Science must ultimately destroy organized religion, according to some leading atheist writers and intellectuals
by MikeGenePolitical activist Richard Dawkins continues to get more extreme. According to this news article, he preached the following message to a standing ovation:
In his speech, Dawkins portrayed a black-and-white intellectual battle between atheism and religion. He denounced the "preposterous nonsense of religious customs" and compared religion to racism. He also gave no quarter to moderate or liberal believers, asserting that "so-called moderate Christianity is simply an evasion."
"If you've been taught to believe it by moderates, what's to stop you from taking the next step and blowing yourself up?" he said.
Dawkins also continued his attack on relgious parents.
But the real news here is that it looks (to me) as if Sam Harris is starting to get a little nervous by the intensity of the anti-religious hate engendered by this new movement.
Consider the following:
By contrast, Harris's speech was a more tempered critique of the atheist movement itself. While Harris said he believed science must ultimately destroy religion, he also discussed spirituality and mysticism and called for a greater understanding of allegedly spiritual phenomena. He also cautioned the audience against lumping all religions together.
"The refrain that all religions have their extremists is bull-t," Harris said. "All religions do not have their extremists. Some religions have never had their extremists."
Specifically, he noted that radical Islam was far more threatening than any radical Christian sect, adding that Christians had a right to be outraged when the media treated the two religions similarly.
Harris also criticized movement atheism and questioned the use of the word "atheist."
"Atheism is not a philosophy, just as non-racism is not," he said. "It is not a worldview, though it is frequently portrayed as one.
"Rather than declare ourselves atheists, I think we should emphasize reason," Harris added.
While the audience gave Dawkins a standing ovation, Harris received only polite applause. One questioner later declared herself "very disappointed" in Harris's talk.
Wow. I must confess that I am impressed by Harris. Even though he still clings to the notion that science should destroy religion, he went into a large auditorium where a "common decoration at the convention was the red letter "A," which was emblazoned on t-shirts and pins worn by several of the attendees" and actually employed some critical thinking, while eschewing tribalism. Needless to say, the "pro-science/pro-reason" crowd was not satisfied with this. They want red meat. Harris could be on thin ice, as movements characterized by fear and hate tend to turn on their own when the party line is violated.
Nevertheless, I would like to publicly applaud Harris for his display of courage on this point. It helps us see just how extreme and emotional Dawkins and his followers are becoming.
[HT: UD]
October 13th, 2007 at 11:29 am
I agree. That took a lot of guts on the part of Harris. Perhaps he realizes that the militancy and vitriol displayed by the new atheists is doing more harm than good for their atheistic cause, and perhaps even for the cause of public respect for science.
I found it interesting that Eugenie Scott was a featured speaker. She campaigns for the compatibility of science (especially Darwinian evolutionary theory) and religion, yet she played a prominent role at an event whose core message was that science must destroy religion. I wonder if this will have any effect on her credibility. Note that the event featured an opportunity for the attendees to participate in The Blasphemy Challenge.
Comment by GilDodgen — October 13, 2007 @ 11:29 am
October 13th, 2007 at 11:48 am
Hi Gil,
Thanks for noticing that story over at UD. I would have likely missed it had you not mentioned it.
It may also have something to do with Harris defending Harris. Harris is a mystic and probably knows that the same level of hostility directed against organized religion would be easily re-directed at New Age-type religions. I think this is all news because it helps bring this new movement into focus. Harris is, after all, the true father of this new movement (a reaction to 911). His book came out first and set the stage for Dawkins. Dawkins may be taking the movement in directions that Harris never wanted. As I have long said, this post-wedge world is going to be quite the ride.
Yes, suddenly her participation becomes more interesting, given that someone like Harris was willing to tell the crowd what they did not want to hear. So did Scott throw red meat at this crowd or did she try to be a voice of reason?
Comment by MikeGene — October 13, 2007 @ 11:48 am
October 13th, 2007 at 12:09 pm
In Harris' response to loudmouth denouncements from PZ Myers and Ellen Johnson he said:
I think he's right. It's a cult. Glad he's begun to see the light.
Comment by Joy — October 13, 2007 @ 12:09 pm
October 13th, 2007 at 1:19 pm
I think Harris is in a bit of a spot. He apparently has an affinity towards Buddhism and judging from his comments in the Beyond Belief conference even at least entertains the possibility of reincarnation. The spot this put him in is that if it's not religion, per se, that is the problem then this is a slippery slope. If he acknowledges that then he just joins the ranks of many people including religious folk and scholars who also criticize elements in religion. From that point things are not black and white like they are for Dawkins and Hitchens. This means that absolutist statements just aren't appropriate. Harris is a young guy and it may be that he will become a voice for temperance among the new atheists. Or they may just expell him.
