"There is, in fact, not a Christian on this Earth who can be certain that Jesus even wore a beard, much less that he was born of a virgin or rose from the dead. These are just not the sort of claims that spiritual experience can authenticate."
These are precisely the kinds of things that spiritual experience can authenticate, if that is the proper term. I would say 'reveal'. Jesus said "The Kingdom of God is within you." On what basis does a materialist pronounce judgment on the 'authenticity' of inner visions? (which are actually quite common occurances). Even some religious people have trouble with visions, prophetic dreams, and other Divine revelations.
My brother left the church, partly because he was visited by Jesus one night in his bedroom. When he asked the junior minister about it, he was told to get out of his office and not talk about such things. Sadly, he remains an atheist to this day.
The Psalmist always said it best for me:
“The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.”
(Why no respect, you ask? What respect do they show theists?)
Freedom, Wealth, and Peace,
Francis W. Porretto
Eternity Road
We decide what is good in our good books by recourse to moral intuitions that are (at some level) hard-wired in us and that have been refined by thousands of years of thinking about the causes and possibilities of human happiness.
Anyone thinking of voting for an atheist in high office will do well to reflect on these words, coming from an Atheist in his own defense.
The good that we do is, according to him, done SOLELY because of concern for suffering; that concern is a product of intuition strengthened by centuries of thought.
That would explain Stalin and Hitler. It is therefore entirely possible that whatever theory we invent in our own mind about the ways to help the suffering, is good enough to act upon. As easy as the atheist had discarded religion he will discard the "thousands of years of thinking about the causes and possibilities of human happiness" and substitute his own cogitations.
Don't trust them, folks.
Actually, both fascism and communism are only made possible by atheistic philosophic assumptions.
Locke also was right, not only can the promises of an atheist not be trusted--but neither can ethics in general. If one really believes he is unaccountable to anyone--he is more likely live amorally--without fear of penalty for doing wrong to others--having one's only "ethic" as what he can get away with... As a matter of fact, atheism has no basis of understanding right or wrong in the first place. One cannot know ought from is, or morals from behavior....ultimately, without a law giver, there is no law.
“the term “atheism” has acquired such an extraordinary stigma in the United States that being an atheist is now a perfect impediment to a career in politics”
Why is that, Mr. Harris? Do the polls you mention, but do not cite, fail to explore the reasons, content merely to establish that Atheism virtually precludes the possibility of a successful political career? But the words you use to describe Atheists’ lack of political success (‘extraordinary,’ ‘stigma,’ ‘now,’ ‘perfect, ‘impediment’), possess a value sufficient to establish a study well beyond a simple ‘yea’ or ‘nay’ response. Are you, perhaps, engaging in a little bit of gratuitous polemics?
“Atheists are often imagined to be intolerant, immoral, depressed, blind to the beauty of nature and dogmatically closed to evidence of the supernatural.”
By whom? Is this the response elicited only from prospective voters with strong religious affiliations, or does it include the Atheists’ assessments of their own electoral prospects, Atheists who propose to do nothing more than vote for others, and voters who have no particularly strong religious affiliations (there’s no doubt Atheists are dogmatically closed to evidence of the supernatural . . . by definition)? It would be helpful, Mr. Harris, if you would be a little more fulsome in your sharing of the polling data upon which you rely.
“. . . fewer than 10% identify themselves as atheists — and their reputation appears to be deteriorating.”
What does the one have to do with the other? Does their deteriorating reputation explain why fewer than 10% of our population identify themselves as Atheists? What or whom has caused the deteriorating reputation of Atheism? Is it real or imagined? Just what, Mr. Harris, is your point?
[in the more than three hundred years since John Locke (et al)] “ in the United States today, little seems to have changed.”
It’s true. There is little in the Judeo-Christian tradition that has changed over the ages. Nevertheless, the culture has seen fit to eschew show trials, summary executions, exquisite tortures, and bloody political pogroms. Can the same be said to be true of bloodily oppressive, avowedly Atheistic or Islamic regimes?
“Given that we know that atheists are often among the most intelligent and scientifically literate people in any society . . . “
Really?! Leaving aside the issue of the many forms in which intelligence manifests itself, even a person of the most modest scientific literacy (such as myself) knows that a scientifically literate person cannot claim Atheism as a matter of scientific fact anymore than any other religion can be embraced on that basis. Citing Science as a justification for Atheism can hardly be thought intelligent. It should be remembered that Science exists as a “handmaiden” of the Christian Western Civilization which created it, and whose sole function is to serve as a fact-finding institution. It was never intended to generate moral or cultural values (perhaps it was intended to be one aid to our civilization in its development of values . . . at most).
