There is No God (And You Know It) - Sam Harris

Somewhere in the world a man has abducted a little girl. Soon he will rape, torture, and kill her. If an atrocity of this kind not occurring at precisely this moment, it will happen in a few hours, or days at most. Such is the confidence we can draw from the statistical laws that govern the lives of six billion human beings.

The same statistics also suggest that this girl’s parents believe -- at this very moment -- that an all-powerful and all-loving God is watching over them and their family. Are they right to believe this? Is it good that they believe this?

No.

The entirety of atheism is contained in this response. Atheism is not a philosophy; it is not even a view of the world; it is simply a refusal to deny the obvious. Unfortunately, we live in a world in which the obvious is overlooked as a matter of principle. The obvious must be observed and re-observed and argued for. This is a thankless job. It carries with it an aura of petulance and insensitivity. It is, moreover, a job that the atheist does not want.

It is worth noting that no one ever need identify himself as a non-astrologer or a non-alchemist. Consequently, we do not have words for people who deny the validity of these pseudo-disciplines. Likewise, “atheism” is a term that should not even exist. Atheism is nothing more than the noises reasonable people make when in the presence of religious dogma. The atheist is merely a person who believes that the 260 million Americans (eighty-seven percent of the population) who claim to “never doubt the existence of God” should be obliged to present evidence for his existence -- and, indeed, for his benevolence, given the relentless destruction of innocent human beings we witness in the world each day. Only the atheist appreciates just how uncanny our situation is: most of us believe in a God that is every bit as specious as the gods of Mount Olympus; no person, whatever his or her qualifications, can seek public office in the United States without pretending to be certain that such a God exists; and much of what passes for public policy in our country conforms to religious taboos and superstitions appropriate to a medieval theocracy. Our circumstance is abject, indefensible, and terrifying. It would be hilarious if the stakes were not so high.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-harris/there-is-no-god-and-you-_b_8459.html

"Militant agnostic: I don't know and neither do you."

Christians keep insisting that they do know and if you don't agree with them then something is wrong with you. Case in point: If you're not a born-again Christian, you're a failure as a human being - Jerry Falwell *

* Wikpedia Wikiquote. http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Jerry_Falwell

reasons for feeling superior.

I'd like to send one to the chimp but of course he doesn't read to good.

Has anyone read Harris' latest book? (Letter to a Xian nation)

just as relevant today as it was when it was written.

does not negate the existence of a God. Just because evil does obviously exist, does not mean that God does not exist.

On the other hand, I don't think that anyone has "proved the existence" of God either. God is a belief. A personal conviction. It is a choice that one makes is it not?

does not make that thing a fact, which current American society expects one to accept when it comes to our thoughts about God.

Because one does not believe in something does not mean it does not exist.

to be true. Simply because one cannot prove something, is not grounds for why something should be accepted, as we are expected to do today.

But if there was proof, we wouldn't need faith. All we have is testimony. It is up to each of us to decide if the witnesses are credible.

It's as if you're saying faith is more valuable than knowledge no matter what we know.

What standards and devices do you use to decide what to put your faith in?

The issue, as pointed out above, is expecting others to adopt the same unsubstantiated beliefs just because they feel strongly about them.

Choosing not to believe something, is expressing a belief that a thing is false. Simply taking a conceptual position, simply expressing a belief carries a burden of proof if you expect others to be able to understand, accept and share your beliefs.

You assert that those who hold disbelief have a burden of proof as well, and to back that up you use the quote that says, essentially, just because you believe something doesn't make it true.

The two have exactly nothing to do with one another.

For instance, the quote is referring to the notion that beliefs do not manifest objective reality. If I believe that all of our politicians are actually toasters, it does not make them into toasters. Likewise, if I believe in God, it does not mean that there is one (also, if I believe there is no God, it does not make it so on the basis of that belief).

The whole burden of proof issue is different altogether. If theists assert that there is a God, the burden of proof lies with them to show that God does exist. The burden of proof does not lie with those who have simple disbelief. To paraphrase a famous argument...

I assert that there is a small teapot in an elliptical orbit around the sun between the earth and mars. Additionally, I claim that this teapot is so small that it cannot be detected with even our most powerful telescopes. You assert that I am mad, to which I respond "Can you prove me wrong?"

