New at Reason

Tim Cavanaugh | January 13, 2005

Chris Lehmann doesn't believe in Sam Harris' The End of Faith.

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.

← No News is Good News | Main | Super Size Us →

See all 43 comments | Leave a comment

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.

|1.13.05 @ 12:22PM|#

Atheism isn't a religion; it's an absence of religion that requires other opinions to be forulated instead. The author's conclusions therefore are his own, leave Atheism out of it before you give us all a bad name. :-)

Religion provides a rule set for people to govern their lives and Atheists need to find a rule-set to replace it, a constant set of ethics or whatever is preferred. The fact that there is no central dogma for Atheism just means coming up with a consensus will be far harder.

Until Atheism achieves that, we can't really hope to win that many hearts and minds from other religions, so for the time being religion is a fact of life. Even I, as an Atheist, have a world-view which is broadly Methodist so you'll never escape religion completely.

Pursuing a holy war is just a phase that most Atheists go through, I'd have expected most people to grow out of it by the time they're writing books - I went through mine when the Islamic wotchamathingy in the UK proposed a non-territorial Islamic state here in the UK. Until that happens (no chance) talking is a far better proposition. In the meantime we'll just try to weed out any reference to God in our legal system and work on the theists slowly...

|1.13.05 @ 1:32PM|#

For something that isn't a religion, Athiest sure do seem to spend a lot of time trying to "correct" the beliefs of others.

|1.13.05 @ 1:33PM|#

This reminds me of the discussion on Penn's interview a week or two ago. The enemy is fanaticism, athiests and theists in my experience get along ok, they take a jab at each other sporatically to see if one can make the other budge or give a concession now and then. But fanatics blow up those they dissagree with, and this dude sounds like he's exploring fanatisism.

|1.13.05 @ 1:36PM|#

The book in question sounds terrible, but that hardly justifies this almost unreadable article about it. This guy is an editor?

If this Mr. Harris, as alleged, lays the same bill of indictment at the feet of each religion, he is indeed mistaken. The great body of believers (as opposed to the keepers of official doctrine) are often very "reasonable" and non-dogmatic in many faiths--two common examples are Judaism and Roman Catholicism. Hence, you often see intermarriage between such groups, usually with fairly pragmatic accommodations about the moral and religious education of their children.

Conversely, "true believer" type creeds, such as fundamentalist Christians or Muslims, do not play nicely. Intermarriage between such types is pretty much unthinkable--denying Jesus Christ's or Mohamed's primacy in God's plans for mankind is a non-starter for both groups, respectively. And think of the children!! Their eternal souls are in danger of hellfire--how can any compromise be possible?

The true danger to "us" (that is, those of us who have some fealty to reason--small "r") are the "true believers" of any stripe who feel they have some calling/historical duty/"Great Commission" to engage the rest of us (which eliminates from worry such folks as the Amish) about OUR beliefs. Lehmann is right that fanatical (atheist) communists killed millions--yet they were true believers extraordinaire (later communist monsters were just power-mad criminals--ascribing ideological motivation of any sort to them is too kind).

With the near-total eclipse of Communism, however, it is also unmistakably the case that today virtually all the unrelenting "true believers" who imperil peace, freedom and liberty are RELIGIOUS believers. Mr. Harris may go too far in characterizing this threat, but it seems Mr. Lehmann may have gone to the other extreme. Perhaps editors for New York Magazine haven't had enough experience hither and yon to fully appreciate the danger of small-minded literalist true believers, should they get their hands on the levers of power--you don't run into too many of them Manhattan.

|1.13.05 @ 1:50PM|#

That's got to be the worst Reason article ever.

Lehmann seems to base his entire palaverous thesis on: atheists have done bad things; therefore atheists can't criticize religion.

|1.13.05 @ 2:02PM|#

I have to prop my eyes open with toothpicks just to slog through yet another idiotic, misinformed puddle of vomit by a religious person who wants to shout from the rooftops how pious they are. That's all it is, really. Religious people wanting to convince themselves and everyone around them that they are holier than thou, and thou, and thou, and, oh yes, thou as well.