Comment by Steve Petermann — October 13, 2007 @ 1:19 pm
October 13th, 2007 at 3:54 pm
Do these 'leaders' ever go back and read the transcripts of their own meetings? Because 'cult-like' only begins to describe what I'm seeing here. Dawkins has gone beyond cutely implying that only atheists can be intelligent - now he's outright arguing that any religious person, no matter their individual views, has the potential to suddenly strap a bomb to themselves. I have to wonder, is that what Harris means by emphasizing reason?
From an interesting article by a non-theist:
I'm surprised to see Harris talking somewhat sensibly - I always assumed he was more radical than Dawkins. So I wonder which, if either, is going to come first: Is Harris going to walk away from the movement in a visible fashion over the direction it's taken? Or is he going to be kicked out as a non-bright who entertains mystic inanities?
Comment by nullasalus — October 13, 2007 @ 3:54 pm
October 13th, 2007 at 5:33 pm
Steve, I think the latter is very possible. Look what happened to Gould when he opened the door to religion just a little bit with his Non-overlapping Magesteria proposal. Dawkins, Dennet and the rest of the crowd cut him off at the knees.
Comment by Stuart Harris — October 13, 2007 @ 5:33 pm
October 13th, 2007 at 5:56 pm
I'm definitely more and more impressed by Harris. His arguments aren't worth a hill of beans, but it is clear he is far more in touch with reality than Dawkins is.
The irony of Dawkins' drivel, is that if christians were really as bad as he claims they are, why is he allowed to spout his endless tirade of rubbish ?
In the militantly atheistic former Soviet Union, and in the atheistic China of today, people who disagree with "the state" and "those in power" are persecuted and killed.
If Christians were really worse than atheists as Dawkins blathers on constantly, why are Christians killed and imprisoned in china, but Dawkins can speak freely in the west ?
Comment by thesciphishow — October 13, 2007 @ 5:56 pm
October 13th, 2007 at 5:58 pm
Eugenie Scott has credibility on this issue ?
Does anybody buy the insulting drivel she peddles ?
I guess one of the biggest weakness of the
"new arse clows""new athiests" is they seem to actually believe there own "all religious people are idiots" propaganda.Comment by thesciphishow — October 13, 2007 @ 5:58 pm
October 13th, 2007 at 7:11 pm
The key here is not belief. It's personality tendencies. Some of these folks are authoritarians. They are arrogant enough to believe that they can find the truth, and having found it, they can impose it on others. That's a no no in the good ole USA.
Comment by bj — October 13, 2007 @ 7:11 pm
October 13th, 2007 at 7:52 pm
Keep in mind that Harris remains an extremist (unless he's changed his mind). For example, Harris recently wrote to the journal Nature to complain about Francis Collins and has publicly accused people like Collins and Miller of doing "lasting harm" to "contest between faith and reason." Like Dawkins, Harris has often attacked religious moderates.
Harris comes across as being reasonable here because Dawkins is about as extreme as you can get in a civilized society.
Comment by MikeGene — October 13, 2007 @ 7:52 pm
October 13th, 2007 at 8:02 pm
The reply on Henry's Thread is pretty good:
Comment by MikeGene — October 13, 2007 @ 8:02 pm
October 13th, 2007 at 9:49 pm
Nothing, and if history is anything to go by just give them time. We've seen their superior "naturalist ethic" in action plenty of times before.
It funny how they are the ones who lean towards these authoritarian yet it is "christians" that are the threat. Flaming idiots.
The irony will be when people start listening to them, accept their nihilisitic drivel, and then decide they are not worth tolerating. Dawkins and his ilk will only have themselves to blame if that happens.
Comment by thesciphishow — October 13, 2007 @ 9:49 pm
October 13th, 2007 at 9:51 pm
You know the real irony of this of course is that the first modern use of the suicide bomber was a vietnamese communist. But who expects Dawkins to know any history, he doesn't know any theology, logic, or philosophy, why should this be an exception ?
Comment by thesciphishow — October 13, 2007 @ 9:51 pm
October 13th, 2007 at 10:25 pm
I spent most of my day today at the Calvary Chapel Men's Conference, held every year at the Anaheim, California Convention Center near Disneyland. It is a highlight of my Christian experience. The conference always has a theme, and this year's theme was "As for me and my house" taken from Joshua 24 ("As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord"). The theme was: behave honorably, honestly, and with integrity, even when those around you do the opposite and put pressure on you to do what you know is not right.