No, you can't. The burden of proof doesn't lie with the teapot disbelievers. It lies with the person making the assertion. Weak atheists are like the teapot disbelievers - they're just not buying the story.

I was thinking along the lines of dis-proving something that you can support with objective evidence - like data. Not a pure assertion. But first let me explain my thoughts.

As far as the God thing goes, I think that believers are out of luck. There simply is no evidence - or data. For me, that is all the proof that I need. God cannot be proven to exist or not to exist. There is no supporting evidence either way but what evidence there is, in my mind, leans heavily in favor of no God or at best, a completely indifferent God.

But consider, if someone presents something that they believe is proof, something that they claim clearly demonstrates the existence of God - how do I convince them that they are deceived? How do I help them to see that they are mistaken? How do I convince them that my truth is the truth? Certainly not by shouting in their face. I must accept a burden of proof to disprove something that is clearly a deception to me, but that someone else has taken as reality. This does not mean that I accept their assertions.

But I do think that in general, you cannot disprove - or prove - a belief unless you have some data that supports your belief. Lets for a moment call a belief a hypothesis or a scientific theory. As far as disproving a scientific theory, yes, you do have the burden of proof if there are substantial data that supports that theory. You just can't say "I don't believe it" and expect to have the support of your peers in a scientific community.

I'm in no way being hostile or upset. I'm sorry if you got that from what I wrote.

IMO, if someone believes in something for which there is zero evidence, then I'm not sure how you can convince them otherwise. Of course you won't convince them by yelling at them, and I don't think I've seen anyone here suggest that you should try to convince people that way. I don't really think that the burden of proof is even operating here, because people who believe in things that there is no evidence for are no longer operating on things like logic and evidence.

when people believe in things without any proof at all, they are operating in another place.

But some people think they have proof (miracles, jesus's face in french toast - whatever).

How does a civilized society reconcile that some people have these kinds of faith, and that some people don't? It seems to me that both sides, and everyone in between, would be happier if they find common ground instead of differences. Convincing one side or the other that their beliefs are false is probably futile. But, should attempt it, you implicitly assume that burden of proof no matter which side of the fence you are on.

Personally, I think folks can believe whatever the hell they want. And I expect to be able to hold my own beliefs without being persecuted. When government starts to fall in line with religionists and bible thumpers and starts passing legislation that reflects their religiosity, I think we have a right and a duty to be concerned.

How does a civilized society reconcile that some people have these kinds of faith, and that some people don't? It seems to me that both sides, and everyone in between, would be happier if they find common ground instead of differences.

We would absolutely be happier if we could find common ground. In my opinion, there is a great deal of common ground between all of us here, but it seems that each time I try to point that out I get knocked around a little bit. Subsequently, I've just stopped trying to point it out.

Convincing one side or the other that their beliefs are false is probably futile. But, should attempt it, you implicitly assume that burden of proof no matter which side of the fence you are on.

Faith is independent from a system of rational thought. No arguments are won (and many are lost) by saying "It's true because I really really really really really believe in it!" Conversely, no arguments are won against such individuals by making rational, evidence-based arguments. I could sit around all day and point out inconsistencies, paradoxes, and philosophical catch-22's involved in belief in god and none of it would matter much to someone for whom faith is the bedrock of their beliefs. It just doesn't matter. Likewise, if someone were to try to convince me that god does exist because they just know it's true, then I'm not going to be swayed very much.

I don't think that by asserting your disbelief in the sin theory of disease that all of a sudden you have to prove that it isn't the case. If I say that the tooth fairy lives in my ass, then the burden of proof doesn't fall to you to disprove me if you think I'm full of it. The burden of proof has always stayed with me to demonstrate the veracity of the claim. More aptly, let's say you claim the tooth fairy lives in my ass. It doesn't fall on my doorstep to show how that's a false claim - it is your responsibility to show that the claim is true (or at least, tenable). If it ever occurs (and somehow I don't think it ever will) that the existence of god is somehow proven to be true, then the burden of proof will shift to atheists and agnostics - a mighty hurdle indeed.

