Responding to Sam Harris on Jewcy
December 3rd, 2006 by 
soulster
Our reader AV has coined a new term derived from this blog, "Philaletheists," over at Five Public Opinions. That rocks. If it should ever make it into a dictionary, I'll flip out.
He also points out an article on Jewcy called Why Are Atheists so Angry? where the "Atheist Evangelist" Sam Harris and popular talk-show host Dennis Prager debate. In emails, they have four days to answer "The Big Question". It's not quite clear if the big question is the title ( apparently as badly worded as my own "Can Atheists be Good?") or the existence of God, because the posts seem to be about the latter without regard to the former.
After talking for a while about Prager's lack of an argument or cheap tricks, AV asked:
On the other hand, it would be interesting to hear what a theist makes of Harris' arguments.
Having read the eight pages of debate, I thought I might give a little reaction, then leave some room for the responses of others. First, I would like to say that the debate proved one thing: Listening is a precious premium, and it becomes even rarer whenever someone is on the attack or the defensive. Likewise, the overall tone of the whole thing made me feel more like I was watching a playground fight than an intellectual quest for answers. I learned little and found it a little boring.
For my part, I wish to be more cooperative. If there is no truth in belief, I will likely require an atheist to show me the alternative road. No believer could. On the other hand, if there is truth in belief, believers are still needed to plot the way on that path. And for the amount of time that some significant portion of the population believes both, it would make sense to cooperate until either of those truths are proven and accepted by most. That means that dialogue is perferable to debate, and debate, when it is necessary, should be done in a much more cooperative way for real benefit and education and not for posturing (after all these are truth-claims not political offices).
There is something that deeply bothers me about Harris (though I won't say Prager's better), and at first I couldn't place it. Then it struck me. It was in the battering, "you'd have to be a fool not to…" tone, the disdain for the very position of theists (not mere disagreement), the association fallacy of theist=murderer. He sounded like me. In my days of fundamentalism, I was the same, only it was battering with the Bible, "you'd have to be stupid not to believe in Jesus", your lack of faith and conservative morality disgusts me, and the association fallacy of non-Christian=criminal. Whether Harris is simply passionate or has that certain furvor that can lead to uglier things remains to be seen. What I have learned from fundamentalism is this: the distain of the teachers is multiplied in the violence of the students.
Though Harris might think I'm dodging, I will not own the violent religionists of human history, Christian or otherwise. It is my understanding that Jesus lived in country occupied by a foriegn army that was brutal and unjust. The majority of the populations they ruled had no rights because they did not qualify for citizenship. He resisted public pressure to proclaim himself king and launch a violent resistence against the tyrants. There were attempts on his life, and on the lives of his friends, but he did not retaliate. And when finally arrested unjustly, he did not fight, but resisted non-violently to the point of death. I take that as a mandate, especially as it relates to the ethic I espouse (see post). I do not agree with the Evangelical doctrine of "just war". I do not agree with George Bush's war, even if it could possibly be considered a religious war (which I doubt accept as politcal propaganda spoke to the religious right in code). I do not agree with extremist terroritists motivated by religious zeal.
If Harris does not like violent religion, I agree. However, I cannot agree that all religion is violent or dangerous in a way that leads to violence because there have been too many religionists (esp. particularly great ones) have, for religious reasons, disavowed violence. The association fallacy doesn't work here either.
Secondly, if Harris had a line in the debate he should of taken, it was bringing up more about the incompatibility of the different faiths of Abraham's God. While we theists may dance around proving God till Kingdom come, we cannot be so lucky in the face of the plurality of religions. When it comes to the three major religions of the world, there are only two explanations (and based on the exclusivity statements of each I do not think this a false dicotomy). Both are equally difficult. Eithier one is right, or none of them are. At the least, Prager would have been cornered with going on the record saying something uncomfortably condeming of another faith. At most, he would have brought up the great problem summarized in Jesus prayer: "Father, may they all be one as you and I are one, or else the world will not believe…." [paraphrase of John 17:21].
