…and this is a 
Sam Harris seems like a nice fellow, but very confused
Category: Godlessness
Posted on: October 8, 2007 8:42 PM, by PZ Myers
Sam Harris responds to the reaction to his speech at the Atheist Alliance meeting.
Is it really possible that PZ Myers and Ellen Johnson think I was recommending that we stop publicly criticizing religion or that I am hiding my own atheism out of "shame and fear"? I would not have thought such a misreading was possible, given the contents of my speech and my rather incessant criticism of religion in my books, articles, and lectures.
It's puzzling to be accused of misreading Harris when his misreading of PZ Myers is so far off base; perhaps my name was just tossed in as an afterthought, and he's really trying to address Ellen Johnson's comment. Even there, though, I think he's mangling the point.
And it's highly disappointing that he resorts to using a dishonest rhetorical tactic: rather than addressing the issues we brought up, he invents a hypothetical situation — a reporter asking the president a question about stem cells — and then contrives two hypothetical ways the question could be phrased, 1) a good way that emphasizes the rational, scientific reasons for supporting stem cell research, and 2) a bad way that has the reporter declaring his atheism multiple times in a question that has nothing to do with atheism. And then he declares that all of us atheists seem to be preferring the second, bad way of asking the question.
Victory! He doesn't even have to catch us saying something foolish, he just writes stupid words into our mouths, and presto, our arguments are defeated!
Come on, Sam, at least have the courtesy to deal with what we actually said. I never said everyone must join the cult of atheism, nor do I think atheism is a cult. I even agreed that someday the word would be an anachronism; I agree that multiple strategies are good and necessary.
There was much that I thought was reasonable in Harris's talk, and there was a fair amount that I disagreed with that I let slide. Even in his latest defense, I agree completely that his good answer #1 is preferable to bad answer #2, although he has intentionally rendered #2 as patently absurd to force that choice. What I chose to focus on in the talk was Harris's claim that "We should not call ourselves anything. We should go under the radar--for the rest of our lives." I did not argue that a True Member of the Cult of Atheism is not allowed to do that — it's fine with me if individuals prefer to do whatever. I did not say that every atheist must express his atheism in every situation at all times, which would be a painfully silly thing to do. What I found objectionable was his dismissal of the value of any kind of label or organizing point to rally around, and his specific snub of "atheism" as a word too negative to have any use.
The situation is simply ridiculous. Sam Harris has benefitted greatly from his aggressive, uncompromising attitude towards religion, and yet there he is, a featured speaker at an atheist's conference, telling everyone else to go under the radar, and by the way, they should stop calling themselves atheists. I disagree completely. Everyone should feel free to flash the radar as much as they want, or hide away if they prefer, and I certainly think it has been a good thing for the cause of reason that more and more people are coming out and making their ideas known. Why oppose that?
If Sam Harris would rather not be known as an atheist, that's fine; he can try to escape the label, somehow. I don't know that he can, especially since he is an atheist, and a pretty loud one at that. As for other people, if they want to be known as atheists, who is Sam Harris to tell them they shouldn't? As I said in my original reply, there are lots of different labels, people can use whatever they prefer. Let a thousand flowers bloom. Militant Pantheists of the World, unite and rise up. Happy Agnostics, go forth. Atheists, make a joyful noise unto the world. It's all good. I'm not going to make a speech and tell the agnostics they're harming the cause; why is Sam Harris, atheist, singling out an important and prominent element of the anti-religious contingent and telling them to be quiet?
My other point, one that Harris has so far completely ignored, is that these labels are useful for identifying people who share our values — they allow us to coalesce into larger groups and make our presence known in a culture that would otherwise completely ignore us if we stayed "under the radar". Again, there's no compulsion, anyone can do as they please, but having a simple rallying point for people of similar views is useful.
One last thing that made me laugh out loud with its lack of reality in his latest reaction is something from his two hypothetical questions — the good one, in fact. In it, he says, as an example of the best way to phrase a disagreement,
Your veto, frankly, seems insane to any educated person, and it is painfully obvious that it was the product of religious metaphysics and superstition--not science or morality.
And then he claims that this phrasing is superior, would not alienate 180 million Americans, and would have the support of those 180 million plus the 20 million overt atheists. Nonsense. This is completely contrary to my experience.
I give lots of talks on evolution, and I handle lots of questions. I rarely go out of my way to use the words "atheist" or "atheism" in them — I'm not reluctant to say what I am if asked, but it's not central to the topic. However, I do not need to use the evil word "atheist" to get certain people angry: all I have to do is dismiss religious explanations for evolution as "the product of religious metaphysics and superstition". A recent example was my talk in Stillwater, where I did not say I was an atheist or demand that others be atheists, but did plainly reject religion as a way to answer questions of our origins, and that was sufficient to trigger the usual foot-stomping and finger-pointing.
Sam Harris is living in a fantasy world if he thinks he can criticize religion and merely by leaving the A-word off, he will win everyone over to his point of view. It won't. The theists aren't stupid.
Politics
Comments
Harris is pulling a Nisbet. He is apparently telling us how to "frame" or public communications while proving that he is not the person we should be seeking out for advice. If you wanted someone to listen to take your criticism seriously, would you accuse them of being a cult?
And criticizing "religious metaphysics and superstition" and "faith-based thinking," even without the A-word, is his way of "flying under the radar"? Really.
