I've enjoyed reading the comments of Harris, he is of course correct. Expounding a little, New Orleans is a good example. Not only did god not help them, I think it was Shaw who said, "To pray is to ask that god change the laws of the universe for one person, who is admittedly unworthy." Not only do the people not get the god swooping down from the clouds to help them, but more importantly, they robbed themselves of their own innate strength to deal with problems. This is the essence of humanism, trying to strengthen and embolden people to use their own talents and intelligence to help themselves. The primary problem with religion isn't that people are foolishly waiting for big daddy, it's that it robs them of their own strength, ability, intellect etc, and turns them into whiny, sniveling, nauseating toddlers.

God gave man free will. It's not His fault that some chose to live in a hurricane prone area. Hurricanes, earthquakes, forest fires, and other natural disasters are an important part of nature. They clear out the deadwood and allow new growth to occur.

Western democracies with a Christian heritage are the most dynamic and vibrant societies in the world. It is those nations whose national religion was or is atheism that robbed their citizens of "their own strength, ability, intellect, etc."

"The primary problem with religion isn't that people are foolishly waiting for big daddy, it's that it robs them of their own strength, ability, intellect etc, and turns them into whiny, sniveling, nauseating toddlers."

-- But is this true? Is there evidence to suggest that religious people are less self-reliant and intellectual and more "infantile" than atheists? Or is this just something you *believe* to be true.

The trouble I have with the Harris/Alkon "admitting the obvious" position is its implication that atheists don't rely on belief in unprovable claims. Amy, do you, for instance, believe that people have rights? I certainly don't think that one needs to be a religious person to believe in rights, but I *do* think that any defense of the idea of rights ultimately entails claims that are unprovable.

What of the so-called Prime Mover Theory, saying that God is the "prime mover" and that nothing else really can be said of the nature of God other than that he/she/it/whatever set things in motion, as all things seem to need a cause?

To believe in God is one thing, to believe God intervenes in human affairs is another. A belief in God, that God exists, or God/god/gods or whatever, does not entail believing in either divine intervention or even divine benevolence on the part of the divinity/ies. The Greek philosopher Epicurus believed that the gods were as interested in human affairs as humans are in the affairs of ants-- a curiosity, but nothing more, and when the interests of ants clash with those of the gods, there is no contest-- the ants are swept aside. So, he advocated that one should strive to better oneself and one's life experience, seeking lasting happiness (that did not include debauchery, etc.-- many people misuse the pharse "Epicurean delights") in life and hoping for a good experience. His approach therefore urged a sense of civic duty, reasonable chance-taking, and conservation of one's energies for the betterment of others and oneself. There's a lot to be said for this approach.

The argument thus is not against the existence of God/gods/divinity. It is against the presumption that God has certain qualities: benevolence, a tendency to intervene in human affairs for the better, etc. As for me, if anyone cares, I believe a Prime Mover(s) exist, and that this P.M. operates/operated outside the standard laws of cause and effect (as the PM him/etc-self would thus be said tohave needed a creator), but I am ready to accept that some force, a divine force of some kind ("divine" in the sense of super-natural relative to humans, beyond our ken to fully appreciate the nature of it, etc.), powers the reality we live in, in all its complexity. Beyond this, I cannot say what is going on.

I repsect the efforts of all who strive to learn and understand more, but I reseve a great deal of skepticism about the accuracy of any of their conclusions. After all, as one Zen master said when asked "What happens when a person dies?", he replied: "I don't know, as I am not dead yet. Ask me when I'm dead, I may know then -- but don't expect a reply from me!"

Same thing applies in principle in this case. Ask what is the nature and will of God/gods/the divine, but really, do you expect to get a reply that transcends the limits of your human comprehension? And if so, can you trust it to fit accurately into your perceptions?

Life, God, etc., these are all mysteries. No amount of study will dispel them and even if it does so for someone, it doesn't help *you* any. We're all in this together, and at the same time, alone. Weird, huh? Yeah, but not much we can do about it.