Thirdly, Harris effectively agrues that theists have yet to produce satisfying proof of the existence of God. I think Harris creamed Prager on this. But the problems still remain, even if Prager couldn't answer. The most difficult of these is what constitutes "satisfying proof" or acceptable evidence.
Suppose as proof of the supernatural I was to vanish something large, like the Statue of Liberty or walk through a solid structure, like the Great Wall of China. Wait. Someone has done that. But most of us, myself included, believe that it was done through some non-supernatural trick, even though I can offer no good explanation of how (thus Copperfield is making bundles in Vegas and I am not). In this case, I assume materialism applies, so I will not accept explanations of a supernatural sort (like Copperfield made a deal with the devil or is telepathic or psychic).
From my point of view, I have little trouble seeing God all over the place. He is visible in every fiber of everything. I've witnesses miracles, I think. I've often felt the presence of God in the room. But I've also dismissed all these experiences as delusions when I became agnostic a few years ago. I found convincing naturalisitic explanations for them all and experts to back them up. And then, as I found faith in Jesus, they didn't seem so natural anymore (incidently, a few did remain explained naturally). Anyhow, my point is this: My experience has showed me that indeed we have no satisfying evidence when materialism is assumed because materialism is an interpretation of reality that must presuppose only material explanations. But when I assumed my Christian worldview again, plenty of daily evidence is available, because Christianity too is an interpretation of reality. Either way, it is still a choice, an interpretation because humans, I think, cannot escape interpreting a world too big to actually comprehend in its entirety. As long as we have incomplete data, limited memory retension, and short life-spans, that may be the case of our species.
So in my case, I admit it. I allow or choose my experience of certain happenings and my tendancy to pick out patterns around me to be interpretted as seeing God. Some people offer naturalistic explanations, and I interpret these as information about how God does it rather than that he is not invovled. And I either like that or need that or find that more convincing than spartan materialism (on different days different motivations seem more likely). I have the same questions when it come to my wife. Some people don't think she's all that, but I think they don't know her like I do. But that's a matter of interpretation, I guess. And it is possible that I'm living in a fantasy world with her because I like it, need it, or am genuinely convinced. Right now, it feels real and works like its real with her. The same with God.
So how can I be a philaletheist if I'm not a materialist and am obviously chosing to interpret the world in such a way? Well, I'll start by admitting that materialism has given us a great deal of information about matter, even though I see matter in interaction with something else. Next, I'll attempt to put my faith to the absolute limits of its claims by practicing it fully (nominalism never proved any truth). Or, to put it in a different way, I'm going to live out this relationship with Jesus as if I trust his claims, and outsiders may judge it for themselves. Finally, I will search for co-journeyers like atheists to keep poking me and challenging me, and making sure I stay humble enough to admit I've made some choices and assumptions and that I may in fact be wrong. I might even read a book by Sam Harris, just so I have to stare my choices and interpretations in the face on a regular basis.
Keeping in mind my hope for cooperative dialogue, please fire away…
Posted in belief, how to dialogue, naturalism, why believers believe | 
December 3rd, 2006 at 12:25 pm
Here's an interesting paper on "evangelical atheists," something that Harris and Dawkins are labeled as by many. Perhaps the only way to get the atheist's message out there is to be a demagogue?
December 3rd, 2006 at 1:07 pm
soulster, While I admit that Harris may be a loudmouth, I am more concerned with Prager. He trots out a long list of intellectually dishonest debate strategies: Appeals to results, appeals to authority, wishful thinking, red herrings, naturalistic fallacies, and evading the question. Once again, he resorts to old arguments that have died long ago. I don’t see Harris doing this in the least, so while Harris is quite forceful in his tone, I see nothing wrong with the content.
Prager must love to toot his own horn. To him, “Judeo-Christian” (a code-word for “Christian”) values were responsible for every great thing to come out of humanity since the invention of the wheel (which are both a naturalistic fallacy and an appeal to results). He never does get around to address the fact that none of that has any relevance to the debate (an excellent use of a red herring and evading the question). Harris should have pressed more on the issue that none of this has any relation to the existence of God.