Christian men from all over Southern California filled the 7,000-seat Anaheim Convention Center. They all came of their own free will to hear poignant, and even convicting, messages about being better husbands and fathers, about honesty, integrity, faithfulness to their wives, and, yes, about such antiquated notions like holiness and Godliness.
But here was the main thing that struck me: During the lunch hour I looked out over the convention center hall. Chairs were covered with bibles, backpacks, clothing, and all kinds of personal belongings. They were all unattended and anyone could have easily stolen anything with virtually no chance of being caught.
But there was no concern by those attending the Calvary Chapel Men's Conference that such a thing would occur. And it didn't. And it never has.
Is this what the "new atheists" fear?
Comment by GilDodgen — October 13, 2007 @ 10:25 pm
October 13th, 2007 at 11:17 pm
thesciphishow:
The authoritarian mindset is a peculiar psychological malady that has a classifiable set of manifestations that have been long recognized by psychological researchers. There are clinical symptoms from which a 'diagnosis' of authoritarianism can be made, reliable across a broad range of sociological positions, beliefs and situations where one finds authoritarians. Alfred Adler identified the 'will to power over others' as a central neurotic trait, usually arising as an aggressive over-compensation for the classic inferiority complex.
Popular authors like to associate authoritarianism with the far right, given that association's confirmation in the notorious fascist regimes of the 20th century as well as its reappearance in modern politics and political discourse. But it occurs on the far left, as the 20th century also demonstrated convincingly.
It's an affliction of individual people, and the insecurity of the followers they are able to gather around them as operatives and armies. They naturally gravitate toward positions of power, but don't always gain enough power to do great social harm. For every Hitler or Stalin, there are ten thousand religious cult leaders and millions of sadistic police, prison guards, petty tyrants in business middle management, abusive husbands, fathers, lovers.
Because this mindset is cover for deep-seated insecurities, projection and cultivated group paranoia is the name of the political game. Some Christians are authoritarians. So are some Muslims, some Hindus, some atheists. It's a personality disorder, like narcissism but more covert (layers of cover-up for personal inadequacies). Authoritarians can do (have done) great evil in the world, but are not as genuinely evil as malignant narcissists. IMO, and that of some others, for whatever that's worth.
Comment by Joy — October 13, 2007 @ 11:17 pm
October 13th, 2007 at 11:30 pm
Consider also the following excerpt from the news article:
Clearly, the ultimate way of getting back at such an upbringing is to reject it all and then later, convince yourself (and others) it was all about "the evidence."
Which leads to Dawkins. If you think about it, this guy has enjoyed all that life has to offer - wealth, fame, trophy wife, respect, adoration. Yet he obsesses about other people's religion and seems to be driven by negative emotions. Go figure.
Comment by MikeGene — October 13, 2007 @ 11:30 pm
October 14th, 2007 at 12:18 am
Dawkins hasn't enjoyed all that life has to offer. The stuff you mention — wealth, fame, trophy wife, respect, adoration — is all ephemeral and ultimately meaningless, and deep down inside, he knows this, as we all do. That's why he is driven by negative emotions. He has spent his life trying to fill a God-shaped vacuum with stuff that will never satisfy.
I found it interesting that Sam Harris addressed this very topic, although in non-theological terms.
Comment by GilDodgen — October 14, 2007 @ 12:18 am
October 14th, 2007 at 5:34 am
There's nothing to worry about from militant atheism.
Sure, militantly atheist regimes have enslaved, tortured, imprisoned and slaughtered scores of millions of people in the last 90 years. But what's that compared to being wrong about the age of the Earth?
Comment by stunney — October 14, 2007 @ 5:34 am
October 14th, 2007 at 3:44 pm
Joy wrote: regarding authoritarianism,
Indeed. This is why I think metaphysics is secondary to psychological tendencies, as you mention. We focus too much on the metaphysics (correct beliefs) and not enough on the kind of character which contributes to a just and civil society.
Comment by bj — October 14, 2007 @ 3:44 pm
October 14th, 2007 at 4:19 pm
bj:
I had this conversation with my grandson just this morning, talking about his psychology class. Which for him was a diversionary tactic away from his still unfinished Bio-II project (a film about biomes he's committed to make but hasn't even started on). I read a paper he'd written for psychology entitled "Evil and War," and we discussed the differences between the truly evil [malignant narcissists] and the unfortunately evil [authoritarians].
