Sam Harris on the Chapel Hill Murders and Militant Atheism

[edhopper]

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2015/02/18/sam-harris-on-the-chapel-hill-murders-and-militant-atheism-and-why-he-now-fears-for-his-safety/

The deluge of claims of equivalence between this crime, and the Charlie Hebdo atrocity and the daily behavior of a group like ISIS, has been astonishing to witness. You can sense that people have just been waiting for a crime like this that could conceivably be pinned on atheism.

But of course the analogy between militant atheism and militant Islam is a terrible one. It’s an anti-analogy. It is false in every respect. Atheists are simply not out there are harming people on the basis of their atheism. Now, there may be atheists who do terrible things, but there is no atheist doctrine or scripture; and insofar as any of us have written books or created arguments that have persuaded people, these books and arguments … only relate to the bad evidence put forward in defense of a belief in God. There’s no argument in atheism to suggest that you should hate or victimize or stigmatize whole groups of people, as there often is in revealed religion.

posted without comment.

[trotsky]

1. Should be fun to see the raw hatred and spittle that usually accompanies any piece...

by one of the dreaded, evil, just-as-bad-as-religious-fundamentalists "New Atheists."

I wonder if anyone will be able to counter Harris' points?

[edhopper]

2. I posted without comment

because he says all he needed and wanted to say.
I see no need to explain it any further, and it would be presumptive of me to argue for him if someone challenges this and asks me what his answer would be.

[skepticscott]

4. Harris says everything so well there

And puts the critical points so clearly and simply that you shake your head that some posters here still twist themslves into intellectual knots trying to deny it.

[skepticscott]

3. Some of the more salient points from the piece

The deluge of claims of equivalence between this crime, and the Charlie Hebdo atrocity and the daily behavior of a group like ISIS, has been astonishing to witness. You can sense that people have just been waiting for a crime like this that could conceivably be pinned on atheism.

Now, there may be atheists who do terrible things, but there is no atheist doctrine or scripture; and insofar as any of us have written books or created arguments that have persuaded people, these books and arguments … only relate to the bad evidence put forward in defense of a belief in God. There’s no argument in atheism to suggest that you should hate or victimize or stigmatize whole groups of people, as there often is in revealed religion.

It is obvious that some instances of Muslim violence have nothing whatsoever to do with Islam, and I would never dream of assigning blame to the religion of Islam for that behavior. …
But the problem, of course, is that there are teachings within Islam that explicitly recommend, in fact demand, violence under certain circumstances, circumstances which we in the 21st century, if we are decent human beings, will recognize as being morally insane. Apostasy, blasphemy, adultery. Merely holding hands with a man who is not your blood relative or husband (if you are a woman unlucky enough to be born in a country like Afghanistan), these are rather often killing offenses. And the link between the doctrine as it is understood by Islamists and jihadists at this point, and the behavior, is explicit, it’s logical, it is absolutely unambiguous. And yet this doesn’t prevent people from denying it at every turn.

Now, there is no such link between atheism or secularism, and violence of any kind. In any circumstance. There’s nothing about rejecting the truth claims of religious dogmatists, [and] there’s nothing about doubting that the universe has a creator, that suggests that violence in certain circumstances is necessary or even acceptable. And all the people who are comparing these murders to Charlie Hebdo – or to ISIS, as insane as that sounds – are really trivializing a kind of violence that threatens to destabilize much of the world. And ironically it is violence whose principal victims are Muslim.

This analogy between so-called militant atheism and militant Islam is essentially a moral hoax. The thing that very few people seem able to distinguish, and the distinction that Greenwald and Aslan obfuscate at every opportunity, is the difference between criticizing ideas and their results in the world, and hating people as people because they belong to a certain group, or because they have a certain skin color, or because they came from a certain country. There is no connection between those two orientations. The latter is of course bigotry and I would condemn it as harshly as anyone would hope.
But criticizing ideas and their consequences is absolutely essential, and that is the spirit in which I have criticized Islam in various flavors, and Christianity, and Judaism, and Buddhism. And all of these criticisms are different because these belief systems are different.