Of course, it's the belief in belief in God that's present here (a case of wishful thinking): the results of belief are positive, so Prager pushes the existence of God under the rug.
This guy is Loudmouth First Class. Harris does not acknowledge this premise in the least. In fact, the two of us had a deep conversation about this at The Evolution of Religion…. We’re two lowly online personas; Prager has been all over TV, has a radio talk show, and writes for the Wall Street Journal. It’s sad that a Christian and an atheist can dialogue on the topic without much fuss while two celebrities froth at the mouth. Simply put, Harris is loud and Prager just hasn't read the material.
December 3rd, 2006 at 9:44 pm
A qualification before I start. Yes, I am a pedantic old so and so. There, that is out of the way.
I find it absurd and semantically preposterous that an atheist can be termed an “evangelical atheist.”
EVANGELICAL - 1. pertaining to or in keeping with the gospel and its teachings.
2. belonging to or designating the Christian churches that emphasize the teachings and authority of the Scriptures, esp. of the New Testament.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/evangelical
Under the definition of “evangelical” an atheist would need to be professing the truth of christianity while holding a diametrically opposed position. Talk about impossibility central.
It seems to me that this is part of a tu quoque informal fallacy where theists, some of whom obviously evangelise as part of their belief system, want to accuse other groups of the same practice.
Hence - (from the theistic point of view) - Yes, we evangelise, but you do too. Or the tu quoque fallacy.
Certainly some atheists speak about being an atheist, but let’s remember and be cognizant of the point of reference. The point of reference for an atheist is a point of disbelief in the claims of theists.
So an atheist may be outspoken, they may attempt to dismiss the claims made by theists or they may be content to just not believe the claims and carry on with their own lives.
But to be an “evangelical atheist” would be a semantically ambiguous position.
In other words, the word “atheist” does not refer to a belief system.
Even if “evangelical” is used in a figurative sense - meaning “to speak about a belief”, when used in this sense, it also is a tu quoque fallacy; as it assumes that atheists have shared beliefs which they can then share with others.
As the word “atheist” suggests, it is a title which does NOT presuppose a belief. It doesn’t pressupose a religious belief, or a political belief or an economic belief. The word itself has no positive claims to make.
It is merely the rebuttal of claims already made.
In the same way that the term “apolitical” is not a term which describes a preferred political belief; the term “atheist” does not describe a preferred belief.
Now, the term “secular humanist” DOES suppose a set of beliefs. But even so, it would be difficult to call them “evangelical secular humanists” for the same reason it is semantically bizarre to call atheists, “evangelical atheists.”
Because how can either a secular humanist or an atheist believe in the truth of christianity and speak out against the claims of christianity at the same time?
The only way it can apply to a “secular humanist” is if the term “evangelical” is used in a figurative sense and not a literal sense, as a secular humanist DOES have beliefs which they could choose to share with others.
- That is - “evangelize” as per a loose description of the word.
December 3rd, 2006 at 9:52 pm
So Harris or Dawkins can be termed “outspoken atheists”, but “evangelical atheists?”
Tu quoque! Tu quoque!
December 3rd, 2006 at 9:55 pm
Oh, and as a side note for dave armstrong. I am female. Let’s not assume a gender bias, or I might be compelled to consider you female and that dave is merely a masculization of “davida”
December 3rd, 2006 at 10:24 pm
drunkentune:
I think being a “demagogue” peaks interest in your topic, which might have value. With the senationalization of our media, it’s true that atehists may have no other choice. Still, I would question the ethics there (since strategies in propaganda almost always become policy given a turn in power). It also tends to rally your side beyond their insecurities, as my fundamentalism taught me (we weren’t so scared of our angry God’s fire and brimstone if we were calling it down on others). I think it distances me, however, but it is unlikely, given Harris’ own statements on this line, that I am his intended audience. Interestingly, I found Dawkins much less the demogogue in the video of the post from Zyca. In fact, I pretty much like listening to him. He seemed full of dry wit which to me seems like a polite wink helping along a jagged pill of truth.