So I guess I will have to opt out of the rest of this thread because there are no words for how tired I am of rubbing the noses of ignorant religionists in their errors yet another time.

|1.13.05 @ 2:02PM|#

"How do we know our holy books are free from error? Because the books themselves say so."

There are very few things that one can say that are true of all Christians. In my study of Islam, I have found that to be the case also, although many Muslims would argue with me about that. Those who argue with me might point to the fact that for Muslims, the Qur'an is comprised of God's actual words--not what God told someone or inspired someone to write.

Among Christians, for the most part, even among fundamentalist Protestants, this is not the case. There are those who heed the words of Jesus of Nazareth and his story with special interest but view the rest of the Bible as context. There are those who buy the whole thing lock, stock and barrel, but I don't think there are very many Christians who believe that the holy book is free from error because the book itself says so.

Life is an experiment. The rational among us are testing all sorts of hypotheses using inductive logic to the best of our ability all the time. I used the word "hypotheses" because it's clear to me that it's possible to test more than one at the same time. How does what was written about what Jesus of Nazareth said fit with my experience of the world? Are the Atheists correct?

When a scientist uses the scientific method to theorize about generalities from the specifics in his laboratory, and when he appropriately qualifies the generalizations he makes from his observations, no one uses the word "faith", but when someone makes qualified generalizations about the existence of God based on his observations of the world, this is for some reason dismissed as mere "faith".

Some people pray for God to make them compassionate, for comfort, etc., and when they find themselves compassionate and comforted, they chalk it up as evidence that God exists. Some people find themselves praying that their loved ones buried under a mountain of mud will somehow survive, and when they don't, they chalk it up as evidence that God doesn't exist. Some people look at both situations and conclude that neither is evidence either way.

...Regardless, none of the people I know who believe in God argue that there is no test for the validity of scripture outside of the context of scripture itself--not among the Christians I know and not among the Muslims I've spoken with either.

The idea that we test both hypotheses at the same time flies straight in the face of neoconservative dogma as I understand it. If Strauss really was trying to rewrite the history of philosophy in such a way that it would avoid a dead end, and if he really did believe that avoiding a dead meant making an either/or choice between reason and "faith", then I say phooey on Strauss. His observation here doesn't fit with my experience.

|1.13.05 @ 2:26PM|#

"Faith" is the not enemy of reason or man. Intolerance is.

Atheists who are intolerant of religious persons are dangerous as fundamentalists. If I want to pray to a velvet painting of Elvis in my spare time, frankly, it's no one's business but my own. If I participate as a productive member of society, I fail to see where my hypothetical Elvis worship is anyone's concern.

That either "faith" or "heresay" is a problem begs a solution, and usually an unpleasant one.

|1.13.05 @ 2:59PM|#

I'm glad I'm not the only one who found the article unreadable. I thought I was losing it or something.

|1.13.05 @ 3:00PM|#

You just nailed it, Jose. I'm an atheist, and don't care what others believe in, so long as they leave me alone.

I can pinpoint a few things that always bothered me about my former faith. When I was a kid at Catholic catechism class, I asked the nun what would happen to the kids(some of my friends) at school who went to the Baptist church. Her answer was simple, they're going to hell. It scared the shit out of me.

Even as a kid, it bothered me that an all powerful god would sentence otherwise good people to an eternity of damnation for an errant belief.

|1.13.05 @ 3:30PM|#

I agree with kmw and carpet humping guy. That was a really poorly written article.

I'm guessing it was one of those once-a-month maybe-if-we-post-this-The Corner-will-link-us pieces.

|1.13.05 @ 3:36PM|#

Jesus, what a lame article.

Tutsi Supremacy? Does Chris Lehmann perhaps mean Hutu Supremacy? It was, after all, the Hutu regime in Rwanda that massacred the Tutsis and moderate Hutus. Oh well, they're all alike, them darkies. Nazis, Jews, Hutu nationalists, Tutsi victims. Same difference. Facts? We don't need no stinking facts!

|1.13.05 @ 3:53PM|#

Who can have faith... in a quantum universe?
Do our genes yearn for regularity which they express as "faith'? Well, there is no regularity; only complexity.
And both sides of this issue must be so respectful of "feelings." Crap.
We all communicate and try to persuade to the best of our abilities. Some folks' abilities are better than others.

|1.13.05 @ 4:06PM|#

I thought the article was fine, and made some good points, plus bringing to light that someone is actually advocating a kind of atheistic counter-jihad, with real violence and killing and stuff, is kind of important.