Difference being a matter of root motivation. Where the authoritarian may self-justify evils done by convincing him/herself the action is 'necessary' for the greater good, a real belief that a greater good is being pursued. The malignant narcissist, on the other hand, has no need to justify evil deeds by calling them good. S/he delights in them for the sheer pleasure derived by exercising power over others, in a deeply sadistic sense. For no other reason than that it feeds their feelings of personal superiority.
Whenever an authoritarian gains political power, s/he will draw fellow authoritarians as well as malignant, manipulative narcissists who are truly evil. Hitler may have been an authoritarian with deep personal insecurities. His biography tends to suggest this. But many of the operatives who attached themselves to his power-shadow were evil to their thoroughly rotten cores. Hitler takes the historical blame - and does bear responsibility - so hardly anybody tries to analyze farther than that. The architects mostly escape analysis by having operated in and through Hitler's popularity, which they helped to engineer in the first place.
All the rest of the educated world knows or cares about is how such monumental, monstrous evil managed to manifest itself in the midst of the so-modern 'Enlightened' world. Heck, for that analysis the Reign of Terror would serve as well on a microcosmic scale…
You are correct, I think. The metaphysics that comes attached to the sales pitch - or is developed later and inserted into the legend after the fact to explain what is otherwise unthinkable - is a secondary detail. It's usually NOT the primary real-time motivation. It's just a reflection of the root disorder of the human psyche and extended social fabric that allows such people to gain power.
Comment by Joy — October 14, 2007 @ 4:19 pm
October 14th, 2007 at 4:56 pm
No doubt. I was listening to a talk by John Polkinghorne (IIRC) that he gave at the Faraday Institute (I think it was Polkinghorne, i've listened to about a dozen different ones in the last week) and he noted that a study was done of the biographies of atheists (post darwin) and what led to their embrace of atheism and rejection of religion. In all but two cases, it had nothing to do with evidence and everything to do with things like the loss of loved ones and the emotional problem of evil.
Comment by thesciphishow — October 14, 2007 @ 4:56 pm
October 14th, 2007 at 5:12 pm
SFshow:
Two cases out of how many? Please be a bit more specific. Oh, and your point is?
Comment by Raevmo — October 14, 2007 @ 5:12 pm
October 14th, 2007 at 5:45 pm
Is thread by any chance part of the 'super secret' ID -research that some have been referring to?
Comment by BoZ3MaN — October 14, 2007 @ 5:45 pm
October 14th, 2007 at 6:17 pm
GilDodgen wrote:
I have found that those little styrofoam packing peanuts do a good job of filling the God-shaped vacuum in my life.
Comment by keiths — October 14, 2007 @ 6:17 pm
October 14th, 2007 at 6:33 pm
Gil:
Funny. I was recently at the Unbeliever's Women's Conference, and all our personal belongings were stolen during lunch. Just can't trust those atheists. But somehow those atheists manage to stay out of jail since nearly all inmates are religious. How do they do it?
Comment by Raevmo — October 14, 2007 @ 6:33 pm
October 14th, 2007 at 6:40 pm
Joy,
Yes, this is why I think it would be well to put metaphysics in its place. We need metaphysical humility. The chance that any of us have it right is not great, in my opinion. A just realization of that simple fact should produce the necessary humility and needed tolerance in a person of relatively healthy personality. Societal pressure should be exerted against those whose tendencies of character are dangerous to our common life. As you mention, the authoritarians and narcissists,etc.
We should all grow to be able to spot and ostracize them in a minute.
Comment by bj — October 14, 2007 @ 6:40 pm
October 14th, 2007 at 6:45 pm
bj:
You mean people like your psychopath president, George W Bush?
Comment by Raevmo — October 14, 2007 @ 6:45 pm
October 14th, 2007 at 6:50 pm
Raevmo:
Yes, I do.
Comment by bj — October 14, 2007 @ 6:50 pm
October 14th, 2007 at 7:20 pm
Also..
"Science" must ultimately destroy organized religion? I'd love to hear a battle plan of how to do that. While they're at it, can science also destroy racism? Authoritarianism? Libertarianism? Communism? Hell, can it destroy McDonalds?
There's a sinister way to view that, visions of people getting their water supply fortified with anti-religion chemicals. But really, I'd sooner chalk it up to the people who spout this off just plain not thinking about the words that are coming out of their mouths. Though I'd love for Sam Harris to say 'Science will destroy eliminative materialism!' at one of these conferences, just to see Daniel Dennett's expression.