“it seems important to deflate the myths that prevent them from playing a larger role in our national discourse.”
Let’s begin, Mr. Harris, by deflating the myths about Atheists that exist in your own mind.
On the contrary, religious people often worry that life is meaningless and imagine that it can only be redeemed by the promise of eternal happiness beyond the grave. Atheists tend to be quite sure that life is precious. Life is imbued with meaning by being really and fully lived. Our relationships with those we love are meaningful now; they need not last forever to be made so. Atheists tend to find this fear of meaninglessness … well … meaningless.
This is dishonest double-talk.
If there is no Ultimate Meaning, there can be no objective "immediate meaning." Unfortunately, most atheists seem to be filled to the nines with an illusory "meaning" that makes them the most militant crusaders in the world, for either Marxism or capitalism (Ayn Rand). A consistent belief that everything that exists is the product of coincidence would not produce this crusading spirit. Rather, they'd wait for all the "problems" they are currently trying to "solve" to be alleviated by another "coincidence."
That probably should have been entitled “Ten Truths—And Ten Assertions—About Atheism”.
Not my experience. Nor of anyone’s I know. Is this assertion the product of thousands of interviews conducted with religious persons or extensive observations conducted on thousands of religious subjects? Non-Atheistic religious subjects, that is. Or, is it the product of a dialectic attempt to counter an assumption with an opposing assumption? It certainly follows a dialectic fundamental: attack – never defend.
“Atheists tend to be quite sure that life is precious.”
Really, Mr. Harris? Are you proposing this characteristic is exclusively Atheistic? We’ve seen many a ruler of an Atheistic regime not extend that preciousness value beyond his own life, just as much as we’ve seen it in other religions. But it’s probably safe to say that many people, of most every persuasion, think life to be precious.
“Life is imbued with meaning by being really and fully lived.”
Are you saying “the meaning of life is the living of it”? Here I am, alive . . . so I might as well live until I’m not (alive) any more? Is life really nothing more than a more complicated, advanced model of the flinching reflex? If that’s all there is, then, by all means, let’s keep dancing.
“Our relationships with those we love are meaningful now; they need not last forever to be made so.”
Is that your concept of a spiritual life, Mr. Harris? Or your understanding of the concept held by religions other than your own (things will go very much the same as now, only in another, presently hidden, dimension)? A slightly more sophisticated version of the question, “can we have sex in Heaven”?
“Atheists tend to find this fear of meaninglessness … well … meaningless.”
I tend to find this “fear” a mere invention in the Atheists’ own minds. But that is simply my opinion. I don’t have thousands of interviews or observations to support my assertion as I’m sure you do. Right, Mr. Harris?
“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.”
”No true Scotsman.” I’m surprised, Mr. Harris, that you would fall for this ‘fallacy’ so often used against the defenders of the faiths you, and others of your persuasion, scorn.
“Atheism is dogmatic.”
It certainly is with respect to its insistence that God does not exist. Science in crisis. There is no difference between the religionists of Atheism and other religionists in their philosophical disputes, save the certitude of science “proving” God does not exist. Yet, in contexts outside the religious controversy, Darwinian Mullahs and other defenders passionately argue that Science concerns itself solely with ‘facts’ and does not indulge in philosophical speculations. Which is it, Mr. Harris? You keep switching in and out like a MIG 15 ducking back and forth over the Yalu to avoid an F86.
“No one knows why the universe came into being.”
Except that Atheists are certain that it wasn’t a plan of The Creator. The one thing in an uncertain world about which you may be sure.
“In fact, it is not entirely clear that we can coherently speak about the “beginning” or “creation” of the universe at all . . . ”
Yeah, the discovery of the background radiation announcing the creation of the universe is incoherent to the point of a twittering babble. The knowledge that Science confirms the first three words of the OT . . . like burning coals on your head, Mr Harris?
Well, I’m off to prepare for an early trip to see my grandson compete in a track & field event on the morrow. Thanks for posting an interesting article, SeekAndFind. Perhaps more later. Perhaps not.
