# The Lies of Sam Harris **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 28, 2009, 2:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-sam-harris/487748 "2009-02-28T02:27:41Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2009, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-sam-harris/487748/101 "2009-03-04T20:51:41Z")
> [@tagos](#): > > I doubt you can point to any political leader of any significance whose followers were motivated by their atheism and were atheists who carried out such a thing. Ruling out Pol Pot, Stalin, Mao and Hitler. Although no doubt you think you have some sort of gotcha here to weigh against the two millenia of Christian and Islam crimes. Which include Hitler and his good Catholic and Protestant Germans bringing the Christian demonisation of Jews to a head. I was thinking of Stalin’s persecution of the church. from Wikki “Stalin’s role in the fortunes of the Russian Orthodox Church is complex. Continuous persecution in the 1930s resulted in its near-extinction: by 1939, active parishes numbered in the low hundreds (down from 54,000 in 1917), many churches had been leveled, and tens of thousands of priests, monks and nuns were persecuted and killed. Over 100,000 were shot during the purges of 1937–1938” I think that qualifies per my response about a charismatic leader. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2009, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-sam-harris/487748/102 "2009-03-04T21:05:49Z")
> [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](#): > > That’s rather trivial, and I don’t think anybody would oppose that point. Of course, both atheists and theists can be dicks. It’s also not what’s being discussed here, or why I consider the communism comparison to be a bad one. The point as it was raised originally in this thread was: > > or perhaps there was an earlier variant of this. This is what I opposed, not that both atheists and theists are capable of fucking shit up; if the latter was your only point all along, I apologize for attacking you. I get it. I think we were talking past each other on different tangents. NP My point is this, I believe whatever mechanism it is inside people that allows them to committ such moral crimes is seperate from belief or non belief. It seems IMO to be linked to the dogmatic, “My way is the only correct way” kind of thinking. certainly that exists within religion but we also see a lot of religion that isn’t that way. We also see examples of that mind set in groups outside of religon such historical communism, extreme nationalism, and politics. That leads me to conclude that the argument that religion is evil to be incorrect in the way it inaccurately oversimplifies the position. It seems to me that religon, politics. natioalism, whatever, where we see examples of the rigid mindset, are merely the vehicles of whatever drives those atrocities and not the culprit. Labeleing the vehicle as the problem rather rather than the driver is inaccurate IMHO. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2009, 2:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-sam-harris/487748/103 "2009-03-05T14:27:36Z")
> [@Fantome](#): > > Are you saying when people justify their evil actions on religion, it’s always just a scapegoat and they would have carried out their actions if they weren’t indoctrinated into their religion that preaches these actions as good things? No > [@](#): > > I do. You do. We all do. Are we not to judge? Sure, we must make judgment calls, but people do not always agree on what is good, bad, or in between. This is a non answer. > [@](#): > > The ones spreading hate and those that have a a holy book describing a hateful, vindictive, evil god. uh huh Things are rarely that black and white. > [@](#): > > I don’t know any that aren’t dogmatic. Then maybe you need a better source than [dictionary.com](http://dictionary.com). Dogma tends to be more rigid than tenets of belief [Dogma](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogma) > [@](#): > > Dogma is the established belief or doctrine held by a religion, ideology or any kind of organization: it is authoritative and not to be disputed, doubted or diverged from. > [@](#): > > What’s your point? Churches can have doctrine and tenets of belief without being considered dogmatic. > [@](#): > > Yes, I can. It’s holy books are evil and a few interpretations softening a few of the messages don’t change all of the evil it contains. I’ve yet to find a Muslim that has interpreted any of the passages that unbelievers are fools and their reward will be in Hell any other way but the obvious. Maybe you need to get out more. In most religions there are conservatives and liberals, practicing and non practicing. A book is an inanimate object and cannot be evil . Period. > [@](#): > > That’s some rationalization you’ve accomplished there. If a book can be interpreted differently by different people then it contains no dogma? By that rationale, there’s no such thing as dogma. I’m not rationalizing anything and this statement from you contains no logic. I clearly said that dogma exists within those interpreting the book, not the book itself. > [@](#): > > Then show me where my criticism haven’t been accurate and reasonable. Well the statement just above this one is a doosy. > [@](#): > > Shifting the goalposts? I’m confused as to what goal you’re talking about. Atheism does not lead to Communism. Theism and irrational thought that goes with it almost always leads to evil religions. The problem is you can’t provide any real evidence that there’s a casual link between theism and evil acts committed by religious people. I’m saying the issue is not theism but something else that