and poor in America —as compared to elsewhere in the world – is nothing short of staggering and extremely frightening. All in all an inspiring and challenging article

I read Sam’s book earlier this year. It should be required reading in every high school, public and private.

Religion has received way too much deference for way too long. The folks who believe that an invisible god micromanages the universe need mental health counseling. There is not a shred of evidence that any god exists, yet the religious still call the shots on our planet, imposing their madness on the rest of us.

Children should be raised to think logically and not rely on imaginary father-figures to get through life.

You just present the Argument from Evil, but there is another, even stronger, argument for God’s nonexistence, and that is the Argument from Nonbelief.  See the book NONBELIEF & EVIL: TWO ARGUMENTS FOR THE NONEXISTENCE OF GOD.

To Mr. Attwood and the other terribly sincere delusional types who felt so disturbed and disquieted by the truths contained in this manifesto that they felt the need to thump their bibles and wave their arms around:

http://members.aol.com/intwg/antiprocess.htm

That website explains why you have such a hard time reading documents like this. It explains why you come back with bizarre circular arguments that don’t address the real point. It explains, in short, why you have to stay crazy to stay sane.

Religious idiocy is not your fault, at least not entirely. It’s hard to accept the simple truth that no one is watching out for us from above and that we all have to take care of ourselves and each other if we want to survive and find happiness. It’s hard to look the finality of death in the face when cute little pictures of clouds and angels are lying around and look so much nicer and fluffier. Why believe something hard (however true) when you can believe something easy (however moronic)?

If religion were harmless, it wouldn’t matter that you people were insane. It would be cute, like kids believing in Santa is cute. Awww, look at the little Christians. They think they’re going to heaven. Isn’t it sweet? Only it’s not, because you’re willing to ruin other people’s lives over it, doing evil things like trying to outlaw loving relationships just because they happen to between two people of the same gender. It leads you to bad decision making on a regular basis, giving money to build a new church building while there are homeless people without roofs over their heads. It leads you to follow bad leaders like Bush, and listen to bad advice, and think increasingly crazy thoughts until the original message of Jesus (who was a pretty decent guy by most accounts) has been so lost and perverted over the years that most “Christians” since the apostles haven’t even been communists!

Communism was Jesus’s biggest message—love your neighbor as yourself. And he didn’t mean by giving a few dollars to charity or volunteering at soup kitchens, either. Did you see Jesus only giving a small portion of his large comfortable income to the poor? No. He was poor, and gave all that he had to others, and then some. If you’re not doing the same…you’re just a religious idiot with no real understanding of the only core of truth behind a couple thousand years of politics, persecution, and misery. You can thump your Bible all you want, but it doesn’t make you a Christian or a good person. It just makes you an idiot who believes whatever makes him feel good, and can’t even read a well-thought-out argument like this one without running to the Bible like a safety blanket, sucking his thumb and wanting Mommy (or in your case, “God”) to make it all better.

Because I understand the theory of antiprocess, I know none of this is getting through to you, and that you’ll probably try to refute this with your Bible in your hand. And according to your logic, that makes everything I’ve written here true! (According to you the Bible’s statements that people will try to refute it makes it true…so I guess my prediction of your attempt at refutation and the manner in which you will attempt it makes this true, too, huh? Woops, sorry, just tried to use logic. I know you people hate that).

So go ahead. Ignore my warnings. Refuse to address my real argument. Take one thing I wrote out of context, and then quote a semi-related Bible verse that proves I’m going to hell. I know how you people operate, and I know that you’re deluded. But I also know that it’s all in self-defense—it would hurt you so bad to admit that I’m right that you’d go nuts. You’re probably sitting there stewing right now, desperately trying to come up with reasons why it’s okay for you to not be just as homeless and poor and self-sacrificing as Jesus was and still claim to follow him. I’m sure you can do it, since your antiprocess must be incredibly strong after a lifetime of that kind of bullshit. It’ll be fascinating to see what your twisted mind comes up with, actually.

Post away! I want to see the crazy man try to think.

The bottom line, great article and I’m glad there are many more like me with questions on religion.  Also, bible or not, my outlook is this, if you want fulfillment out of life, don’t discriminate, we are all of the same blood, don’t judge people and treat them they way you want ot be treated.  The bible has some good in it and take what you will, in my mind it is still a book of fiction or stories with no real proof of being from the voice of god.

Those who like Sam Harris’ writings might also find the writings of Robert Ingersoll of interest.

Much of what Sam writes today was covered by him 150 years ago in a particularly witty manner.
Fortunately all his writings are available online so you can sample them for yourselves:
http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/robert_ingersoll/

Another source that may be of interest is the book by Steven Pinker “The Blank Slate.” He tries to relate the rise of religion to some sort of genetic factor which provided an evolutionary benefit.

Finally, to the immigrant who can’t understand the re-emergence of religion in the US, it puzzles a lot of us as well. The fact is that in much of the industrialized world religion is actively practiced by only 2-3% of the population. If the trend is not reversed it may have negative economic effects for the US as well. Theocracies have very poor economic records. We are already seeing the fallout in areas like stem cell research where the US has lost its lead to the UK and Korea.

Peter Attwood—

  All of your most emphatic points are erroneous.       

  First, despite your statement to the contrary, the only “evidence” you present is in fact via reference to the Bible.  You say “there are many evidences that God is really there,” but the only one you present is a reference to Psalms.  But how could it be otherwise?  The only “evidence” believers have consists of the Bible (and their belief that it is the inerrant word of God), and their “faith,” which is a feeling. 

  Feelings are persuasive and give us the impression (another feeling) that certain states of affairs out in the objective world are so.  But no matter how strongly a three-year-old feels that people can’t see her when she closes her eyes, she is mistaken.  In fact, it is one of the purposes of every human’s education (at home, in school, wherever) to demonstrate the frequent discrepancy between subjective feeling and objective truth.  It looks as though, and therefore “feels right” to believe that, the sun moves around the earth.  A toddler who believes that is developing in a healthy way.  A 24 year old adult who believes the same is simply ignorant.

    Feelings, then, can lead us to error, no matter how strong, altruistic, harmless, self-evident, or sincere they are.  And in the end, that’s all that faith is.  It’s all it can be.  And while it is well and good to point to passages in the Bible that present truths about people and life, the Bible cannot be used as a source of proof for the existence of God.  This is so fundamental and obvious it shouldn’t require mentioning.  The Bible, it need hardly be said, was written from the standpoint of an already accepted belief in God.  God is one of its protagonists.  You can no more cite Biblical passages to prove God’s existence than you can quote Moby-Dick to “prove” that Ahab was real.

  Of course, in the end you can say that anyone’s endorsement of, say, science is based on a feeling, too—the feeling that scientific facts and theories and Standard Models are, or are probably, accurate.  I believe that the speed of light is a little more than 186,000 mile per second, not because I’ve clocked it myself, but because scientists have long said so.  I take their word for it.  You can say I take it “on faith.”

    But at least science equips us with—insists on—predictability and falsifiabilty.  All scientific assertions have been repeatedly challenged, modified, and updated.  Religion and faith are hostile to this sort of thing; indeed, faith is synonymous with and requires an invalidation of falsifiability.

  Your analogy between attacking the Bible and Christians, and anti-Semitic slurs, is invalid, at least in this discussion.  People who cite The Protocols do so to attack Judaism and promote their own (lunatic) religion.  But Sam and others are not blaming Christianity for monstrosities like, e.g., Pat Robertson.  They’re criticising all religions and religion itself.  The present nightmare circus of Christian fundamentalism and its proud wallow in ignorance is just one example.

  Finally, and speaking of arguments for the existence of God, I would be remiss if I did not point out the fact that you and all readers of this web site will find an additional source of keen insight, inspiring polemic, and unbelievably brilliant writing in the recently-published SANTA LIVES!  Five Conclusive Arguments for the Existence of Santa Claus, available at better and, indeed, some lousy, bookstores everywhere.  You’ll thank me for this.  The holidays are upon us, and it makes a great Judeo-Christian gift.

Peter, in fairness re:
“I observe in one of my opponents your citing the beginning of my argument and leaving out the rest in order to give the impression that I have no “evidence” except a Bible verse.”

The only evidence you cite is bible verse. Although you indicate there is other evidence, you don’t present it in your first post.

If we want to talk about who is more barbarous we can debate endlessly whether the Inquisition, Al Quaeda, Witch Burnings etc, or Stalin, Mao, Hitler, and Pol Pot have dibs on the title without it leading necessarily to a productive discussion.  The problem is IMHO, that none of these leaders was rational, but was some sort of power hungry ego-maniac or paranoid who got others to go along with the fantasy world he created.  So I don’t think any of them truly represent the religious or the rationalist mind fairly.

