…and this is a 
“Cult” is the new “fundamentalist”
Category: Godlessness
Posted on: October 9, 2007 11:00 AM, by PZ Myers
I have to hammer on one more thing from Sam Harris's reply. He objects to the label "atheism" because it will chase away people who do not want to … well, read what he says.
They have read the writings of the "new atheists," sent us letters and emails of support, are quite fond of criticizing religion whenever the opportunity arises, but they have no interest whatsoever in joining a cult of such critics. And there is something cult-like about the culture of atheism. In fact, much of the criticism I have received of my speech is so utterly lacking in content that I can only interpret it as a product of offended atheist piety.
Hmmm. Atheists have been getting called "fundamentalist" for some time to misrepresent them and simultaneously trivialize and demonize them. It's complete nonsense. It does great violence to both the terms "fundamentalist" and "atheist" to conjoin them that way, and all it really does is expose the user as someone who has put zero thought into the subject … but knows he doesn't like either fundamentalists or atheists, and that they don't like each other, so he's got a ready-made zinger he can plop into a conversation. Unless you've got an example of an atheist who cites chapter and verse from the Book of Dawkins and who believes every word that falls from his lips is true and infallible, don't use the phrase "fundamentalist atheist" around me: I've got a little mental category labeled "CLUELESS" in which I will file you immediately.
Harris has upped the ante, though. No mere "fundamentalists", we atheists — we're a cult. Jebus. No, we're not. This unpleasant usage wreaks bloody havoc on both the words "cult" and "atheist", and is to be deplored.
We do not have a level of organization that approaches that of the Rotary Club, let alone any kind of cult. If you're going to call atheists a "cult", you might just as well move on and call the Society for Neuroscience a cult: look, they all label themselves the same thing, "neuroscientist", and they have meetings, and they recruit unsuspecting young people to join them, and they have a national leadership, and they send money large sums of money to a central headquarters! SfN is better organized, more disciplined, more centralized, and has more political connections than atheists, members definitely take pride in their affiliation, and it's an exceptionally diverse group that somehow manages to hide their individuality (not really) to reside under the umbrella term "neuroscience". They are no more a cult than are atheists.
Do we have charismatic leaders to whom we pledge our obedience? Not really. We've got the Atheist Tetrarchy that the media always refer to, Dawkins-Dennett-Harris-Hitchens, and sure they're charismatic and interesting … but we all argue with them all the time (case in point, right here). We do not tithe to them, nor do we send them our virgin daughters, nor do we regard them as official leaders of any kind — we only pay attention to them as the weight of their rational arguments appeal to us. Every one of them will be constantly criticized.
Although I also have to note that one of our leaders, Harris, tries to pull a little judo move there in the last bit of that quoted paragraph above. We are cult-like, and one of the signs of this is that we've been sending one of our leaders messages in which we disagree with him, out of "offended atheist piety." Yes, that is very cultish, to disagree with one of the high priests.
Please desist, Sam. If you are really so concerned about the harm a label can do to a cause, you should realize that "cult" is far more damaging than "atheist", and you seem to be tossing it around a little bit too casually. Using the word "cult" to refer to the bickering concatenation of godless people who like nothing better than to argue with each other over just about anything is absurd, and objecting to the fact that a substantial fraction of the mob call themselves "atheist" is pointless — you don't have followers who are going to heed you. Besides, if anyone continues to play this word game of inappropriately calling atheists a "cult", well, I've got a serious punishment for you: I'm going to have a mental category with a much more strongly worded title than "clueless." You don't belong in that pigeonhole, so don't try to wedge yourself into it.
Comments
You really are on the attack here, PZ, and it seems like there are better targets than Sam Harris.
Personally I think Sam has some excellent points. Try to look for the value in what he says, rather than just get defensive about it. Isn't that what you hope for religious people to do when presented with an opposing point of view?
Posted by: rob | October 9, 2007 11:12 AM
Sorry to see this-- I have to say, much as I've enjoyed some of Harris's work, I was put off by his treatment of Noam Chomsky in The End of Faith. There was a lack of balance and insight there, noticeable particularly in the argument that 'intentions' make all the difference, and that therefore Israel's bombing of civilians was morally acceptable. It may be true that if the Israelis had other means to attack the militants, they would use them. And this is a good thing. But it is not a justification for dropping cluster bombs in civilian areas-- in general, intentions matter, but they are not decisive. When you show sufficient disregard for civilian casualties, the claim that the casualties are the other side's fault becomes a feeble excuse. I'm sorry to see that this apparent failing of Harris' is showing up in other places...
Posted by: Bryson Brown | October 9, 2007 11:18 AM
Sam Harris should quiet down and go back to his mumbo-jumbo eastern mysticism dualist meditation shit.
Posted by: fakir | October 9, 2007 11:19 AM
I actually read Sam's original offering as being quite good in places, and worth airing. Not so sure about his comebacks on the responses, though. What he seems to be complaining about here is the fact that a lot of atheists are stupid folks who haven't really thought about what it means not to believe in god - like Alister McGrath before his conversion - teenagers, in other words. Atheists who are angry about something, and giving the rest of us a bad press, or atheists who are just atheists because they think it's cool or rebellious.
But I'm not sure that I have a big problem with that. Sure, we'd like all atheists to be nice well-balanced thoughtful people like Sam, Richard, Christopher, Dan & PZ (surely it should be a pentarchy??), but it's a broad "church", and some atheists can't spell, and fire off messages that would almost be worthy of a Christian fundamentalist. So what? Moral behaviour does not stem from a belief or non-belief in a deity - I thought we'd established that.