can and does exist in believers and non believers. > [@](#): > > That’s what I and others have been saying all along. Atheism is just being without belief in God/gods and it’s usually because of critical thinking and not accepting fantastic claims without evidence. Then stop making the comparison. A religion is a belief system, often held by theists. Atheists also have belief systems , just currently more individualistic. > [@](#): > > No. Atheism has no tenets. Not what I said. Try again. > [@](#): > > Religions do, and many of them are evil and harmful to the rest of us. Whether or not an evil group can adopt atheism as a “tenet” is not relevant unless atheism is the cause of an evil ideology coming into existence. Communism did not come into existence because of atheism and atheism does not cause other evil ideologies to come into existence. Theism does as does the irrationality that goes along with it. I’m making no claim that atheism caused Communism or anything else. I’m saying atheism doesn’t protect one from the dogmatic mind set that can lead to moral crimes. You have yet to show a casual link between theism, organized religion, and moral crimes with religious justification. > [@](#): > > I told you already. My point was that you said that atheism as an integral part of Communism and _“If atheism is unfairly judged by looking at Communism then theism must be unfairly judged by looking at religion.”_ > Communism requires zero atheism and there have been plenty of theistic Communists. Religion by definition does require theism so your “shooting for accurate language and means of comparision” missed the mark. Which, as I already said, is interesting, and I’m glad to be corrected on that detail but not all that relevant to my point. > [@](#): > > No. The historical context that’s important is that Communism doesn’t naturally follow atheism and atheism does not and has not caused people to become Communists. Irrelevant! Not all communists commit or support the historical crimes I’m referring to. The fact that many did indicates to me that the casual link to moral crimes like those is neither atheism or theism. I understand the point you making. I just don’t think it means what you think it means. It doesn’t change of affect the point I’m making. > [@](#): > > Semantics. Most of us define religion the way that the first hit on [dictionary.com](http://dictionary.com) does. It would make sense that some Buddhists would like to label it as a religion though because of the special protection and government perks (in most Western countries) that go with it. It would be nice if I could get the government to buy into my weekly poker game being sacred. By us, you mean people that don’t know any better? You corrected me and I appreciate it. Do you need to play games now rather than admit you were incorrect on a minor detail? A dictionary is not a convincing cite to declare Buddhism is not a religion. ---
**Author:** ![tagos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@tagos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tagos)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2009, 3:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-sam-harris/487748/104 "2009-03-05T15:09:26Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > I was thinking of Stalin’s persecution of the church. from Wikki > > “Stalin’s role in the fortunes of the Russian Orthodox Church is complex. Continuous persecution in the 1930s resulted in its near-extinction: by 1939, active parishes numbered in the low hundreds (down from 54,000 in 1917), many churches had been leveled, and tens of thousands of priests, monks and nuns were persecuted and killed. Over 100,000 were shot during the purges of 1937–1938” > > I think that qualifies per my response about a charismatic leader. But he and his followers were not motivated by atheism, as has been explained at length repeatedly, over and over again on these boards. :rolleyes: And no - he wasn’t ‘charismatic’ either. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2009, 2:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-sam-harris/487748/105 "2009-03-06T02:05:50Z")
> [@tagos](#): > > But he and his followers were not motivated by atheism, as has been explained at length repeatedly, over and over again on these boards. :rolleyes: > > And no - he wasn’t ‘charismatic’ either. Save your roll eyes and try reading for comprehension. I never claimed they were motivated by atheism. I merely stated a leader who was an atheist could commit such acts. You created the motivated by atheism bit, not me. If you don’t think Stalin qualifies as charismatic you might want to check out the “Cult of Personality” section in [Wikki](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalin) > [@](#): > > Stalin created a cult of personality in the Soviet Union around both himself and Lenin. Many personality cults in history have been frequently measured and compared to his. Numerous towns, villages and cities were renamed after the Soviet leader (see List of places named after Stalin) and the Stalin Prize and Stalin Peace Prize were named in his honor. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2009, 3:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-sam-harris/487748/106 "2009-03-06T03:12:47Z")