Your quotation of the psalm seems to imply that you believe in God in order to maintain an ethic in your life:

  “that no accounting will be required for my falsehood.  No one sees me, so I will get away with it, and besides, no one is taking care of me, so I have to take care of myself - and to hell with you if that’s what it takes.”

From a Humanistic perspective it is exactly the challenge and need to behave in a manner consistent with moral behavior in the light of the fact that no one does see my transgression that is part of what adds meaning to life and value to the human experience. 

I would be curious how this is then different from a non-atheistic view.

Also then for discussion, how do you counter the difference in giving trends in primarily atheist countries and the primarily theistic US? or the quality of life issues?  Then how do you feel about the question raised about why people believe.

Lisa

>> First, movements based on the primacy of human rationality have failed

the point of atheism is not to be a “movement”.

failures in human rationality do not infer that one should believe in something that is not there.

do you wish for the tooth fairy to pick you up should your car stall?

great article, i too am an atheist. although i have no idea what the intro about a little girl being tortured has to do with atheism, and in fact i think it weakens your essay by introducing a pointlessly malevolent distraction. you should just strip it. atheism has a positive message for people who value rationality.

Question for Peter.

How exactly can you help us stop the Christian crusade?  I’m assuming by the observed intellect present in your responses that you do have a problem with that.  Perhaps you’re just as happy as the next enlightened Christian to take up arms against the infidels?

Enjoy.

Very well said Mr. Attwood.  It’s really an apples and oranges argument.  Christians, Muslims, Jews, and athiests alike have their own beliefs.  Everyone’s doctrine discredits everyone else’s. 

All of this is just more discourse to add to the already overflowing cauldron of what people should buy into.  Love it or leave it alone.

Mr. Attwood, your reference to “dogmatic atheists” is ridiculous. Atheists are not making a knowledge claim. They simply refuse to accept knowledge claims made by others who lack evidence for those claims. There is nothing dogmatic about refusing to believe the unproven. Atheism is not a religion. it is not even a philosophy. To quote the brilliant and incisive article by Mr. Harris, “Atheism is nothing more than the noises reasonable people make when in the presence of religious dogma.”
To paraphrase another comment made here, your response serves more in proof to Mr. Harris’ writing than refutation.

Once again, well articulated.

Now that the issues about the non-existence of supernatural beings is settled, how do we reposition the fundamentalists out of government?

Jim Miller

Perhaps the only thing as unsettling as the certainty of a believer, is the certainty of an assertive atheist.  Whether made unconsciously or not, believing or not believing is a matter of personal choice made in the absence of incontrovertible evidence.  Atheism is to be without a belief in God, not necessarily a denial of God’s existence.  Assertive atheism - denying the possibility of God altogether - seems to be based on the conceit that everything is knowable by man if only you use the correct method of thinking.  But this is the same premise of believers who are equally certain.  These two positions seem equally ignorant to me.

I haven’t got a whole lot to add, except to reaffirm that the pain and suffering present in our world is not a sign of the absense of God.

If God were to explicitly reveal himself, then there’d be no need for faith… the world’s economy would simply collapse as everyone spent all their time in Church ass-kissing God for blessings. If he were to always protect the prayerful, there’d be no free will.

I won’t try to presume God’s motives, but perhaps the 80% who felt their faith affirmed could already see the Lord working to bring good to a crappy situation?

Attwood wrote:

> How are you dogmatic atheists any different
> from your religious competition?  It’s just
> Pepsi and Coke, isn’t it?

This is the very lowest of responses, showing that reason has yet to penetrate the woozy clouds surrounding your mind. The atheist does not cling needily to a belief for which he or she has no sane justification; he or she *refuses* to believe something for which there is no justification. They are complete and total opposites. It does not require faith in anything at all to believe there is no invisible ghost in the sky watching over us, sending down his son to live among us, etc. No more than it requires faith to believe there is no Invisible Spaghetti Monster touching our souls with His Noodly Appendage, etc.

Although I’ve often noticed it’s pointless to expect a believer to follow the reasoning behind the refutation of the “atheism is just another religion” meme.

This is a terrific blog by the way. (And of course a terrific article.)

I enjoyed the mainfesto, and unable to explain why in 2005 we are seeing in this nation of separation of church and state we are experiencing such a rise in fundelmentalism. The idea of teaching ” Intelleigent Design ” with evolution amazes me. To hear Pat Roberts advovating the murder of the president of Venuzuela makes me wonder where his religion takes him.Bush and his belief that he has taken us to war because God talks to him. Why why in this day and age are we killing each other over whose myth is better. Sam Harris keep working

Quoth Sam Harris:
“If we want to uproot the causes of religious violence we must uproot the false certainties of religion.”

Great idea (seriously). Do you have a plan? Let’s hear it.

Peter, do you think the world would be better off with or without organized religion? Seems to me that the answer, if you read history, is inescapable: No single factor has cause more death, misery, hatred and division. And it shows no signs of getting better. Just the opposite.

I wouldn’t call myself an atheist, because that, too, is a belief for which there is no evidence. Is there a God? Not only do I not know, but neither do you or anyone else. Besides that, it depends on your definition of God.

I think we can all agree that meditating on First Cause—where did we come from—leads to intriguing thoughts. But it stops there.

And as for all of the rules, traditions, writings, predictions, assumptions, pronouncements of organized religion, they are just evidence of what happens when the fertile human imagination is applied to the task of gaining power over others.

My teenage son said it all quite well. When informed that in some religions, the ideas he was espousing would cause him to go to Hell, he said, “Oh well.” Then he asked what was for dinner. To my mind, this sums up the attitude we should all have toward the enormous and bizzare concoctions we call religion.

If you disbelieve this, try reading Revelations sometime and keeping a straight face. It is such a silly hodgepodge of nonsense that it couldn’t even get published today.

Thanks for stating the obvious. It’s amazing to me how 80% of this planet is suffering from mass delusion.

1. I concur with the article entirely. 2. I think religion and such beliefs are inherent and instinctive, and that is part of what blinds us. Said differently, we have a strain of emotion beneath the surface driving the belief, creating a need to believe. 3. It is not correct to say that only religion and/or God come up with proper moral codes. Immanuel Kant among others proffered a precept very close to the Golden Rule. Humans have an instinctive moral code all their own that is build in, just as they have an instinctive propensity to belief in god. 4. There is a difference between intelligence and ignorance. Intelligence is spread more or less evenly throughout humanity, throughout groups or bodies of people. Belief in god may feel good but blinds one to reality, thus promotes ignorance. 5. Any cultural historian will tell you that the view of god’s attributes changes over time in any culture. Take the feminist movement and making god feminine. My point is not political nor gender politics. God seems to change because we do. We project onto Him/Her. It is natural to do so. So much for timelessness. 6. Stop being children and take off the blinkers. Such a step will not make you less loving, more immoral, less poetic, or reduce your depth, your spiritual capacity in any way. The miracle is the gift of your feelings and wonder, not the projection of a god who created them. 7. If you must believe, then move toward transcendentalism, that is, a view that god is more a benign spiritual force that does not involve itself in the everyday nor in personal events. That at least will fulfill the instinct while removing the veil from one’s eyes that blinds us to what is really going on.

I was raised in Denmark where Lutheranism was the state religion.  As boy scouts we couldn’t go on hikes on Sunday (we had school even on saturdays- 1/2 day) unless we attended church. This didn’t pay off for me as I am as you are. two points   As espoused often -  give me you child for the first 7 years and he will become me -  and then after all there are only three true groupings good people bad people and evil people within every community   of teachings
  Let us focus on this and read Nietzsche   he is a real commedian who could of written lyrics for Cole Porter or Mort Saul listen to this my man Fred (Friedrich):  ” men men men are just a pair of pants — not their love of men but the impotence of their love keeps Christians of today from - burning us.  To be sure there are enough imbecilic friends and corrupters of women among the scholarly asses of the male sex who advise woman to defeminize herself and shun freethinking —”  on and on and these are our only hope of societal redirection for men.

Another “well-said” piece, Sam. Thanks. But, as you are pursuing neuroscience, I have a request for you and other like-minded atheist writers. I would like you to address the questions: Why do people, especially intelligent people, cling to these unsupportable beliefs? And: What can be done to facilitate their abandonment?

If “every problem started its life as a solution”, for what problem(s) are these beliefs the solution? What human need(s) is/are met by holding and perpetuating these beliefs?

If the adoption of these beliefs is an attempt (albeit unskillful) to meet legitimate human needs, and we urgently want people abandon these beliefs because we think that unless they are let go we face imminent and increasing danger from their consequences, isn’t it important to identify these needs and find reality-based ways that people can meet these needs?