My feeling? Sam: lighten up, dude. Accept the fact that we're all different, and that the way to society accepting atheists as normal people is to see that atheists can be tossers just as much as theists. It's just that they happen to be *right*.
Posted by: Amenhotep | October 9, 2007 11:27 AM
I'm copying and pasting from the last thread on Harris, so forgive me. I'll throw in a more pertinent comment in a second, but I typed for five minutes and I don't want this to go to waste:
This discussion has probably run its course, insofar as there's almost certainly other discussions that have moved this one down, but if anyone's still reading...
Here's a couple of sample comments that are the epitome of why this "we're atheists, dammit!" line of thinking does a massive disservice to the debate:
"Atheism has previously been all people that don't believe in god(s) and irrationality"
"It means that we DON'T cower in fear from the imaginary (and there's a key point). It means we support each other."
Absolutely false. All, all "atheism" indicates in a lack of belief, or a positive disbelief, in the existence of those imaginary entities called gods. An atheist can believe in gnomes, faeries, and 9/11 conspiracies that say those planes were missiles. Atheism says nothing about reason, irrationality, dogmatism, or skepticism. It merely is a descriptor of one's belief-attitude towards a very specific breed of fictional being.
This is why "atheism" is entirely insufficient as an ideology. It doesn't describe anything. I'm an atheist, yes. I don't believe in god. But that hardly serves to convey the depth of my skepticism, it hardly serves to describe the myriad of other nonsensical propositions I disagree with. It says nothing of my attitudes towards dogmatic thought.
If "atheism" is to be the rallying point, if you want to have any honesty about the term at all, you're going to have to accept Buddhists, 9/11 conspiracy theorists, holocaust deniers, and people who believe in faeries, because a large number of them aren't theists They're atheists.
I'm happy to not have a label. If anyone asks me, I'll certainly tell them where I stand on the issue in question, but I'm not going to wear a shirt with a blazing red A on it to declare my loyalty to the tribe.
Fuck bad ideas. I agree with Sam's original speech. He obviously choked and strawmanned for his response, but whatever. I felt the same way before reading his original transcript and I feel the same way now.
Atheism isn't the ideology you want. It's like having anti-racism as your ideology of choice. It's perfectly laudable as a position on a single issue, but really, racism, religion, chiropractics, and insane conspiracy theories are on the same side of the coin, and I'm not about to define myself against only one of them.
Posted by: Loren Michael | October 9, 2007 11:28 AM
I would comment on Harris' labeling of atheists as a cult, but I've got to go sacrifice a goat.
Posted by: Reginald Selkirk | October 9, 2007 11:31 AM
Yes, "cult" is hyperbole, but, to use the quotes I just used and their associated attitudes as a reference points, people are simply wrong about what "atheism" is, and what it implies. It's perfectly worthy as a technical term re: one's beliefs about nonexistent superbeings, but it's absolute dreck for describing one's attitudes about skepticism, dogmatism, and the importance of evidence.
Frankly, the people who are imagining that "atheism" means anything but "I don't believe in god(s)/I believe there are no god(s)", are deluding themselves, and I blame a kind of groupthink for propagating this attitude. Atheism can mean whatever you want it to mean in your clubhouse (I think this is more accurate than "cult"), but so long as the rest of the world outvotes you where linguistics are concerned, it means what it always has, and it's folly to brand it to your forehead for the reasons I outlined previously.
Posted by: Loren Michael | October 9, 2007 11:35 AM
I don't think he should quiet down, he has a right to his opinion and to say it. What I think he should stop doing is going after straw-men. To say "Much of the criticism" is something and then denounce that isn't a mature way of debating.
And to counter critics by claiming them to be one great undivided front (cult) seems more of a way to make people think you're being persecuted.
Quite a shame.
Posted by: Dutch Vigilante | October 9, 2007 11:35 AM
"I'm going to have a mental category with a much more strongly worded title than "clueless." You don't belong in that pigeonhole, so don't try to wedge yourself into it."
I beg to differ. I think Harris definitely does belong in that pigeonhole. It's only reason that that atheism is is so trivially obvious that he's managed to make a few seemingly intelligent comments on the subject.
Posted by: The Barefoot Bum | October 9, 2007 11:35 AM
Wow. I mangled that completely.
It's only that atheism is so trivially obvious that he's managed to make a few seemingly intelligent comments on the subject.
Posted by: The Barefoot Bum | October 9, 2007 11:37 AM
He's being a bit disingenuous is our Sam... He gives a talk that, right off the bat, he acknowledges is going to be controversial, and then acts all shocked and surprised because there's controversy. Ummm, it's what you wanted isn't it Sam?
Posted by: demallien | October 9, 2007 11:39 AM
I have to agree with Myers. Harris can think that the term 'atheist' is inappropriate and even say it, but calling for us to go 'under the radar'? I wrote my own reply http://pantsandboots.wordpress.com/2007/10/09/intermission-3/ to him.
Atheists are atheists, what are we supposed to do, alter the English language? And every other language that translates to 'atheist'? I was an atheist long before it became a collective term for theism's 'opposition'. If you like wearing purple and it become suddenly fashionable do you swap to another colour?
Posted by: literarydeadkittens | October 9, 2007 11:46 AM
Harris is right, but for the wrong reason. Atheism is a poor term because it implies that theism is the 'normal' state of affairs. I have always described myself as a non-theist. I choose not to embrace superstitious nonsense.