Personally, I think folks can believe whatever the hell they want. And I expect to be able to hold my own beliefs without being persecuted. When government starts to fall in line with religionists and bible thumpers and starts passing legislation that reflects their religiosity, I think we have a right and a duty to be concerned.

I think people can believe whatever they want to insofar as it does not infringe upon my rights to live my own life. If people want to be Christian, that's just fine - but then don't block stem-cell research, tell me I can't have an abortion or choose euthanasia, or attack the evolution. If people want to be Muslim, that's just fine - but then don't strap bombs to your chest and fly planes into buildings, don't murder your recently raped relatives, and don't riot and kill people when someone draws a picture of Muhammad. I think when beliefs get to that level of hysteria, we should take the kid gloves off.

I think that one of the things that makes this country great is it's secular nature. Unfortunately, as you point out, the current administration is trying to destroy the wall that has traditionally separated church and state.

Do you choose to believe unicorns don't exist, or do you just not believe in them because of the lack of evidence for them?

Not believing in something is not the same as believing that something definitely doesn't exist.

The burden of proof is on the asserter, not those who do not accept the assertion. Or do you think the courts should force defendants to prove they are innocent when accused?

You're absolutely, 100% wrong on this.

Burden of proof is a legal term. Look at the evidence, look at your life, believe what feels right. Quite simple.

trying to convert someone. In that case, you are trying to impose your belief (or non-belief) on me & I will throw you off the posrch as I have frequently done with the Mormons.

that not believing in something means it doesn't exist. I wish I could say the same for theists.

kinda like a Star Trek plot, what if things we believe or disbelieve are true (or nor) for us?

That's about as metaphysical as I get. It's your lucky night!

Typically a lucky night for me would involve finding a twenty dollar bill in my pants pocket - no such luck here though. I'll take what I can get.

There are certain things that can be true for us. For example, it is a true statement that I like cookie dough ice cream, and there is no external truth relating to that statement. It's not as though you can conduct some sort of statistical analysis and claim "Aha! It is true! He really does like cookie dough ice cream!"

There are objective truths, however, that exist independent of our belief systems. For example, my believing 2+2=5 doesn't make it true for me. It's still false, and I'm just mistaken. Even if I really really really believe in it, and even if I really really really think it's true, it still won't make it any less incorrect.

Likewise, I assume there is an objective truth regarding the existence of god. Either god exists, or god does not exist. There's no half existing and half not existing. Despite that I really really really really believe that god doesn't exist, it doesn't mean that the objective truth of the matter is that he doesn't. Ditto for the theist perspective.

and then pee and smell a strange smell? I've noticed that for years. But my husband says I'm nuts. So I went to the repository of all knowledge, the Internet, and researched it. It turns out that everybody's pee smells after they eat asparagus, but that not everybody has the receptors to smell it, and it is genetic.

That's rather analogous to my theory of God. I think that God is an internal force, rather than external. I think some people have the ability to tune into that vibration and some don't. I think that some can develop it with practice, like making muscles bigger. But it think that some folks will never have the ability because of the wisdom of evolution. In order to survive as a species, we need people who have it and people who don't. We need balance. The folks who have it are no more valuable than those who don't, but perhaps they have a greater responsibility to use it wisely. This does not always happen.

But I still like asparagus.

isn't an external truth at all? If that's the case, then there is a disconnect between claiming you can feel the presence of God and claiming that God is an objective truth. If God is an internal perception, then there's no external fact of the matter about it (or rather, there is - God doesn't exist outside of your perceptions).

FWIW, I used to believe in God. I was a dyed-in-the-wool Baptist who had a personal relationship with jesus christ. Hooo boy I believed. I know of religious experiences, and I used to get them in church (I guess that might be the vibration you speak of). Funny thing is, I notice them in other parts of my life that have nothing to do with the supernatural or the metaphysical.

That is why so few religionists will speak out against even the weirdest of cults, because they know that the cult's beliefs are no less valid than their own - anc conversely, their beliefs are no more valid than those of the most bizarre flying saucer sex cult.

I just wonder what everyone is so afraid of.

Death

Insignificance.

what I want. I just don't go there because my faith is vital to me. So I don't go poking with sticks at someone else's.