Your writing is so wonderfully logical, but if people cling to these irrational beliefs in order to meet psychological and emotional needs, then I doubt logical arguments will be an effective method to facilitate the change in beliefs we agree is desirable and necessary.

It’s been shown that people with strongly held beliefs (religious or political, etc.) simply reject facts that do not fit into their belief system “frame”. Launching more and stronger factual arguments is perhaps a less effective strategy than working to shift or change the frame itself. How can that be done?

What process did the citizens of the non-religious countries you cite in your article go through that allowed them to give up these irrational beliefs and move forward to live quite healthy and happy lives without them? Can this process be replicated here and in other fundamentalist strongholds? If not would some other process to facilitate this belief system change work here?

You have made a convincing case that something needs to be done – and fast – before people acting on these irrational beliefs cause more harm to themselves and others. I would like you and other articulate atheist writers to talk about what needs to happen next to move us toward solutions.

This article is largely bullshit.  There are plenty of good reasons not to believe in God, the existence of pain and suffering is not one of them.  Theists resolved that potential problem long ago by pointing out that evil events can result in greater good- amputating a limb, say.  Now, naturally, you can always claim that God, being omnipotent, could create a world devoid of suffering, but by the same token He could create a rock so heavy He can’t lift it, etc.  Different problem entirely.  A world devoid of suffering could not conform to the laws of biology, physics and probability as we know them, so there’s no point discussing the prospect.

This articles simply contributes to the inaccurate and negative perception of atheists as morbidly dismissive philistines.

Sam Harris has done it again—eloquently, thoroughly, and clearly.  Would that I could express myself so well.

Living as we in the USA do presently, subject to governmental decisions based on “faith-based” notions, I salute this site, and will recommend it at every opportunity.

I trust that Sam will continue to include comments such as those from such as Peter Attwood, thus providing examples of the kind of misconceptions and fuzzy thinking that have encouraged and perpetuated belief in the ideas that we should have left behind in the 14th century.  These quite inadequate rationalizations cannot be invented—they must come from those who are thoroughly deluded and have closed off all access to reason.

Desperate attempts to blame the ills of our society on atheism would be comical if not so damaging.  Selecting out atheists who have brought evil on our species, is a specious and popular ploy with those whose delusions are threatened. When such frantic means are resopted to, we can see a brightening of the prospect for a proper respect for reason, ahead.

Kudos, Sam!

It is absolutely amazing how people, including this author, fail to see what I discovered by myself when just a teenager.
It can be reduced to a brief axiom:

Since whatever it is that exists, is necessarily a part of the Totality - surely no part of it could create the entire Whole of existence! The infinite Universe is eternal.

Religious people are looking at the end result of millions of years of evolution and saying that it must a super intelligent person to have created all of this. The latest spin on this thinking is called “Intelligent Design.”

Atheists look at the same evidence and believe how amazing it is that all this took place from an accidental mixing of elements in the correct environment that created the primal soup, the microscopic forms of life, and from this goop every thing living today was created by millions of years of evolution.

If you think about it the first thoughts of where we came from and the creation of gods came about after millions of years of evolution. Perhaps if religious people used a different starting point they would believe differently.
Joe Martin Oceanside CA

The scariest thing is how religion is infiltrating the world in so many guises…Example: went to see “The Chronicles of Narnia” on a free ticket after hearing things like “if you liked the Last Tempatation of Christ you’ll love this movie”....yet knowing that C.S. Lewis wrote it as a children’s book….also knowing that Lewis was Christian…Well “they” were right…The violence depicted under not very subtle Biblical symbolism could have only come from a Christian.  It is no wonder that the world is as it is when we feed our children such horror and lunacy….not to mention ourselves…

I was about ready to write a long rebuttal of the argument offered by one of the bloggers that Hitler was an atheist, but I came upon this site, which says everything I was going to say and more.

http://www.askwhy.co.uk/christianity/0835Hitler.html

Of course, both atheists and religious zealots have proved that either can do horrible things, a fact which has absolutely nothing to do with Harris’ excellent post.

Just what we need, a secular atheistic religion. If you believe that dogmas and creeds are so dangerous and cause such misery (which I agree is undeniable), then why promote a new dogma?

I live in Europe and while people are defintely not very religious, I have not found Europeans to be dogmatically athiestic (and have a much more nuanced view about spirituality than the author has), in fact most educated Europeans I know are privately very spiritual people.  If dogma and prejudice are the root of all evil, then the author can be rest assured that if masses of people learned to accept his creed, the world would not be a more tolerant place.

Have read the book. Well written. I agree with your presentation. Absolutely no evidence of a personal supreme being.

Why is religion such a potent source of human violence?

It’s not universal, it just be a Western phenomenon. I’m not aware of religious conflicts occuring between the Eastern religions, there were no Taoist crusades against the Shinto, for example. The curse of religious violence seems to be specific to the followers of the God of Abraham. I’ve read that Yahweh was once a war god, in the pre-monotheist era, and I wonder if that’s the connection (sorry, I can’t a reference for it).

Walter Wink mentions in his book “Engaging the Powers” that it seems Christianity for the last 1700 years followed the Babylonian mindset under their human god MARDUK. Zecharia Sitchin explains in his excellent series of books but especially in “The Lost Book Of Enki” Marduks ancestry.
Are we in fact still being ruled by extraterrestrials, by humans from other planets? If that is the case the bible might make sense, however, I believe we humans have arrived at a development (technologically-the nuclear age) where the power of the bible and especially following it becomes suicidal.
Will we have the guts to arrive spiritually (there we still seem to be held back 5000 years ) at the level Sam Harris and so many other critical thinkers are?

I agree with everything you wrote. Great article.

I live in a country where most people take a moderate and tolerant view of most things, so I find it a little difficult to understand the passion that runs through Sam’s article. 

For me, the self-evident explanation for religious beliefs is that they are systems of ideas that have evolved so that people who hold the beliefs are driven to pass them on to others.  Viruses of the mind, as Richard Dawkins so eloquently puts it.

Many people become infected while young and vulnerable, but it’s rarely fatal to the carrier.

God, Jesus, Ala, Rah, etc., are society’s Kris Kringle, Santa Claus, Easter Bunny, and Tooth Fairy! People are sheep.

Look out, Sam!

Some religious nut would love to do to you what ‘unbelievers’ (in Jewish, Christian and especially Muslim sense) ‘deserve’ according to their scriptures.

Too much fibered reason leads to religious constipation.

This was a well written article with only a few poor/invalid arguments.

1. The “argument from evil” is a weak argument that is only relevant to an omni-benevolent ‘god’, whereas even most “‘god’ of Abraham” believers don’t adhere to such an idea of ‘god’. Most believe that they are among the chosen few who will not be punished for this and that.

2.  Writing an article with arguments against an omni-benevolent ‘god’ along side an argument stating that most Christians would consider a natural disaster punishment for wrong-doing, without making the distinction in argument perspectives, is inconsistent.

3.  Unfortunately, (and strangely) Sam Harris didn’t mention that not only was Hitler not an atheist, but was a devout Catholic who believed he was doing ‘god’s’ work, as noted in Mein Kampf. 

4. The suggested correlation between social problems and religiosity was more comical than convincing and ignored factors such as different countries being socialist vs capitalist, etc. It’s a bit ridiculous to criticize “big company CEO’s” like Bill Gates for instance for giving a small percentage of their net worth to charity when ol’ bill is worth more than the GDP of most banana republics and annually give millions out of his own pocket when he has absolutely no obligation to do just that.

The Vampire
LOGOS

Peter Attwood wrote: you’re just stupid

Wow!  Absolutely fascinating approach in defending your position there Mr. Attwood.  What keen and insightful reasoning!!  Did you learn that in Seminary?

Mr. Harris, you’re obviously up against an intellectual giant here.  Bet you didn’t see THAT one coming.

My hope is that someday “God” will come down from “Heaven” and wash away all the “true believers” of whatever brand. A world with only atheist would truly be “Heaven on Earth.” Just kidding (maybe not), but it is a nice thought.

I feel have some understanding of why religon is. Some years ago my mother passed away. I was and still remain an atheist. However, with her passing I came to realize that death is one of, if not the, major reasons religon exist. It was hard when she passed and I wanted to believe that she was going some place better. To accept that there is no afterlife was something of a trial.

This idea of an afterlife, of something much better that the everyday real world, drives, IMO, the creation of religion. The establishment of a priesthood with all the rituals and institutions all follow from this basic fear of death. The desire that death really isn’t the end is a very powerful incentive for people to believe in religion. The establishment of a god figure that oversees all and judges each, give believers a being to focus their irrational fear of death on and a someone to, hopefully, bring them joy after death.

Of course, you must belong to the correct brand of religion and vigorusly, even violently, defend it. Any science, philosophy, or infidel religion that challenges these beliefs is considered heresy, witness Galileo and now Evolution. Both of which throw these beliefs into question.