Posted by: mothra | October 9, 2007 11:58 AM
We're not a cult? Where have my checks been going??
Posted by: Peterte | October 9, 2007 11:59 AM
We're not a cult? Damn. Now what am I going to do with my warehouse of life-size Dawkins posters?
Posted by: RickD | October 9, 2007 12:01 PM
I am embarrassed by this exchange.
Can't we all just agree to agree?
Posted by: incunabulum | October 9, 2007 12:04 PM
Yeah. "atheism" is a cult and "naked" is a freakin' extravagant costume.
methinks concern trolls are on rampage nowadays
Posted by: T_U_T | October 9, 2007 12:05 PM
Would Sam Harris consider the IEEE as a cult?
Posted by: WTFWJD | October 9, 2007 12:08 PM
Damn. There goes my #1 reason to write a book.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | October 9, 2007 12:10 PM
Calling atheists a "cult" is hyperbole, no doubt, a throwaway line by Harris meant to mock some of his critics. However, in principle any organized movement can assume the trappings of a cult -- and if we were to judge from several Pharyngula commenters who routinely dismiss Harris without engaging his comments, there are some who are flirting with a cult-like attitude when it comes to their atheism.
That said, I'm particularly disapointed in PZ's response to Harris' rebuttal: he honed in on the "cult" snark, and has not bothered to address the far more interesting argument on how by labeling yourself, you can prejudice your audience. The example Harris offered -- two versions of the same question on embryonic stem-cell research, identical in denotation but very different in connotation -- was far more worthy of a response by PZ.
___________________________
Posted by: Aris | October 9, 2007 12:16 PM
I'm not embarrased by the exchange, I'm enjoying it. It's a good demonstration that we "New Atheists" *shudder* can debate, and argue, over points.
I'm leaning with Harris here more. Loren Michael pretty much hit the nail on the head with why.
That said, I'm all up for people not going under the radar, the more lines of attack the better - some of the strategies will be better than others, and hopefully the message will get through to Great Deluded out there.
Posted by: Big DAve | October 9, 2007 12:18 PM
I agree that, technically speaking, atheism does not espouse any particular ideology except the lack of belief or disbelief in a deity. But I think that in and of itself can be a good thing - I've been asked many times, "Well, then what do you believe?" As a Christian, my views weren't necessarily mainstream, but after hearing that I was a Christian many people - even intelligent ones - felt they had a very good grasp of my beliefs, even though they were probably wrong on quite a few points. As an atheist (specifically, metaphysical naturalist and secular humanist), I've found that it's only the unintelligent/ignorant people who assume that "atheist" describes me fully. Most people who are actually interested in me want to pursue it further and find out what that means. That is one reason (coupled with the complete lack of public knowledge about the meaning of metaphysical naturalism or secular humanism) that I describe myself as an atheist. Sure, it's vague and can be used to describe people with a huge number of differing beliefs - but that can be a good thing.
Posted by: Eric Davison | October 9, 2007 12:20 PM
I would actually strengthen the criticism, PZ.
Of the people I know, genuine skeptical atheists are the least likely people to become involved in a cult. I've put a modifier there of "skeptical" because I've dealt with cult-like thinking and behavior before and I know of people who would claim to be atheists, but have bought into a belief system that is definitely cult-like. The reason for cults stems from people wanting to believe in SOMETHING and filling the vacuum with whatever happens to be available to them at the time. A rational, skeptical atheist (or a hard-agnostic) has, by definition, reserved judgment of belief pending the realization of physical evidence supporting a conclusion.
If the nature of a cult stems from wanting to believe --which it does-- a rational, atheistic mind-set is the least susceptible mentality to it. By its very nature, a skeptical thought process is counter to cult programming methods.
Posted by: viggen | October 9, 2007 12:22 PM
From Wiki:
"Cult roughly refers to a cohesive social group devoted to beliefs or practices that the surrounding culture considers outside the mainstream, with a notably positive or negative popular perception...A group's populist cult status begins as rumors of its novel belief system, its great devotions, its idiosyncratic practices, its perceived harmful or beneficial effects on members, or its perceived opposition to the interests of mainstream cultures and governments..."
I probably look like I've joined a cult to some of my Christian friends and family. Quit the church, joined a weird "Freethought" group, spend hours on the internet, took the kids out of Christian schools, basically traded the bedrock of everyone else's beliefs for that of a small group. Sometimes it feels like it, too, since I've become much more obsessed with atheism and its implications than I ever was about religion. It has also led to isolation -- not a good sign. Even my inner conviction that it's not a cult is suspect, because cult members never admit to it.
I know atheism is not a cult; in fact, the evangelical Christianity I left behind was a lot closer to one, but I think Sam is right when he says it can look like one to others, especially in highly religious communities. I try to minimize the impression that I'm wacko by being as low-key, but honest. The honest part still gets me in trouble.
Posted by: charley | October 9, 2007 12:23 PM
Crap.
No I have to dismantle the altar I don't have.
Sell the cult track suit and sneakers I don't own.
Grow out the funny shaven head I don't have.
Leave the commune I don't live in.
Pour out the kool-aid I had no intention of drinking.
It's all so depressing.
Posted by: Steve_C | October 9, 2007 12:28 PM
"Do we have charismatic leaders to whom we pledge our obedience? "
What about the Squid Overlords? We're but plankton to them!