Harris should consider that perhaps people did not understand his message because 1) his message was not clear or not worthwhile or 2) he did a terrible job of communicating it.
Posted by: Reginald Selkirk | October 8, 2007 8:52 PM
I was actually just wondering if you'd read Sam's piece. And here we are. By the way, having read Ellen Johnsons piece, I can see why he'd be a bit ticked. But when you make the case that:
"It seems to me, though, that there is no conflict at all between being decent, responsible people who destroy bad ideas wherever we find them and also finding common cause with like-minded people and working together to promote that same decency, responsibility, and critical thinking publicly. In fact, I think such coordinated (and proudly labeled) action by a group would be more effective than similar action by modest individuals" how is he supposed to feel attacked and misread? It was a direct address of the issue at hand. Why include your piece?
While, I'm quite put off by Ellen, I still am disappointed by Sam.
Posted by: Michael | October 8, 2007 8:53 PM
What Reginald Selkirk said.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | October 8, 2007 8:53 PM
1)
I'd like to point out that "negros" did change their name - to "blacks." Then "blacks" changed their name to "African-Americans." It didn't work. I'm not sure exactly what name most of them prefer today. The name change didn't succeed in eliminating the bigotry. It wasn't the name that was the source of the bigotry.
2) Ellen Johnson is hot.
Posted by: Reginald Selkirk | October 8, 2007 9:03 PM
I'm not sure how Sam could have gotten it so wrong. Maybe I'm not getting the big picture here- but it certainly seems like he's coming out with some very odd statements.
Posted by: Christian Burnham | October 8, 2007 9:05 PM
And another thing: Larry Moran posted some video from a CBC broadcast about atheism in which Sam Harris appears. I guess this is the first time I've heard his voice. Somehow I expected him to sound like Ben Stiller.
Posted by: Reginald Selkirk | October 8, 2007 9:09 PM
PZ: absolutely. It's depressing me how Sam seems to have lost the plot on this one. I've been getting into this very heavily over on dawkins.net and it's quite startling how many people don't seem to see how inherently silly and unworkable Sam's idea is.
And that Bush press conference thing was an appalling exercise in "straw atheist" building. One is used to dealing with that when arguing with the religious. To see it coming from Harris is just... embarrassing.
Posted by: Jack Rawlinson | October 8, 2007 9:23 PM
Apologies, I thought Sam Harris was a smart guy. Why do people think the term "atheist" is such a NEGATIVE thing? Yes, on the surface, it does have that "rallying point" aspect; but it has "rallying point" for a different sense of the term as well.
"Atheism" == no gods. It means there's just us; and that we're all we've got on this pale blue dust speck, nobody's coming to save our asses but us; and that everything this whole species / planet's occupants have ever done, (bad or) good, is down to US.
To say that "atheism" is a negative term is a concept that sits perfectly in a religious person's point of view. It's only a religious person who thinks that the lack of their (non-existent) crutch is a bad thing. The rest (few) of us can take it as an affirmation. It's just us.
Crying out loud, Terry Pratchett worked that one out.
... what, again, is the nature of Sam Harris's "spirituality" again, please?
Posted by: Troff | October 8, 2007 9:24 PM
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.
Cult-like? Atheist piety?
Wow! It turns out this Harris guy is a real jerk.
First he defends torture. Now he turns on atheists.
I think he needs to do some serious thinking about what he is all about.
Posted by: CalGeorge | October 8, 2007 9:29 PM
Posted by: leandra | October 8, 2007 9:33 PM
Thanks, PZ for articulating a lot of what I found wrong with Sam's speech as well.
Not only did he argue for dispensing with the label "atheist", he also said we should toss out Freethinker, Brights (well, not fond of that one but whatev'), et. al. too.
I got news for you, Sam. You're going to get called an ATHEIST by the Theists anyway, and then what are you going to do--deny it? Not me. Damn right I'm atheist.
Right now I'm reading _Without God, Without Creed: The Origins of Unbelief in America_ (New Studies in American Intellectual and Cultural History) (Paperback)
by James C. Turner (Author)
The most interesting thing is how Turner points out the FEAR of Atheism actually preceded the appearance of bona fide Atheists in any great numbers in Europe.
Even later, many Scientists in the 18th and 19th Centuries struggled to avoid being labeled atheist, many felt their research was necessary to ward off the bogey-man of atheism.
For me personally, finally becoming comfortable with calling myself Atheist, instead of wallowing in wishy-washy agnosticism, but making the affirmation of myself as an Atheist, understanding why I was an atheist, knowing the arguments, and appreciating the probabilistic nature of the universe (a very powerful tool Dawkins uses masterfully in the GOD DELUSION)...all of that was very empowering for me, and like heck I'm gonna give that up.
Nope, I am and remain a proud Atheist with a red capital "A".
Posted by: JJR | October 8, 2007 9:34 PM
Sorry, Reginald, Ellen is decidedly not hot, but she is absolutely right to criticize Harris.
Ditch the term "atheist" because some find it offensive? Fly under the radar and become invisible? Be nameless, voiceless, and isolated? Harris is spectacularly wrong and needs to be told so as often as possible!
Posted by: castletonsnob | October 8, 2007 9:34 PM
First he defends torture.
Defends it pretty well, I'd say.
Posted by: Jason | October 8, 2007 9:38 PM
Are you sure you meant to say that?