When the “true believers” were on the margins of society, they were relativly harmless but now that they have ascended to the halls of power, they are truly dangerous. Since only they know the absolute truth, other views cannot be tolerated. Other views are heresy and must be suppressed.

Thank you for the article. It’s great to read a piece that makes no apology for being atheistic in its viewpoint.

After Peter’s winded response I feel a short post is needed here. How about a nice…WTF?!

Sam, you are right on target.

For Maurice and Peter: The man named Jesus as depicted in the Bible is pure Myth. There is nothing special about the Biblical Jesus character, in fact this resurrected savior god is no different than several others BEFORE the Jesus myth evolved. Other gods that include Osiris, Mithra, Dionysus. Sabazius, Adonis, Zalmoxis, Pythagoras, Horus, Attis, etc. The list goes on and on. For more information on Pagan Christs: http://home.earthlink.net/~pgwhacker/ChristianOrigins/

Jesus is a Pagan Godman. All the previous Godmen also had last suppers, were sent to save mankind, were killed, rose from the dead and ruled in heaven, etc. For more information on this in movie form get this DVD. (Sam Harris is in it as well!) http://www.thegodmovie.com

As for the concept of FREEWILL. If your God is all knowing then freewill doesn’t exist. Simply because God, being all knowing would know your fate; your destination. Because an all knowing God would never change His mind, (because He has the answer) then NO MATTER WHAT YOU DO, YOUR FATE IS ALREADY SET, SOME RELIGIONISTS SAY, BEFORE YOU ARE EVEN BORN. Yes, God has a plan. So making decisions and exercising freewill will not change the outcome for an “all knowing” diety. A diety who apparently thinks that the earth is flat, that slavery is just dandy and women are less valuable than sheep. A diety that considers the jewish tribe (his inventors) His choosen people, yet doesn’t have the power to convince them that Jesus is the messiah they have been waiting for.

Nor, during World War 2, couldn’t unlock a single gate at any of the death camps. How impotent is this God anyway?
An all knowing, omniscient God who has several afterthoughts? Who changes His mind?! “Opps, I screwed up; I better drown every man, women, pregnant woman, child, animal etc on the planet and start over again.” Is this the all knowing, Loving God you Christians speak of?

If He was all knowing, then He must HAVE KNOWN IN ADVANCE that Eve would eat the fruit. Is that true? Are you saying God FRAMED EVE? 

Why is it that the Jesus story is not known to secular historians? More than 40 historians were around the area where Jesus was supposed to have lived, preached and died, yet not a single sentence in written history from that era exists. Why doesn’t Paul know any important facts concerning Jesus?  Check this out:
http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/

I could go on and on but I guess the BIG question is:

With a computer at hand and the web chock full of information, why are you still a Christian?

Are you afraid to find out that your teddy bear is full of straw?

No gods, no magic my friends. Just be aware that while your imaginary beliefs continue, the world is at the brink of destroying itself over silly ancient myths and holy books.

http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/
marshall_gauvin/did_jesus_really_live.html

Perhaps one day deprogramming methods will be applied to religious faith.  Most civilized people recognize that cult members have to be psychologically divested of their beliefs.

As Mr. Harris has pointed out, belief in a protecting God has disastrous consequences.  Fortunately we can awaken from the sleep of belief.

One wonders if that awakening process can be systemized to help the millions who are suffering from religious faith.

Re: Stalin, Hitler, Mao and Pol Pot,only they know what they really believed in. Public manifestations of atheism may have been a way to obtain support from the masses but not a verification of their real beliefs. Who did they pray to when they were dying?

Re: American Christianity, many American’s claim to be ” Christians ” but in fact are not-they want to be seen in church for many reasons but the least of which is true faith.  In fact most American’s are hedonistic and only spout Christianity when it is in their interset to do so. How can American’s reconcile Christianity with the millions they have killed starting with the American Indians through Iraq? A religion that does not really alter and improve your treatment of fellow men is not really a religion but rather a prop to hang your guilt on.

Sam, I reviewed your book saying your message needed to be written so the uneducated masses like myself can understand it. You got it right this time.

And to Peter Attwood: I agree we can’t change those of stupid religious beliefs just by telling them their wrong. They have been proving it for centuries. And when polls say 87% of Americans believe in God, it doesn’t mean shit,only a handful REALLY believe, it’s just a culture thing. Say you do. Too bad our religious enemies REALLY believe, enough to kill.

Change takes generations. Voices against religion are just coming out strongly recently.

But what the hell, I’ll still celebrate Christmas!! I get stuff, give stuff, and spend time with family and friends. I don’t have to believe in God or Jesus to enjoy Christmas. It’s just ten letters in the English language to spell a word. I’m good with religious holidays, I get paid to not work all Christian ones. I’m hoping to get Jewish and Muslim ones too. Hindus? Buddists? Don’t believe in any but give me more time off for religious mis-information and I can’t bitch too much.

I have to laugh when a Western christian brings up Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot as examples of the dangers of “atheism,” when each of these dictators rejected religions the critic doesn’t belong to and wouldn’t respect any way. Stalin persecuted Russian orthodox christians, whose theology most American christians consider cultic or heretical; Mao persecuted Confucians, Taoists and Mahayana Buddhists (just ask the current Dalai Lama); and Pol Pot persecuted Theravada Buddhists. Which religion attacked by these atheists does the Western christian advocate we adopt?

Religion is a sad affair, I fear. It keeps us all in the dark. Religious folk always seem to defend their beliefs angrily. Those of us who don’t believe are simple, evil, blinded pagans. It’s as plain as that. Reality has no bearing on things. It means nothing. Few seem to see the danger and harm in placing our fate in God’s hands. Even fewer can imagine that we are all alone out here in our little corner of the universe, and that nobody out there cares. Few can face the fact that our lives have no eternal purpose, and yet doing good stuff and feeling good are what it’s all about—that even the godless might have a deep sense of beauty and joy. Even the godless can enjoy being good people.

Alas, religion is a sad affair. It’ll slay us all in the name of God.

Excellent article.  According to the Barna study, the religious are actually dying off and not growing.  They have lost one percentage point of believers to the unchurched ever since 1991.  By 2040 they should be mostly gone.  There are now rougly 80 million unchurched out there.  The religious, it seems, have started dumping religion on their own.

  The atheists and agnostics here all know that the church people are leaving the church on their own.  The occasional web site that promotes atheism is generally never found by the faithful at all.  There is no organized base for pushing atheism or even agnosticism.  There is a small start on pushing skepticism.

  This means that the destruction of the church in America is self caused and probably cannot be stopped.  I think even the dumbest people out there realize that their lives have been saved by science multiple times as they go from birth to senior citizen.  Even the dumbest out there seems to finally be getting it- science rules, religion drools.

  The alleged secular conspiracies out there are such a joke now that even Pat O’Reily on fox news can’t seem to get anyone even remotely interested in his assertion that Christmas is under attack, yet again, by some mythical secular conspiracy to remove Jesus from the shopping malls and centers of America.  There are no laws against christmas displays of any kind in privately owned corporations.  Not a one.  They are free as jaybirds on this issue and can do anything for Christmas they want to do, including hiring Mel Brooks to bleed on passers by while hanging from a cross or send out a thousand santas through the mall.

  The mixing of church and state appears to be accelerating the demise of the church, too.  As the churches went more and more conservative more and more liberals went away for good.  Most of these people are discovering very quickly that the secular life works even better than the religious life does and that is why they are not going back to church or moving on to other religions at all.

  No amount of rational discourse can penetrate the automatic defenses a person puts around their world view.  It takes up to twenty years or more for even tiny changes in a culture to become permanent.  But when cultures change they do so at a lightning pace.  The changes in the church lead to the changes in the people and that has lead to the accelerating abandoment of the church.

  I wish we atheists had come up with a plan that slick.  All we had to do was push more religion until people got sick and tired of it and fled on their own!  We should have known, though, because that happened in the 1950’s and early sixties.  The church people not only got prayer in school but “in god we trust” on the coins of the land.  The next best thing to actually proving the existence of god is government certification of god’s existence.

  They were jubilant and then the church memberships started plunging.  To this day they don’t understand why.  They were dying off then even faster than they are today, too.  Then Madlyn Ohare and others threw prayer out of the schools and caused a revival.  The anti-abortion crowd was a tiny, tiny and still is, segment of the population but they show up for the demonstrations and give a lot of money to the politicos and the churches.

  Then they started the long road to creating the image that they were a growing concern when even in the 1980’s the church just slowed its shrinkage a tiny bit.  They have tried buying up radio and television stations and doing religious propaganda along with the conservative propaganda.  It even looked like they might be on the right track if you believed the conservative pundits out there who, to this day, believe that conservatives are more than the 38% they really are.