Posted by: Philboid Studge | October 9, 2007 12:29 PM
Saying atheism is a cult is oxymoronish. Sure, ANYTHING can be turned into a fad, but aren't we promoting critical thinking to prevent that very thing from happening?
No one is insisting that atheism is the sum total of all that we are, just that we shouldn't hide from it or be ashamed of it. If it is the truth and we mustn't speak it aloud for fear of offending people or being misjudged (for whatever reason) then something is wrong and it needs to be righted. And I, for one, am pissed off that I feel backed into a corner by superstitious fundamentalism--play pretend mentality taken WAY too seriously.
So how are rational people--who oppose all the religious-superstitious nonsense in the world--going to refer to themselves? It would be nice to do entirely without labels and simply be intelligent human beings spreading rationality like sunshine wherever we go, but we have to communicate with one another, don't we?
Posted by: RamblinDude | October 9, 2007 12:31 PM
Once again you're right on target here, PZ. That sneaky little "cult-like" jibe shows that Harris is now reduced to the tactics we're more accustomed to seeing from the religious, and it's a damned pity to see it. Harris is coming across more and more as the sort of remote, solitary thinker who likes it best when he's pontificating (cool! I can do it too!) by himself rather than indulging in anything as vulgar as organising with broadly like-minded people. I understand that. As as often been observed, atheists/rationalists/whatever we want to call ourselves tend to be independently-minded and instinctively resistant to groupthink.
But that doesn't mean we can't work together, support each other and pursue shared aims. Honestly, it's beyond ridiculous to suggest we're a cult. Cults don't tend to indulge in such free and open infighting, for one thing!
Posted by: Jack Rawlinson | October 9, 2007 12:31 PM
What's going on with Sam these days?
My atheism is the product, rather than the cause of, my rationalist view of the universe. Atheism is the only conclusion one can reach by evaluating the evidence for and against the existence of god. In fact, I've argued in the past that there is no a priori to believe in god at all; the whole thing is one huge non sequitur.
Perhaps this is what Sam is getting at; atheism is a perfectly valid position to hold, based on reason and evidence, while theism has absolutely no basis for even existing. In order to believe something (that all living organisms have descended from a single common ancestor, for instance), there must be evidence for that something (from fossil records, molecular biology, comparative anatomy, for example). Without that evidence, the belief is, as others have put it, not even wrong; there simply is no reason for the belief to even exist. Thus, there is no good reason for atheists to exist.
However, we must also recognize that, for whatever reasons, theism does exist. I agree that the necessity of the existence of atheism is silly; why do we need a label to identify the fact that we simply follow the evidence in the same way we do with every other instance? But with things the way they are, abandoning that label seems to have no real purpose.
I will continue to be vocal against theist nonsense, taking the 'what is the evidence?' (Dawkins/Harris/Dennett/Myers) tact, rather than the religion-is-horrible (Hitchens) approach, which is valid, but irrelevant to the question of god's existence. I will continue to proudly label myself an atheist until such time as the label is no longer necessary. I will also continue to read Sam Harris, since, this episode notwithstanding, he remains one of the most lucid voices for the cause.
Posted by: Michael | October 9, 2007 12:34 PM
[quote]We do not tithe to them, nor do we send them our virgin daughters[/quote]
Well shoot, the only reason* I stuck with this whole godless thing was in the hope that I could work my way up to high priest, and get myself on the receiving end of all those tithes and sacrificial virgins.
*Other than not happening to see the need for gods, or evidence for them, of course.
Posted by: N.Wells | October 9, 2007 12:38 PM
"Crap...No I have to dismantle the altar I don't have."
You're focusing on the aesthetic trappings of a "cult." There are far more substantial -- and far more dangerous -- manifestations of cult-like behavior, such as dismissing dissenting opinions without actually addressing them.
Belonging to any group is fraught with danger. It appeals to our tribal instincts, and can make us feel special and it can make us insular and less empathic to those who are different than us. Not every group is a cult, but every group can potentially become one, and that includes atheists.
___________________________
Posted by: Aris | October 9, 2007 12:39 PM
Sam, Sam, Sam...as long as you use the language of religion to talk about atheism, the side in this debate (inasmuch as there are clear-cut sides) that favours the idea that atheism is "just another religion" has a perfectly valid reason to keep saying that. Unfortunately, it's complete twaddle. Isn't there some, uh, better metaphor you could pick?
Seriously, the source and target domains (to get all technical about metaphorics for a moment) really don't overlap all that well. I do rather like the idea of atheism-as-professional-society, where we may all have different notions of practice (in the end) and different methods of being atheist and expressing atheism, but our common ground is we're all atheists. (I used to belong to the ACM's Special Interest Group on Design of Communication, and, as they say about just about every other group out there, two technical writers, three opinions -- so why not atheists?) If the professional society (or amateur hobbyist society) metaphor doesn't cut it, there are lots more out there.
Don't make the same damn mistake and use "fandom," though, okay? We really don't have heroes and superstars that way, and if anyone writes slash fiction with Richard Dawkins in it, I don't wanna know about it.
Posted by: Interrobang | October 9, 2007 12:40 PM
I think there are a few of those turning up on the BBC religion MB from time to time. As with religious fundies though, they tend not to have read or comprehended much of Dawkins' work properly! So they do rather stick out as distinct from the intelligent and well-educated atheists. They also don't really appear to have a cult as such.
Posted by: SEF | October 9, 2007 12:42 PM
So we are no longer "militant atheists", strapping on ourselves the proverbial explosives in hopes to killing bunches of innocent people?
We must be getting soft.