Thanks for the book tip. It will go on my reading list. Speaking of which, we might think of posting a suggested book every once in a while. Also, I might have you read my book at some point (still in rough draft). It’s not the purpose-driven life, and it’s not apologetic, but it will give you a lot of insight into how I interpret the Jesus narrative.
And again, we agree. I think Prager and his position could be more a concern because it does seem to lack a certain…hmmm…honesty. I skipped most of his contribution because it was boring and used. And about not reading the material, someone else commented about that on Jewcy, and I thought that was one of the best insights.
December 3rd, 2006 at 10:44 pm
beepbeep:
You're right that the title "Atheist Evangelist" is a little rediculous. It think, obviously, it is supposed to draw a certain comparison to shared cutlural imagery. However, it was given by the Washington Post and Sam seems to like it since he reprinted the article of that title on his personal site [here].
Also, to be an "Atheist Evangelist" would be a little different than a "evangelical atheist". Evangelist, in the Greek (euaggelistes), simply means a bearer of good news and it was first used in reference to the emissaries of the Greek kings who proclaimed his coronation, birthday, occupation, etc. In other words, it is literally saying Harris is preaching the good news of atheism, namely that you don't have to believe in theism anymore, reason can reign, etc. To be Evangelical is to belong to a certain branch of Christianity that has certain shared 'orthodox' values, one of which is evagelism, thus the name in contrast to non-evangelistic mainline movements of the time. So you're right, "evangelical atheists" makes no sense, unless you mean functional and methodological atheist, of which there are plenty.
I think your point about atheism being in reference to theism and not a belief system of its own needs to be repeated again and again to theists. I find there is a lot to learn about what people who happen to be atheists do believe about the world, life, etc. Concentrating on people's atheism will not inform us of the large "rest of the story".
December 3rd, 2006 at 11:23 pm
You’re welcome. If there’s any books you know of, just email me the titles and I’ll check them out.
Wait a minute! You’re writing a book too? Man, you are wild. Of course I’d love to trot out a few suggested books for both sides. I think it’s very reasonable. Perhaps we could do a dual book review as well, each of us giving our opinions.
I would find it an honor to read a draft.
And on Dawkins, here’s two documentaries he did, titled (against his wishes) Root of All Evil:
The Virus of Faith
The God Delusion
December 4th, 2006 at 2:33 am
RE: soulster
I agree that the use of “evangelical atheist” is a media contrivance used to generate interest and to sell copy.
Unfortunately, there will be those who will, as a result of reading this headline, be convinced that atheists, by default, share a common set of beliefs. My experience suggests that they do not.
Atheists will argue about what the word ‘atheist” means. To suggest that they share a common set of beliefs as a result of being an atheist, seems quite fanciful in the light of the fact that they can’t agree on what “atheist” means.
Consequently, there are leftwing atheists, rightwing atheists, libertarian atheists, conservative atheists, liberal atheists etc etc.
There are atheists like Bill Gates who obviously support the capitalist economy wholeheartedly and there are communist atheists who support a state driven economy.
I have found after talking with numerous atheists in various forums, that the only thing that atheists agree on is that they share a lack of belief in the existence of gods.
Some atheists do, however, define themselves primarily as secular humanists. This means that they do propose a belief system which can be critically analysed and discussed.
“Secular humanism is a humanist philosophy that upholds reason, ethics, and justice and specifically rejects the supernatural and the spiritual as warrants of moral reflection and decision-making.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_humanism
A secular humanist is an atheist with a belief system.
An atheist is just someone who doesn’t believe in the existence of gods.
December 4th, 2006 at 6:47 pm
Soulster,
Continuing here from the discussion we started a few days ago.
sorry about the Euthyphro thing. I misspelled it (its hard to spell!).
Here is a link that may help you out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthyphro_dilemma
December 5th, 2006 at 11:46 am
Aaron:
I responded to Euthyphro in the post: The Euthyphro Dilemma. Please continue our dialogue on it there.