[trotsky]

5. This bit is so important - and is what so many of us have been saying - that it needs repeating:

But the problem, of course, is that there are teachings within Islam that explicitly recommend, in fact demand, violence under certain circumstances, circumstances which we in the 21st century, if we are decent human beings, will recognize as being morally insane. ... And the link between the doctrine as it is understood by Islamists and jihadists at this point, and the behavior, is explicit, it’s logical, it is absolutely unambiguous. And yet this doesn’t prevent people from denying it at every turn.

[skepticscott]

6. And the response that those in deep denial

here and elsewhere, keep clinging to is "But that's not REAL Islam!", as if there were a single, pure, holy and totally benevolent version that can lay claim to that title.

Saying that it isn't legitimate Islam because it is a "corrupted" version (of what, they aren't quite sure) is about as silly as saying that Protestantism isn't a legitimate form of Christianity, because it is a "corruption" of Catholicism. Heck, modern Catholicism could be considered a "corruption" of early Christian practices.

[phil89]

8. So true

Why do people act as if their is some objective standard for what makes a true member of a religion?

[Fumesucker]

7. If Harris was "astonished" by the reaction he's not as perceptive as I thought

All too predictable it was.

More likely that was a rhetorical device.

[skepticscott]

9. Yeah, he's probably not THAT astonished

but still, religious apologists and atheist haters seem to have plumbed new depths of intellectual dishonesty over all this.

[stone space]

10. Some here blame militant atheism.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1218182233#post12

That's like blaming the Berrigan brothers for nuclearism.

[cbayer]

18. It would be really good for you to read this article so that

you can get some idea about why the term "militant atheist" has a different meaning than you give it.

If you could only recognize why people react to the term negatively and stop taking it personally based on your own unique definition, I think your experience here would improve greatly.

[stone space]

20. I don't expect to agree with this guy on much of anything.

I certainly don't consider him as some sort of atheist pope with the authority to define my atheism for me.

In fact, except for the one article that I mentioned to Ed below (and his followup defense of that article) that came up in another internet forum while discussing nuclear weapons, I had never even heard of him before coming to DU.

[cbayer]

21. I don't think anyone thinks of him as an atheist pope, but

I suggested that you read this to get a better sense of how and why some people respond negatively to the term.

It has nothing to do with defining your atheism.

You have dug yourself in so firmly at this point, when the real issue just comes down to you using a term that others define differently. You are not going to change their minds on this, but you do have the capacity to change your own.

Would you even consider that? Would you even consider saying, "I am an atheist and I am militant about things in which I believe"??

You have still not described how your atheism is militant, and I think that is the crux of the misunderstanding at this point.

[stone space]

22. I see no reason to change my atheism for Sam Harriss or anybody else. (nt)

[cbayer]

23. You completely and absolutely missed the point.

I'm trying to help you here, but I'm beginning to think that by militant, you mean unnecessarily combative about pretty much anything.

I am not suggesting that you change your atheism for anyone, just that you review your terminology.

And you still haven't said in what way your atheism is militant. Your avoidance of that question is becoming a very bright light.

[stone space]

24. I offered to give examples.

But I'm not sure what else you want.

[cbayer]

26. Give examples of how your atheism is militant then.

[stone space]

32. I was asked what my atheist beliefs were...

...back when I first arrived here at DU in the AA forum. Here was my response.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/123022173#post58

Oh, I have lots of atheist beliefs, far too many to list here.

The fact that I don't believe in God is a relatively unimportant and minor one, in my view, although it is the one that you have been focusing most of your attention on in your questioning of me.

Some of my atheist beliefs would include my support for civil rights, such as the right to marry. (At one time, our own marriage would have been illegal, even here in Iowa.)

The year after Bowers v Hardwick (1986), I joined with 480 others (including many Christians as well as other atheists) in a nonviolent direct action sitting on the steps of the US Supreme Court and refusing to move, demanding that Bowers be overturned as an expression of my atheist beliefs in support of civil rights. We were released from jail 48 hours later, and 17 years after that, the US Supreme Court did finally overturn Bowers in Lawrence v Texas (2003).

