Regarding Mr. Harris and Mr. Dawkins, What's The Big Deal?

[cosmik debris]

I just don’t understand why atheists are so enamored with Mr. Dawkins and Mr. Harris. I tried to read Mr. Harris’ book (I believe the title was “End of Faith” or something like that.) But I put it down half way through because there was nothing in there that I did not already know. Everything he said was self-evident.

I’ll admit that Mr. Harris is a better storyteller, and Mr. Dawkins is a better scientist than I am. But I have been an atheist for almost 40 years, and I got here without their help. I don’t need reinforcement, I don’t need explanations, and I don’t need convincing.

I would never pick up a book, no matter how well written, that scientifically refuted the existence of unicorns. Nor would I waste my time reading a book that logically and systematically deconstructed the works of J.R.R. Tolkien. So why would I wish to spend my time on works that refute the existence of god or deconstruct the Bible? I just don’t understand the attraction to atheists of books that justify decisions that have already been made.

What am I missing that other atheists see?

[jgraz]

1. Try having a fundamentalist brother

who is raising your nephews to hate gays and reject evolution. Like me, you'd welcome any opportunity to find new ways to make the argument against his pinched and intellectually bankrupt world view.

[cosmik debris]

3. That may be true

But I am not on a mission to "save" anyone from their own religion. I may mock or ridicule them, but in the end they have a right to believe whatever nonsense they want to believe.

[jgraz]

5. That's the point of Harris' work

That atheists have a right and perhaps a duty to challenge people's belief in god. I've always been a "live and let live" atheist, and watched as the religious right, insulated from criticism about their fundamentalist world view, attempted to dismantle every functioning institution in our country.

We should not only oppose these people based on their bigotry. We should not only oppose them based on their hypocrisy. We should directly attack their beliefs in their ridiculous superstition, since that is the source of all the other evil they attempt to inflict on the world.

[greyl]

22. Education is a more worthwhile goal than ridicule, isn't it?

Maybe you didn't like the book because there wasn't enough mock and ridicule. ;)

I haven't read The End of Faith(or whatever), so I can't defend it readability, but I think the deal is that it, and Dawkin's work, are educational and thought provoking rather than collections of mantras to be repeated verbatim. There's no Bible of critical thinking, nor are there dozens of atheist free-thinkers to choose from the pool of current celebrity.
How many figureheads of religion can you name?
How many figureheads of evolutionary thought can you name?

During the last presidential campaign, Al Sharpton had a special status with me because he fearlessly said things in front of millions of people that simply weren't being said by anyone else.

[cosmik debris]

25. I'm not goal oriented

And if I was, and if education was my goal, I would concentrate my efforts on people with an open mind.

But the rest of your points are well taken, thank you.

[greyl]

27. Sure you are.

You haven't been convinced of it yet. ;)

[cosmik debris]

28. My ex-wife accused me

of being Goal DISoriented. She might agree with you.:)

[greyl]

29. Haha! :)

I think I may know what you mean, though. I used to be an anti-long-term goal person (especially during my phase of thinking Deepak Chopra was indeed a guru of some kind), but fact is, I just had extremely short-term goals.

[Warpy]

2. That atheists are a misunderstood and persecuted minority?

Personally, I'd rather watch videos of Dawkins speaking than read the books. I've been an atheist for about as long as you have and I doubt he's going to tell me much I don't already know, either. His speeches are wonderful, full of humor and compassion.

However, some atheists find his books very comforting because he lets them know they're not alone.

His books should appeal more to doubters than to atheists, though. They're certainly selling well enough that atheists can't possibly be the only ones reading them.

[stopbush]

4. Your story reflects your situation and not that of others.

Their books are not specifically targeted at atheists. Someone may choose to read their books simply because they
choose to read their books, as you apparently did with Harris' The End of Faith.

You need to answer your own question: why did you - an atheist of almost 40 years standing - elect to read Mr Harris'
The End of Faith?

[cosmik debris]

6. My son-in-law asked me to.

I would never have chosen that independently. Now I have to figure out a way to diplomatically tell my son-in-law that I thought his book was a waste of my time. Maybe I'll just keep my mouth shut?