> [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](#): > > Faith, however, is the cause of religion; theism then is merely the cause of theistic religions, though how theistic and non-theistic religions actually differ, epistemologically, isn’t all that clear to me – you could well call a belief in and worship of fairies non-theistic, but you could also equate them with the gods of that particular religion; same for all similar metaphysical entities. > > But, leaving causes aside for a minute, once there is an established system of religious power, it is possible to abuse it, as I tried to show with my example above. Similar doesn’t work for atheism. > > That’s all I’ve been saying all along – that while religion isn’t necessarily ‘the root of all evil’, its structures form a ready (and often also willing, owing to human nature) conduit for it. It’s like your example with the gun: no, the gun isn’t responsible for killing a person; it’s the person pulling the trigger. Nevertheless, you can’t shoot people if there are no guns. Atheism has no comparable structures, and at least I can’t see how one would form them. Didn’t mean to skip this. It deserves a response. Even faith isn’t really the cause of religion. Lot’s of people have faith without belonging to an organization. I think perhaps it is merely the desire to be a part of a like minded group for some common purpose that causes organized religion. The sense of purpose and belonging that it invokes. We see similar things in other groups don’t we? “I’m an American and we’re the greatest country in the world” “I’m a Democrat and those dam Republicans are idiots and ruining this country” “I’m a Hutu and you dam Tutsis have got to die.” {note=these examples are because of subject matter. It could easily be I’m a Buddhist and I’m one with everything"} Atheists can certainly belong to organizations even if the basis isn’t atheism. Then again, it might be[. http://www.atheists.org/](http://www.atheists.org/) and [http://www.atheistalliance.org/](http://www.atheistalliance.org/) Your no gun thing. Don’t you see where that leads? If there were no cars or planes nobody would die in a car accident or plane accident but we’d also lose all the benefits of that kind of transportation. Guns are used for personal defense and in defending others. If there were no guns people would use knives swords and bows and arrows like they used to. That’s not a solution. > [@](#): > > The analogy would be that just because you still can strangle persons if you don’t have a gun, non-existing guns are to blame for stranglings the same way guns are to blame for shootings. But there isn’t anything there that can share some of the blame besides the murderer himself; in the case of a shooting, it’s the gun that made it possible in the first place. Non-guns don’t make stranglings possible. I’m not sure what you’re trying to say here. It doesn’t matter what the vehicle is, guns, knives, clubs, bare hands, or religion, politics, nationalism, greed, lust for power, whatever. The vehicle is not to blame for the decision to commit a moral crime. ---
**Author:** ![Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/half_man_half_wit/32/21766_2.png) [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Half_Man_Half_Wit)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2009, 9:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-sam-harris/487748/107 "2009-03-06T09:49:23Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > Even faith isn’t really the cause of religion. Lot’s of people have faith without belonging to an organization. That just means that faith alone isn’t generally sufficient for religion, i.e. that you can conceivably have faith without that leading to establishing a religion/following an established one. But, there are no religions that don’t exist because of faith (even money-making schemes like Scientology and certain televangelist churches can only exist because of the faith of their followers, even though in this case it was probably more the faith in money that got them going. Generally, however, faith is necessary for religion.) > [@](#): > > I’m not sure what you’re trying to say here. It doesn’t matter what the vehicle is, guns, knives, clubs, bare hands, or religion, politics, nationalism, greed, lust for power, whatever. The vehicle is not to blame for the decision to commit a moral crime. No. But for the ease with which it is committed. Religion, brought about by faith, gives you the tools with which to control great masses of people with relatively great ease; abusing these tools is still you moral responsibility, of course, but nevertheless, if they weren’t there, they couldn’t be abused. Atheism doesn’t give you any such tools to abuse. Furthermore, it’s just not a black and white ‘either you do or you don’t’ – regardless of the means necessary – decision to commit any moral crime, the ease with which it can be done plays a great role in determining whether or not it will be committed at all. So the means, perhaps, aren’t totally blameless, even though the decision is yours alone. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2009, 12:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-sam-harris/487748/108 "2009-03-06T12:06:05Z")
> [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](#): > > That just means that faith alone isn’t generally sufficient for religion, i.e. that you can conceivably have faith without that leading to establishing a religion/following an established one. But, there are no religions that don’t exist because of faith (even money-making schemes like Scientology and certain televangelist churches can only exist because of the faith of their followers, even though in this case it was probably more the faith in money that got them going. Generally, however, faith is necessary for religion.) Yes, and… ? > [@](#): > > No. But for the ease with which it is committed. Religion, brought about by faith, gives you the tools with which to control great masses of people with relatively great ease; abusing these tools is still you moral responsibility, of course, but nevertheless, if they