  But they grabbed the government in 1993 and made it look like they were bigger and more significant than they really are.  The liberals out there let them steal their thunder under the we are better because we are more moral than the liberals are.  This means that the conservatives have held the government during the Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush SR. and now the shrub.  That means that since 1968, the democrats have held office for twelve years, four for Cater and eight for clnton.  The republicans, though, have held power for 25 years and controlled the congress and senate during the Clinton era so we can actually say they had eight more years there.  That means that the consrvatives have controlled the government for the past 33 years with the sole exception being the four years that Carter was in.

  Think about it here, the least mainstream has controlled the mainstream for the past forty years.  It is them that are to blame for every government screwup out there in the past forty years.  So where, exactly, are all these secret liberal conspiracies hiding out at?  I would love to join one.

  But, finally, since they have become the longest ever running group in American history to grab power and hang onto it tenaciously, the conservative movement has become so corrupted by power it, too, is dying.  They can’t even get their own kids to go to church or buy into their conservative ideology any more.  It is so grandfather and pushed down their throats so much they are all turning liberals just to piss their parents off.

  So the very long night of conservatism is close to going away.  What caused its death here?  It got too old and corrupt.  The moral majority has now become the immoral minority.  That is actually all they ever were and I have no idea why anyone who can read and write would vote for these yahoos at all.

  I think that after the damage this president has and the other conservatives have done to America they may pretty much never be back in power again.  The changes causing the death of religion and the conservative movements can’t be stopped.  All the democrats have to do is be the opposite of these bozos and they can take back the whole enchelada.

  Of course, they will all praise god for his mercy on our state when Bush and Company are hanged after their impeachments this next year but we can start helping them move to a secular world at least at that time.  Maybe they will listen then.

Since the word God, whether capitalized or not, is a human concept, I wish that those of us who don’t know what the word means and don’t find it helpful in dialogue to even use it, would use the phrase “idea of God” instead of the word God, because to use the latter implies that there is something there to talk about.

Thank you thank you.  This so eloquently articulates that which my mind has been coming to - boy has it taken a long time after the good ole southern upbringing I had. 

As a 27 year old gay man who has only recently been able to come out after years and years of religious and social conditioning-induced fear and misery, I have found myself at a complete loss pondering the sheer magnitude of this global infestation that is fundamental religion.  I lost 10 years of my life to an irrational fear of being myself.  And my little insignificant loss disappears in comparison to the absolute atrocities that take place every day in the name of <insert your favorite deity here>.

Fundamental religion is the greatest hinderance to the evolution of our species.

I so appreciate this article. Sam Harris puts into words much of what I know. I was going to say “believe” but belief is what is being called into question here.

His statement that “...only the atheist is compassionate enough to take the profundity of the world’s suffering at face value” hits me where I live. I would add that only the atheist is free to take the reality of the world’s goodness at face value too. Both/and, not either/or. Once I see this world as all there is, it becomes more than enough.

How could I need an “afterlife” when I can barely take in all that I am living here and now? And why would I need a so-called “higher power” to remind me of my personal limits? Every day I come to that awareness on my own.

So I offer thanks to Sam Harris for speaking out for those of us who do not buy into religion, and, more than that, who see religion as a most dangerous delusion.

Would there be war if there were no religions? I doubt it.

My, my, my,

Despite the provision of armed guards to prevent the foretold rising of Jesus from the dead being carried off by hoax, neither the Jewish Sanhedrin nor the Roman Empire ever produced the evidence of the dead body required to disprove and quelch the claims, based on an empty tomb and eye-witness sightings, that the Resurrection of Christ actually occurred. Perhaps they were all too busy overlooking that obvious case closing argument as a matter of atheistic principle.  Have you found the body, Sam?

Well, then perhaps you can explain why most of the immediate eyewitnesses who spread this ridiculous unsupported rumor of a Resurrection, the disciples, went to gruesome involuntary deaths in widely scattered parts of the world precisely because they were spreading the rumor, with not one recantation, not one, of THE central FACT of the Christian faith. I’m not as good a statistician as you, Sam. Perhaps you can enlighten us about the odds of twelve people agreeing to and then actually dying for a lie in order to pull off the world’s most skillfully executed practical joke? 

Otherwise, I’ve haven’t seen this many distended syllogisms and logical fallacies strung together in a very long time.  Here’s one back at you.  Blogosphere. Sam Harris. Truth.

I am amazed at the comments so-called Christians leave in regards to this article. Sam Harris hits home with such accuracy it cannot be missed.

People must abandon reason and logic to embrace faith. Faith by it very biblical definition is “the substance of things HOPED for, the evidence of things NOT SEEN”.

It’s so nice to have a voice of reason in an unreasonable society that embraces faith to its highest level. A belief in a “god” is analogous to believing that Poseidon is stirring the seas somewhere or that the Egyptian god RA is alive and well or that the Greek gods are clothed in white sitting in the clouds. People can believe this, but why do they believe this?

It is embedded from our culture. And once this is instilled in a person, it is very difficult to let go of this false notion. I have been debating this Christian and he says to me over and over, “Because the bible teaches this…….” And when I point out foolish doctrines in the Bible or the sadist doctrine of hell or the cruelty of god from the bible, he sees nothing but his own dogmatism and absurdities.

I do not see convincing evidence from theists for the existence of god. I see circular reasoning and pre-suppositions, nothing more. Is the existence of God testable? Can it be duplicated? I have read volumes upon volumes of Christian literature, but no proof given, just mere speculations.

Sam, keep up the good work, it is a thankless job, but you are the voice of reason. You speak what so many of us believe but are quiet about.

Sam Harris makes some sweepingly illogical conclusions. The U.S. has become a fundamentalist society and it is plagued with teen pregnancy, homicide, abortion, etc. Therefore, says Harris, look how awful religion is. He conveniently ignores the possibility that murderers, promiscuous teens and those who get abortions are not likely to be religious persons.

Teenage girls brought up with strong religious grounding are not likely to be the ones getting pregnant and having abortions; you certainly don’t find Mormon children behaving this way. Besides, it is atheists who are pro-abortion, as their “rational thinking” tells them if an unborn baby is inconvenient, it is reasonable to kill it.

And just who defines rationality and reasonableness, the criteria for Harris’s religion of atheism? What is reasonable and rational to Harris may not be to someone else. Thus atheism is a free-for-all of anything goes. I know people who are professed atheists who treat others like dirt, lie, cheat and backstab. I know a woman who declares herself an atheist, who thinks that it doesn’t matter that Conrad Black may have stolen millions, because all that matters is in the past he “did great things for his shareholders.” Who says atheists have a monopoly on rational thinking, Sam?

Sam Harris sounds like a whiny little child who’s going to take his toys and go home because the world isn’t the perfect place he wants it to be. What does he expect, lollipop trees and sunshiny days all the way? And if he doesn’t get it, he throws this literary tantrum and squawks about the superiority of atheists. Wanna talk about scandal, Sam? What about Madalyn Murray O’Hair? Where was the rationality and reason behind the scandals that plagued her organization?

If Harris finds it immoral and unacceptable to lie, rob, kill or commit any other crime, it is not because of any atheist rationality, but because he lives by the Judeo-Christian moral code, the absolutes set by religion, that have put whatever good there is to be found in this world.

Dictionaries generally give two definitions for “atheism”:

1. Disbelief in god(s)

2. Denial of the existence of god(s)

In most cases the first, entirely non-dogmatic meaning is intended.

It has been pointed out that most believers are atheistic with respect to rival pantheons, and that an atheist merely believes in one less god than a Christian.

It’s ridiculous really. Kudos to you, Sam.  The bible was a construct of men.  God is a construct of man.  Gods are and always have been constructs of man.  And why should I follow philosophies some random people made up and shop around as Truth and Historical fact?  It all seems quite irrational to me. Faith is believing in something that isn’t there. Why should I believe?  IT ISN’T THERE.

A fine article, but why do even the seemingly most intelligent and rational of people have to try to “justify” their position? God ISN’T evil. God DOESN’T EXIST. The problems of the world or typical evil acts by humans aren’t an argument against god’s existence, anymore than fatal or maiming car accidents are an argument agument against automobiles. Hurricane Katrina or 9/11 are not anymore than the most collateral of reasons to doubt religion. What Mr. Harris said at the very beginning is the most signifigant argument ever-the “faithful,” particularly at the level of government official, or tv evangelist, or any other exploiter of the the kind-but-misguided, the simple, the stupid, or the just-plain evil, should have to justify THEIR beleifs. There is not, nor apparently has there ever been, a shread of tangible, credible evidence to support their position-yet in this country, and pretty much throughout the world, we all have to live by them.