You have a right to believe anything you want. But beliefs dictate behaviors, and some peoples' beliefs predicate bahaviors like raping 13 year old girls and calling it marriage, castrating themselves for transcendence, and committing suicide at the behest of the leader. Or detonating suicide belts in crowded markets.

But don't criticise them. They are just as likely to be right as you.

when people who survive horrendous accidents, or happen to escape being killed by the newest news-making maniac, say "God saved me."

My response is generally "fuck you." If God saved YOU, why the hell didn't he save the others too? I think it's offensive to even hear this crap.

I tend to be agnostic, in that I don't believe in any kind of personalized, anthropomorphic deity and think revealed religion is all a bunch of superstitious drivel. That doesn't preclude a belief in something greater than ourselves--our planet is one such being, the universe is another.

But Christianity? How is it any less ridiculous in the end than the belief that we're some alien science experiment? Answer...it's not.

Like I also find prayers that our team will win offensive.

Kinda like saying, after the "big game" that "God was with us."

Sure. There were just too many heathens and heretics on the OTHER team.

What a crock.

Life in the cauldron continues...

Do laws exist? I've not seen some laws, but I've experienced the effects of their existence.

Sure, one can look up and view man's written record of a law, but how do I know that the written record is accurate? How do I know the records are complete?

And how do I know that my actions really express the "spirit" of the law?

Answer.....Law enforcement.



Does God exist? I've never seen God, but I've experienced the effects of his existence(creation).

Sure, one can look up and view man's written record of God, but how do I know that the written record is accurate? How do I know the records are complete?

And how do I know that my actions really express the "spirit" of God?

Answer....My conscience.


Can God be physically detected or measured?

Are there "things" on this earth that you can not see, hear, touch, taste, smell, or measure with current scientific instruments?

If you said "no", then good luck trying to prove it.

If you said "yes", then good luck trying to prove it.

That still doesn't mean they don't exist.


Still, why would someone choose to believe in something for which there is no physical measurement? Why would someone believe in the existence of something simply because of what appears to be superstitious writings of people who lived thousands of years ago and has been used to influence more wars, death, and hatred than any other influence in the course of recorded history? Why?

Brainwashing?

Forced submission?

Lack of intelligence?

Mental illness?

Mindless tradition?

Is this really what we think of those who believe in God? And, how do we plan to solve these problems? By mandatory education(brainwashing), punishment(forced submission), drugs to treat the mentally challenged or mentally ill, or by isolationism (mindless tradition)?


or is it Human nature?

If it is human nature to believe in God then will we eventually evolve, or become victims of natural selection?

In a million years or so will we humans evolve into a superior creature that has no genetic tendency to believe in God.

Until then, God exists in the minds of billions of people.

So what do I know?

I don't think chimpanzees worry much about Religion/Theology. If any chimpanzees are posting here, they haven't confessed to it. I suppose that makes chimpanzees superior creatures to humans. (But dogs are even better!)

Evolution never goes in any particular direction. Existence is the only measure of fitness. A creature is, or it isn't.

It's a very messy world, and I think there is tendency for all people to find order and meaning in things that are essentially meaningless, whether or not they believe in some religion. Humans have achieved great success by their cooperative behaviors, but we still have a tendency to band together and take from people we don't see as members of our own tribe. Every one of us has a bloody minded pirate inside, struggling to expand our own tribe at the expense of others.

If I said I advocated the death of the United States as a nation there are people who would be just as offended as if I said I advocated the death of a religion. Both are ingrained and utterly identical tribal responses. It has nothing to do with Patriotism or God, however loudly we proclaim that.

And all told, I do believe U.S. nationalism is more dangerous than religion. The Pope isn't sitting on a stash of nuclear weapons, does not command armies, but a gang of corrupt thugs in Washington D.C. certainly does.

How many utterly innocent people has the Bush Administration directly killed so far? Maybe it's nationalism that's the problem, not religion, that we can't see the real monster in the mirror.

:nuke: :patriot: :nuke:

Thank you for sharing your thoughts.

You're right, that's what we need, God enforcement. Are you sure you are at the correct web site?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=214&topic_id=28751

It got to 356 replies, and was locked as flame bait. Just so we know what most people will say.

"Just so we know what most people will say."

Or avoided it.

