A Thinking Reed

"Man is but a reed, the most feeble thing in nature, but he is a thinking reed" – Blaise Pascal

I’m just a dupe

Sam Harris informs us that “there is not a person on Earth who has a good reason to believe that Jesus rose from the dead or that Muhammad spoke to the angel Gabriel in a cave.”

Not only is there no conclusive proof that Jesus rose from the dead, mind you, but no good reason at all to believe it. How does he know this? He doesn’t tell us. He just does, I guess.

Also, if you’re a conservative, moderate, or liberal Christian you are providing cover for the “millions” of people who are “quietly working to turn our country into a totalitarian theocracy reminiscent of John Calvin’s Geneva.”

This is because “wherever one stands on this continuum, one inadvertently shelters those who are more fanatical than oneself from criticism.” Does this mean that Harris is inadvertently sheltering the would-be Stalins and Pol Pots of the world by providing cover for their more fanatical forms of atheism?

Why is it that people who so loudly trumpet their commitment to reason make such bad arguments? Harris’s strategy seems to be that if you say things in a bullying enough tone people will believe them. The guy gives atheism a bad name.

, ,

5 responses to “I’m just a dupe”

  1. Joe

    “How does he know this?”

    Maybe he looked at the arguments offered by believers and found them all wanting. All Christians agree with him about Muhammad and all Muslims agree with him about Jesus.

    How do you know that Muhammad didn’t hear from God in a cave?

    “Does this mean that Harris is inadvertently sheltering the would-be Stalins and Pol Pots of the world by providing cover for their more fanatical forms of atheism?”

    There is no such thing as “fanatical forms of atheism,” there is just atheism. Atheism is just the absence of belief in gods. Atheism doesn’t come in “forms,” but it does appear in various philosophies and religions. Some of those are bad and some are good, like theism.

    “Harris’s strategy seems to be that if you say things in a bullying enough tone people will believe them.”

    You mean, like telling people that if they don’t accept Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and Savior, then they will spend eternity in hell?

    “The guy gives atheism a bad name.”

    That might be a credible complaint if you had a more reliable idea of what atheism is.

    Reply
  2. Lee

    “Maybe he looked at the arguments offered by believers and found them all wanting. All Christians agree with him about Muhammad and all Muslims agree with him about Jesus.”

    Sure, but he’s given no evidence (at least in this piece) of having done this. He just dogmatically asserts it. And just because both Christians and Muslims can’t be right about certain things doesn’t show that neither is right.

    “How do you know that Muhammad didn’t hear from God in a cave?”

    I don’t!

    “There is no such thing as “fanatical forms of atheism,” there is just atheism. Atheism is just the absence of belief in gods. Atheism doesn’t come in “forms,” but it does appear in various philosophies and religions. Some of those are bad and some are good, like theism.”

    So why, then, does Harris insist that all forms of theism provide cover for the ugly and socially pernicious versions?

    “You mean, like telling people that if they don’t accept Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and Savior, then they will spend eternity in hell?”

    Two wrongs don’t make a right. And “so’s your old man” isn’t a very good argument.

    “That might be a credible complaint if you had a more reliable idea of what atheism is.”

    Well, Harris is treated as a spokesman for “the new atheism” and he comes across as a bully who’s more interest in heaping scorn on his opponents than arguing with them. Don’t you think that risks giving atheism a bad name?

    Reply
  3. gaius sempronius gracchus

    Dogmatic physicalism and blind acceptance of the authority of science has an interesting name.

    It’s called “rationalism.”

    Doesn’t have the least thing in the world to do with a critical outlook toward what we are told by any authority.

    Much less with daring defiance of sheer conventionality of opinion, or brave non-conformism.

    Not that this is news to you.

    Reply
  4. Consumatopia

    All of the New Atheists are at least occasionally greatly embarrassing. The difference is that Dawkins and Dennett actually wrote good stuff before they became obsessed with God’s nonexistence, whereas Harris is pretty much famous just for being a jerk.

    I think there’s an implicit (well, with Dennett it’s explicit) part of their metaphysics–that the only knowledge we can have is the kind of stuff that’s externally verifiable. If you accept that, then I suppose Harris’s claim makes sense in that no one seems to have put forward any externally verifiable evidence for either Christian or Islamic central miracles, or God’s existence generally.

    I don’t accept that, and I guess that technically makes me agnostic.

    For that matter I don’t think Harris has made his claim on that subject explicit. In doing so, he would have to turn down the shrillness level because it’s kind of ridiculous to accuse someone of harboring fanatics just because their metaphysics is different from yours.

    Reply
  5. Mary Sue

    No person on Earth? What planet am I on, then?

    Reply

Leave a reply to gaius sempronius gracchus Cancel reply