Forget blaming god—ask the still-faithful of new Orleans why their christian president has so utterly botched their recovery.

Sam,

Religion is a portmanteau that includes a number of things: dogma, institutions, history, ritual, symbolism, philosophy, and actions.

Dogma and institutions around the planet are in pretty shabby shape at the moment.  History and ritual are a little fossilized as well.  Symbolism and philosophy may be the sources of new hope, but REAL religion is actions.  If you feel the tragedy of New Orleans, then what are you going to do about it?  Read up? Send money?  Go down there?  Find someone from there who could use a little help now in a new life in your locality?

I don’t define myself as an atheist because that’s defining my ideas in their terms—their first question is always “do you believe in God?”  But there are earlier questions than that—like “what is the meaning of human existence?”  “What role do we have in the universe?”  What I am is closer to an ananthropomorphist.  I don’t believe this universe or our existence in it is about human beings.  I’m not a misanthropist—I like most people—but the universe was not invented for them and that’s why they hate reminders of that in science—like evolution.

I note a lot of anger and a blaming of nature in your very well-framed rant.  But I see we humans as continuous with nature.  I see the anger as a source of energy and justice.  Did you read the article in the current Orion?  The reason that the levees failed was not that God is cruel, but that we weren’t paying attention or at least didn’t believe the obvious consequences—that the buffers against destruction were being eroded away.  The wetland and barrier islands were being changed for human purposes—short term purposes.  The long term nature of the mouth of the major river system of the continent is not determined by human wishes.  (This is not the same issue as inadequate levees built by humans out of laziness, greed, or incompetence.)

The religious action that ought to have been taken was to raise hell when those scientifically endorsed but economically ignored choices were made.  But they were made quietly—we didn’t know.  So the religious action we must make now is to restore the natural “nature” of the delta.  To re-attune our own nature with that of the planet.  To love the world through our senses, including “common sense.”

I throw in my lot with the Taoists.  And the ecologists.  And the activists.  And the Congressional members who can understand and preserve the future.  And the creatures of the Gulf and Bayou.  “God” and his institutions can take care of themselves.

Prairie Mary

Sam
I do believe that you are reading my mind.  Each time I run into a rabid right religious wacko, you seem to produce a column that gives me great comments for a dandy response.

Great writing as usual.  Keep up the good work.

Let’s take a minute here to examine the polar extremes of Sam Harris and Peter Attwood, both of whom make good arguments. On the one hand, we have the basis for this discussion, Sam, who argues his material well and thoroughly, with a concrete understanding of the world and of history. Sam is an atheist – which, if you dissect it into its Latin roots, means “one who lacks belief.” This is not necessarily the assertion that there is no God – only that such belief is not one of Sam’s attributes (not that I claim to know this level of detail about someone I have never met). On the other hand, we have Peter, who is a Christian – a believer in the divinity of Christ. Neither has factual basis for his belief or lack thereof, because you cannot definitively prove that a thing does not exist – only that it is improbable – and you cannot prove that a thing exists if there is no empirical evidence for it.

I propose that, instead of arguing the existence of God, as this current thread attempts, we examine the real primary arguments: the causal effect of religion on society, both of which are conveniently placed before us by Sam and Peter. Sam postulates, with good evidence, that religion has had a negative effect on society because it fosters an environment of irrational support for narrow, hurtful ideas—a category that includes not only religion, but racism, sexism, subjugation of the weak, murderous behavior, etc. Peter, conversely, posits that shared spiritual belief – religion – sets up an environment in which the “fool” can think himself free of guilt by lack of observance. The implication seems to be that a society without religion is prone to sociopathic behavior.

While there is no doubt in my mind that the early Christianity in Europe had a stabilizing influence on that society at that point in time, it certainly also caused extreme suffering and the subjugation/exclusion of all but a privileged few. Its time has come and gone, and what is left is archaic in light of current knowledge and norms of tolerance. For every argument that organized religion has proved a positive force in society, there is one that demonstrates the opposite. Sam puts these forward well. Peter, on the other hand, makes assumptions about human character that are at the very least cynical. I find it amusing that the atheists I know are more comfortable with a positive take on human nature than religious friends. Yet it has been demonstrated that a wholly secular society can be benevolent, forward-looking and uplifting.

As Sam points out, and I believe this is the thesis that has been ignored in previous postings, is that the danger rests in claiming knowledge. It’s fine to believe there is a God somewhere. To claim that you or anyone else knows his nature, his plan, his wishes for us is wrong (please don’t lambaste me for the male pronoun – it’s mere expediency). It is an attempt to know what is clearly unknowable, and it causes strife when one claimed knowledge base rubs up against another.

On a personal note, I can only say that going to church, listening to sermons, singing devotional songs, “witnessing,” arguing, killing, blowing oneself up, etc. all seem like a colossal waste of time when no one can even agree what the nature of God is, if he even exists. And at its worst, it causes all of the societal ills that Sam speaks of, while only weakly addressing the ills that so many believers seem to fear so ferociously. The uncaring sociopath will still murder despite the protestations of the Christian, Muslim, or Hindu luminary. And the one who knows that loving others causes others to love him will do so under any religious symbol or lack thereof. The regimes of Hitler, Stalin et. al. failed not because they were atheist, but because they did not take into account the outrage of humanity faced with atrocity – atrocity as defined by human decency, not religion.

Dearest Sam: Let us not forget the saddest fact of all: belief in a father-god is necessary when people are frightened, feel worthless,are stuffed with guilt by upbringing and tradition, have been given no reason to trust other humans, and lack the ability to look for, and find, joy and beauty in living. Atheism has always stressed the negative. How about a positive message that human beings are full of promise and need each other far more than they need any non-human Superbeing? The practical, rational fact is that there are no guarantees for the avoidance of pain, but great hope that help can come from other people, especially in small, caring communities.
In other words, lets move on and invite others to join us.
“There is no God” can be said in a kindly way with a hand extended.

Peter,

You say: “The wickedness and futility that the writer presents is certainly no evidence against the God of the Bible, since the Bible not only acknowledges all of this but tells us to expect it.”

Again it is your harsh judging in the words of “wickedness” and “futility” that are most unlike the words of Jesus.  They betray your own misunderstandings.

And your argument that “since the Bible not only acknowledges all of this but tells us to expect it” is very weak.  Its as if you believe that the Bible was written before history began, so that all was fortold.

The Jewish writers of their history as told in the Old Testament surely argue that their God is foretelling of all the awful suffering to come, since they had no choice. 

Since is was obvious to anyone living at the time that the world was full of horrors, of necessity they imagined (created) a God who fit with their experience of reality.

Peter, Peter

Why have you forsaken me?

Your name calling only betrays your own fearful soul.

Sam’s words are at least humane, hopeful.

Thanks for that. I thoroughly enjoyed it. Pity we aren’t going to have an end to religion any time soon. Oh well, at least I live in one of the more secular countries you mentioned, Australia.

What is missing is a concept of “Godliness” biologically within us as inherently spititual beings. That we create perfectionistic goals and moral concepts to explain the unknowable and project this energy into the Cosmos is seemingly part of being Human. We can be aware of the magic of birth and the capacity to see healing without yet knowing how this comes about.

We would never say a book of fiction has no value because what is written is not true or factual. Yet, from myth and parable we may extract over time greater “truths” about life as a result of what resonates within in response to these myths, that is to say a deeper emotional need is met by constructed stories in some instances.

Clearly, there is a diversity and a spectrum of ” God Concepts ” and we are doomed to have to live with the eternal need to wrestle endlessly in search of the “truth”. Atheism like Fundamentalism suffers from a sense of “Certainty”

Nothing is certain but change.

Excellent article!  Speaking from first-hand experience, be patient with your “believing” friends.  Growing up in a very religious environment, it took me almost a decade to slowly realize that the religion I grew up with was pure mythology.  Those who have dared to speak their true beliefs such as Mr. Harris and, before him, Robert G. Ingersoll, gave me the knowledge to realize what I was believing in was a well-constructed story.

Slowly but surely we will gain strength and spread the truth.  However, it won’t work by force.  Just as the civil rights movement tood time and patience, so will ours.  I’m glad to see the momentum building, and to see so many joining in this worthy effort!

I truly appreciate the book The End of Faith. As one reviewer states,“I felt vindicated” and that’s how I feel as I am reading it. I am in an AA group we call We Agnostics where we are free to talk about our disbelief in a god that will “keep us sober”. In the great majority of AA meetings that kind of talk does NOT go over well, and the preaching begins. I tried many many times to “trust god” to keep me sober and it never worked for long. Now, at age 50, I have been sober for two years so far because believe in myself, and I can go to a meeting of kindred men and women. Our founder is 93 years old, an atheist, and has been sober for 33 years so far. I have been reading excerpts from Sam’s book at our weekly meetings and the members love the book too.