My atheist pacifism would be another. I'm an abolitionist when it comes to things like land mines, cluster bombs and nuclear weapons. (And many other things.) I also support the repeal of the 2nd Amendment.

My atheism includes, somewhat ironically given our previous discussion here in this thread, a rather literal interpretation of the biblical prophesy in Isaiah 2:4, which might put me as a Pacifist Atheist in closer company with Pacifist Christians from the Plowshares Movement than to Cluster Bomb Atheists like Christopher Hitchens, I suppose.

and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more

The list of my deeply held atheist beliefs could go on, but that's a start, I suppose.

[cbayer]

35. I appreciate that, but I think this is where you get really tangled up.

Your support of marriage equality, civil rights, pacifism, gun control and other things are completely unrelated to atheism.

You say that your Bowers v. Hardwick protest included christians. You use a biblical passage to explain your pacifism. You say you have more in common with the Plowshares Movement than Christopher Hitchens.

You are a political progressive with strong feelings about issues that most progressives share and a willingness to take a militant position to defend those things.

This has nothing to do with your atheism. This is something you share with other progressives, be they theists or atheists.

Perhaps you are a militant progressive who also happens to be an atheist. But if you want to continue to wear the name tag "Hi! I'm a militant atheist", you are going to be continually misunderstood.

Like I said, you have the opportunity to change this perception, but I'm not feeling hopeful about that.

[stone space]

36. Thank you for defining my atheist beliefs for me.

Your support of marriage equality, civil rights, pacifism, gun control and other things are completely unrelated to atheism.

[cbayer]

37. You are stuck. When you can explain to me how your support

of those things is in any way related to your non-belief in a god, I might better understand you.

But I don't think you can and I don't think you are willing to retreat from your current untenable position.

See you around the campfire.

[stone space]

39. What is "non-belief" to you?

I didn't use the term.

If a Hammer falls on a God of Metal, and the nearby journalists are arrested, and their video and audio tapes confiscated, does it make a sound?

[cbayer]

40. We have disagreed on this before. I think atheism

has a very clear and very simple definition. It is the rejection of a belief or non-belief in god(s), no more no less.

It can be modified in innumerable ways, but that is all that it is.

It has nothing to do with civil rights, pacifism, guns, the environment or anything else.

There are no atheist beliefs. There are atheists with beliefs and most atheists have beliefs of one sort or another,

Atheists share but one thing - the rejection of belief or non-belief in god(s).

[stone space]

41. Too simplistic.

And a way for religious folks to minimize the deeply held beliefs of atheists.

Would you take an equally simplistic view of religion?

[cbayer]

42. Atheists do not have deeply held beliefs. You have deeply held beliefs,

some of which are shared by other atheists, some of which are not and some of which are shared with religious believers.

Name me one single deeply held belief of atheists that is shared and a hallmark of atheism. One.

I would not take that simplistic view of religion, but I would take it of theism.

Theism is the belief that at least one god exists. No more, no less. That is the only things that theists share.

[stone space]

43. That's your belief and you're going to stick to it.

Atheists do not have deeply held beliefs.

All I can say is, "wow!".

[cbayer]

44. You have completely taken that out of context, which is very objectionable.

In context it is clear that what I am saying is that atheists as a group do not share deeply held beliefs. I asked you to name one, just one. I don't think you can.

[stone space]

45. The context is me reading...

...what I recognize as a talking point of a small but vocal group of internet atheists who seek to define everybody's atheism for them.

Every time I read certain talking points, I say "wow" to myself.

Sometimes my fingers even type the word out on the keyboard.

This is one of those times.

[cbayer]

46. Name one single belief that is shared by atheists. One.

You are distorting what is being said in order to fit your own agenda.

This is not a talking point. This is a critical part of the discussion. You have made a claim that you can not back up because it is not factual.

I think your fingers need to type the answer to the question - what is a belief that is shared by atheists?