Although just about every paragraph caused me to think, "Damn, if I were an atheist, reading that would piss me off."

(I'm a theist, by the way, but I know it's nonrational and nonprovable, and I also know it's wrong to force my nonrational convictions on someone else, or use same as a reason to violate the rights of others. As long as you aren't hurting someone else, fine; your soul, if you have one, is in your own keeping. What the theocrats don't get is, you can't march people through the gates of heaven at the point of a bayonet.)

By the way, I attended 8 years of Catholic grade school, 4 years of Catholic high school, and 4 years at a Catholic (Jesuit) college (though that hardly counts) ... and I was never taught that non-Catholics (or non-religious) are going to hell. 'Round about high school, I was taught something like, "There are many roads to Heaven, some are just straighter than others."

|1.13.05 @ 4:15PM|#

I do not advocate for "respect." Indifference will do. I do not have a problem engaging in a discussion with a willing partner. On the other hand, I want the freedom to show any guest to the door and close it firmly behind them.

On some days, my desire to "convince" begins and ends with the "No Trepassing" sign on the gate. Any atheist or fundamentalist who does not abide by the sign will generate the same response.

|1.13.05 @ 4:16PM|#

I would like to attribute some of these hostilities between the religious and the indifferent to collectivism. By religious I refer to believers in God, of Nothing, and even of a Velvet Elvis who follow with fanatical devotion...Nobaody expects the...sorry.

My problems with religion stem from their desire to force their dogma on me; not just directly, but through legislation and the hinderance of scientific progress through legislation. I don't always advocate the attacks on religion in court; most of the time I don't care. But the attacks and the scientific hinderance and everything besides a personal attempt to argue with me in order to change my opinion and faith are a result of trying to lump everybody into groups too big to be effective.

Grouping happens and isn't always harmful, but the bigger the group, the less can be implied and applied. The inverse would hold true also; the smaller the group, the more can be implied, etc. Educating every child in the country, regardless of region, background and aptitude is doomed to failure. All the children is much too large a group to make such generalizations as are made. This all holds true for government, too. Taken to an extreme (I don't think it's too extreme), government gets smaller to the point of anarchy. Voluntary associations would arise, perhaps resembling governments, but they would be noncompulsory.

Religion is noncompulsory in the sense of overt physical compulsion. [Most]People are now compelled by conditioning to associate with a larger Church. Government is becoming more and more like religion in that it also is conditioned.

In conclusion, when done in smaller groups or individually, religion, like government, is bearable to those around it (participating or not). But even the small groups need to keep to themselves and not legislate anything on a group outside their voluntary associations.

Our chief weapon is surprise. Surprise and fear. Our chief weapons are surprise and fear and an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope. Our chief...We'll come in again.

|1.13.05 @ 4:30PM|#

Faith by definition is belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. Hence it is the very antithesis of reason. If someone wants to pray to Allah, Christ, or Zeus while leaving everyone else alone, that is of course their business. But that's not what is happening � you have religious people telling the rest of us what we can or cannot do with our lives, often using the powers of the state via democracy (mob rule). And what is the ultimate justification for said actions? My God told me so.

Faith is not a good thing.

|1.13.05 @ 4:51PM|#

Snr. Gasset is correct, indifference will do.

If we brought back Roman religion, we wouldn't have this problem.

Mithras, Isis, Mars, whatever ... all the Gods are equally deserving of reverence. As long as it's traditional and doesn't involve persecuting other sects. Indifference is also OK as long as you realize that if you suffer a famous disaster some monday morning augur is going to write about the portents and oracles you ignored and your general impiety.

Even the Jews, who aren't at all interested in Queen Juno and her relatives, were tolerated. For instance, you couldn't summon a Jew to court on the sabbath.