Posted by: Infophile | October 8, 2007 9:50 PM
If you want to see why Sam is right, just look at the majority of the comments on the Dawkins site. While I would not go as far as calling it a cult it has certainly taken the 'disgruntled minority interest group' path. What should be in the focus is reason as the default choice for any situation. Instead it has degenerated into a childish us vs them situation.
Reason is universal, atheism is just a special case. Emphasis on the atheism label will only isolate us and confine us. I'm aware that there are quite a few people in the atheism community that enjoy being part of a group whose main activity is congratulating itself on its intelligence compared to the rest of the world. I however do not fall into that category of people and it would seem neither does Sam Harris nor do a lot of other atheists.
By all means, walk around with your "Out" t-shirts and write angry letters to news editors in the name of the oppressed atheist minority. Just don't expect any understanding or support from people like me that think that advocating a rational methodology is more important than being a member of a self-righteous club with a label.
Posted by: Denoir | October 8, 2007 9:50 PM
It doesn't matter what you choose to call yourself, Sam. As soon as you start calling Christianity "religous superstition" you're going to get labelled as an atheist, whether you like it or not. And what are you going to do then? Insist you're not an atheist, even though you are? Or accept the label and make it your own?
Posted by: Chayanov | October 8, 2007 9:51 PM
Yes, really. They're deluded about one major part of the universe, but don't underestimate them.
Posted by: PZ Myers | October 8, 2007 9:51 PM
Just want to affirm, by the way, that I have read the transcript of Sam's speech in full.
Another rhetorical ploy Sam uses is that "well, people who oppose racism don't call themselves non-racist"
No, but if you're involved in activist culture, you darn well know what an Anti-racist coalition is.
Nobody would say Non-racist because everybody reasonably educated and honest with themselves knows that as tribal animals we humans are all racist at some level of our consciousness, and the more we raise our consciousness, become aware of our own prejudices and work on them, the better off we'll be. It also helps to come to the recognition that "race" is a social construct superimposed on a very fluid human biology that recognizes no such firm borders.
I also disagree with Sam about the "danger" of radical Islam...it IS a concern in Europe, yes; but here in the US of A, it's still radical Xtians that are the biggest threat to our Liberties. However much I may despise Islam's inflexible adherents, it doesn't ipso facto turn me into a supporter of Bush's war, as apparently it does for Hitchens & Harris, where I must break with both men.
While I loved LETTER TO A CHRISTIAN NATION without reservation, I found THE END OF FAITH at times quite infuriatingly wrongheaded many many times. I pressed on to the end of that book because he did have a few gems amid all the dross.
So for me to *gasp* disagree with Sam Harris on a point or two is nothing out of the ordinary. Some atheists have, I'm afraid, turned in to Harris's groupies and are engaging in a little hero worship, at least judging by some of the gushingly approving freethought podcasts I've listened to since the speech.
I understand the impulse to be contrarian and stir the pot & all; we've come to expect that from Sam. But sometimes he hits and sometimes he misses...this speech was a BIG miss, in my humble opinion.
Posted by: JJR | October 8, 2007 9:52 PM
#1...Yes, Nisbet comes to mind immediately on reading Harris. What Nisbet and Harris don't seem to understand is that folks who have a particular agenda to push (e.g. stem cells) often do a good job of PR quite intuitively, without coaching or "techniques". Harris's second question to the president is ludicrous...if you're single-mindedly focused on stem cell research, you're not going to inform the audience that you're also a Satan worshipper.
I do like Harris. Of the big name atheists, he's the only one who seems to acknowledge there's an internal world that can/should be explored without religion.
Posted by: ngong | October 8, 2007 9:56 PM
I took Reginald's comment as sarcasm.
And I partially agree with Jason. Sam defends torture well when saying that if you're ok with collateral damage, logically you're ok with torture. After that, he muddles himself in describing how torture might be ok outside of relative terms.
Posted by: Michael | October 8, 2007 9:58 PM
...in describing how torture might be ok outside of relative terms.
Huh?
Posted by: Jason | October 8, 2007 10:02 PM
Oh Denior... your assumptions speak louder than your words.
Posted by: Michael | October 8, 2007 10:04 PM
"Outside of relative terms", meaning that it's ok all by itself, not just when it's compared to something worse.
Posted by: Michael | October 8, 2007 10:05 PM
What? Because 'atheist' is a fixer-upper we shouldn't keep it. Certainly nobody has a ready argument to refute your claim to be a Siwksialwisksist, but I again don't see why this is a helpful. If anything, this suggestion reminds me of agnosticism and we're still suffering for that one. In fact, it's one of the ready arguments against atheism is the suggested reason to switch away from atheism. *sigh*
Posted by: Tatarize | October 8, 2007 10:11 PM
His questionable position on torture has nothing to do with the current debate. A person can be wrong about one thing and right about another. I disagree with Sam on many things but I do think he is spot on about the problems with the current atheist community.
Posted by: Denoir | October 8, 2007 10:26 PM
"What I found objectionable was his dismissal of the value of any kind of label or organizing point to rally around, and his specific snub of "atheism" as a word too negative to have any use."
Somewhere, somehow, all of this went terribly wrong.