Drunkentune:
It is interesting to me that they called Dawkins documentary, Root of All Evil. I think, according to the literary reference [1 Timothy 6:10], it’s supposed to be money, or our hunger for it, that is the root of all evil (or more accurately all sorts of evil). I wonder if Dawkins would agree that evil is usually the result of base impulses, and belief systems may be drawn up to support those or if he thinks some belief systems are inherently evil, either because they are untrue or faulty in some way.
December 5th, 2006 at 11:49 am
beepbeep:
True. Sounds like the same problem Christendom has faced. We’ve spent an awful lot of time, energy, and even some blood on debates about what exactly is a Christian and what exactly that means.
December 5th, 2006 at 12:12 pm
RE soulster
“True. Sounds like the same problem Christendom has faced. We’ve spent an awful lot of time, energy, and even some blood on debates about what exactly is a Christian and what exactly that means.”
I have had this argument with theists as well. I won’t go into great detail as to my considerations of who is a christian and who isn’t, except to say that my definition is a broad one.
Suffice it to say that I am not impressed with those who, as a means of defense, state - but they are not “real or true christians.” (No true scotsman fallacy)
If someone calls themselves a christian, I consider that they are a christian.
In the same way that if someone calls themselves a muslim, I consider that they are a muslim.
Etc
December 5th, 2006 at 12:58 pm
soulster,
Dawkins protested the name of the documentary, which was given independently of his input. He argues on more humanistic grounds against religion: you don’t call a child a Democrat or a Republican, now do you? So why should we call someone a Muslim child, a Protestant child, a Jewish child, or a Catholic child?
I think if you look at the proceeding verse, the reference is to the love of money, not money itself.
December 5th, 2006 at 7:06 pm
beepbeep:
I think it is very ethical of you to allow people to self-identify. I would generally agree. There is a part of me that wants to include all people as Christians who identify themselves as such, and another part that doesn’t. I respect the right for people to interpret what Christianity means to them, but on the other hand, I’d rather not have a descriptor that ties me to some of them. Anyhow, I try to avoid, the “but their not a real Christian” defense.
But I would also advocate a centered view of such definitions. A person may call themselves a materialist, but believe that most events are determined by karma and who goes to a plam-reader for life instruction. While it might be right to allow them to continue to call themselves a materialist, I will see them farther from the central tenets of materialism than someone who
lives by it more closely.
drunkentune:
Interesting idea. There are branches of Christianty that refuse to call their children a Christian until they are of an age where they can choose whether or not they are one. They are only seen as a Christian after they have made such a choice. I grew up in one of these traditions.
Regarding the verse, that’s what I meant when I said “or our hunger for it”, but I also said money because that is the more traditional quotation (although you sighted the more accurate translation). I would agree that money is ethically and morally neutral, especially because it is exclusively symbolic.
December 6th, 2006 at 1:20 am
RE soulster:
The temptation is when an individual or group who identifies themselves as christian, and then goes on to act in a way which other christians would consider wrong, is to plead that that individual or group was NOT christian.
This is of course done in an attempt to disassociate themselves from the negative response that the group’s action may elicit from the community.
Far better, I think, to accept their definition of themselves, but state that you do not agree with their position or action.
Christians, like atheists and agnostics, because of their definition, are NOT excluded from criticism, nor are they excluded from the ability to be immoral or unethical.
There are those, however, who believe that a title, such as christian, excludes them from wrongdoing. This has always seemed particularly absurd to me considering that the concept that people can and do “sin” (commit wrongs), is integral to the concept of christianity.
Belief in a god does not exclude someone from being able to sin, it just theoretically, allows a divine avenue for the forgiveness of sins.
A believer may wish to claim that through god belief, they have become a better person, but I baulk at claims that suggest that christians are incapable of wrong - doing.
They are still christians. They are just christians who have “sinned.”
December 6th, 2006 at 8:26 am
beepbeep:
Good point, I agree with you that we (Christians) should say, “yes they may be Christian, but I think they are wrong.” I also agree that the point for a Christian would not be to claim they are never wrong or that they are better than others. Such is self-justification, and can lead to no good.
December 7th, 2006 at 6:41 am
RE soulster:
We agree. Now isn’t that frightening?