[stopbush]

9. I'd tell him. I read End of Faith and found the middle of the book to

be very heavy going. I also have problems with Harris' indictment of all things Islamic
while acting as an apologist for Israel. Still, I found the book a worthwhile read.

I'm not going to check my sensibilities at the door just because the author shares my
lack-of-belief system. I'll criticize Harris where I see fit, agree with him elsewhere.

[trotsky]

7. I think a lot of atheists just aren't used to seeing their ideas

out there in the "mainstream." Seeing that, and agreeing with Harris/Dawkins, is unfortunately then interpreted as "fawning" over them or "worshipping" them by some believers.

[cosmik debris]

8. I hope my use of the word "enamored"

did not convey that meaning. If so, I apologize.

[trotsky]

10. Oh, I'm sure a few of them will look on it as a validation of sorts.

But I know you didn't intend it that way.

[greyl]

26. Well, I don't mind admitting that Dawkins

is my newest favorite guy at all. Call it love if you want, no problem.

[bryant69]

11. Most people like hearing what they already believe repeated back to them

There are some who don't have this trait, but enough people do, that it persists. Any book that expresses a point of view has an audience made up of people who mostly share that point of view - most of Michael Moore's audience already shares his views and most of Ann Coulter's audience already shares her views. You see it often enough that it must be a pretty common character trait (although not universal).

Bryant

[Evoman]

15. I agree

We like to listen to people who share our own views. While it is very important to read things that you don't agree with (and I most certainly do), its nice sit in an echo chamber every now and then.

[cosmik debris]

17. I'm not talking about what people already believe.

I am talking about what people already dis-believe. I know that doesn't fit your stereotype of atheists, but consider my example of unicorns. Assuming that you disbelieve the existence of unicorns, do you seek out scientific treatises on the repudiation of unicorn existence? Assuming that you don't believe in Hobbits, do you spend hours reading books contradicting Mr. Tolkien?

[bryant69]

18. I apologize - I mispoke

I should have phrased as opinions or points of view rather than belief - Irecognize that it is offensive to speak of atheist's beliefs and I apologize.

As for your question, I don't know that Atheism is as open and shut for everybody else as it it seems to be for you.

Bryant

[Evoman]

20. If more people believed in it (if Unicornism was a reality) then yes, I would read the books

Ironically enough, atheist books and a-unicornism books would make much of the same points. I love reading skeptical literature as well. Although I do understand your point; if nobody else believed in god, or if it wasn't so omnipresent in our lives, then I would completely agree with you...why bother? Weirdly enough, Atheists more or less are stuck defending a non-position they would rather not defend, because its really no position without the opposition.

[cosmik debris]

21. Yep, n/t

[greyl]

23. Yeah, I read the laws of thermodynamics every week.

Religiously.

One might as well criticize someone for listening to a new Hip-Hop song because they've already heard a thousand of them.

[irislake]

12. One of the positive effects of such books

in your country might be to legitimize non-religious points of view. I have heard that it is not very comfortable or acceptable to be a non-believer or agnostic in the U.S. and that no politician could get elected to office. Being closely associated with religion if you are a politician in Canada is a handicap. Stephen Harper has to really play down his connections to the religious right. Believe me it is a big strike against him even among Conservatives, which I am not. When Canada had a ceremony on Parliment Hill to mourn the deaths at 9/11 I have been told there were NO PRAYERS. I can't believe that but I didn't watch it. It was probably pretty bleached of religious sentiment. Stephen Harper's references to God make Canadians blush because it makes him sound too unintelligent to be leader of their country. That brand of religion is just not hip. It's more hip for a PM to smoke pot AND inhale. I have a Canadian friend who moved back to Canada because if you didn't belong to a church in her southern hill-billy community in United States you were an outcast.
I have some objections to Scientific Fundamentalists who adamantly deny the possibility of some form of divine force in the universe but I prefer them to religious fundamentalists. It's nice to live in Country where folks can comfortably be whatever --- even if it's "unhip" to be an evangelical.

[irislake]

14. Woops

meant to say no American politician could get elected if he/she didn't at least pretend to be a believer in God and attend a place of worship.