I understand what Harris is saying. He's saying that there need not be a label attached to those people who require proof to validate ideas: this should be the default. Just as non-believers in astrology do not have their own label, so too should atheists (and we all know who they are) not need a label. It makes it seem as though atheism is *not* the default and therefore more easily dismissed as a specific, separate group of people with their own nasty agenda. I think that in striving for honesty, PZ misses his mark by suggesting atheism does not carry a negative tone with the general public. It does and as such, we do. Our message would be infinitely more effective if we seemed more like ordinary people (sans label) who were speaking out not because we had an agenda, but because we hold values all people should hold. I think PZ could agree with me that public image, as long as we hold the same atheist values, is everything.
Posted by: Overmann | October 8, 2007 10:27 PM
I thought Sam's point was simply that by putting so much emphasis on our lack of religious faith, we may be misleading stupid people into thinking that our convictions are consequences of our atheism.
I thought he was trying to say that we shouldn't argue that the reason why we believe abortion or stem-cell research or whatever is OK is because we are atheists. The problem is that people then say: "Of course you're pro choice, it's because you're an atheist!" We should make sure that people understand that these two things are not mutually causally related, but are rather both products of a single cause: rational thought. Most theists are too stupid to get that, and we often fail to spell it out for them because it's just so obviously true in our eyes.
I don't think that we atheists are some sort of community with a distinct set of values. We may all value rational thought, but again, atheism is just one of the inevitable consequences of that fact.
Maybe Sam wasn't trying to say all this, but I am. This has nothing to do with framing (yuck!). It's about making it clear that we want justice and fairness because we're rational human beings, not simply because we don't believe in god.
Posted by: Tea | October 8, 2007 10:32 PM
Denior, I was responding and adding to another comment about Sam's views on torture.
Posted by: Michael | October 8, 2007 10:36 PM
I was about to write something similar to Overmann's first statement. Harris was trying to say that there shouldn't need to be a term for the default of rationalism, and I agree with him there. There shouldn't be, in an ideal world.
However, I differ with him in his thinking that it's not needed. Sure, that would be the ideal, but we're certainly not in the ideal situation now. As it is, theistic thinking is the default, and we are therefore outsiders by definition. Until we get to be the norm, a term to describe us is needed for description, for cohesion, for being noticed, for making a difference in showing people that theistic thinking isn't a universal truth.
Posted by: Carlie | October 8, 2007 10:36 PM
I agree completely that we need not use the label, and that people can work effectively as individuals without it. There are no label police.
I have not said that atheist doesn't carry a negative tone with the general public. I have said exactly that, that it does. But what I have also said is that we need to work to bring the positive values of atheism to the forefront and invert the negativity.
Atheism does not have a negative tone to many atheists. It has definite utility in helping to bring together people of common interests and values, and I don't think that should be belittled. It doesn't matter if the word turns off some people -- those people will be turned off by us no matter what we call ourselves.
Posted by: PZ Myers | October 8, 2007 10:38 PM
While this does seem to be veering slightly off topic here, I do think torture would be justifiable if it saved innocent lives, or prevented the attacks of September 11, for example. All the evidence, however, seems to indicate that information gained under torture is unreliable, so it really is indefensible in that regard.
Posted by: castletonsnob | October 8, 2007 10:42 PM
PZ: I think that there is a certain degree of misunderstanding here when it comes to labels. I would frame the point like this:
If you get asked if you are religious, then of course you should say that you are an atheist. The label should however not be the ultimate defining characteristic. It's way too narrow.
What should define us is the demand for rational thinking when we encounter the irrational. And it doesn't matter if we are talking about creationism or homeopathy. Reason is our ally and it is a strong one as most people see it as a positive thing. If we engage in very specific attacks against people's pet beliefs then we need to descend to their level. Basing our arguments on a more general framework of reason gives us the high ground.
Posted by: Denoir | October 8, 2007 10:56 PM
Here's an interesting story:
Today I had Driver's Ed. Our teacher is an old school country-boy about 70 or so years old, very conservative. Now for all you Yankees out there (thats right, I said it) you should know that these guys invented the "can't teach an old dog new tricks" cliche.
Well everybody is out to lunch and I'm waiting for my mom to bring me food. (it did get there eventually, just so nobody worries) He starts talking about movies and how he wouldn't "walk from here to the door" to see a Michael Moore movie. Apparently, they'd been talking about political celebrities. When talking about Moore, he mentions "He's an Atheist you know."
[...]
I'm caught in a predicament, do I state loud and proud that I, too, am an atheist?
It may seem like a small thing to say in the safety of the internet, but that simple statement could do a lot of things. It could change my grade, keep me from a license, cause annoying tension in the room. None of which I want to deal with.
Or could I sit there and say nothing and just live with my own guilty feelings.
I did nothing. It didn't feel good. I just let him say it and move on. I didn't want to have to defend my thoughts, and I didn't want to deal with what some of my classmates would say or do. Like I said, it didn't feel good, I felt weak and overpowered, but when it comes to religion in small southern towns like mine, you learn to except opinions of those in positions of power and stay quiet about your own if they're to controversial. If it hadn't been a teacher I would've said something, but I prefer peace in my little baptist class (did I mention the class is in a church?).
The whole thing really hit me. There is still so much stigma in the U.S. about atheism or agnosticism. Being called an atheist at this point is like someone saying you have some sort of strange STD. Either you are pitied and they try to save you or you're told you will burn in hell and you deserve everything you get, or you are feared and treated like you personally assaulted the faith they hold so dear.