Posted by: daenku32 | October 9, 2007 12:43 PM
"Atheism is a poor term because it implies that theism is the 'normal' state of affairs."
I never understand this argument yet it gets trotted out over and over again. Yet if you actually stop and think about it you soon see it makes no sense at all. Does describing myself as a non-smokers imply that smoking is the normal state of affairs?
I absolutely reject the idea that describing oneself as being NOT something automatically suggests that the "something" is more normal.
Posted by: Jack Rawlinson | October 9, 2007 12:47 PM
I will proudly not label myself. I will acquiesce to the label being applied to me, as it describes my lack of belief, but it doesn't describe it adequately. It says nothing of why, it says nothing about the other problems I work against. "Atheist" says close to nothing.
I want people to see that the same attitude that is responsible for my disbelief in god is the same attitude that is responsible for my eschewing of racist thought, conspiracy theories, aberrant and unhinged economic theories, and chiropractics, and "atheism" doesn't do that.
Posted by: Loren Michael | October 9, 2007 12:47 PM
"I want people to see that the same attitude that is responsible for my disbelief in god is the same attitude that is responsible for my eschewing of racist thought, conspiracy theories, aberrant and unhinged economic theories, and chiropractics, and "atheism" doesn't do that."
But no one is saying that "atheism" is an all inclusive term, or is supposed to be. That's why we keep promoting critical thinking. Otherwise atheism becomes a mindless fad-cult-flavor-of-the-day-belief-system.
We're just saying that superstitous-religious mentality is a big problem in the world and needs to be countered directly--not indirectly.
Posted by: RamblinDude | October 9, 2007 12:58 PM
I disagree with your Wiki definition of cult. Here's how I understand it, from dictionary.com:
See? By definition, all religions are cults. Atheist people are the only ones NOT cultrific. Well, unless you consider the understanding that there is no god to be an "ideal" for definition 2.
Posted by: True Bob | October 9, 2007 1:05 PM
The most charitable reading of the quoted passage I can come up with was that he meant some fraction of nontheists will agree with those who hold "Atheists like Dawkins are just as fundamentalist as those he opposes," regardless of whether or not it is true.
I think you've got the right of it here, though.
Posted by: B. Dewhirst | October 9, 2007 1:07 PM
"Does describing myself as a non-smokers imply that smoking is the normal state of affairs?"
Actually, smoking used to be the normal state of affairs.
:- P
Posted by: RamblinDude | October 9, 2007 1:08 PM
Counter religious ascendancy directly by showing and explaining how the people and the assertions they make are full of shit. You don't need to identify yourself as an atheist to do that, and it's both easy and (in my experience) exhilarating.
Forgive the overuse of anecdotal examples, but the two comments that I quoted in my first post in this thread were taken from here. I've seen the sentiment again and again, those were just the easiest and most immediately relevant. People are attaching themselves to "atheist" as a new fad, a new club, a new tribe. Shirts with big red "A"s on them don't help. If you're into promoting critical thinking, there's no need to preface it with atheism. That should come naturally.
Posted by: Loren Michael | October 9, 2007 1:10 PM
Give it a rest.
We ARE the ones voicing descent. To say this bickering is somehow cult like behaviour is complete bullshit. Some of us don't like Sam's implications or pretention. He should thicken his skin.
There's a myriad of different kind of atheists. Isn't that obvious? Lumping the outspoken and strident ones as cult-like is heading into the realm of "I'm Sam Harris... no one can tell me I'm wrong."
Posted by: Steve_C | October 9, 2007 1:10 PM
I keep reading about how atheist orgainzations are growing rapidly, and with that kind of enthusiasm, it's very possible that some local chapters are displaying cult-like behaviors (especially proselytizing and acting as the sole social group for certain individuals).
That said, to suggest that atheists as a group are acting as a cult is laughable for the reasons P.Z. explains here. As soon as I read Harris' suggestion that atheists were acting like a cult, my first reaction was "Um, is that a joke? Have you ever seen anything that even resembles a cult???"
Posted by: C. L. Hanson | October 9, 2007 1:11 PM
PZ: nor do we send them our virgin daughters,
?! @#32: ...if anyone writes slash fiction with Richard Dawkins in it, I don't wanna know about it.
Um, isn't Dawkins married? Even, happily married?
Amenhotep: PZ doesn't get full membership in the "atheist pantheon" until he publishes his frikken' book, already! ;-)
General: I'm wondering if Sam Harris might simply be "jumping the shark".
Posted by: David Harmon | October 9, 2007 1:12 PM
you might just as well move on and call the Society for Neuroscience a cult: look, they all label themselves the same thing, "neuroscientist", and they have meetings, and they recruit unsuspecting young people to join them...
Mawkish liberal nonsense. Those young people who join the Society for Neuroscience know exactly what they are getting into, and deserve everything they get.
Posted by: Mrs Tilton | October 9, 2007 1:25 PM
I think Dr. Myers is gonna become the Richard Stallman of Atheism. Rhetoric/ego engulfing his otherwise sane arguments. Lot of people including myself consider the term 'Atheist' as an insult to our intelligence.
I don't want to be identified with the motley crew which doesn't have a faintest idea why people have imposed 'God' on themselves and go pick up fights with funny religions like Christianity. I'm godless but I see nothing wrong with an 'ideal' religion.
If Atheists are only gonna fight religions and not the concept of God, then you are fighting for small change. Its indeed a cult.
There is a saying,
"Don't fight with the Pig.
