Among the Non-Believers

The tedium of dogmatic atheism.

Chris Lehmann from the January 2005 issue

(Page 2 of 2)

How can it be that the 9/11 suicide bomber, whose spiritual principles and hateful political practices are denounced in the highest reaches of mainstream Islamic observance, is "a man of perfect faith," and that the innocent victims of those attacks, Muslim, Jew, Christian, Jain, or Hindu, are automatically symbols of defiled secularism? Harris' protracted 9/11 set piece isn't even a credible account of how the religious world was affected by the terror attacks (let alone responded to them); so much the less is it the hard and fast measure of "all pretensions to theological knowledge."

It's obvious, of course, that a certain derangement of Muslim dogma prompted these men into terrible action, but there are also, again, more complicated forces in play, involving (just for starters) the ruinous course of Israeli-Palestinian relations, the deeply antidemocratic and dissent-resistant political traditions of the Middle East, and a Saudi monarchy and gerontocracy propelling many middle-class young men to the religious fringe. None of these by itself is an explanation of any of the hijackers' behavior, but neither is something that is--in the actually existing real world, if not in Harris' imagination--as broad and variegated as "faith."

It's necessary to insist upon this point in some detail because Harris, as it happens, is only getting warmed up with the 9/11 scaremongering. He's ready to roll up his sleeves and endorse pre-emptive assaults on both individual bad believers and dangerous Islamist regimes by any means necessary. In a world-class show of "this hurts me more than it hurts you" disingenuousness, Harris makes it clear that the fault for this state of affairs resides entirely with the believers he thinks we may have to kill. "Some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them.

"This may seem an extraordinary claim, but it merely enunciates an ordinary fact about the world in which we live. Certain beliefs place their adherents beyond the reach of every peaceful means of persuasion, while inspiring them to commit acts of extraordinary violence against others. There is, in fact, no talking to some people."

If we must, more in sorrow than in anger, expunge Islamist thought by offing its adherents one by one, so we must also gird ourselves for the big coming conflict with a nuclear-armed Islamic power, which prompts Harris to flights of hypothetical fancy worthy of Herman Kahn (if not Dr. Strangelove's Gen. Buck Turgidson). After all, Harris reasons, "There is little possibility of our having a cold war with an Islamist regime armed with long-range nuclear weapons....Notions of martyrdom and jihad run roughshod over the logic that allowed the United States to pass half a century perched, more or less stably, on the brink of Armageddon."

Cautioning further that we would never know the actual whereabouts of such lethal weaponry in the hands of a Paradise-addled Islamist power, Harris presses blithely on to the unthinkable: "In such a situation, the only thing likely to ensure our survival may be a nuclear first strike of our own." He of course allows that this opening feint of pre-emptive war could trigger a "genocidal crusade" among the Islamic world's nuke-wielding imams, but to paraphrase our Vietnam strategists, sometimes you have to destroy a planet in order to save it.

In any event, it was the believers who started it. Calling this course of events "perfectly insane," Harris once again didactically marvels at how our own pie-eyed tolerance of faith has brought us to this grimmest of all passes: "I have just described a plausible scenario in which much of the world's population could be annihilated on account of religious ideas that belong on the same shelf with Batman, the philosopher's stone, and unicorns."

Here again, Harris glides right by historical precedent--a well-advised move for his argument, since the only power that has used nuclear weapons on civilian populations (up to and including the zealots in Pakistan and India who now belong to the nuclear club) is our own secular, Enlightenment-bred American republic, steeped in pragmatic self-regard far afield from faith-induced deliriums of jihad and martyrdom. And its war-ending rationale in 1945 was very much of a piece with the shoot-first reasoning of Harris' current doomsday scenario. Presumably, it meant a great deal to the dignity of Hiroshima and Nagasaki's incinerated citizens to reflect that they were being sacrificed not to mad faith, but to the prerogatives of a properly calculated nuclear assault, on the part of a Western power that was only rationally pursuing a marginal military advantage.

It is a notorious hazard of the village atheist's vocation to mimic many of the worst features of the dogma he obsessively denounces. That certainly is the case with The End of Faith. Harris wishes to convict religious belief of mulish literalism, while attacking its tenets in the most bluntly prosaic and anachronistic terms he can muster. Harris attacks the believing world's maudlin wish fulfillments and faulty logic--and winds up exploiting lurid imagined scenarios of the final moments of 9/11 victims as an argument-stilling tactic. Harris excoriates the religious worldview's foreshortened use of fact and evidence, and produces ahistorical, misleading summaries of the most basic features of Muslim belief, geopolitical conflict, and religious thinking generally.