I just don't understand it.
http://www.thejesusmyth.com/hes-an-atheist-you-know.htm
Maybe Harris is right.
Stay under the radar.
Don't make a big stink about your atheism.
It's safer.
Posted by: CalGeorge | October 8, 2007 11:10 PM
From what I've gathered, it seemed like Sam was saying that we should not use the label 'atheist' as our defining characteristic. When it comes to a question of religion he should of course respond that he is an atheist.
And your point about using the label as a rallying point is quite valid.
However, many of the 'new atheists' (as we've been termed) who I choose to associate myself with these days do exactly what I think Sam is arguing against. It seems as if all of their convictions are derived based on their atheism. Almost everything is connected to that in some way. And it shouldn't be. I think that is the point Sam was trying to make by accentuating the two different methods of asking the same question. I accept evolution based on the evidence, not because I'm an atheist. Some 'new atheists' make it seem the other way around.
Posted by: The Ethical Atheist | October 8, 2007 11:17 PM
I am an atheist - but I would never lead with "I am an atheist" because lots of theists have very distorted views about what 'atheist' means. It's a conversation closer.
I think, when you are interpreting Harris or Hitchens, you have to adjust for hyperbole. It sounds like they are spouting noise - but that's just because the volume is too high. If listen generously there is sometimes a little signal in there.
In this case, what I think Harris wants to say is that if you use the word atheist, many otherwise reasonable people will hear "person who I should ignore". When someone asks if I am an atheist, I do a little Socratic dance and won't agree that "yes I am an atheist" until my interlocutor has agreed that 'atheist' means "someone with a rational worldview who doesn't believe in nonsense" or something suitable positive. Without the legerdelangue they might interpret 'atheist' to mean 'person without morals' - which gets me nowhere.
I wish The *Brights had chosen a less cringe-worthy moniker because the idea is sound. If you can reply to the question "what are you?" with something suitable obscure (but, hopefully, positive) that leads to an open ended discussion about worldviews without supernatural elements you can 'pull in' many a fence-sitter when 'atheist' would have pushed them away.
It's better to try to open people's minds than close them. I think that's what Harris was trying to say - clumsily - but it's hard to tell when his dials are always at 11.
* Naturalist' would have been good if it didn't make you thing of taking your clothes off (not that there is anything wrong with that). I might try 'rationalist' but it sounds a bit nerdy.
Posted by: Kevin | October 8, 2007 11:27 PM
Tea definitely seemed to sum up my thoughts on this matter rather well. I'm amazed at the amount of backlash Harris has received so far. If he hadn't built up his speech with all the controversial business I wouldn't have bothered to look twice.
Sam knows he can't escape the term Atheist and has no problems identifying with that particular group, he's simply arguing that we should attempt to make a clear distinction that our views as a whole (especially Atheism) are representative of our stock in rational discourse and intellectual honesty.
His hypothetical situation was a bit exaggerated as are most examples of that kind so as to more easily understand the point. He's not advocating that Atheists lie down and let everyone walk over them while observing the same old religious taboo's reign supreme once again, but to support Atheism while arguing on behalf of science, rationality, and the pursuit of truth.
Posted by: Michael Spear | October 8, 2007 11:30 PM
I liked how harris challenged his audience though...especially to at least think about trying to *stress the more reasoned/evidence based approach to as a template to conversation, rather than the more dismissive "i'm an atheist, i value evidence, you're a numbskull, this conversation is over" tack.
Yes i know sometimes you have no choice but to take the latter, however I find myself all to often taking this route when the former would benefit the people i'm speaking with more...The latter is the easy way out.
PZ as usual has great responses though..."the product of religious metaphysics and superstition" ~= "your book is wrong/crap" ~= "evertyhing/one you know is wrong/not_waiting_in_the_sky_for_you"
Posted by: hummus | October 8, 2007 11:37 PM
The label should however not be the ultimate defining characteristic. It's way too narrow.
why?
when pressed, every atheist I've ever spoken with reveals that they have spent time evaluating religious philosophies of various types, and simply rejecting them for logical flaws and lack of evidence.
using the stamp collecting analogy, the difference, in my mind, between an a-stamp collector, and a "non collector of stamps", is that the latter hasn't necessarily even bothered to investigate the claims of the stamp collectors, while an a-stamp collector has made a positive position statement based on actually evaluation of what it means to be a stamp collector to begin with.
Not only is the atheist term unique from "not defined", but a positive statement of non-acceptance from those who have spent time evaluating the rationality and logics and evidence involved is exactly what IS needed right now.
Sam's argument reminds me of the arguments Clarence Thomas made against affirmative action; that it was no longer needed in a "raceless" society. the problem being, of course, that we are a long way from a society where race really is meaningless to many. Similarly, someday it would be great to think that someones religious preference would be as "meaningless", but that most certainly isn't the case currently.
Sam is jumping too far ahead, to a state where the default would indeed be the rational, evidence based position, and that picking a religion would be analagous to picking purple with pink highlights for a hair color. IOW, it's kinda like a more wordy remake of Lennon's classic: Imagine. However, to get to that point, a much more positive assertion needs be made than that there is an ideal "null state" based on rationality.
Posted by: Ichthyic | October 8, 2007 11:39 PM
2nd para:
actually->actual
Posted by: Ichthyic | October 8, 2007 11:41 PM
But they're also highly sensitive to social signalling and the degree to which the implications of arguments favor or denigrate their favorite causes.