Comment by nullasalus — October 14, 2007 @ 7:20 pm
October 14th, 2007 at 8:03 pm
Raevmo:
And where in the definitions I've listed do you place "psychopath?" I ask because while he's an authoritarian, I don't suspect deep down it's because of an inferiority complex. And while he's certainly a narcissist, I don't suspect he's purposefully malignant. If you've wealth enough to purchase Paraguay for your retirement home and all the power in the world, you can be as crazy as you please. The label for that is "President."
Could be that he's simply not stable enough (or intelligent enough) to have a classifiable 'type'. Though his friends are certainly a questionable bunch…
Comment by Joy — October 14, 2007 @ 8:03 pm
October 14th, 2007 at 8:04 pm
Science must destroy religion. *Yawn* How many hundreds of years have atheists been saying that? They're like the preachers of the end times, they keep missing their dates, but go on and on and on…"any time now, science will destroy religion!"
The new atheists are the best new argument for the existence of God.
Comment by Brian Killian — October 14, 2007 @ 8:04 pm
October 15th, 2007 at 6:52 pm
Out of all of them. The point was simply that there were very few examples of atheists who lost their faith through "looking at the scientific evidence".
Even Darwins agnosticism and disillusionment with religion had nothing to do with his thoughts on natural selection and everything to do with the loss of his child.
The point was that contray to the claims of clowns like "the new atheists" very very few atheists become atheists by "looking at the evidence" and that appeals to the "evidence" is a post hoc rationalization in practice.
Is that not obvious from what I said ?
Comment by thesciphishow — October 15, 2007 @ 6:52 pm
October 15th, 2007 at 6:58 pm
The statistics are skewed and too much is read into them by atheists. There is a lot more going on and different incentives in place for declaring oneself religious in prison.
Much like statistics cited regarding the make up of "elite scientific bodies" and things like that.
Why is it that the "new atheists" are so horribly bad at examining and understanding statistics ?
As to why they manage to stay out of jail ? Maybe it is just because they go for the "big score" like Lenin, Stalin, Pot or Mao ?
Comment by thesciphishow — October 15, 2007 @ 6:58 pm
October 15th, 2007 at 7:59 pm
SFshow:
Most people are bad at statistics. I don't see why atheists (new or otherwise) are worse than average. Do you have any evidence for this? Don't worry about getting too technical, I teach advanced statistics.
Ah, so atheists commit fewer crimes because small-time crimes are beneath them? You have to admire atheists for their ambition. Why commit a burglary if you can commit genocide?
Comment by Raevmo — October 15, 2007 @ 7:59 pm
October 15th, 2007 at 8:13 pm
The problem is that they take a stand on simplistic and inaccurate standings in noisy and vocal fashions. If you are going to be loud and insist on saying something stupid then you are going to draw attention to yourself.
For prison inmates there are lots of factors going on that skew results. First up prison inmates are the bottom of the bunch intellectually in many instances and it is reasonable to assume they don't really know they can answer questions like, "What is your religion", "None".
You get to attend church services and other perks for claiming to be religious. JP Holding noted (he was a former prison librarian) that one perk of being a "christian" was that you got to spend time in the air conditioned chapel for services.
Also there are some obvious additional factors that a simplistic collection of "religious affiliation" is going to fail to capture. Would you really think it is reasonable to call someone an "epsicopalian" if they were baptised into the CoE as a child and went to sunday a school a few times but then never went back, didn't attend church and for whom religion was essentially irrelevant to their life ? To claim such a person is an episcopalian is just plain dishonest.
The sorts of claims being based on the data available says more about the prejudice and idiocy of the person making the claims more than it does about the reality of the real religious affliation and commitments of prison inmates.
The statistics just aren't meaningful unless you are looking to do cheap propaganda that sways the feeble minded. Which probably explains it
Well it was said with tongue firmly in cheek.
Comment by thesciphishow — October 15, 2007 @ 8:13 pm
October 22nd, 2007 at 1:45 pm
In case anyone doesn't care to find out the answer I gave, which Henry refers to (and I must confess, it gives me great joy to see that word travels), is reason. Henry read the other side of that answer, showing how reason can cut both ways in this context.
I will say this for Harris: If nothing else, he is much more aware (and/or concerned) with how atheists come off when they are represented by people like Dawkins. The awareness of that perception is likely his motivation for giving an out, as it were, to certain ideas. I don't like Harris much, and his statements on religious moderates are just as inane as the usual NA fare, but this is at least prudent.
Comment by thechristiancynic — October 22, 2007 @ 1:45 pm