It is such an important book and I appreciate the person that wrote it (and has to defend it and himself from the crazy religious freaks)
Did you know that the catholics HAVE now come out with a new diet cracker for the eucharist- it’s called “I Can’t Believe It’s Not Jesus”. Thank you Sam Harris for vindicating my rational mind.

Utterly brilliant and devastating. Says what intellectually honest people know is true. The idea of “faith” being a reward for forcing one’s self to believe things without adequate evidence just because it makes them feel good- is one of the most damaging concepts ever devised by man, and central to every religious code I can think of.

>>> It is worth noting that no one ever needs to identify himself as a non-astrologer or a non-alchemist. Consequently, we do not have words for people who deny the validity of these pseudo-disciplines.

I totally agree with this. In fact, I don’t care for the word “atheist” for two related reasons: one, it sounds soooo sterile; and two, it suggests atheism as an organizing principle, like religious faith, which for those of us who don’t believe, it simply is not.

In my case, my “lack of belief” isn’t something I thought or deduced my way into. It’s more something I discovered about myself, like finding an old box of photos in the garage. (“Oh my goodness, would you look at that? It seems I don’t believe. When did that happen?” To which I responded: “You didn’t know this about yourself? How strange. You haven’t believed for a looonnngggg time.”)

If I ever had the misfortune of being locked in the same room with all these people, both Harris and everybody else yelling back at him, I’d just have to say, “SHUT UP!!!”  So sure of themselves!  The atheists are as ardent in their faith as the religious are in theirs, and the argument between them is exactly the same as that between religious believers of different faiths.  And the argument will go on for eternity, for as long as one person needs to feel superior to another, because faith can’t be proven.  It can be only be argued about, endlessly.  I am resigned to living with the ambiguity of agnosticism—literally not knowing—because in matters of faith the void of uncertainty is the only truth.  Until and unless someone leaves this plane that we experience with our paltry senses, goes to another, and then comes back and reports on it, we can be certain of nothing regarding faith, either pro or con.  And I am neither naive enough to believe that such a journey can exist, nor arrogant enough to believe that it can’t.  I don’t know.

Peter Attwood writes: “The corruption and folly of organized religions are scarcely evidence against the God of the Bible when the Bible testifies throughout that that is how they are.

Do you know what a circular argument is?

The denial of reason that is so inherent in the embrace of religion also has the spin-off effect of allowing individuals to ignore or deny inconvenient facts placed before them in other areas of life. Overwhelming evidence of global warming, or corruptness of politicians, etc. can be disregarded because you do not want to believe they are true. It takes a fair amount of intellectual discipline to block out the inconvenient contradictory facts. Religion gives the proper training for suspending all reason. Allowing good people to make amoral decisions.

An atheist parent walking with his or her child at night, hearing from the child that the moon is walking with them, would not, I hope,dash that child’s immature perceptions with a scowling, tongue-lashing and a lofty discourse on astronomy. Similarly, I think those who understand the immaturity of the projections that become God should not try to demolish those chimera with pointed and wagging fingers. Atheism is as wrong-headed as religion when it fails to understand our a priori unity and is destined to scrapping with the faithful as long as it eschews a real compassion for the deluded.

It is more than ironic that this manifesto is as ideologically rigid as that which it decries.

I am an atheist, I should say, but this article fell far short on three counts:

1. It has zero sympathy for the reasons why people turn to religion. Even Freud had interesting things to say on this—an oceanic feeling of oneness (echoing lost infancy), along with fear of death and loss. These are real feelings held by real people, and I wonder if the author will be so snottily superior when his time comes.

2. No basis for a secular morality is given. That is what moves most people—the old Dostoevskian retort that without God all is possible. Yes, with God all has been possible, but without a secular basis for ethical action, you will find no converts. Which leads to the most important third point:

3. Who cares what someone’s metaphysics is? I thought the point was one’s actions, not what one believes. I have little desire to change what one believes, just how people behave in the public sphere. I thought that was the point of Enlightenment political theory? Separation of church and state? Somehow, Sam the Arch-Rationalist has forgotten about this—I’ll take Archbishop Romero any day of the week over a sessile atheist. Atheism is no guarantee of right action, just as theism is not. Theism/atheism and right action are literally uncorrelated. (Speaking of correlation—I find it laughable that Sam the Arch-Rationalist could make the fundamental error of mistaking correlation for cause in his discussion of relatively atheistic societies and human happiness. I don’t doubt the correlation, but is the cause so simple and monolithic?)

The glib discussion of the crimes of atheist regimes in the 20th century highlights the problem, and betrays the missed point: the battle is not between brilliant atheists who are always moral and benighted “liberal” theologians who are portrayed as ethically worse in their confused thought than the more “honest” and pure (but wrong) fundamentalists, for whom Sam the Arch-Rationaist has a revealing respect.

The key conflict is between those who are ideologically sure and those who are not. It is between comforting all-encompassing worldviews that are hyperanally cleansed of all complexity or doubt and those that are more tolerant, making room for theists and atheists alike.

I had been awaiting this essay with excitement. Quite a disappointment. The last thing we need is a “manifesto” that surely satisfies a philosopher’s need for wholeness (not a surprise, as philosophy is the child of theology) but leaves little regard for the messiness of human thought, belief, and action.

I look forward to a positive argument for a secular basis for morality, in order to undermine the oft-repeated fundy charge that atheists are moral wolves, and a strong statement of tolerance. One can’t expect tolerance if one is not prepared to give it. I should think that in country that is mostly religious and not likely to change any time soon, but which has immediate political need for a new progressive majority, which will necessarily need relgious folks, as the civil rights movement did, I can see no point in alienating the very allies who are like-minded in every respect but the metaphysical.

Thank you.

I read Sam’s book earlier this year. It should be required reading in every high school, public and private.

Religion is just charlatanism that has gained respectability through centuries of brute force. Over the years, fear became deference and deference became reverence.

People who believe that an invisible god micromanages our universe are seriously deluded. They need mental health counseling. They do not deserve our awe or respect, and certainly not our money. Sadly, these people still run the world and impose their madness on the rest of us.

Most research I’ve done regarding claims of Hitler being an Athiest seem to indicate the opposite. Do a google search of “Hitler’s Religious Quotes” and see for yourself what comes up.

Interesting article, but as a manifesto I feel it falls flat. The case for atheism is well advised, but the case against religion is rather defamatory and shallow.

“The problem of suffering” has been a widely debated topic among religious scholars for centuries, and many theological answers have been put forth. Likewise, free will versus divine intervention.

Using the existence of suffering to glibly dismiss religion is not the simple equation presented in this article, ignoring as it does whole subsets of belief in a non-interventionist divinity.

Atheists don’t do their cause any favors by ignoring thousands of years of intellectual tradition on the religious side.

There can’t be a God . . . I’ve never seen him.  Then again, I’ve never seen Sam Harris . . .

I’d condense this piece to its best expressions.

The “god gene” may well exist; the best exposition of this is in E.O. Wilson’s On Human Nature. The authors’s point about the difference in piety, or perhaps more an expressed belief, is interesting, though; and the reasons for a well-demonstrated gap would be valuable to explore.

Evidence that Stalin was an atheist was his total and public repudiation of the Russian Orthodox teaching he got in seminary, along with the minor detail that his regime was an officially atheist regime that taught atheism officially in all its institutions and persecuted the churches relentlessly until World War 2, when he found it expedient to lighten up on the Russian Orthodox Church in exchange for its help in the war effort.

Hitler was baptized a Roman Catholic but likewise thoroughly repudiated it and only cut the churches some liberty in exchange for their support in his war, which he largely received, especially from the Protestants.  But he planned to settle with them in turn - or do you suppose he disapproved of the Nazi slogan that they would strangle the last Jew with the guts of the last parson?

I observe in one of my opponents your citing the beginning of my argument and leaving out the rest in order to give the impression that I have no “evidence” except a Bible verse.  I trust that you see how dishonest that is when you see “religious” people misrepresent your arguments in that way.

How are you dogmatic atheists any different from your religious competition?  It’s just Pepsi and Ccoke, isn’t it?

And that brings me to my next point, which is that just as dogmatically religious people are often effectively atheists, demonstrating their unbelief by their refusal to listen to anything that might disturb their certainties, “atheists” are generally passionate devotees of their gods - their own reason, their pseudo-scientific theories (which remind me of Marxist “scientific thought), and the scorn toward with which they intoxicate themselves.  In others, like certain radio preachers, the exact same ignorant scorn is obvious to you - who enjoy exactly the same.

It’s taught in the Bible, yes, but you don’t have to believe the Bible to know that scornful contempt of others ensures that we become just like them, and is indeed evidence that we are.