Both will get dirty. But the Pig likes it."
Pig - Church. The other party being Atheists!
Posted by: Balaji | October 9, 2007 1:26 PM
"If you're into promoting critical thinking, there's no need to preface it with atheism. That should come naturally."
Now that I agree with.
However...(LOL), although I feel the same reluctance as you to attach myself to a group, I like seeing those big red A's. They let me know that rationalism is spreading. They let me know that I can identify with the owner, and probably on several topics. Of course, the meeting would most likely have to be kept short as any serious discussion would probably end in a vociferous brawl...
Posted by: RamblinDude | October 9, 2007 1:30 PM
"If Atheists are only gonna fight religions and not the concept of God,..."
You haven't been paying attention, have you?
Posted by: RamblinDude | October 9, 2007 1:33 PM
What he seems to be complaining about here is the fact that a lot of atheists are stupid folks who haven't really thought about what it means not to believe in god
*************************************************************
I don't believe in god, santa or the easter bunny and spend very little time thinking about why. Spending time thinking about why you don't believe in a fantasy is a waste.
Posted by: ckerst | October 9, 2007 1:33 PM
"the Richard Stallman of Atheism"??!!
You mean if I quote Myers, I'm going to lose the copyright on all my anti-religion stuff? Damn, that's some powerful mojo.
"I see nothing wrong with an 'ideal' religion."
And unicorns are cool, too.
Posted by: mark | October 9, 2007 1:35 PM
It's kind of hard to know what atheism is as a "movement". In some respects it has to adopt advocacy akin to that which theism uses, which no doubt is to what Harris is referring. But cult or "cult-like"? It's a major confusion even as an analogy. Presumably the advocacy can get weird in atheism like in other ideas or anti-ideas, only it'd be hard to make any anti-something into a cult. Herding cats and all that.
Of course he's offended and reacting, making a kind of hyperbolic retort. That he's blowing off steam should be recognized, and I suspect some slack would be in order.
On more substantive matters, I always find advocacy of atheism, or earnest criticisms of religion in the abstract (vs. criticisms of real threats like ID--still an ideological threat at least), to be too dull, mostly uninteresting, and sort of obsessive in a way that makes atheistic advocates appear to be oddly irrelevant.
I watched some of the episodes of the PBS program about unbelief, and I just couldn't get past the trivial-seeming "atheistic greats" who managed to say the obvious, 'there is no god'. It's sort of like saying there's actually no monsters under the bed. Even those who fear the monsters under the bed rather suspect they're not there, and react badly because you're pointing out their apparent irrational thinking about it (more reasons than that, but surely that's part of it).
Nietzsche succeeded as well as he because his criticisms of theism were coupled with equal denunciations of metaphysics and of naive realism. Furthermore, he intended to move beyond the abstractions and nihilism of religion to a more immediate empiricism (it wasn't much good for science, which needs abstractions, yet it was closer to earlier states of mind). It can be attractive to those who get it, though I suppose it's only fair to say that Nietzsche (although not at all the proto-Nazi that he was proclaimed to be) can be dangerous, particularly in the hands of those who don't recognize that he's largely talking about a kind of Romantic intellectual "evil" and "will to power" when he praises these (he doesn't pointedly limit it, however, which is why he's easy to misread).
In the end, Nietzsche won't really do for the masses, then. But he had the right idea, that losing God is troubling to people, and something more is needed than getting rid of cherished fantasies in most people. Science will be it for some, almost certainly not for most.
What I am saying is that Harris almost certainly is fingering the problem of the negativity of atheism, and how it seems absurd to many that strongly worded statements equivalent to "there is no monster under the bed" are made. That's fine, no doubt it needs saying often enough, but people believe in monsters under the bed due to certain psychological and cognitive needs. There is, I think, no simple solution like 'Nietzsche for the masses,' however the various real gains possible from non-theism need to be presented in better ways, with religion more properly fading out than being overturned (either is fine with me, it's just that most theists will resist overturning religion to the bitter end).
Of course, not everybody needs to do the same things, so Harris misreads the situation when he thinks to trouble the ones who are saying what does, after all, need saying, which is that the monster under the bed is so much bad psychology and a lucrative exploitation of that psychology. He'd do better to let the faint ridiculousness of mere denial of monsters and gods do whatever it can do, and to concentrate on "framing" (if we can use such an ugly word) the very real gains to be made through secularism.
What's he (and others) trying to do, make atheism into a cult, complete with power struggles? Let the whole thing work out via relative anarchy, for anyone who is just spinning his wheels will just run out of gas. It might also be best to mostly leave Harris alone, and vice versa, and watch to see how it all goes. Generally, people will do thinge that work (if these don't work in isolation, they work as part of the whole), if they just don't spend all of their time blasting away at each other.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Posted by: Glen Davidson | October 9, 2007 1:36 PM
Perhaps it's naive of me, but having atheists on both sides of this discussion seems a useful thing. To draw a vague analogy, it is useful and possibly even *necessary* to have gay couples who just want to be left alone to cultivate their 401(k)s - "you wouldn't even *know* they were... well...like *that*" - as well as guys in tutus having parades & shouting "we're here, we're queer, get used to it!"
Personally I think the guys in tutus have more fun, but to each his own, y'know.
Posted by: mandrake | October 9, 2007 1:36 PM
I think you have misrepresented Harris slightly. He is not saying atheists form a cult. He is saying that it appears to be cult-like to outsiders.