Oh good heavens
now i remember why i stopped blogging here
To nash bridges: your comments are simply wrong, but I don't have the time to correct you on everypoint. as to the nations with atheism as their national religion, garbage, Hitler was a devout catholic who had the catholic hierarchy blowing him on a regular basis. of course many idiots claim he was an athiest.

As to the other entity, yes entity, I have conducted double blind, placebo controlled experiments in my very own garage, that prove conclusively that the religious are feeble idiotic sniveling cocksuckers. It was published in JAMA. Unless you have something intelligent to say, please don't bother me. I mean really, do you know who I am? Jesus fucking christ.

assuming they exist -- which they don't -- it's obvious that god is a mean motherfucker and jesus was cool. god is a paternalistic republican, jesus a nurturing democrat. taken individually, each is only half of the path we need to follow in order to become independent and whole. most of mankind however is too full of shit to get it right. we are our own reward.

sorry -- typing too quickly in the previous comment. didn't mean to imply that jesus wasn't real. god however is a figment of our imaginations and like second-hand-smoke, which gives you cancer just standing there, should be outlawed. when are we going to grown up? mankind does not need a loving or fearful god to motivate us to care for each other, which is the imporant thing.

unfortunately, in this country the line between church and state is getting so blurred by the wingnuts that even my super windex can't clear up the glass.

that's the question to ask every potential appointee to the supreme or any court, or candidate for any office. have your religious if you must, but: do you believe in the separation of church and state? yes or no. yes or no?

Nash and Artemis, thoughtful posts. "everybody hates chris" Volkay, nice display of acting on your feelings, david too.

David, don't apologize for the jesus thing
The christian's leading man never did exist, pure mythology as surely as Zeus or Mithra or Osiris. When you look at the mythology it becomes quite clear.

Mithra and Osiris, among others, predate Jesus by 500 to 1000 years. And yet, they both had 12 disciples, virgin births, walked on water, rose from dead, son of god and on and on the laundry list goes. Poor, little Jesus is just re-worked mythology like the flood story. Read Gilgamesh. In fact, the entire bible, like all so-called holy books is simply horseshit. From Adam and Eve to Noah to Jesus it's all just re-worked mythology, none of it's real. It's actually quite clear.

And why all of this? Mundis vult decipi-Latin for, the world wants to be deceived. And so it has been, and so it will be.

Or in the words of the great Edward G. Robinson, "where's yer Moses now??????"

I hope Jesus existed, because I really like most of the message attributed to him. But as the old saying goes, nothing ruins the truth more than stretching it.

"We are our own reward." Brilliant.

Writing the bible had to be like the movie business, just on parchment.

i have no problem with religious people. if religion teaches people morals and gives them purpose, i'm all for it. what i can't believe is that people would abdicate responsibility for their own lives and say, "it's all in God's/Allah's/Zeus's/FSM's hands." these people disturb me.

Y'know, it's starting to seem like nobody ever gets into the atheism business as a way to be warm to people. Marx called religion "the opiate," so at least in some glancing way, he acknowledged that people who turn to religion do so because they're hurtin'. But too many atheists respond to this cry of pain by piling on with the frostiest ridicule thay can muster. Why is that? It can't be any rational appraisal of the threat that Christian fundamentalism brings to their lives... Here in LA we're at much greater risk from urban violence than from Jerry Falwell's proscriptions. There are only so many hours in life to spend worrying about stuff. Is the misplaced faith of your fellows how you want to spend them?

i look at god like a parent, my parents let me do all sorts of stupid shit so i would learn real fast to cut it out, i belive god gave man free will, some thing by which we as humans can rise above our instincts as mere animals,

and a consequnce of free will means he aint gonna help you out, you gotta help yourself

Sigh...all manner of justification for believing in the Imaginary Friend. Believing "god" did anything is utterly silly. Do you believe your toaster gave man free will as well? Because there's just as much evidence supporting that. Why are people not embarrassed to say they believe in stuff that's utterly unsupported by reality? Just because a lot of other people do, too? Scary.

Simon says...I mean, god says...jump off a bridge! (Are you hunting for your water wings now?)

"Simon Says" understates the magnitude, and value, of the rules.