Let me recommend a good read: “The True Believer” by Eric Hoffer, 1951.

And here’s a pragmatic note for those who don’t like where Christians are taking this world - and I don’t at all myself.  Attacking the Bible and Christians has the same effect on that problem as it does to call Jews monkeys and pigs and to peddle the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion” in order to oppose the behavior of the state of Israel.

If the big deal to you is trying to discredit the Bible and to convince people that their daily experience isn’t happening to them, drive up!  It has never worked, and it never will, so knock yourselves out.  But if this is how you expect to stop Christian crusading and all the murder and misery that it is accomplishing today, and you expect to do that by this kind of bigotry, you’re just stupid - exactly like those Jew-haters.

“Stalin, Mao, Hitler, and Pol Pot were all professing atheists, and they set the standard for barbarism in the last century. There is not one shred of evidence Stalin was an atheist. Hitler was a Christian (Catholic), another oversight on your part.”

Not to mention that those tyrants who WERE atheists, Mao and Pol Pot, established what were essentially totalitarian religions, with the state as the object of worship. The State replaced God as the object of worship, just as God replaced the Greek and Roman gods, amonst others. Religion IS the abandonment of rationality. Christianity, Judaism, Islam are all merely forms in which delusion manifests.

The problem with believers like Mr. Attwood is that they want their faith to seen by others as fact.

Unfortunately, faith and fact are two very different things, and the sooner they stop trying to “prove” God, the sooner they can start doing all those wonderful things for other people that their god says they’re supposed to be doing if they believe in him.

Sam Harris’ book, which I certainly recommend to those who did NOT like this piece even more so than to those who did, is as compelling as it is redundant.  As a foreigner I naively thought we were finished with religion, that it was one of these demoted, backward practices that had long been abandoned and only alive in countries lagging in their educational development.  Throughout history, religious following has consistently dropped as science progressed and knowledge was increasingly widespread, starting with the printing press.  But I am still befuckled with the US.  Progress seems to have stopped in (at least parts of) this country.  And that is something I do not understand.  Any clues out there? 
(Christian freaks please abstain, there is nothing for you to debate here.)

This is simply brilliant, an island of reason in a sea of insanity.  It is amazing - and tragic - that it is a minority viewpoint in the so-called modern world, and a despised minority in America. 

Thank you, Sam Harris, for writing it, and thank you, Robert Scheer, for publishing it.

The only point I would add (and I hope you can elaborate upon someday, Mr. Harris) is that the Big Three modern monotheistic religions are especially abusive toward women, starting with the irrational belief that God is Male.  Oh, liberal believers may try to say “God” is genderless.  But anyone who reads the Old or New Testament or the Koran knows that the Lord is a Guy, Jesus is a Guy, and Allah is a Guy.  Indeed, Catholicism posits that the Supreme Being is actually Three Guys (Father, Son, Holy Ghost).  Why do women and feminist men put up with this sexist nonsense?  At least the pagans had the vision to include a few goddesses in their pantheon.

Peter Attwood sez:
Stalin, Mao, Hitler, and Pol Pot were all professing atheists, and they set the standard for barbarism in the last century. There is not one shred of evidence Stalin was an atheist. Hitler was a Christian (Catholic), another oversight on your part.

Hesham sez:
First, movements based on the primacy of human rationality have failed and caused huge amounts of suffering.

Got examples?

Second, the human facility for reason is inescapably flawed. That is so because humans are incapable of perceiving reality.

HUH??????

They’ll find ways to inflict suffering on one another no matter what dogma they buy into.

Not in a truly secular democracy, on which the U.S. was founded but is far from it due to fundamentalist christianity.

Thank you for your excellent piece. However, I’d like to point out one inaccuracy about Anti-Semitism.

You write—“For centuries, religious Germans had viewed the Jews as the worst species of heretics and attributed every societal ill to their continued presence among the faithful.”

That is certainly true, but it makes it sound as if Anti-Semitism was a German invention, which it was certainly not. It was simply the most extreme example of a phenomenon that can be traced back for centuries throughout the entire Christian and Islamic world.

Every person who has ever written a religious document has professed that someone would come along and try and discredit it.  Even Joseph Smith, the AUTHOR of the Book of Mormon warned that the non-believers would despise his name throughout history, and that there would be people doubting the truths told within the book.  So Peter, does that mean that Joseph Smith is correct as well?  He says his book is another testament to the Bible.  I haven’t read the Koran, but I bet it too talks about the fact that someone will deny the “truths” told within.

Rather than being a refutation of “An Atheist Manifesto”, the irrational and factually inaccurate sermon by Mr. Attwood only serves to exemplify every major point made by Mr. Harris.

Atheism is the answer! huh? I just want to point out two things: First, movements based on the primacy of human rationality have failed and caused huge amounts of suffering. Second, the human facility for reason is inescapably flawed. That is so because humans are incapable of perceiving reality.
I don’t think it really matters what people believe, they’ll find ways to inflict suffering on one another no matter what dogma they buy into.

Are you saying, “Why believe in a God?”, since He allows so much pain and suffering in the world? The article seems to say that the religious people in this world, especially those who act in the name of a God, are allowed to pursue self-interests and inflict suffering on innocent people, because their religion instructs them that its justified. Do we have free will, I ask? If so, aren’t consequences inevitable.

Jesus’ “Golden Rule”, (Love thy neighbor as you would have them love yourself), is His primary teaching. No more complicated than that. However, I argue that man corrupted that simple message into a set of self-serving interpretations (i.e. religion).

It’s a valid point that religions have constructed complex Dogma to rule their world, but it isn’t accurate to attribute those Dogmas to Jesus. (Yes, I only know Jesus, but other people may wish to insert their God in the argument, although I won’t). Jesus couldn’t even prevent His own crucifixion; it was the free will of the men of His time.

I offer you a reason for God. For me, its Jesus. We’re all inadvertently participating in a reality of our own free will, one that has a purpose. Man’s free will directs the reality, coupled with pride and a competitive nature, which can develop into deep rooted hate.
Our obligation, on the other hand, is to love and help our fellow man.

In this reality, we’re conditioned, and we condition children, unfortunately, to take care of number one; win at all costs; achieve self-actualization; build a ladder to success, so only the strong survives, hardly a recipe for brotherly-love. We all use free will to choose between good and evil acts, but the vast majority of those choices result in unpredictable affects, regardless of the original intentions. We can’t avoid the negative repercussions.

If life was perpetually good, peaceful, and safe, without pain and suffering, we might not choose to protect ourselves or the innocent. Without a lost loved one, we might never commit a selfless sacrifice. Would we care to make a safer world, if there were no risks of disaster? How would we first appreciate love, if there were never threats of loosing it?

The contrasts of these feelings are the foundation, upon which, we learn to nurture each other, cultivate hope, experience love, and pursue happiness. We are here to comprehend a greater reality. The magnitude of that reality is too broad, in scope, for us to grasp. Can you explain the universe? Let’s hope the contrasts in this reality will open our eyes and ears to His teachings.

Eternal life is the end game; this life is where we cultivate that comprehension. He’s given us a short time to learn how to love unconditionally and for eternity. His design, respects us to choose his way freely, or remain where we are, in an empty space away from Him… “That’s why we can believe in God”. You don’t have an alternative.

Peter Attwood sez:

“There are many evidences that God is really there, but one of the clearest is the point made in Psalm 14, that the fool has said in his heart that there is no God.”

Not real clear on the concept of “evidence,” are you?

Excellent work Sam. Bravo. I saw the preview of this but am glad to have the entire thing available to refer to in the future.

And, it’s amazing that you can describe the delusion of the fundamentalist religionist and then folks like Peter Attwood turn right around and take the time to type out a godboner diatribe which exemplifies such delusion. Funny stuff!

I’ll be looking for your books Sam. Keep up the great writing.

I always get a kick out of people who quote the bible to strengthen their arguments. Anybody who has really read the old testament has to come to the realization that anyone who might try to live the way the bible directs one to live would be locked up in the loony bin pretty quick. As a result, people in the religion industry focus on certain parts of the bible and ignore the rest. If you would like to see how ridiculous many parts of the bible are, without having to read the whole thing, visit the following web sites and take a bible quiz. Have a bible handy to confirm the references. Most dollar stores sell them for a buck.

http://www.landoverbaptist.org/quizlist.html

http://www.ffrf.org/quiz/bquiz.php

Beautiful piece. It’s frustrating to realize that rational people are the fringe element in our society, while those who claim knowledge of gods and demons for which there is no evidence enjoy the mainstream.

I TREASURE THIS ARTICLE. SHADES OF DAVID HUME AND BARON D’HOLBACH.

Thank you for saying what I have been thinking. The difference is you have had the courage to say it and eloquently so.