Hi Steve,

This was a good blog. Thanks.

I agree.

This was a good blog. Thanks.

Harris:
2) Atheism is responsible for the greatest crimes in human history.
People of faith often claim that the crimes of Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot were the inevitable product of unbelief. The problem with fascism and communism, however, is not that they are too critical of religion; the problem is that they are too much like religions. Such regimes are dogmatic to the core and generally give rise to personality cults that are indistinguishable from cults of religious hero worship. Auschwitz, the gulag and the killing fields were not examples of what happens when human beings reject religious dogma; they are examples of political, racial and nationalistic dogma run amok. There is no society in human history that ever suffered because its people became too reasonable.

The truth, however, is that Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol pot were, in fact, really atheists. In his book, "The End of Faith," Harris condemns the Christian religion because hundreds of years ago the medieval church was responsible for the crusades, the inquisition and the persecution of witches. Never mind as reformers taught these kinds of things were inconsistent with the original teachings of Jesus. Never mind good people within the church ended these practices. Never mind that Jesus even forewarned his disciples that there would be false prophets or "wolves in sheep's clothing" who would misrepresent his teachings.

Harris is hypocritical here. He wants us to accept that bad atheists are not representative of all atheists. Well neither are bad religious people representative of all religious people throughout all time. A lot of religious people are in fact really good people. Harris should do a little study into the good side of faith. There is in fact a lot of history here.

Harris:
6) Atheists are arrogant.
When scientists don't know something "” like why the universe came into being or how the first self-replicating molecules formed "” they admit it. Pretending to know things one doesn't know is a profound liability in science. And yet it is the life-blood of faith-based religion. One of the monumental ironies of religious discourse can be found in the frequency with which people of faith praise themselves for their humility, while claiming to know facts about cosmology, chemistry and biology that no scientist knows. When considering questions about the nature of the cosmos and our place within it, atheists tend to draw their opinions from science. This isn't arrogance; it is intellectual honesty.

Harris is being stereotypical when he writes: "One of the monumental ironies of religious discourse can be found in the frequency with which people of faith praise themselves for their humility, while claiming to know facts about cosmology, chemistry and biology that no scientist knows." This is not true of all religious people. A lot of religious people that I know love science and certainly do not claim to have better understanding of science than the scientist. What they do object to is when scientists step outside their own field of expertise and claim to know what it all means. Generally speaking the "˜what' belongs to science. The "˜why' is the domain of theology and philosophy. I believe everyone is competent to think about these kinds of things. In other words, everyone needs to be a philosopher.

Harris:
9) Atheists ignore the fact that religion is extremely beneficial to society.
Those who emphasize the good effects of religion never seem to realize that such effects fail to demonstrate the truth of any religious doctrine. This is why we have terms such as "wishful thinking" and "self-deception." There is a profound distinction between a consoling delusion and the truth.
In any case, the good effects of religion can surely be disputed. In most cases, it seems that religion gives people bad reasons to behave well, when good reasons are actually available. Ask yourself, which is more moral, helping the poor out of concern for their suffering, or doing so because you think the creator of the universe wants you to do it, will reward you for doing it or will punish you for not doing it?

During my life I've gotten to know a lot of missionaries and other people involved in charitable work. All these people have been incredibly compassionate and caring people that are truly moved by the suffering and need of others. Love for their fellow man and not some future "˜heavenly reward' or threat of punishment is what truly motivates them. Frankly, Harris doesn't have a clue what he is talking about here. If he had done some actual empirical study, like going out finding and meeting some of these people instead of relying on his own over worn stereotypes, he would have gotten a much clearer picture of what a life of faith is really like.

Now it may be that stereotypes have an good and important use in general society. But in indepth debates and essays/books produced by academics they wouldn't seem to have a place. Stereotypes are blunt instruments. The purpose of debate should be to get beyond the superficial and into a thoroughgoing, rigorous exploration. If history is any indication, the misuse of stereotypes always comes back to bite those who promote them.

You know stereotyping has become a weapon to avoid the truth when an exchange of views provides evidence that a preconception needs to be adjusted and the stereotyping persists.