Right. It’s simply that, like Topsy, it just growed. But, what does any of this have to do with the alleged discriminatory treatment accorded Atheists by an overwhelming religious electorate? I’ve not heard of an election where an Atheist had as a plank in his campaign platform that everything in the universe arose by a combination of chance and non-random effects. Nor of an opponent claiming his foe should not be elected on account of such a plank. What myth are you exploding here? I must confess to being aware of few elections hinging, in any manner, on the Atheistic beliefs of one or another of the candidates. Perhaps, because of my naïveté, I’m blind to thousands of such political campaigns raging across the nation each silly season. But (quoting Monk), I don’t think so.
Nor have I heard of an avowed Atheist running a political campaign with his Atheistic beliefs serving as the central theme of his campaign. Why, Mr Harris, did you even bother to introduce Science into the topic of the electoral discrimination of Atheists? Because you’re convinced that no Scientist can be anything other than Atheistic, save by a willingness to live with some very large unresolved conflicts? Or, simply because you wished to subtly introduce the suggestion of the superiority of Atheist thinking?
As far as politics is concerned, there have been some local flare-ups respecting Science and education, specifically controversies involving the teaching of evolution, accompanied by the politics that are unavoidable in discussions which include the public financing of education. FR has been witness to the heated arguments that have roiled its forum over this issue. The most salient Atheist argument has been that reality (Science) can not be subject to a vote. This without the least concern that the meaning of that argument is that those who are financing public education are not to be allowed any say in how their money is to be expended. One would think that a significant number of the most brilliant among us, would have come to realize that education can not occur in a vacuum. Consequently, it should be obvious that Congress can not be permitted to make any law respecting the establishment of Education, any more than it can be permitted to make any law establishing Religion, and for the same reason. Yet, to my knowledge, no Atheist has admitted coming to that realization.
“Darwin arrived at the phrase “natural selection” by analogy to the “artificial selection” performed by breeders of livestock. In both cases, selection exerts a highly non-random effect on the development of any species.”
Analogy. Really? I wasn’t aware that Science dealt in analogy. Religion? Sure. Likewise, other systems of Philosophy. Literature too. But, what is analogous in a lab report describing the protocol, practices, results and conclusions of an experiment? Or of any like endeavour in some other scientific discipline? Trained scientific minds would not need the aid of an analogy in comprehending a technical paper, or in reviewing technical data. Oh sure, in attempting to describe a natural phenomena to a scientific illiterate (such as myself), one might have recourse to analogy in attempting to bridge the gap between what the illiterate knows and what he actually needs to know in grasping the significance of what is being related to him. But even that attempt should be approached with caution lest the entirely wrong impression be left on the novice mind.
Introducing the idea of the selective breeding of livestock as an analogy explaining the phenomena of natural selection, immediately leaves the impression that a design guided by intelligence is involved in all natural phenomena. Something, it must be thought, Darwin did not intend. So why, Mr. Harris, did Darwin introduce an analogy undercutting his whole point? Equally, one might ask you, Mr. Harris, why you place so much emphasis on evolution in your discussion of the contest between Theism and Atheism. Is it possible that you believe the details of evolution offers you the best avenue to pursue in demonstrating that life sprang from . . . uhhh, something . . . but definitely not from a Creator. Over the years, this forum has been repeatedly bombarded by vehement protests from dozens of Scientists (or scientist advocates) protesting that Science has nothing to say respecting religion or the existence of a god. Were they all wrong, Mr. Harris? According to you, they must have been.
“. . . there is no question that an engagement with scientific thinking tends to erode, rather than support, religious faith.”
Really, Mr. Harris? But, doesn’t Science perform a fact-finding function in the service of our Civilization? Isn’t it true that values decisions about philosophy and religion are a function well above the paygrade of Science? Indeed, I think such decisions are. Arrogance doesn’t seem to be the province purely of religionists.
“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.”
Claiming to know something as a matter of faith is quite a different matter than claiming knowledge as a matter of fact. And while you admit that there is much about ‘cosmology, chemistry, and biology’ that scientists do not know, according to you these same scientists (including yourself) do not hesitate to declare that God does not exist . . . as a matter of fact. Look to the beam in your own eye, Mr. Harris.