My first impression of this blog was that it was filled with yes-men. Everyone here, despite being alleged independent thinkers, seems to agree with you and Dawkins all the time. First impressions are not always correct, but you cannot deny that they have consequences. There are a lot of atheists out there who are persuaded by the "there's no reason to care THAT much about things that don't exist" argument, and they may never give you a second glance.
Of course, I think Sam's solution to this problem just sounds like giving up. It sounds like he wants us to say, "We're just a group of extremely reasonable people--No, we don't have anything else in common!"
Posted by: miller | October 9, 2007 1:37 PM
The big red "A"s do not in any way shape or form show that "rationalism is spreading". They show that shirts with big red "A"s on them are spreading, and I hate to break it to you, not everyone who has a degree of antipathy towards religion is entirely reasonable about it.
Posted by: Loren Michael | October 9, 2007 1:37 PM
The word "cult" is unfortunate, but I found Harris's piece provocative, and the idea of a knee-jerk atheist orthodoxy of any kind is something we SHOULD critique.
And while I agree completely that god-belief is delusional, the comparison with children's fantasy characters is facile. Something that most people, including most functioning adults, have believed in for most of history can't be so easily snooked. That sort of language just makes it appear that we are incapable of metaphysical thought, not that we are superior to it.
Posted by: Greg Peterson | October 9, 2007 1:41 PM
I do rather like the approach:
Atheist, why should I call myself and atheist? Do you have a special word for people that don't believe in fairies?
But let people call themselves what they wish.
Posted by: sailor | October 9, 2007 1:43 PM
Oh goodness, Loren Michael, you seem to be in quite a tizzy about a group of people you're not interested in working with, using a label you would never use, aiming at a cause you've said nothing about.
Here's the main point of atheism as a banner and a movement that is more than the sum or it's terse defenition: It's Political. And as any student of history can attest to, you do better politically to reshape the landscape in a group, and not as a completely unorganized group of individuals. If you think that taking a negative term and revamping it is a bad idea, but wouldn't take part in it even if it were a good idea, I won't argue with you. The wonderful thing is you have no need whatsoever to associate yourself with any particular group or ideal against your will. So, don't. But you're doing quite a job of spinning your wheels at those of us who are interested.
Posted by: Michael (the other one) | October 9, 2007 1:57 PM
I don't think you're over-reacting, PZ--in fact, I think Sam Harris is a bit problematic all around. Ever since he took the time to demonize Noam Chomsky in The End of Faith (Chomsky being a much more interesting and consistent skeptic, atheist, and all-around thinker than Harris will ever be), I have always wondered about his specific agenda. Now he's attacking--in an odd sort of politically correct fashion--Dawkins and the "atheist cult." In his books, he also seems to validate and valorize a kooky form of Pyrrhonian Buddhism (cf. the book I Am That, which Harris praises). Who is the cultist, here? More importantly, who seems to want to be the cult leader?
Posted by: Erik Kruger | October 9, 2007 1:59 PM
Oh, come on, the Society for Neuroscience is totally a cult.
Posted by: cm | October 9, 2007 2:04 PM
While this discussion is very interesting, I'm only commenting to trumpet the fact that I am actually a member of the Society for Neuroscience. You get a badge and everything.
Posted by: Despard | October 9, 2007 2:10 PM
I tend to go along with the old saying that states (sorry, not sure who said it first) "A religeon is something you're born into. A cult is something you join." I didn't JOIN the atheists. I AM an atheist, by definition, because I am not a theist. Doesn't seem like it should be that complicated.
Posted by: Dahan | October 9, 2007 2:13 PM
I don't think that we need to throw the baby out with the bathwater, however, with regards to SH. I, too, have disagreed with much of what he has said with regards to the ethics of torture and (especially) with regards to his allowing Eastern cultures a pass from his otherwise spot-on critique. Similarly, I disagree with Hitchens regarding the Iraq War and other points.
But I will continue to read Sam's work because the bulk of what he writes about is true, and he says it with a style that I could not hope to match. While I, as a professional scientist, find myself far more aligned with the style and substance proffered by RD, Sam brings (or at least used to bring) a more stident, unrelenting tone to the table which spoke to me in a different way.
I hope that if Sam's real motive is to push for the uptake of Eastern philosophy (with its share of woo-woo) that he will make this clear and defend his position.
Posted by: Michael | October 9, 2007 2:14 PM
I get it. Proclaiming that one is an atheist to many Xians, observant jews, muslims is like firing a gun amidst a herd of cattle. It is a perjorative to most people. WE know that atheism, in and of itself, has nothing to do with being evil but THEY don't.
Evidently Harris believes not using the A word will somehow keep the cattle from stampeding and that he alone can lull them with his carefully chosen dulcet wording into reason and logical lucidity.
"Hush up, PZ, yer a spookin' the herd! Hey Dawkins! Hitchins! - them cud chewers are a gettin' riled, cuz usin' the A word is like wavin' a red flag. Lemme do all the talkin' and you boys jes' foller my lead and keep yer head down and yer noses clean; I'LL get these dogeys to come around and think proper..."
The Great Leader of the NonCult (shhhhhhh) - Sam Harris!
Is it overwhelming arrogance or just vanity that I sense?
Posted by: Jsn | October 9, 2007 2:20 PM
PZ: 'one of our leaders, Harris'
Not one of my leaders. I don't have any 'leaders'. That is one of the advantages of being an atheist.
Posted by: NoAstronomer | October 9, 2007 2:21 PM
Huh? Doesn't say anything about reason or irrationality? Really?