:P

and has a right to his positions. However, he is so SURE. He says it is "obvious" there is no God. Well, Mr. Harris, I'm not an idiot and to me, it's OBVIOUS that there is. So just where does that leave us? Do we take IQ tests? Duke it out in the schoolyard?

Intolerance is the thing that is stupid. My neighbor collects teacups. I think that's stupid. But I don't say anything about it. Now, if she picketted for our voting rights to be based upon the number of teacups we have amassed, I would fight it. But I still wouldn't say she was stupid.

I just don't trust anyone without a healthy dose of flexibility. As a matter of fact, as a teacher of gifted kids, I can tell you that flexibility is a marker of superior intelligence.

As it often turns up in the phrase, "Obviously, you hate America!" Most of the time it's used for things that are not obvious. Bill O'Reilly uses it a lot. That should be a clue.

If god's existence were obvious, he would have a kiosk set up in the public square, where you could drop in, chat, get your three wishes, or whatever.

Literally is another word that is often misused, as in, "She literally bit my head off!"

Things that are truly obvious are things like gravity, and the sun. I'll assert that Harris is on solid ground if he says that god is not obvious.

--IMM

but very "obvious" to many of us.

:)

--IMM

It's obvious that chocolate is the best flavor of ice cream. And it's obvious that "Heat Wave" by Martha and the Vandellas is the greatest single track ever recorded. And it's obvious that an oxford shirt without a button down collar is incomplete. It's so clear... :)

--IMM

The article makes certain assertions which are way off in left field. While reading it, it becomes increasingly evident that narcissism crosses theocratic boundaries.

Sorry....but if you tend to agree with this guy, then I suggest that you spend some time studying what the Bible really says.

Hint: Historical Christianity has got some things wrong, so read it yourself and do your own thinking.

So what are you sorry for?

--IMM

I tried to find some common ground, but overall I did not like the article. But I did try.

To say "I'm sorry" was my way of expressing my disagreement while expressing the fact that I did indeed put out an effort.

I'm sorry, I just could not swallow that pill.

I did read your post above, and on the one hand, I understand your sentiments. But on the other hand, you don't get much further than that you don't like Harris' thesis, and that you feel differently.

There is not much common ground where your emotional argument is up against a logical argument.

Let me welcome you here to DU. :hi: And I should also explain that this particular forum can be a rough place. (I call it the arena.) And if you will indulge me, every argument here is equally good, whether it's right or wrong, because it's yours. Be aware that there are other groups around where particular beliefs are not subjected to being taken apart, if you like that sort of thing.

--IMM

haven't read the bible, but because they have. As a general rule I find atheist much more well educated in scripture than I ever find Christians who are. Personally, to have any kind of meaningful conversation about theology I have to go visit the local priest here which I do about every couple of weeks.

My experience's with Atheists and Christians is the same as yours. I study the Bible everyday and my wife and I spend hundreds of hours a month discussing it. We have not found a church we can agree with, but we enjoy most of what we hear from Messianic Jews.

to a Torah study group at the local temple here and I find I really enjoy it. People there actually discuss the bible instead of trying to beat dogma into your head.

It ain't the parts of the bible that I don't understand that bother me. It's the parts that I do.

I'm not sure what Mr. Twain's problem was. Do you?

I'd be happy to address any concerns. I love the analytical puzzeles the Bible is so notorious for. It can be a difficult read, but the rewards are worth the hours of work I put into it.

Kinda like that old computer game "Myst". A bit of Sherlock Holmes and deductive reasoning. Right up a Math major's alley. I used to love word problems.

That Twain's issues with the bible the same ones that many people have with the bible. Speaking for myself, I have moral problems with the parts of the bible (particularly the old testament) that legitimizes slaughter, slavery, hatred, misogyny, and bigotry.

Somebody made it up. I'm more familiar with the Old Testament because I am a Jewish atheist. And I find the bible to be a fount of wisdom, history of culture and thinking. I can refer to some of its stories to make an elegant point. But most of it is just not real. If you take it to be literally true, then you have an historical narrative that applies to then, and has no bearing on now.

Things like conscience and some of the legends in the bible preceded its existence. Something to mull over: Moses brought down the commandment to not commit adultery. What was the purpose of marriage before that?

--IMM