Putting out a position that doesn't actually state they're crazy, but inherently paints them as such, will enrage them completely.
Posted by: Caledonian | October 8, 2007 11:47 PM
not all of them, most assuredly.
However, they are ALL dealing with a handicap to a greater or lesser extent, that inevitably appears in their speaking and writing.
Collin's isn't stupid, for example, but he does have a handicap that reveals itself in some rather inane writings.
btw, I've been finding the "handicap" argument to be very conducive to enraging the religious.
Posted by: Ichthyic | October 8, 2007 11:53 PM
now why on earth did I put an apostrophe on Collins' name?
*shudder*
Posted by: Ichthyic | October 8, 2007 11:55 PM
But all of the sincere ones are idiots.
Posted by: Caledonian | October 8, 2007 11:55 PM
"Atheist" carries a negative connotation because people don't like that WE DON'T BELIEVE IN GOD. Let's give the theists a little credit; they're not just blindly reacting to a word. They have a genuine theological disagreement with us, and some of them have a moral disagreement with us, in many cases due to an ignorance of what we're really like and a lack of good examples. Pussy-footing around the fact that we're atheists isn't going to help that.
Ethical Atheist:
"From what I've gathered, it seemed like Sam was saying that we should not use the label 'atheist' as our defining characteristic. When it comes to a question of religion he should of course respond that he is an atheist."
Have you read the speech (it's linked in PZ's post)? I think Sam goes farther than that. If all he was saying was what you describe, I'd agree with it, too.
"I accept evolution based on the evidence, not because I'm an atheist. Some 'new atheists' make it seem the other way around."
Can you name one? I get a strong whiff of straw from this.
Posted by: jdb | October 9, 2007 12:11 AM
Imaginary conversation:
A. So, you don't believe in God?
B. No.
A. You're an atheist?
B. No. DON'T CALL ME THAT!
A. Why not?
B. It's a mistake - of some consequence!
A. What should I call you?
B. [exploding] We should not call ourselves anything!
A. [WTF?]
Welcome to the wonderful world of atheist self-hatred.
Posted by: CalGeorge | October 9, 2007 12:12 AM
Blasphemy! You will be excommunicated from the Cult of Atheism for that heresy!
Posted by: Eric Davison | October 9, 2007 12:14 AM
castle,
While this does seem to be veering slightly off topic here, I do think torture would be justifiable if it saved innocent lives, or prevented the attacks of September 11, for example. All the evidence, however, seems to indicate that information gained under torture is unreliable, so it really is indefensible in that regard.
I don't think "all the evidence" suggests that, but in any case torture does not have to be a reliable method of extracting true information for it to be useful and justifiable in "ticking time bomb" cases, just one that works sometimes. Broadly speaking, I would say torture of a prisoner may be justified under the following circumstances:
1. We have credible intelligence of an imminent but avertable large-scale threat (e.g., a ticking time bomb in a major city).
2. We have credible intelligence that the prisoner has verifiable information that would allow us to eliminate the threat (e.g., that he knows the location of the bomb).
3. Conventional methods of interrogation have been tried and failed.
I think this is basically Sam Harris's position too.
Posted by: Jason | October 9, 2007 12:34 AM
PZ: "It's puzzling to be accused of misreading Harris when his misreading of PZ Myers is so far off base;"
I dunno: I really did get the impression in your last piece that you were portraying Harris as an appeaser who is just telling atheists to shut up, and you really did pretty much skip the vast bulk of his argument (about why specifically atheism as a term and a banner is a distraction and complication of, well, attacking religious nonsense) to do so. And then here you are saying the same thing again: you say that he is "telling them to be quiet." I'd say that this is a pretty tortured interpretation of anything he's said, and he's quite legitimate in feeling that you misrepresented him.
"But what I have also said is that we need to work to bring the positive values of atheism to the forefront and invert the negativity."
The problem that you keep fumbling here is that "atheism" itself IS purely negative in the definitional sense: it's a group of people who aren't theists, not a proper group. There are no "positive values" of atheists in the sense that there are no particular values at all. Particular atheists hold values, and THOSE can be positive.
By running around declaring that atheism is this or that wonderful thing, you not only confuse most people, who have a hard enough time understanding what non-belief is through the haze of their own perspectives. I mean, they really do seem to think that we spend most of our time grimacing as we strain to NOT believe in God: that being an atheist is some sort of effort or thing in and of itself, as opposed to just being a human being who happens not to have a particular brand of superstition.
This is one reason why atheism is really not comparable to other banners: it's really very much NOT a natural group of people. There isn't a single cause I can think of, political, scientific, or even arguments directly against religious claims... that are only of interest or appeal to atheists alone. Religious believers can share all those causes: even, if they are particularly fair-minded agree that particular claims for religion are lousy (heck, even AiG has a "list of lies we should stop using for the time being."
And in any case, why the heck do you think we all spend so much time arguing with each other? (Actually on that, most people's guesses are probably right on: those most likely to reject religious belief are also likely to be highly critical and argumentative in general, instead of deferring to any particular someone's claims or authority)
Posted by: Bad | October 9, 2007 12:40 AM
That was good, Bad.
Bwahahahahaaa!!!
Posted by: Janus | October 9, 2007 12:50 AM
JJR wrote:
Am I wrong to be suspicious when one's beliefs give affirmation, pride, and a sense of empowerment?Posted by: cm | October 9, 2007 1:12 AM
There are no "positive values" of atheists in the sense that there are no particular values at all.