[stone space]

47. I can't define other peoples' atheism for them.

You seem to be pushing me to do so.

Should I try to speak for agnostics on this board who for some reason call themselves atheists?

They can tell you their own beliefs.

Some of my atheist beliefs are likely to differ from some of the atheist beliefs of agnostics, for example.

[cbayer]

48. You can't define atheism as something other than a rejection of belief.

That's the problem. There are no atheist beliefs, there are atheists with beliefs.

You are a person with beliefs who happens to identify as an atheist. You are militant about some things.

Technically speaking, you are an atheist militant or a militant atheist because you are both things, like I am a retired apatheist. I haven't retired from my apatheism and my apatheism has nothing to do with my retirement. I just happen to be both.

That fact that you can't name a single belief shared by atheists makes the case. There are no atheist beliefs, only atheists with beliefs.

[stone space]

49. I most certainly can.

You can't define atheism as something other than a rejection of belief.

Do you include agnostics in your definition of atheism that I am not allowed to disagree with?

What is a "rejection of belief", anyway?

[cbayer]

50. Okay, then do it. Define atheism as something other than a rejection of belief.

I gave you the definition of atheism and it does not include anything about agnosticism. Agnosticism is about knowing. Atheism is about believing.

Rejection - the dismissing or refusing of something

Belief - acceptance that something is true, in this case the existence of god(s)

That is the single thing that atheists share. I challenge you to provide another definition.

[stone space]

51. Are you including agnostics?

Obviously, I have at least one atheist belief that I don't share with agnostics.

[cbayer]

52. No, I already said that these are different things. So where is the definition?

I am also curious what "atheist belief" you don't share with agnostics.

[stone space]

53. I believe that there is no God.

But here on DU, that belief is not universally shared by folks who call themselves atheists.

I still consider it an atheist belief, despite the fact that some self-avowed atheists here at DU might take issue with my belief.

[cbayer]

54. But you also reject the belief in god, you just take it a little step further

and embrace a belief that there is no god. All atheists reject the belief, some go further. Some even say they are sure there is no god. But these are all subgroups. The larger group shares but one single thing.

I don't think anyone would take issue with your belief that there is no god, but they may not want to be that personally definitive. I have never seen a self-avowed atheist on this site take issue with someone saying that they believed there is no god.

[stone space]

56. In other words, I'm an atheist.

But you also reject the belief in god, you just take it a little step further

I've taken it a step beyond agnosticism.

Atheists are not some tiny minority within atheism.

We're the whole show.

On the internet, atheists are sometimes viewed as a tiny minority inside of atheism, according to a definition promoted by some agnostics.

In this way, certain agnostics get to define atheism, and turn us into a tiny minority within our own group.

The motivation for this seems to be the desire to score superficial rhetorical points in internet debates, by rendering atheists nearly invisible within atheism itself.

[cbayer]

58. I don't think there was ever a question as to whether you were an atheist,

except by some who may think you are a poe (pretending to be an atheist, but not really one.).

Now, I'm not following you at all. Atheists are atheists. They share one thing - they reject the belief in god.

I have no idea what you mean by "atheists are not some tiny minority within atheism." Atheists are people who take the position of atheism - rejection of a belief in god.

What is this subgroup you are describing a "atheists"? Atheists with the belief that there is no god. That's really nothing but a very thin rhetorical argument, imo.

You still haven't given me a definition of atheism that is different than the one I gave you.

[pinto]

59. Coming in late here, obviously. Yet a question for clarification.

Do you think agnostics are marginalizing atheists? Or intend to? I don't quite get it.

If asked, I guess I'd label myself as an agnostic in terms of the god question, yet one who values the examples of numerous preachers, teachers. Some based in a theistic point of view, some based in a polytheistic point of view and some who make no point about it all.

I've no beef with atheists, no desire to see them excluded or minimalized. In fact, I share some of their viewpoints as I read them.

[stone space]

60. Not agnostics in general.

Do you think agnostics are marginalizing atheists?

And I would include "agnostics for convenience" in that group, also.