I recommend the worship of Mars. The Equirriae are coming up on 27 February and 14 March. As there is no Hippodrome, I recommend you go to the track instead.

QFMC cos. V

|1.13.05 @ 5:02PM|#

So, Tim... When are we going to see an update posting on the Georgia evolution textbook story? The courts ruled against the stickers.

Paging Cavanaugh! Paging Cavanaugh!

|1.13.05 @ 5:05PM|#

I *tried* to read the comments after that story on Yahoo. It's a good thing this online is mostly anonymos. SOme of the commenter were ready to condemn everyone to hell...if they had to send them

|1.13.05 @ 5:06PM|#

Here's a link if you need one:

http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLiberty.cfm?ID=17312&c=139

|1.13.05 @ 6:10PM|#

"makes no mention here that suicide bombings were in fact originally the handiwork not of the Islamist faithful but of the Sri Lankan communist guerillas known as the Tamil Tigers."

While we are beating up on Lehmann - the print version of the article refered to the Tamil Tigers as Malaysian. That at least has been corrected here.

|1.13.05 @ 6:14PM|#

Yikes, that was tedious. Interesting LAT commentary, for a deeply religious country, we're very ignorant about religion. Only 1 in 3 Americans can name the four gospels (I'm in the 2/3 group, but I was raised Muslim).

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-prothero12jan12,1,415411.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions

Drawingblood.com|1.13.05 @ 6:39PM|#

The atheist book author sounds unhinged and mockable.

Nevertheless I disliked the review since it has that sometimes-crappy Reason "Everything is really not that bad" temperment underlying it. And what the hell is he talking about "Village Atheist"? Is this some new, hot archetype?

Most people have never heard or comprehended any serious, sustained arguments contradicting their default beliefs. If atheists were slightly more insistent, much idiocy might rapidly dissipate. Which is why I hate the notion you shouldn't try to "convert" someone because you're being like the enemy. Atheists tried shutting up and letting it die--it won't.

Step 2 is not quite nuking them, but it's being as irritating as they are, only this time--and here's the key that trumps the principle--atheists make sense when they talk, which is widely respected in some communities. But if these pansy "live and let live" atheists are all my side has...well, it's no wonder the memes are so weak amongst the big public. Oh well.

By the way, I'm almost sure I've personally melted several bullshit-deflector shields of theism in my time, and I used the power of intolerance, hippies.

|1.13.05 @ 7:35PM|#

drawingblood - I'm liking your site so far. Already made me chuckle 3 or 4 times in about 2 minutes, which is a lot better than a lot of attempts at comedy. Unless you were being totally serious. Oh wait, me brain 'urts.

|1.13.05 @ 8:22PM|#

Laying more cards on the table, here is what discourages me about "western religion."
It obsesses about worshipping the hierarchist model of royalty.
First, what is worship, and what is it good for?
Second, I'd feel a lot better if goddess sat on the same porcelain throne I do each morn and exuded stink as do I, rather than light.

What I'm saying is we anarchists have our work cut out for us for sure! Because most people worship government as goddess'es queendom on Earth.

(We should pause here and examine how the temple tax was paid with a coin from the mouth of a fish. I'm quoting SCRIPTURE here. Might the person writing that original chapter and verse have been an anarchist? Yes!)

For you hypersensitives, I'm not being angry, violent, rude, much less, ruthless.

|1.13.05 @ 8:37PM|#

From the review:

Never mind, as well, that militantly atheist movements like Soviet and Khmer Rouge communism�as well as volkish pagan ones like Nazism and Tutsi supremacy�stand behind some of the worst mass violence of the past century.

Hitler often proclaimed his Christianity, didn't he?

80 percent agree that the deity is regularly performing miracles in today�s world

It seems to me that if He's in a position to work miracles, then He's a real asshole.

|1.13.05 @ 8:39PM|#

"Faith by definition is belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence."

I thought I addressed that directly.

When using inductive logic, the results are often qualified. One can only generalize to a certain extent from specific examples. No one calls the scientific method illogical or says that it doesn't rest on material evidence when it's applied to astrophysics, but when same method is applied to the question of whether or not there is a god, the scientific method is dismissed as "faith"--why?

|1.13.05 @ 9:03PM|#

Uh, which God is that, Ken?