I rather disagree with that, for the reasons I stated in #38. Namely that atheists are not the "default" position Sam is describing, they are typically people who have actually spent time investigating the claims of religion from a logical and evidentiary standpoint, and found them to be false.
that's wholly different than ignorant of religion in its entirety.
In that sense it DOES represent a positive value of atheism; an atheist has spent time actively investigating the claims of the religious, and come to a conclusion about those claims based on the very values of reason and logic most consider of good, positive, value.
Posted by: Ichthyic | October 9, 2007 1:14 AM
Bad says:
Perhaps not in the purely clinical sense, but aren't the "New Atheists" trying to impart a different message? That atheists "value" investigation, rationality, reality over play pretend and mind control?
I see the point your making, but it seems to me that atheists are more of a group than the pure interpretation of the term would imply.
I also agree that the term has a very negative connotation with the fundies, but so what?
Are we to adopt a strategy of not openly calling ourselves atheists so we can sneak in the back door and spread rationality on the sly. Isn't that rather defeating the straightforward, fact facing, reality embracing mindset that we are trying to espouse? In fact, it sounds suspiciously like the tactics that the producers of "Expelled" used on the interviewees.
How are we to lead the way, being fearlessly rational and truthful, when the first thing we do is let the superstitious crowd choose what we call ourselves?
What is important is that we be the good guys, we are the honest ones. We do not quote mine, lie, distort facts, misinform. We embrace reality and shun living in a world of play pretend, so why pretend that we are not atheists? The label hits home, it gets to the heart of the matter, double quick time--and time's a'wastin'
We don't throw out "Critical thinking" just because the uninformed think it's about criticizing everything and being grumpy.
On the other hand, maybe there is a more accurate term than "atheist". That would be a valid reason for changing the label.
Posted by: RamblinDude | October 9, 2007 1:27 AM
Hey PZ, I saw your post on Dawkins site. You do actually have a guy named philos on your banned page.
And Ichthyic, I fully agree that there is quite a difference in the manner of "atheist", between those who are ignorant, and those who are versed (pun intended) on the topic.
Posted by: Michael | October 9, 2007 1:30 AM
I also agree that the term has a very negative connotation with the fundies, but so what?
exactly, and I believe this to essentially be the source of the negative reaction to the framing argument (a reaction i share, btw).
Posted by: Ichthyic | October 9, 2007 1:31 AM
Are we to adopt a strategy of not openly calling ourselves atheists so we can sneak in the back door and spread rationality on the sly. Isn't that rather defeating the straightforward, fact facing, reality embracing mindset that we are trying to espouse? In fact, it sounds suspiciously like the tactics that the producers of "Expelled" used on the interviewees.
agreed, so long as we continue to make it clear that atheism is the RESULT of the application of logic and reason, and not that atheism was the pre-conclusion simply "justified" by post-hoc analysis (which appears to be the conception of most theists I have met, in any case).
the fact that we must make this point clear, that atheism is the RESULT of the application of logic and reason, is exactly why I think Sam's thinking in this specific instance is at the least a bit premature.
Posted by: Ichthyic | October 9, 2007 1:36 AM
Yikes, I forgot all about him! Now that I've looked him up, oh yeah...he's a real piece of work. If he's pretending to be a fellow atheist on RD's site, he's trolling hard. This was a guy who rushed over here after the 35W disaster to claim that atheists shouldn't be upset at any loss of life -- he's a major scumbag.
Posted by: PZ Myers | October 9, 2007 1:50 AM
PZ Meyers comes across as whole heartedly disingenuous. Is it not obvious, whether one agrees with the Atheist terminology or not, that Meyers simply tries too hard to be iconoclastic and consequently falls flat, every time. To even criticize Sam Harris' response at the AAI conference is to beg attention, to direct the spotlight right back onto himself while consciously aware that his banter will be read and nothing more. PZ Meyers' every post is a memetic attempt at establishing some vacuous, personal longevity. This is all completely unrelated to what Sam Harris had actually said and PZ Meyers should honestly feel embarrassed by his inane response. Not to mention that he could ever consider himself at the same level as Harris intellectually. What's the point of the whole "Dangerous Ideas" make-up other than to present something that may or may not be of substance? It just seems where Sam Harris takes an intellectual step forward, PZ Meyers takes an infantile step backward.
Posted by: Beau H McLendon | October 9, 2007 1:57 AM
Yeah, I figured as much. You don't often bring out the "demented fuckwit" for no good reason.
Posted by: Michael | October 9, 2007 1:58 AM
I suggest derailing this thread with the topic- how old are children before they can walk backwards.
Posted by: Christian Burnham | October 9, 2007 2:00 AM
What a jerk that "Meyers" must be! Does anyone have the url for his blog?
Posted by: Russell Blackford | October 9, 2007 2:00 AM
Wow Beau. You truly are a study in ad homenim. Well done, well done indeed.
So now onto, that, uh, um, what's it called? Oh, substance.
Yeah, where is that again?
Posted by: Michael | October 9, 2007 2:02 AM
PZ Meyers comes across as whole heartedly disingenuous.
nope.
Is it not obvious, whether one agrees with the Atheist terminology or not, that Meyers simply tries too hard to be iconoclastic and consequently falls flat, every time.
nope. In fact, he often generates interesting counters that go far beyond just being "iconoclastic".