Unless I'm missing something, I'm pretty sure the reason(s) why people become atheists are kind of important here.
Posted by: Bob | October 9, 2007 2:22 PM
I'm with Harris on this one, if for no other reason than he is actually advancing the dialog past the level of self-congratulatory "aren't we smart for not believing in god" smugness. There is more to being an atheist than pointing out how stupid and cruel religion is. I'd rather be defined by what I believe in (reason, kindness, tolerance) than by my rejection of superstition. It's analagous to the saying that it's better to light a candle than to curse the darkness.
However, the part of Harris' talk that really took my breath away was the second half, in which he addressed the problem of human happiness and the bearing that a study of mind (or mindfulness) might have on it. It's too bad that most commenters, when they have even bothered to address that part of the talk, largely have chosen to write it off as so much mystic mumbo-jumbo. I think that Harris may be on to something when he wonders whether there is more to the world than strict materialism, WITHOUT resorting to woo-woo supernatural explanations. Surely it's not unreasonable or unscientific to wonder whether there might be a rational basis underlying traditions of contemplation that at their core seek to examine experience under controlled conditions.
In my particular case it's true that I've been leery of taking a closer look at so-called disciplines of attention because of their religious associations. But having Sam Harris make the argument is a little like Nixon going to China. You know that Harris is not going to sacrifice his principles just to arrive at new-agey feel-good pablum. Maybe it's just as intellectually vapid to automatically dismiss contemplative practices as it is to unthinkingly embrace chakras and pyramids and crystals. At the very least, there's no harm in having such a conversation, and it saddens me that Harris has largely been excoriated for having tried to initiate it.
Posted by: Misanthrope | October 9, 2007 2:23 PM
Oh dear me, I *am* in quite a tizzy, though I'd prefer it that you not use such charmingly belittling terms to frame me.
I'm irate about a group of people whom I feel have good intentions who are going about it all wrong, undercut by an unfortunately strong (at least for my tastes) current of people who really are interested in playing a kind of identity politics with a frighteningly disparate group like atheists. I don't want anything to do with a great many atheists. We have almost nothing in common but a singular non-(or anti-)belief, and we may not even agree on the best means to arrive at or maintain said beliefs. "Yes, Atheism!" seems both unclever and misguided, and often harmfully so. See above for why I feel that atheism isn't the best for a rallying point.
Also, I have to say, it's playing reactionary politics, if you want to talk about that realm. It's like the old legend about LBJ. You may not be able to prove that your opponent is a pigfucker, but that's not the point. You just want the son of a bitch to deny it. By even debating your opponent's favorite topic, you're lending their worldview credence. Religion is merely a large copse of trees in the forest of bad ideas.
To create a truly 'offensive' strategy you need to be able to shape your own debate; to do that you need a positive statement. You need to be arguing for something, not merely against something.
It's 2:22 in China. I'm going to bed.
Posted by: Loren Michael | October 9, 2007 2:23 PM
I just wanted to share something. It's not entirely on- or off-topic and I am sure it's not an unfamiliar story either. So, I am active-duty military and recently went down to Alabama for some training. Now, I don't have much chance to hang out with the rest of the "normal" military and, therefore, this was an opportunity to rub elbows with the whole gang. I had to decide if I was going to stay silent about my lack of belief and let everyone else go on assuming that all military servicemembers are monolithic in their view about god or if I was going to speak up. As we all know, in most peoples' eyes there is a hair trigger when it comes to "militant atheism." It's all or nothing. Say one thing and you are an extreme militant activist that is getting in peoples' faces. Stay silent, and people think they can say stupid stuff without recourse. They just assume everyone will agree before they even open their mouths. I decided to be a bit vocal. It rubbed some people the wrong way. I know because they told me. But I think it is important to put yourself out there and let others know where you stand. If anything, it allows people to tailor their speech around you. Even if they continue to say stupid stuff when you aren't around. And apparently it wasn't too much of a barrier - they honored me with the top award at graduation. So that gives me some hope. And I had some fun too.
Posted by: incunabulum | October 9, 2007 2:24 PM
...and Dennett is utterly unconvincing on free will (and "elbow room") and Hitch's politics are sort of a mess and Dawkins, while a scientific genius, shows some philosophical blind spots. And I would not for a moment do without any of them. Or PZ, or many of the commenters here. I need them all, to round out my own thinking. It would be distressing in the extreme if I agreed with most of you (and them) most of the time. That's one of the things I LEFT religion for--an ability to consider a variety of opinions and chose the ones that seemed most sensible. Can we hang together on that method, at least, even if we're diverse in our perspectives? I think Harris provides some food for thought. I think about a third to a half of what he said was quite good, and I'd like a chance to think about the rest--though my initial reaction was disagreement. We don't want to be like the religious in destroying those we disagree with on some one point, unless they're like, you know--Ralians or something.
Posted by: Greg Peterson | October 9, 2007 2:26 PM
Huh? Doesn't say anything about reason or irrationality? Really?
Unless I'm missing something, I'm pretty sure the reason(s) why people become atheists are kind of important here.
Yes. Really. Atheism is pretty much a thumbs down. It doesn't say anything about why you have your thumb pointing that way. It's descriptive in pretty much only one capacity.
God? No. Ergo, atheist!
Reasons are very important, which is one of the reasons I don't like to champion "the atheist cause". Many atheists have shit for reasons, and a society that, for example, rejects gods for gremlins (atheistic!) isn't what I'm looking for.
Bedtime for real now.