Amy, which specific commandments do you have a problem with?

Amy,

I'm still not quite understanding the smugness. You can congratulate yourself for not believing in the Imaginary Friend all you want, but you seem to be suggesting that you yourself don't believe in things based on claims that are ultimately unprovable. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm assuming you believe people have rights. Could you point me to the evidence that supports the idea of "rigts"? I'm not aware of any, but maybe I'm just grossly ignorant. Enlighten me.

If, on the other hand, you want to argue that one doesn't have to believe that "rights" exist in order to understand the positive impact that the concept of rights can have on a society which adheres to that concept, on what basis do you ridicule those who make the same argument about religion?

We have a Constitution. It exists. You can see it with your eyes, and you could even touch it, except that it's under glass. The words in the Constitution grant us rights -- permitted, protected modes of behavior.

Nobody is contending (least of all, me) that rights run around on legs starting floods and killing or sparing four-year-olds. Again, right is a rule or principle, set down by society, or simply understood between people, guiding behavior by and/or among people.

What's really depressing is that I need to explain this to you. Isn't this covered by rudimentary look-so-you-don't-get-hit-crossing-the-street logic? Shouldn't be?

Moreover, as far as simple "do unto others" behavior goes, if you read about "reciprocal altruism," a theory in evolutionary psychology, and related theories, you'll see rational reasons most people don't just steal, rape, and murder (they're likely to get thrown in jail or maimed or killed themselves). It's in people's self-interest to behave well.

Again, nobody contends that rights are sitting up in the clouds moving people around like chess pieces. Well, nobody rational, anyway. Of course, we rational people are in limited supply these days. Neoprimitives, unfortunately, (literally) rule.

Artemis, you might subscribe to the Skeptical Enquirer or read a bit of Albert Ellis, Bertrand Russell, or Sam Harris, just for starters. Like all humans, you have the ability to reason. Why not use it?

at one time people belived the world to be flat and the grain of sand to be the smallest thing in creation, now we have theroies of particles smaller than atoms, accordinf to quantum mechanics matter is created and destroyed almost constantly below the sub atomic level in apperant violation of general physics conservation of matter

do i have proof that god exists, if i did i would share it, thats unfortunatley why it is called faith

but until we have learned all there is to know about the universe all posibilities are probable

peolpe put there faith in science, just look at the studies of black holes, nothing but conjecture based on our limited changing knowledge of the universe, and yet the "findings" are taken as verified facts

mabey there is no god and we are all deluding our selves, it is the most logical conclusion

but there is something about humans that allows us to tranced ordinary animal behavior

i do agree with you however that religion is a dangerous thing to soceity, i allways find it amazing how people who preach love and understanding are most often the most intolerant hateful people in the world

Faith is a polite way of saying "I'll believe in something without evidence." Do you believe in unicorns, purple dinosaurs trotting down the freeway, or if I tell you I'm going to take a flying carpet to the cafe today instead of driving there in my car? Of course not. But you've been shoveled all this text by religious leaders and you question none of it -- despite equally ridiculous (if not more ridiculous claims). Well, gotta run. I think I should part the Pacific Ocean so the homeless people can cross over to Hawaii before I get writing. If you had a standard of evidence like you do for the rest of life for your belief in god, you'd never believe in god. What you've done is suspended your mind in this one area.

the constitution does not GIVE us rights. our rights, the rights all of humanity has, are natural rights. we have them because we are alive and self-aware. whether there is a God is irrelevant to the question of whether we have them; we do. what the constitution does is specify what rights are given to the government. the bill of rights, part of the constitution, specifies what rights may never be taken from individuals by the federal government, i.e. freedom of speech, of assembly, and free practice of and from religion, etc, so long as the constitution is not further amended. it was included as amendments because the original document would have not been signed without these rights specifically set aside. these rights existed before the document was signed, and have always existed. to what extent they were and are surrendered to the government in other countries and at other times does not take away from the fact that humans have always had these rights since we recognized ourselves as human.

a good article by, horror of horrors!, ann coulter, about the nomination of harriet miers. in it, she argues that bush's nomination was foolhardy, and that he should have nominated someone (conservative, of course) that actually had the academic and judicial chops to serve on the highest court in the land, rather than a faithful lieutenant whose abilities and qualifications are somewhat lacking. linky

p.s.: the 'target="new"' function isn't working, on both ie and firefox. any idea why? maybe my html skills are diminished. or i'm not as l337 as i thought.