[Evoman]

13. Different perspectives and angles that I've never looked from.

I may be an atheist, but we are not all alike...and yes, I've heard a lot of their arguments, but some of them are completely new to me. For example, Dawkins reasoning on WHY people believe and evolutionary roots of belief. Or Harris's thesis that the moderates may be partially responsible for fundies, by legitimizing them. There are some things I've never heard and I like the fresh perspectives.

To be honest, thats why i love this forum and the atheist forum...there are arguments and views I have never heard before, and I find it stimulating.

Maybe its because your so ancient...some of us younger atheists may not be as learned as our wisest of elders, Cosmik Debris. Besides, everyone likes to read stuff that confirms their views...its human nature to some degree.

[stopbush]

16. On rare occasions, a believer has asked me to point them to a book

that would explain the reasoning behind my non-belief. I'll be damned if I'm going to recommend
any book for anything before I've had a chance to read it myself. I may end up recommending a book,
but with caveats (though it's better to hold off on expressing those caveats to a potential reader so as
not to prejudice their own read of the book. Who knows? What I find wrong-headed might resonate with
others).

It's better to be informed than to wing it or to depend on the opinion of others. Harris & Dawkins are getting
a ton of play in the media these days (at least by atheist standards). For me, it makes sense to have some idea
of what they're talking about.

[Finder]

19. I agree with all the reasons stated so far in this thread...

and feel authors like Harris and Dawkins have opened up the discussion for others to follow...on both sides. Public discourse in that area was rare up until the last few years.

[cosmik debris]

24. I'm not sure what you mean by "last few years"

But when I learned about atheism 40 years ago there was a lively debate nationwide. It was lead by Madeline Murray O'Hare who kept the debate before the courts and in the papers for years on end.

[Finder]

31. The internet has been a good venue...

the last few years.

O'Hare was demonized in the mainstream. Even here on this forum, most still do not understand what atheism actually is.

[cosmik debris]

32. The point I was trying to make

Is that the debate has been going on for years. Now that Mr. Harris and Mr. Dawkins have added their voices to the debate, I wonder why people who have already made up their mind seem to flock toward these two writers. Judging from the responses to this thread, there are three basic reasons. 1) The Cheerleader Effect. 2) They serve as defense in debate. 3) They serve as weapons to attack the theists.

Those of us who have no need for those three contributions may find their wittings somewhat redundant. After all, I justify my atheism with two words: "no proof". I don't really see much need for all the scholarly efforts and the thousands of words written to say that same thing.

[Finder]

33. With the world engaged in yet another religious-based war...

there is/will be a dire need for a movement of rational people. As others said, the books are not written so much for other atheists as they are for those who have not questioned. It also debunks many of the fallacies put forward about what atheism actually is.

[salvorhardin]

34. I do

I don't really see much need for all the scholarly efforts and the thousands of words written to say that same thing.

I do. And more importantly I see a real need to understand religious belief on psychological, sociological and neurological levels. For something that is so much a part of the human experience, we know precious little about it. Whether or not Dawkins, Harris or Dennett bring anything new to the table is up for debate, but I don't think any topic should be off the table when it comes to scientific scrutiny.

[NEDem]

30. I've read both of Harris' books in the last couple weeks

I read them because I was interested. As an atheist living amongst a huge fundy population I was looking to get something out of it that could help me when harassed by the fundies. I work with a couple loud and vocal ones that like to try to get in my face on occasion, Harris will help me shoot them down next time they start spouting off.

[and-justice-for-all]

36. "Letter to a Christian Nation"

Is great! I love that little book. You should watch Dawkins "Root Of all Evil", its smashing!

[and-justice-for-all]

35. Their public voice is whats important...

..We need people like them making public statements in our favor. Dawkins is brilliant, I love his writting. I, too, got to my non-theistic ways without them, but I do not have the stature of those guys and we need a voice. Religion is vile, wicked poison that needs extiguished from the planet, it is because of organzied fundmentlistic religion that the world is in the state which it is in.

Do not write off Dawkins or Harris, support them and their efforts to make it OK for others to be non-theistic.