weren’t there, they couldn’t be abused. Atheism doesn’t give you any such tools to abuse. Furthermore, it’s just not a black and white ‘either you do or you don’t’ – regardless of the means necessary – decision to commit any moral crime, the ease with which it can be done plays a great role in determining whether or not it will be committed at all. So the means, perhaps, aren’t totally blameless, even though the decision is yours alone. One more time, equating a system of beliefs such as a religion, and atheism, is an unfair comparison. The proper comparison is atheism to theism. Although theism is usually a component of religion there’s no way to link simple belief to a moral crime with religious justification. Furthermore, on organizations religious or otherwise, regardless of how you phrase it, you’re blaming the car for the accident. It doesn’t makes sense and it’s not a realistic solution. ---
**Author:** ![Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/half_man_half_wit/32/21766_2.png) [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Half_Man_Half_Wit)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2009, 12:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-sam-harris/487748/109 "2009-03-06T12:20:54Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > Yes, and… ? …and thus, faith leads to religion. > [@](#): > > One more time, equating a system of beliefs such as a religion, and atheism, is an unfair comparison.The proper comparison is atheism to theism. Which, of course, leads to religion – at least to the theistic ones. I’d also say that atheism is actually opposed to all forms of faith, be they theistic or not, but since the religions we’re mainly dealing with are all theistic in nature, I won’t belabour that point. > [@](#): > > Although theism is usually a component of religion there’s no way to link simple belief to a moral crime with religious justification. The link lies in the existence of religion – there’d be none without that ‘simple belief’. > [@](#): > > Furthermore, on organizations religious or otherwise, regardless of how you phrase it, you’re blaming the car for the accident. I’m very explicitly not. The car example isn’t apt, by the way, let’s keep it to weapons, since one generally doesn’t use cars the same way; crimes perpetuated with religious justification aren’t accidental, but intentional. I’m not saying that because the knife stabbed somebody, the knife is at fault, and your attempt to knock down that strawman accomplishes nothing. But without the knife, there wouldn’t have been a stabbing. True, the killing might have then just been a strangling, but it’s considerably harder to strangle somebody than it is to stab them. That’s where the weapon becomes important, and similarly, that’s where religion becomes important. > [@](#): > > It doesn’t makes sense and it’s not a realistic solution. I’m not trying to solve anything, just stating how I see things. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2009, 2:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-sam-harris/487748/110 "2009-03-06T14:40:02Z")
> [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](#): > > …and thus, faith leads to religion. I wouldn’t put it that way. Eggs are a part of a cake recipe but it wouldn’t be accurate to say eggs lead to cake. > [@](#): > > Which, of course, leads to religion – at least to the theistic ones. I’d also say that atheism is actually opposed to all forms of faith, be they theistic or not, but since the religions we’re mainly dealing with are all theistic in nature, I won’t belabour that point. Disregarding my objection to the term “leads” I don’t see that theism can be held as a casual of some moral crime justified by religion. > [@](#): > > The link lies in the existence of religion – there’d be none without that ‘simple belief’. Starting from theism, adding faith, and the desire to be part of some organized religion we still have a big question mark. Many religious folks express their theism and faith by helping others. IMO that means there’s some other casual ingredient{s} that lead to moral crimes. Not theism and faith. I’m also suggesting those other issues that may lead to violence in religions can exist and do exist in other organizations and whether the person is a theist or an atheist doesn’t matter. > [@](#): > > I’m very explicitly not. The car example isn’t apt, by the way, let’s keep it to weapons, since one generally doesn’t use cars the same way; crimes perpetuated with religious justification aren’t accidental, but intentional. I’m not saying that because the knife stabbed somebody, the knife is at fault, and your attempt to knock down that strawman accomplishes nothing. But without the knife, there wouldn’t have been a stabbing. True, the killing might have then just been a strangling, but it’s considerably harder to strangle somebody than it is to stab them. That’s where the weapon becomes important, and similarly, that’s where religion becomes important. I understand that but the analogy is woefully incomplete. If all theism and faith led to moral crimes you’d have a pretty valid point. Knives also serve many useful purposes. If you decide to get rid of knives to prevent stabbings your not dealing with the real issue and you’re likely causing as much harm as you’re preventing by removing a tool that also does much good. Get rid of guns and shootings disappear and stabbings go up. Get rid of knives and stabbings disappear and clubbing goes up etc. etc. Unless you deal with the proper issue removing religion to stop religiously motivated crimes would only mean the same violence would occur and take on a different name. Hey, since science helps creates more advanced weaponry let’s get rid of science. Doesn’t sound to practical does it? > [@](#): > > I’m not trying to solve anything, just stating how I see things. Fair enough ---