Let me guess--usually, and conveniently, he/she/it (it's gotta be monotheism, right?) will resemble the one you were taught about as a child.

What a coincidence!

Les:

http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/paul_23_4.html

http://slate.msn.com/id/2112083/

Shalom, y'all!

|1.13.05 @ 9:20PM|#

Actually, Ken, there are some folks that call some of the more far-out theories about astrophysics, faith, because they only vaguely follow any sort of 'proofs' that we can observe and test. I'm not trying to be argumentative here, just saying that you're not necessarily correct about science have no nay-sayers...not science, in general, but certain things, in particular.

Another good example that you'll see considered faith on this very blog is climatology. :)

|1.13.05 @ 10:56PM|#

Henry,

Actually, I've made the rounds. I Studied Buddhism for a while--I'm still testing for that hypothesis. I studied Islam too, likewise, out for testing. I'm studying Zoroaster.

The faith of my birth didn't survive testing intact. I have a faith--it's not by coincidence.

Lowdog,

String Theory, yes?

Some things are explained by String Theory, right? Not conclusive though... Maybe someday it will be. That doesn't mean we shouldn't use what information we have to theorize about the origin of the cosmos, etc. We take what information we have and we generalize to the extent that logic will allow. We continue to look for further evidence to support or disprove our theory.

We can't prove String Theory is correct because we haven't found a way to test for it; unfortunately, that means we can't disprove Sting Theory either. Someday, maybe we'll find out.

...Sound familiar?

It was Jason Ligon, as I recall, who explained to me that Atheists don't claim to have seen all the universe at one time and, hence, to know that there is no god. It's a reading of a data set and the acceptance of a theory to explain it. People who believe in god do the same thing--that's all I'm trying to say.

|1.13.05 @ 11:20PM|#

I'm looking for me
You're looking for you
We're looking in at each other
And we don't know what to do

They call me The Seeker
I've been searching low and high
I won't get to get what I'm after
Till the day I die

|1.13.05 @ 11:25PM|#

That article was terribly written. The book it was about is also terrible, but that's no excuse for the reviewer.

Jose,

""Faith" is the not enemy of reason or man. Intolerance is."

ali bah bah (this atheist's equivalent of "amen")

My parents tried to raise me a protestant, but that just never worked (poor mom and dad, they're scandalized to this day). But fortunately I quickly outgrew the desire to convert the world to my atheist insights.

I have know atheists who were incredibly irrational about life in general. I have know believers who were incredibly rational about life in general. I finally concluded that it isn't whether you believe in God, gods, or not, that matters. It's how you choose to deal with everything else in life that matters.

Do you believe in God, gods, or none? I consider that of marginal importance. Are you sold on Locke or Marx? Now that I care about.

Sure, some people of faith believe stupid things. So do some atheists. Theist or atheist is not the litmus test of what kind of person you are in this life.

My favorite line from Benjamin Franklin's autobiography went something like this:

"How fortunate it is that man is a rational creature, for it enables him to make up a reason for anything he has a mind to do."

|1.14.05 @ 1:41AM|#

Another axiom, perhaps even better for this discussion:

"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."

Jonathan Swift

|1.14.05 @ 8:00AM|#

God bless empirical agnosticism.

|1.14.05 @ 8:18AM|#

Ah, what is worship "good for." For some people, I suppose it is like meditation or a mood-altering drug. If my neighbor's quiet worship of some diety (like Salma Hayek) makes him a happier, more productive citizen, I reap some of the economic benefits. Frankly, I feel the same indifference towards my neighbor's two-pack-a-day cigarette habit... although the cigarettes are more likely to shorten his live than praying. On that note, it is a bit amusing to hear a rant on pure reason from a man who is chain-smoking.

