10 myths -- and 10 truths -- about atheism

10 myths -- and 10 truths -- about atheism
By Sam Harris, SAM HARRIS is the author of "The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason" and "Letter to a Christian Nation."
December 24, 2006

SEVERAL POLLS indicate that the term "atheism" has acquired such an extraordinary stigma in the United States that being an atheist is now a perfect impediment to a career in politics (in a way that being black, Muslim or homosexual is not). According to a recent Newsweek poll, only 37% of Americans would vote for an otherwise qualified atheist for president.

Atheists are often imagined to be intolerant, immoral, depressed, blind to the beauty of nature and dogmatically closed to evidence of the supernatural.

Even John Locke, one of the great patriarchs of the Enlightenment, believed that atheism was "not at all to be tolerated" because, he said, "promises, covenants and oaths, which are the bonds of human societies, can have no hold upon an atheist."

That was more than 300 years ago. But in the United States today, little seems to have changed. A remarkable 87% of the population claims "never to doubt" the existence of God; fewer than 10% identify themselves as atheists — and their reputation appears to be deteriorating.

Given that we know that atheists are often among the most intelligent and scientifically literate people in any society, it seems important to deflate the myths that prevent them from playing a larger role in our national discourse.

1) Atheists believe that life is meaningless.

On the contrary, religious people often worry that life is meaningless and imagine that it can only be redeemed by the promise of eternal happiness beyond the grave. Atheists tend to be quite sure that life is precious. Life is imbued with meaning by being really and fully lived. Our relationships with those we love are meaningful now; they need not last forever to be made so. Atheists tend to find this fear of meaninglessness … well … meaningless.

2) Atheism is responsible for the greatest crimes in human history.

People of faith often claim that the crimes of Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot were the inevitable product of unbelief. The problem with fascism and communism, however, is not that they are too critical of religion; the problem is that they are too much like religions. Such regimes are dogmatic to the core and generally give rise to personality cults that are indistinguishable from cults of religious hero worship. Auschwitz, the gulag and the killing fields were not examples of what happens when human beings reject religious dogma; they are examples of political, racial and nationalistic dogma run amok. There is no society in human history that ever suffered because its people became too reasonable.

3) Atheism is dogmatic.

Jews, Christians and Muslims claim that their scriptures are so prescient of humanity's needs that they could only have been written under the direction of an omniscient deity. An atheist is simply a person who has considered this claim, read the books and found the claim to be ridiculous. One doesn't have to take anything on faith, or be otherwise dogmatic, to reject unjustified religious beliefs. As the historian Stephen Henry Roberts (1901-71) once said: "I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."

4) Atheists think everything in the universe arose by chance.

No one knows why the universe came into being. In fact, it is not entirely clear that we can coherently speak about the "beginning" or "creation" of the universe at all, as these ideas invoke the concept of time, and here we are talking about the origin of space-time itself.

The notion that atheists believe that everything was created by chance is also regularly thrown up as a criticism of Darwinian evolution. As Richard Dawkins explains in his marvelous book, "The God Delusion," this represents an utter misunderstanding of evolutionary theory. Although we don't know precisely how the Earth's early chemistry begat biology, we know that the diversity and complexity we see in the living world is not a product of mere chance. Evolution is a combination of chance mutation and natural selection. Darwin arrived at the phrase "natural selection" by analogy to the "artificial selection" performed by breeders of livestock. In both cases, selection exerts a highly non-random effect on the development of any species.

5) Atheism has no connection to science.

Although it is possible to be a scientist and still believe in God — as some scientists seem to manage it — there is no question that an engagement with scientific thinking tends to erode, rather than support, religious faith. Taking the U.S. population as an example: Most polls show that about 90% of the general public believes in a personal God; yet 93% of the members of the National Academy of Sciences do not. This suggests that there are few modes of thinking less congenial to religious faith than science is.

6) Atheists are arrogant.

When scientists don't know something — like why the universe came into being or how the first self-replicating molecules formed — they admit it. Pretending to know things one doesn't know is a profound liability in science. And yet it is the life-blood of faith-based religion. One of the monumental ironies of religious discourse can be found in the frequency with which people of faith praise themselves for their humility, while claiming to know facts about cosmology, chemistry and biology that no scientist knows. When considering questions about the nature of the cosmos and our place within it, atheists tend to draw their opinions from science. This isn't arrogance; it is intellectual honesty.