**Author:** ![Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/half_man_half_wit/32/21766_2.png) [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Half_Man_Half_Wit)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2009, 3:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-sam-harris/487748/111 "2009-03-06T15:20:59Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > I wouldn’t put it that way. Eggs are a part of a cake recipe but it wouldn’t be accurate to say eggs lead to cake. Well, religion certainly isn’t assembled from a list of ingredients, but it grows from an initial proposition – from faith. The comparison would only be apt if eggs naturally grew into cakes occasionally, and in that case, I’d certainly say that eggs lead to cakes. Religion from faith is an evolutionary process, basically – the starting point (faith) does not exclusively determine the end point, but the end point is certainly predicated on the starting point. > [@](#): > > Disregarding my objection to the term “leads” I don’t see that theism can be held as a casual of some moral crime justified by religion. How not? If, when there’s no faith, there’s no religion, then it’s not possible to give a religious justification for some moral crime. > [@](#): > > IMO that means there’s some other casual ingredient{s} that lead to moral crimes. Not theism and faith. I’ve never claimed that there aren’t – in fact, I’ve been careful to point out that I don’t buy into the whole ‘root of all evil’-thing when it comes to religion. > [@](#): > > I understand that but the analogy is woefully incomplete. If all theism and faith led to moral crimes you’d have a pretty valid point. Knives also serve many useful purposes. If you decide to get rid of knives to prevent stabbings your not dealing with the real issue and you’re likely causing as much harm as you’re preventing by removing a tool that also does much good. I’ve also never claimed that no good can come from religion – as I said before, if all the followers of some religion are all about love, peace & harmony that’s a great thing, the problem is just that so few really are, and also that the network established by religion can be equally well used to spread moral corruption. Look, the original assertion as raised in this thread was that since communism is to atheism what religion is to faith, it’s as possible to commit atrocities in the name of atheism as it is in the name of faith. I’ve argued that that’s not the case, not because atheists can’t be every bit as fucked up as the worst religious fundamentalists, but because atheism doesn’t give rise to communism (or any other ideology) the way faith gives rise to religions. I actually thought we were more or less on the same page there. > [@](#): > > Unless you deal with the proper issue removing religion to stop religiously motivated crimes would only mean the same violence would occur and take on a different name. I’ve never once argued for religion to be removed. In fact, I believe you’re right, we’d find other means and reasons to kill each other. But they won’t be atheistic in nature the way killing someone because they have the wrong altar in their house is religiously motivated, and hence, ultimately, follows from faith. A little hypothetical: Say we’ve got a situation where one person is violently angry at another, perhaps because the other slept with their spouse, or stole them some money, or whatever. They’re both confined into the same space for some period of time. Do you think the situation would lead to the same consequences if one of them has a knife as it does when there’s no knife? Don’t you think, on average, the consequences will end up being worse in the case with the knife? Surely, one of 'em might end up dead in both cases, but thanks to the ease of killing the knife provides, I’d wager that that’s more often the case if the knife is present. Religion is like the knife: not in itself bad, but easy to abuse to perpetuate bad actions. Atheism is like the lack of knife: not in itself able to prohibit committing bad actions, but at least it doesn’t make them any easier. ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2009, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-sam-harris/487748/112 "2009-03-06T17:18:09Z")
> [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](#): > > Well, religion certainly isn’t assembled from a list of ingredients, but it grows from an initial proposition – from faith. The comparison would only be apt if eggs naturally grew into cakes occasionally, and in that case, I’d certainly say that eggs lead to cakes. Religion from faith is an evolutionary process, basically – the starting point (faith) does not exclusively determine the end point, but the end point is certainly predicated on the starting point. See, I don’t think this is accurate. Why are people religious? The obvious answer is that their parents and community are religious, and they teach kids to be religious. The kid doesn’t acquire faith and then from there become religious. It’s more the other way around. He’s dragged to religious rituals, sits around bored while people talk, is dressed in uncomfortable costumes, and so on. He becomes a member of the religious community without understanding any of it. Faith isn’t the genesis of his religion. And when we go back and ask ourselves where did these religions come from that these kids are being brought up in, the answer isn’t faith either. All these religions evolved from older ideas about religion or the supernatural, and those ideas from