Most tellingly, The End of Faith derides the callow apocalyptic temper of the monotheistic traditions, while effectively seeking to bully readers into accepting nuclear Armageddon as a justified response to rampant fundamentalism. Lord knows there's plenty to criticize, and be alarmed by, in today's religious scene. But even if we posit with Harris that faith is itself "the enemy," then it behooves any tough-minded strategist to know the enemy. And while I'm far from a believer myself, I'd also suggest that it behooves any village-atheist counselor of high-stakes nuclear conflict to ponder the Psalms of Pogo, in which it is written that we have met the enemy, and he is us.�

Page: < 12

Reason needs your support. Please donate today!

Try Reason's award-winning print edition today! Your first issue is FREE if you are not completely satisfied.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment or disable your ability to comment for any reason at any time.

|2.17.10 @ 10:51AM|#

"Never mind that, among the world's one billion Islamic believers, the vast majority of clerics and lay Muslims renounce the politicized brand of Islamist dogma that extremists seek to inflict on Muslim and non-Muslim populations alike."

evidence?

|8.3.10 @ 9:34AM|#

Reason Magazine? How about Rationalization magazine?

When, as an Atheist, one faces repeated attempts by "The Faithful" to pass of Creationism as Science, and insist that Social Engineering from them such as "Abstinence Only" programs actually work, when all they accomplish (from every study) is more pregnancies and STDs; one faces a certain amount of frustration and angst against a group who has a disproportionate amount of power and no evidence in which to back up any of their claims.

There is also the passing of "Christian Laws" laws based on a rather badly written Holy book, such as forbidding Gays to marry, anti sodomy laws.

Would not Libertarianism also state that it is none of the Governments business who marries who?

First you mention the percentage of Americans that believe in a Deity, without mentioning the percentage of Americans who believe in Ghosts and Alien visitors. Or even mention the percentage of Americans who actually make it too church, or the youth who are not believing this nonsense.

You then play the old card of Communism killing people in the name of Atheism when, in fact, they killed people in the name of Communism. They just happened to be atheist also. You'll find Atheists in America and more Atheistic countries worldwide to be comparatively crime free.

Then there's the "Nazi Card" forgetting to mention the Hitler often used "God" in his speeches Germany was/is a Christian Nation, and on the belt buckle of every German soldier was the statement "Gott Mitt Uns."

As for number of people killed, one may look at a growing technology and perhaps look at (a somewhat grim) of kills per Capita, in which I suspect that Christianity comes out ahead. Though I would have to check the numbers I would also believe that the head count from Christianity far exceeds any from Islam.

You do not look at the current Islamic situation in any sort of Historical context, and seem to forget that not that long ago Christianity was not that different.

Since when has Darwin been a Bust? It is one of the best supported Facts in science.

The Enlightenment brought on thinkers such as Voltaire and Hume whose ideas and word led to Democracy!

I also believe I read in one of your articles that Atheism was a belief system in itself, which it is not.

Does not believing in Ghosts even have a name?

Does not believing in Zeus constitute a belief system?

Believe what you wish, for that I do not care, however keep your Christian "morality" too yourself, and quit trying to pass of the book of Genesis as an equivalent to Science.

As with all Conservative "thinkers" now a days all I see from this magazine is unsupported claims, and "facts" without a reference to back them up.

genesis|1.2.11 @ 12:04AM|#

they didn't just happen to be atheistic. communism for the soviets and maoists was atheistic. the article's larger point was that you can't do what Sam Harris did, write a scathing indictment of religion, without simplifying it to the point that it is no longer recognizable as such.

can you explain what you mean by "current islamic situation?" You seem to have an eerie deterministic view of history.

nfl jerseys|11.8.10 @ 1:49AM|#

gsfrgf

CHEAPWOMEN UGG BOOTS|11.24.10 @ 3:55AM|#

grasped in Chestnut Ugg Boots Online Store aces to draw power from the winter. Apparently, these Ugg Boots Outlet boots can be achieved with their adversity quiet in winter

CHEAPWOMEN UGG BOOTS|11.24.10 @ 3:58AM|#

market abound Sheepskin Boots Sale boots . Whether you are the man appeared or not, and you assume in exact detail the use of fashion or not, there is no accountability to the women as capable as men who are embarrassed by the winter or not. Our ambition is to validate the Cheap women Uggs margin we might not be an architecture today

CHEAPWOMEN UGG BOOTS|11.24.10 @ 4:12AM|#

and anniversary, it has the color, and the achievements arising from the appearance is enough effort itself accoutrement. Ugg Boots Online Store issues in this affectionate big crave this winter that the acceptance of Ugg Sheepskin Boots is extremely remote a bit

John|2.9.11 @ 1:36PM|#

Whether or not most religious people are violent and fundamentalist really is not the issue. Religion encourages violence and mistrust of science. The fact that most of their adherents ignore the worst parts of their texts (like the part of the Hadith that says apostasy should be punishable by death) does not speak to how good religion is; these people are good IN SPITE of their religion, NOT BECAUSE OF IT.

Any good thing a religious person can do, an atheist/secular person can do just as well. In fact, it's arguably MORE moral when an atheist is doing it, because they don't need an invisible sky dictator forcing them.

Reason.com