7) Atheists are closed to spiritual experience.

There is nothing that prevents an atheist from experiencing love, ecstasy, rapture and awe; atheists can value these experiences and seek them regularly. What atheists don't tend to do is make unjustified (and unjustifiable) claims about the nature of reality on the basis of such experiences. There is no question that some Christians have transformed their lives for the better by reading the Bible and praying to Jesus. What does this prove? It proves that certain disciplines of attention and codes of conduct can have a profound effect upon the human mind. Do the positive experiences of Christians suggest that Jesus is the sole savior of humanity? Not even remotely — because Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims and even atheists regularly have similar experiences.There is, in fact, not a Christian on this Earth who can be certain that Jesus even wore a beard, much less that he was born of a virgin or rose from the dead. These are just not the sort of claims that spiritual experience can authenticate.

Atheists believe that there is nothing beyond human life and human understanding.

Atheists are free to admit the limits of human understanding in a way that religious people are not. It is obvious that we do not fully understand the universe; but it is even more obvious that neither the Bible nor the Koran reflects our best understanding of it. We do not know whether there is complex life elsewhere in the cosmos, but there might be. If there is, such beings could have developed an understanding of nature's laws that vastly exceeds our own. Atheists can freely entertain such possibilities. They also can admit that if brilliant extraterrestrials exist, the contents of the Bible and the Koran will be even less impressive to them than they are to human atheists.

From the atheist point of view, the world's religions utterly trivialize the real beauty and immensity of the universe. One doesn't have to accept anything on insufficient evidence to make such an observation.

9) Atheists ignore the fact that religion is extremely beneficial to society.

Those who emphasize the good effects of religion never seem to realize that such effects fail to demonstrate the truth of any religious doctrine. This is why we have terms such as "wishful thinking" and "self-deception." There is a profound distinction between a consoling delusion and the truth.

In any case, the good effects of religion can surely be disputed. In most cases, it seems that religion gives people bad reasons to behave well, when good reasons are actually available. Ask yourself, which is more moral, helping the poor out of concern for their suffering, or doing so because you think the creator of the universe wants you to do it, will reward you for doing it or will punish you for not doing it?

10) Atheism provides no basis for morality.

If a person doesn't already understand that cruelty is wrong, he won't discover this by reading the Bible or the Koran — as these books are bursting with celebrations of cruelty, both human and divine. We do not get our morality from religion. We decide what is good in our good books by recourse to moral intuitions that are (at some level) hard-wired in us and that have been refined by thousands of years of thinking about the causes and possibilities of human happiness.

We have made considerable moral progress over the years, and we didn't make this progress by reading the Bible or the Koran more closely. Both books condone the practice of slavery — and yet every civilized human being now recognizes that slavery is an abomination. Whatever is good in scripture — like the golden rule — can be valued for its ethical wisdom without our believing that it was handed down to us by the creator of the universe.

[piercehawkeye45]

1) The term "life is meaningless" can be taken so many ways. Right now I agree most with Existentialism, which is where you have to give yourself meaning on a personal level.

2) Personally I would consider the genocide of the Native Americans the worst crime in history and that was brought on with religion.

6) Every group has people that are arrogant.

[DanaC]

I thought that was really interesting. Thanks for that rkz.

[Yznhymr]

Sam Harris is an intolerant, ignorant fool.

[piercehawkeye45]

http://atheism.about.com/od/aboutath...atheism101.htm

Here is another site explaining atheism.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by Yznhymr

Sam Harris is an intolerant,

Heh, this almost seems like a parody of the word intolerance:

Originally Posted by wikipedia

He promotes instead a conversational intolerance, in which personal convictions are scaled against evidence, and where intellectual honesty is demanded equally with religious and non-religious views.

ignorant

This is a book review by Sam Harris about a very silly book.

fool.

A bunch of begging-the-question Bible quotes.

[Yznhymr]

Intolerant was actually in reference to: "Harris has been criticized by some of his fellow contributors at The Huffington Post. In particular, RJ Eskow has accused him of fostering an intolerance towards faith, potentially as damaging as the religious fanaticism which he opposes."

in·tol·er·ance
Function: noun
1 : the quality or state of being intolerant

No parody here.

Ignorant - SH calls himself ignorant in the article: "Any intellectually honest person must admit that he does not know why the universe exists. Secular scientists, of course, readily admit their ignorance on this point."