You deny that Atheists are closed to spiritual experience, and cite such examples as love, ecstasy, rapture and awe. Yet, in a different context Scientists deny that these feelings are nothing but physical responses to experiences setting off weak electrical firings in the wiring of the human brain. (Spiritual, adjective - of, relating to, or affecting the human spirit or soul as opposed to material or physical things) According to Science, all experience is material. To maintain your stance, Mr. Harris, you will have to alter the meaning of ‘spiritual.’ And, you do . . . regularly . . . as your objectives shift.
You wrap it up, Mr. Harris, by a series of assertions extolling the moral and esthetic virtue of Atheism over religion, ending with the declaration:
“. . . every civilized human being now recognizes that slavery is an abomination.”
Really? I guess if you refine down your definition enough that would be true. There’s a great portion of humanity that pays little but lip service to the ideal of civil liberty. Chaos in great parts of the basketcase that is Africa. But, that’s hardly a civilized part of the world (besides the murderous tribal pogroms, may we bring to mind the phenomenon of ‘blood diamonds’ and other tales of horror). Can we say that the Islamic world has let go of its affection for servitude? Some little collection of the smaller nations, perhaps (plus Turkey and Indonesia . . .maybe). How can we be sure . . . given that the Islamic culture holds no scruples in lying to foreign cultures (infidels). And, God knows, Islamics abuse their women without mercy. Asian cultures are notorious for poorer families selling their daughters into servitude, and even the most advanced Asian countries seem to display an amazing tolerance for women held in bondage for the purposes of prostitution. We see the same attitude rampant in Eastern Europe.
It’s problematic how much “civilization” holds slavery an abomination when so many societies around the world routinely indulge in speculations about how much of their members’ energies, wealth, and labor should be harnessed for the benefit of other members of those societies. In our own experience this past year, we have been witness to a government and a bureaucracy engaging in every scheme it can devise to control as much of our lives as they can muster.
But, to the extent ‘Civilization’ really does think slavery an abomination, whence came its inspiration? Was William Wilberforce an Atheist, Mr. Harris? Were Atheists the inspiration for "We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness..."? Yet, you have the nerve to presume to hint that the credit goes to Atheism.
8) Atheists believe that there is nothing beyond human life and human understanding.
Atheists are free to admit the limits of human understanding in a way that religious people are not.
**********************************************************
Yeah, sure.......
Arrogant isn’t he???
But there are plenty of societies which suffered because their governments became atheistic.
I'd like to have him point to ONE atheistic government which hasn't produced a killing field.
The biggest problem is that an atheist almost has to believe in evolution, and evolution has been overwhelmingly disproven.
Did you read this screed before you posted it?
Much nonsense!
There sure are a lot of angels out there who think differently. Also alot of believers who have had spiritual knowledge which is spiritually investigated to testify that He not only rose from the dead, but is very much alive, seated at the right hand of the Father, and very much indwells us. That is information not understandable by those who do not believe.
There needs to be a term that describes someone who simply doesn't believe there's evidence for the supernatural, or that God wrote any books during the Iron Age.
I've never understood the argument that because the universe is complex and that there's things we don't understand, that that somehow makes room for the God of Abraham.
I even heard an evangelical make the point that Dark Matter proves the existence of God.
On the contrary, religious people often worry that life is meaningless and imagine that it can only be redeemed by the promise of eternal happiness beyond the grave. Atheists tend to be quite sure that life is precious. Life is imbued with meaning by being really and fully lived. Our relationships with those we love are meaningful now; they need not last forever to be made so. Atheists tend to find this fear of meaninglessness … well … meaningless.
Poppycock, I don't see life as meaningless, only "redeemed" by the promise of eternal happiness beyond the grave. I'm happy in this life, and find plenty of meaning. Meanwhile the atheist tends to be miserable, AND has no promise of eternal happiness beyond the grave.
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.
too mch like FALSE religions...there, fixed it.
3) Atheism is dogmatic.
Jews, Christians and Muslims claim that their scriptures are so prescient of humanity’s needs that they could only have been written under the direction of an omniscient deity. An atheist is simply a person who has considered this claim, read the books and found the claim to be ridiculous. One doesn’t have to take anything on faith, or be otherwise dogmatic, to reject unjustified religious beliefs. As the historian Stephen Henry Roberts (1901-71) once said: “I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.”
There is one true God and Satan will do whatever he can to make people believe in either extreme: there are multiple valid Gods or none at all.