Wishful thinking

In his article, Religion as a Black Market for Irrationality, Sam Harris lays out his case against religious belief. [1]  It must be noted that two other articles tie in to this one, which I hope to address in coming blogs.  These articles are offered by the author of the text book, About Philosophy, by Robert Paul Wolff, who describes himself as an atheist.  What exactly is Harris arguing for in the article?

It is the belief of Harris that religions believe as they do without rational grounds to do so.  Harris states, "This constraint upon our thinking has always been a problem for religion.  Being stocked stem to stern with incredible ideas, the world's religions have had to find some way to circumvent reason." [2]  According to Harris, the circumventing of reason comes by way of faith.  Faith in Harris' mind is always a blind faith, but is this how faith is defined in the Bible?  Are individuals within the Christian religion expected to blindly follow whatever their tradition dictates?

What is faith?  Does faith mean that individuals are deluded as wishful thinkers?  Faith properly understood can be viewed as belief based upon reality.  What Harris seems to confuse is the difference between proper faith and belief.  Belief does not necessary have a justifier, whereas true faith in anything must have a justifying  anchor.  In this case, faith is not blind, but can be justified as right belief.  When Harris insinuates that faith in religion is blind, he is constructing a straw man argument, while at the same time asking his audience to blindly accept his statements.

In order for faith to be real and true, evidence must exist to support it.  Faith in the Christian God comes through numerous avenues to support the religion's beliefs.  The apostle John makes a statement of faith by saying, "That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched—this we proclaim (1 John 1:1)."  John makes a faith statement based on evidence.

In his article, Harris gives a six point plan on how one can be deluded to belief in God:

1. First, you must want to believe in God.
2. Next, understanding that believing in God in the absence of evidence is especially noble.
3. Then, realize that the human ability to believe in God in the absence of evidence might itself constitute evidence for the existence of God.
4. Now consider any need for further evidence (both in yourself and in others) to be a form of temptation, spiritually unhealthy, or a corruption of the intellect.
5. Refer to steps 2-4 as acts of faith.
6. Return to 2.

What Harris presents in his six point argument is nothing more than a bloated straw man.  Concerning point one, couldn't one say that, "You must want to believe in the non-existence of God."  Would that statement make Harris' argument valid?  It seems that wanting to not believe in God would settle everything from the get go, in Harris' mind.  But, where is the evidence in that statement, that Harris is so fond of?

Harris wants to have his cake and eat it too.  He is willing to disparage religion without himself offering any evidential proof to refute it.  In reality, Harris is the one who bases his belief on the blind faith of atheism, because he is unwilling to show how religion, particularly the Christian religion does not match with the evidence.  Harris concludes the article by saying that religion has a "diminished contact with reality."[3]  Really, Mr. Harris, is that true, or simply wishful thinking on your part?

[1]  Harris, Sam, Religion as a Black Market for Irrationality as  found in About Philosophy, p. 338
[2]  Ibid
[3]  Ibid

Ethics Without God

Atheist, Kai Nielson wrote an article with the above title.[1] Recently, I watched a video by Atheist, Sam Harris titled, "Science can answer moral questions." I would like to make a few comments on Harris and what I took from the video.

First, Harris belongs to a group who refer to themselves as the "New Atheists." The new atheists are slightly different in that they have a passion for ridding the world of all religions. They see no distinction between Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, or any other religious group. Their perception is that religion causes harm to the human race, and therefore, it needs to be extinguished. Some of the prominent players of the new atheists include, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, and Richard Dawkins.

The video of Harris lasts about 20 minutes and he makes a passionate plea for a new way to do Ethics. First, It should be stated that Harris obviously does not believe in God or in any type of Supernaturalism. Because of this belief, he believes that moral values are the product of the brain, which he so states in the video. Secondly, Harris seems to be promoting the philosophical view of utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is a philosophical belief that "all action should be directed toward achieving the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people."[2] In order to make his point In the video, Harris compares Muslim women who wear burkas, verses women who are scantily clad. In his judgement there must be something better in between. He also implies that corporal punishment is wrong, but homosexuality is OK.

This brings me the the third point which I see as the overall goal of Harris and some of the new atheists. At one point, Harris remarks that, "we need a universal concept of morality." I believe what Harris wants is a governing body that determines what is morally acceptable and what is not. If this is the case, then it goes beyond cultural relativism (where cultures decide what is moral) and heads right to a universal relativistic world. Relativism posits that, "truth and moral values are not absolute but are relative to the persons or groups holding them."[3] In this case, those in power decide what is right and what is wrong. A universal relativistic world would make all the ethical decisions, since God does not exist and needs to be terminated on the new atheists view point.

What Harris and others are really advocating is nothing short of complete intolerance of any religious group. They have decided that all religions are bad without even inspecting the validity of each on its own merits. They (new atheists) are not interested in truth, but are more than willing to have others bow to the god of scientism. Scientism is the view that science, and only science, can give us meaningful knowledge of how things really are. In the end, ethics without God, becomes a form of self-worship that can only be spread by way of oppression.

* To see the video click here
[1] Nielson, Kai, Ethics Without Religion, from Louis Pojman's Ethical Theory, p. 619-624
[2] Utilitarianism
[3] Relativism

Sam Harris and the New Atheists

The "new atheists" differ in their outlook from the old atheist because of their fervent passion to see all religions, not simply be quiet in their religious claims, but that all religions are extinguished. Sam Harris is leading the charge. He is quoted as saying that, "If anyone has written a book more critical of religious faith than I have, I'm not aware of it."1

There are seven tenants of the "new atheists." Some of the tenants seem to overlap one another. The seven tenants are as follows:

1. Nature is all there is. There is no God, soul, or life beyond death.
2. Nature organized itself, it is not the product of a Supernatural Being.
3. The universe has no purpose or meaning.
4. All explanations must be understood from the position of scientific naturalism.
5. All living things are the result of Darwinian evolution.
6. Faith in God has resulted in untold evil and should be rejected on moral grounds.
7. Morality does not require belief in God. People behave better without faith than with it.2

It is the belief of Harris that only "the end of faith" holds any promise for saving the world.3 In the coming blogs I would like to examine the 7 tenants of the "new atheists" in John Haught's book, God and the New Atheism. I will also examine some of the other major players within the movement.

1 Sam Harris - An article titled "Radical Mysticism" which can be accessed on-line at:

www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=library&page=harris_25_6
2 John Haught, God and the New Atheism, Introduction pages xiii-xiv
3 John Haught, God and the New Atheism, p. 8

* for a good review of Sam Harris and others in the new athiest movement: http://www.garyhabermas.com/articles/J_Evangelical_Theological_Soc/habermas_JETS_Plight_of_new_atheism_critique.htm