Fool: Atheism is defined by Webster's New World Dictionary as, "1. the belief that there is no God, or denial that God or gods exist. 2. godlessness". An atheist, therefore, is a person who believes that there is no God. The Bible confirms this in Psalm 14:1 - The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by Yznhymr

Fool: Atheism is defined by Webster's New World Dictionary as, "1. the belief that there is no God, or denial that God or gods exist. 2. godlessness".

An atheist, therefore, is a person who believes that there is no God. The Bible confirms this in Psalm 14:1 - The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.

I am not trying to attack you but that is a horrible definition and makes atheists to be something they are usually not. If you do not collect stamps do people consider yourself someone who "doesn't believe in collecting stamps or someone who denies collecting stamps"? No, because most people have no intention of collecting stamps in the first place and many atheists are the same way. They are not the anti-religious stereotype that atheists are made out to be, but usually just never had any intention of being religious. Remember, the only atheists you will hear of are the anti-religious kind. Do not assume that is the norm.

Atheism is not a negative to religion but just has nothing to do with religion in the first place. If religion wasn't so common there shouldn't even be a name for atheists the same way we don't have a name for someone who doesn't have a hobby.

The best definition for an atheist is "someone who does not have a religion or a non-theist". Adding "denial of God or denial of religion" adds a negative connotation.

[Yznhymr]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

They are not the anti-religious stereotype that atheists are made out to be...

Excellent statement, I agree with that. However Sam is a bit different, isn't he? He intentionally attacks religion (all of them). I find it boorish when people have to attack others to take a stand for what they believe. Atheism is a label, just like Christians, Muslims, etc. Right or wrong, we all generally define a person once one of these labels is on them. I'd say all of these three I have mentioned are usually referred to negatively from another's position. I personally do not like attacking a person's religious or non-religious position. Your definition is a whole lot better than Sam's. And the fool reference is only for Sam and not the Atheist community as a whole. My apologies for any unintentional inference this may have caused.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

I am not trying to attack you but...~big snip

A little off topic, but in the honorable Tradition of Cellar thread drift... Why is disagreeing, even vehemently, considered an attack on the poster?

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by Yznhymr

Excellent statement, I agree with that. However Sam is a bit different, isn't he? He intentionally attacks religion (all of them). I find it boorish when people have to attack others to take a stand for what they believe. Atheism is a label, just like Christians, Muslims, etc. Right or wrong, we all generally define a person once one of these labels is on them. I'd say all of these three I have mentioned are usually referred to negatively from another's position. I personally do not like attacking a person's religious or non-religious position. Your definition is a whole lot better than Sam's. And the fool reference is only for Sam and not the Atheist community as a whole. My apologies for any unintentional inference this may have caused.

Its okay, I disagree with those actions as well. I try not to be anti-religious but it is very hard sometimes because Christianity is the norm and can be very forceful. Whenever you get a minority that is discriminated against (atheists are the most mistrusted minority, and probably misunderstood, in America) you have to expect them to fight back but I think some people take it way too far and hurt their cause.

Originally Posted by xoxoxobruce

A little off topic, but in the honorable Tradition of Cellar thread drift... Why is disagreeing, even vehemently, considered an attack on the poster?

Good point, I think I said it because I was disagreeing with something that wasn't Yznhymr's idea and some people get very offended when it comes to religion. I like the idea of disagreeing not being considered an attack though.

Originally Posted by Yznhymr

Sam Harris is an intolerant, ignorant fool.

Wikipedia can be written and edited by anyone, it is a fake encyclopedia backed by nothing.
Really? He teaches one should believe what one sees or what one is explained by those who have credibility for truth based in fact not superstition.
Sam says there is no reason to respect ideas that you do not accept or agree with, but one can still respect the person that holds that idea. Some people have problems with this. Tough.
What is your definition of a fact?

The Bible confirms this in Psalm 14:1 - The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.

Confirms?
The Bible also confirms that bats are birds, snails melt, and the Earth stands still on pillars, this is fun.:p

[Yznhymr]

Yea, it's fun...I was in a rare mood this past weekend. In some pain and was floating free on meds...think I might have tried to stir a little crap up. Glad I didn't make too much of a mess of it. And I like your quote about "but one can still respect the person that holds that idea."

[richlevy]

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

As the historian Stephen Henry Roberts (1901-71) once said: "I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."

That is a wonderful quote.