To even criticize Sam Harris' response at the AAI conference is to beg attention,
have you considered that those who think an issue important will attempt to call attention to criticisms, regardless of who they are?
Not to mention that he could ever consider himself at the same level as Harris intellectually.
ever heard of the term "ad hominem"?
Posted by: Ichthyic | October 9, 2007 2:02 AM
I've heard of one, Ichthyic. I just can't spell it...
Posted by: Michael | October 9, 2007 2:20 AM
yeah, I think Bullshitter McLendon's post was one of those "perfect definitions of the term" kinda things; one you point to when trying to describe to someone what the term means in practice.
note the subtle use of ad hominem in the above.
:p
Posted by: Ichthyic | October 9, 2007 2:29 AM
I keep wondering if the conflict over terminology usage would be resolved by introducing the term: anti-theist as a subset of atheists. Not that this hasn't been raised before.
anti-theists would be those devoted to removing the handicap of religion from conscious thought. Dawkins being a perfect example of an anti-theist, or PZ, or myself, for that matter. it would be an honest representation, at least, IMO.
and yes, it at least could more rationally be considered the "militant" position by theists.
then atheism could return to what it really represents, which is the lack of theistic beliefs, and could be isolated, stepwise.
Atheism being the result of a rational and logical analysis of theism, and anti-theism representing the course of action one might decide to take after making such a conclusion.
maybe we would stop hearing the ridiculous "new atheist" or "militant atheist" bullshit being repeated over and over?
they could then make their own new distinctions:
"militant anti-theist", which would make sense if applied to someone who took direct action against theist endeavors, for example (especially by force of arms - but are there any who actually fit this description?).
"political anti-theist", which would apply to those who decide to make a political issue of removing religion from politics (again, realizing that's actually supposed to be the default at least in this country).
"academic anti-theist", etc.
I like this, especially compared to the more aptly termed "militant theists", and "political theists" which are all too common currently.
Posted by: Ichthyic | October 9, 2007 2:53 AM
So I'm rereading Sam's transcript from Athiest Alliance and I'm beginning to see where some philosophical differences are leading to confusion. First he's taking the angle that atheism is not a thing. Much like non-racism is not a thing. But here, as some of us are pointing out, we begin our differences. Those who combat racism actually DO have a positve viewpoint. Not to simply stamp out racism but to promote equality. Equality is the very catch phrase of such a group. It becomes a worldview all it's own focused on educating the masses about racial divides that still haunt us and it is distinctly different from simply not being a racist.
Much the same for athieism. Those invloved in the current movement are not the same as those who are simply ignorant or apathetic towards religion, and reason and evidence are our watchwords. Atheism in this very practical sense is indeed a "thing".
We have in our midst the opportunity to redefine a word. To turn the idea of an atheist as not simply "one who lacks belief in a god" into the idea of one who lacks belief in anything that lacks evidence and atheism is simply the product of such a mind set. Thus taking us out of the appearance, as Sam argues himself, of seeming to only attack or focus on religion by th definition of our title. Sam, unwittingly, encourages us to drop that possibility altogether and "go under the radar", meaning (I have to assume this is what he means) under the "groups with titles" radar.
Lastly, nowhere does atheism dictate that I must be evenhanded. Those unconfirmed belief systems that do more harm will get more of my ire and attention than ones that do less. This is common sense. But in no sense does it mean that I'll spend equal time on all faith claims even if I disagree with them all equally. So it's just adding confusion to the table to bring it up.
For someone who's done so much to bring us closer to the atheist appearance that I'm talking about, I can only assume that it's Sam's lack of ever having had called himself "atheist", that leads him to treat the subject with such disregard.
Posted by: Michael | October 9, 2007 2:55 AM
Beaten to the punch again.
Anti-theist ain't too bad, I remember hearing philosopher Colin McGinn use it on The Atheist Tapes, but it does seem to lend itself even more to that "only negative views" canard heard so often, seeming to make it an ever harder P.R. case. Even so, I can't slight it for not ringing true.
Posted by: Michael | October 9, 2007 3:00 AM
but it does seem to lend itself even more to that "only negative views" canard heard so often,
roll back to the "should we care?" response.
I rather think the idea would be to have a term that is descriptive, and actually ATTRACTIVE of the very negative response some seem so fearful of.
It would take inappropriate rhetorical "heat" off of the term atheism.
so long as we continue to make it clear that "anti-theism" is not "anti-person".
it's a positive effort at increasing the acceptance of rational and critical thinking, not targeted at the "removal" of the religious themselves from society, if that makes sense.
How many times has PZ had to explain, for example, that he has no objection to someone who is religious and is also a scientist (had to even explain it to me more than once before it finally sank in some years ago). It's more like pointing out such a person is working with an anchor attached to their ankle.
so, the clarifications would still have to be made, but it at least would remove irrational pressure off of atheism in general.
Posted by: Ichthyic | October 9, 2007 3:10 AM
To say that "atheism" is a negative term is a concept that sits perfectly in a religious person's point of view.
It's a negative term because it indicates a lack of belief. It's a negative term practically by definition. There's obviously nothing wrong with being an atheist, but it's a shitty rallying point, as it doesn't promote reason, merely lack of one breed of unreason- and one need not even have good reasons for eschewing belief in gods.
"Athei