The redefinition of atheism to include agnostics (and in effect, to make atheists a tiny and nearly invisible minority within atheism) seems to be nothing more to me than a rhetorical device invented for scoring cheap points in internet discussions.

It's a totally artificial redefinition of atheism promoted (so far as I can tell) for superficial rhetorical purposes.

At times, one can see the superficial motivation for the redefinition of atheism stated explicitly, but doing so kind of defeats the rhetorical purpose, since it makes clear that it is simply a superficial "redefinition of convenience" that lacks depth, and renders the redefinition of atheism as somewhat less than an objective and non-controversial definition that everybody must accept (including actual atheists!).

I reject my atheism being defined (and to real atheists being marginalized within atheism) for the passing rhetorical convenience of the fleeting internet arguments of a few.

Why Should We Care?

Let us dispense with all the obvious reasons why accuracy is preferable to inaccuracy and why dictionaries are not necessarily above reproach. We can keep this brief: defining atheism accurately reduces epistemological confusion and reminds us where the burden of proof rests.

http://www.atheistrev.com/2009/04/what-is-atheism.html

The book reminded me of precisely what atheism is and what it is not. Simply put, atheism refers the absence of theistic belief. That's it. It doesn't mean anything else. Atheism is not a religion, a philosophy, a worldview, or anything of the kind. It is not the conviction that there are no gods or other supernatural entities. Rather, it is the absence of a belief in god(s). We can attempt to derive subcategories of atheism (e.g., positive, strong, radical, etc.), but these are neither necessary nor particularly useful. Atheism is nothing more than the lack of belief in gods.

As Smith points out, this trivial-sounding definition is actually quite important because it reminds us that the burden of proof rests solely on the theist. While we must provide evidence to support our positively asserted beliefs (e.g., Christianity is destructive, theism is correlated with intolerant views, etc.), it is nonsensical to expect evidence for atheism. If the theist fails to make a reasonable case for the claim that gods exist, atheism is the only sensible position. This is how knowledge works - the group advocating belief in something bears the burden of proof. Nobody expects you to prove that you do not have a fairy godmother, but if you claim that you do, we all (including Christians) expect evidence. Belief without evidence is irrational, to say the least.

When the believer is denied his/her first choice of argument (i.e., asking us to prove that he/she is wrong), only one argument remains. This may take many forms initially but can ultimately be reduced to some variation on "I believe because it makes me feel good to believe." I can think of no other scenarios where we (Christians included) would make such a statement and expect to be taken seriously.

http://www.atheistrev.com/2006/05/defining-atheism-advantage-of.html

[pinto]

61. I think I'm missing some backstory or background here. Atheist vs Agnostic is unfamiliar to me.

Don't see any mention of agnosticism in the excerpts from atheistrev.

You've obviously got a pointed interest on the issue, yet I'm not following it for discussion. I'm good with leaving it be for now, if that works.

[stone space]

62. Mention of agnostics would defeat the purposes.

Don't see any mention of agnosticism in the excerpts from atheistrev.

Agnostics are called atheists there.

And it is very important to do so, since it makes clear in internet discussions that the so-called "burden of proof" lies with the other guy.

Cheap points might be left unscored if agnostics were called agnostics.

That would make atheist too visible, and actual atheists interfere with the whole "burden of proof" thingie.

I'm cool with stopping for now. We're already so far over in the right margin, that it's hard to know which posts are replies to which.

[pinto]

55. I've been following this discussion with some interest. I think an atheist & theist share one thing.

God.

One disavows the existence of god, one avows the presence of god. No more nor less.

I strongly disagree that either one is inherently wrong or, more importantly, prone to extremism. Labels and assumptions are shaky propositions, in my point of view. How one interprets their position and how that plays into one's actions are what count.

[stone space]

57. Somebody sent me a link the other day, ...

...to a video.

I strongly disagree that either one is inherently wrong or, more importantly, prone to extremism. Labels and assumptions are shaky propositions, in my point of view. How one interprets their position and how that plays into one's actions are what count.

A guy in the video (I forget his name) said something like, "I'm not so interested in what you believe. I'm interested in how you believe it."