Well, G, tell that to somebody in China, that they have freedom of speech; say, to the guy jailed thanks to Yahoo's collaboration with the Chinese.

i'm just saying it's a natural right. our constitution guarantees it for us, but does not give us that right. i'm agreeing with you that nothing The Jesus ever did gave us rights. i'm just pointing out a subtle difference between your assertion and what the founders were asserting when they declared independence from britain. if the chinese have a problem with their government, then they need to take up the matter. i'm sure the person you are referring to feels slighted, as he did have the right, the government is just repressing it.

argh, it looks like my response disappeared. so, round 2. forgive me if this ends up being a DOPPELPOST!

amy, the constitution merely guarantees us that right, it does not give it to us. i'm agreeing with you that nothing The Jesus ever did gave us rights. i'm just pointing out the difference between your assertion and the one the founders were making when they declared independence from those limey bastards.

the government of china does not guarantee to protect an individual's freedom of speech, but it does not detract from the fact that it is a natural right that he has. it has just been forfeited to the whims of the government. our government may be a little messed up, but, hey, at least we ain't china!

Sometimes you have to refresh the browser to see the post. Freedom of speech isn't a natural right, but a danger, and it's been so throughout time. That's why it needed to be spelled out in the Constitution, and doing so isn't superfluous.

Amy, you seem to be avoiding the issue, and your puerile insults don't really do you credit. Are you arguing that the U.S. Constitution *grants* us rights? If so, do you believe that the citizens of, say, North Korea, don't have rights?

By the way, I'm well aware of the arguments of evolutionary biology regarding altruistic behavior, etc., but you seem to be misunderstanding my point. Evolutionary biology may explain (or attempt to explain) why human beings generally may behave "morally," but it can't really explain why particular individuals *should* behave "morally." Are you seriously suggesting that an invidual moral code may be based entirely on provable claims? Can you *prove* to me, for instance, that I shouldn't buy an SUV? (Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that I don't give a damn about dead soldiers and egrits with black lung disease, and that I have no children and am only thinking about my own short-term pleasure)?

[quote]but it can't really explain why particular individuals *should* behave "morally."[/quote]

organized religion does just as poorly explaining *why,* i.e. 'cause if you don't, God will be angry!' this is unsatisfactory at best, especially considering that the world has a plurality of religions, and across the board they have vastly different beliefs. at least utilitarianism, ethical egoism, kantian ethics, et al don't also have the requirement to believe in silly fairy tales.

g*,

But you'll note that I'm not claiming that organized religion necessarily does any better explaining why -- just that it doesn't really do any worse. Since *any* moral/ethical system ultimately relies on claims that are unprovable, I see no reason for Amy's (or Sam Harris's) smugness. And I see no reason that, say, Kantian ethics is less dependent on silly fairy tales than natural law theology (though you and Amy and and anyone else are free to believe in them or not believe in them as you wish).

P.S.

"organized religion does just as poorly explaining *why,* i.e. 'cause if you don't, God will be angry!'"

-- That's a tad reductionist, don't you think? Or are you so supremely confident that thousands of years of intellectually rigorous theology can be boiled down to that simple phrase? If so, aren't you engaging in the same kind of reflexive, anti-intellectual, unnuanced argument that those benighted religionists engage in?

it's called a strawman. like it? at least i didn't stoop to puerile, sophomoric name-calling... oh wait, i just did.

the problem with arguing that morals come from God is that there happens to be a lot of variations on the whole 'God' thing, and what God wants depends upon where you are from, unless you don't happen to get along with your parents or you meet some awesome missionaries. It has the same pitfalls as cultural relativism, but at least the latter doesn't have the whole eternal damnation thing if you happen to guess wrong.