I disagree with lumping everything rational into a bin called "right" and everything nonrational into a bin called "wrong." Reason is a wonderful tool. If a man wants to build his life around reason, fine... as long as following his logic ends stops at my door. Reason, like God or Allah or whatever, can induce people to move from indifference to concern... and concern, quite frankly, scares the Hell out of me.

clarityiniowa|1.14.05 @ 9:12AM|#

People speak of "atheism" as if it was something. It is a negative, a hole in a nonexistant doughnut. It only exists in relation to religious belief, and absent cultural cues from birth that some form of deity exists, it would simply be the default position. As such, it has nothing to defend. Theistic religion is the affirmative position in the debate, to the extent that there is a debate, and therefore has to make it's case.

I guess I must be classed as an "atheist" because I don't muck about with any sort of theistic belief system, and haven't since I left my Lutheran confirmation class when I was forbidden to ask so many uncomfortable questions.

But I don't "feel" like an atheist. I don't attend the rallies, meetings or nihilistic orgies. Never been invited. All I ask of theistic believers is one simple thing: Prove it.

So far, nada.

|1.14.05 @ 9:56AM|#

For science (and reason), the default answer is "We don't know." Since science generally uses inductive reasoning, a scientist must draw conclusions from what he finds. He cannot draw conclusions from what he does not find. Besides, if a person is quietly practicing a faith without bothering you, why should he need to "prove" anything? Some people think they have a lucky t-shirt. Frankly, I don't think it's particularly useful to challenge someone to prove a shirt is lucky (or not.)

People who are "certain" about things (atheists or fundamentalists) make me more nervous that people who are uncertain. In my experience, certainty is the foundation of all sorts of mischief.

|1.14.05 @ 10:07AM|#

"For something that isn't a religion, Athiest sure do seem to spend a lot of time trying to "correct" the beliefs of others."

We're just pointing out the obvious, there's nothing 'religious' about it.

A Christian says "This is how it is"
A Muslim says "This is how it is"
A Hindu says "This is How it Is"
An Atheist says "No it isn't"

I'm also a Determinist, and as a Determinist I can "Tell you how it is" but Atheism is merely the removal of all dogma leaving a blank space in answer to that question. It's where we start from. Believe in science, Buddhism, whatever turns you on, Atheism itself is not a belief system.

"I don't attend the rallies, meetings or nihilistic orgies"

Show me the orgies, I'm there...

clarityiniowa|1.14.05 @ 11:28AM|#

Jose O y G - Besides, if a person is quietly practicing a faith without bothering you, why should he need to "prove" anything? Some people think they have a lucky t-shirt. Frankly, I don't think it's particularly useful to challenge someone to prove a shirt is lucky (or not.)

Agreed, EXCEPT for the unfortunate pechant religionists have for "converting" people, "ministering" to them, "evangelizing" or whatever term you care to use for spiritual Amway salesmen. I live just a ways north o' the Bible Belt and I'm accosted by Fundies and mainstream crucificion-cultists all the time. The only time I ask anyone to "prove" anything is when they are trying to convince me of something that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, like Original Sin, Immaculate Conception or Virgin Birth.

|1.14.05 @ 11:39AM|#

I DO attend the meetings. It's a bunch of old curmudgeons, so I feel comfortable... even though I like Wesson Oil parties too... just with a higher representation of nubile maids.

|1.14.05 @ 2:21PM|#

Ken, let us note that one (perhaps the most) significant difference between the two behaviors you seek to equate is that the scientist can tell you pretty well what is being looked for, and how to recognize it when you've got it. And then how to be sure its really what you thought it was.
To the best of my knowlege and experience, no theist can do that. Until someone can tell me how I can/could recognize a deity if I had one in front of me, how can I possibly take their assertions that they've found one seriously?
[caveat to forestall quibbles -- yes, many theists believe they can provide a specification of this 'god' thing they believe they've found. Unfortunately for them, their specifications are all of the form "square circle" or "trisecting the angle with a straight-edge and protractor".
So we have either the usual case -- no candiate whatsoever, or the less common case, the self-contradictory, or proven impossible, candidate.]

regards,
Shirley Knott

|1.14.05 @ 2:34PM|#

Actually, Ken (if you're still checking out this thread), look at the latest news coming from the Cassini space probe about Saturn's moon, Titan. All their predictions are waaaay off. Other, non mainstream scientists, have been saying this will be the case for a while now. Not many listen to them, even though they are continually shown to be correct and the mainstream folks wrong.