The elevation of actions over words was refreshing.

[edhopper]

11. Good to see all those who regularly bash

Harris chime in here.

[stone space]

12. The guy is hardly on my radar, but I've seen...

...passages of his where he practically gets down on his knees and prays to his genocidal Gods of Metal.

Just sayin'...

[edhopper]

13. Could you link

Specific quotes were he prays to Gods of any sort.

[stone space]

14. With bold where he uses the word "pray" or calls his Gods "Gods"?

You probably know which article I'm talking about.

He did a rebuttal to the criticism. Didn't help much, though.

Read the same way after the rebuttal as it did before.

Not really trying to strike up a conversation about it right now, but you seemed to really want a response, although I think you were looking for folks who follow him more than I do.

[edhopper]

15. I was being

Provocative, yes.

[stone space]

16. Hey, maybe some time we can have a good...

....knock down brawl over the article.

Better after midterm grades are in, though.

[edhopper]

19. I think Harris does a far better job

of defending himself than I ever could.
And though i did post this, it was because his name often pops up here.
I have not read him as extensively as i have others and i don't agree with everything he says.

[cbayer]

25. Who regularly bashes Harris, or do you think

anyone that criticizes him is "bashing" him.

Do you agree with him on everything?

[edhopper]

27. See post #19

Do you disagree that some do bash him?

[cbayer]

28. I don't see how post #19 is relevant.

Do you disagree that some criticism of him is warranted? Who exactly are "all those who regularly bash Harris"?

RPC (Religious Persecution Complex) is a new disorder I am working on. It is an interesting state that can be found in both believers and non-believers.

[edhopper]

29. Did the little emote thingies

not give you a clue to the nature of that post?

And "bash" would be subjective. Some would say that accusing Harris of being responsible in part for the Hick's murders is bashing, some would not.

[cbayer]

30. Am I missing something here, because I don't see any emote thingies on post #19?

Bash is highly subjective. Some might think calling out "all those who regularly bash Harris" to be bashing.

Do you disagree with any of Harris's positions? If you do, does that constitute "bashing"?

Perhaps you are talking about the emote thingies on post #11, now that I think about it.



The sarcasm is obvious, but I'm not sure what to make of devils. One might assume it means that you were calling out some unclear group because you have some evil intent, but I'm not sure.

[edhopper]

31. I was being provocative

an a little nasty.

Not to be taken too seriously.

I was surprised that some posters here (who I will not call out) who often use Harris in a negative way, did not chime in. But that is their prerogative.

[cbayer]

33. Perhaps your provocation failed because there really aren't people

here who regularly bash Harris.

If you can't give examples of those who "use" Harris in a negative way, maybe they don't exist. Maybe there are just those who legitimately criticize some of his positions.

So, assuming that you see me as one of those bashers, I would point out that I made a fairly substantial response to which you haven't responded.

[edhopper]

34. If you haven't seen it

I can't help you.

Notice my original post was without comment.

[cbayer]

38. No comment was necessary.

[cbayer]

17. Ah, I wish he could heed some of his own advice and

Last edited Sat Feb 21, 2015, 11:24 AM - Edit history (1)

take just the smallest step in recognizing that he may have contributed in some way and may need to tone down his rhetoric a bit.

While he makes some excellent points and I agree with much that he says, I would like to rewrite this final paragraph for him:

There’s some number of people among Harris's readers who are proper lunatics, goons, and madmen; who are organized entirely around this variable of being anti-Islam or anti-theist and its importance to their lives and to the future of humanity. And if you tell them, as Harris repeatedly has, whether in his own words or by circulating the words of others, that we are at war with Islam, or that Europe is seriously threatened by it's Muslim immigrants, or that Islam is fundamentally violent, or that Muslims should be profiled simply for looking Muslim, or that some ideas are so bad that it is ethical to kill people to hold those beliefs, this is dangerous. And I’m asking him to tone down the rhetoric and be more thoughtful and specific in his criticism of Islam.

edited to correct typo: atheist to theist