older ideas, and so on, back to the religious ideas of our hunter-gatherer ancestors. And these guys didn’t believe in spirits and monsters and magic out of faith either. When a kid asked his hunter-gatherer dad about what we call religious ideas, the kid wasn’t told to have faith in the existence of the river spirit. It was more like, the river exists, it’s constantly moving, therefore there must be some sort of something animating that river, therefore the river must be alive in some way, therefore the river has feelings and emotions akin to human emotions, therefore you have to be polite to the river just like you have to follow rules of politeness in human interactions, and grandpa always said that the river likes to be given a gift of feathers, and that’s why we always drop a bundle of feathers into the river every time we cross the river, and because he didn’t do it right that’s probably why Timmy angered the river and drowned when he tried to cross the river last spring. It’s not faith that drives this sort of idea, it’s mistaken but plausible understandings about the nature of the world. The idea of faith is a late addition to the history of religion, and peculiar to certain religions. The idea that you should have faith in God and God’s teachings because God told you to have faith in God and God’s teachings is obviously a circular one. This sort of notion isn’t the historic origin of religion, or the cause of religious belief in a human child, it is a post-hoc rationalization applied after one already believes in the religion. The memetic value of the idea that you aren’t allowed to leave or question a religion is obvious, but those memes only work once you’re already a member of the religion. ---
**Author:** ![Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/half_man_half_wit/32/21766_2.png) [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Half_Man_Half_Wit)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2009, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-sam-harris/487748/113 "2009-03-06T17:44:29Z")
> [@Lemur866](#): > > It was more like, the river exists, it’s constantly moving, therefore there must be some sort of something animating that river, therefore the river must be alive in some way, therefore the river has feelings and emotions akin to human emotions, therefore you have to be polite to the river just like you have to follow rules of politeness in human interactions, and grandpa always said that the river likes to be given a gift of feathers, and that’s why we always drop a bundle of feathers into the river every time we cross the river, and because he didn’t do it right that’s probably why Timmy angered the river and drowned when he tried to cross the river last spring. Well, I think fundamentally, faith comes from superstition, and superstition is a form of behaviour – think of Skinner’s pigeons: they were randomly given some food at some time, and after a while started to associate behaviours they’d been randomly engaging in when they got fed with getting fed, thus repeated these behaviours in an effort to make the food appear again. Mistaken causal attribution, same thing you’re arguing for, basically. But is this (essentially unsubstantiated) belief that a certain kind of behaviour leads to certain results, even though it actually doesn’t, really that different from faith? > [@](#): > > It’s not faith that drives this sort of idea, it’s mistaken but plausible understandings about the nature of the world. You’re arguing that religion directly springs from these misattributions – fine. But I’d say that the belief in these misattributions is pretty much just that what we normally call ‘faith’. ‘God did it’ is a mistaken (if there’s not actually a god) but plausible explanation for natural phenomena; the belief that ‘god did it’ is the right explanation is faith. > [@](#): > > The idea of faith is a late addition to the history of religion, and peculiar to certain religions. Are there any religions that are not founded on faith, though? That’s a honest question – I couldn’t think of any. ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2009, 6:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-sam-harris/487748/114 "2009-03-06T18:02:24Z")
Well, maybe we’re using the word “faith” differently, because I don’t think any religion is founded on faith, as I argued earlier. Individual humans don’t become members of a religion because they first had faith in that religion and then joined it. Religions weren’t invented because one guy had faith in a new religion and founded it, and then other people got faith in the religion and joined it. If we decide that belief in certain behaviors leads to certain results is faith, then everything is faith. I’d rather say that faith is something that people talk about AFTER they already believe something, it’s a memetic characteristic of certain religions that acts to prevent people from leaving the religion. It’s a sustaining characteristic of religion, not the origin of religion. You are taught to believe in Jesus as a child, and so you do. Then you start asking questions about Jesus, and they tell you that even though they can’t answer your questions you should just have faith in Jesus anyway. And so you stop questioning and just believe. But you didn’t start believing in Jesus because you had faith in Jesus, you started believing in Jesus because your parents taught you to believe in Jesus, or you met some other people who convinced you to start believing in Jesus. So “faith” is a characteristic of certain types of religions, and one of the reasons that religions of this type are very common around the globe. If you’re a polytheist there’s no problem when some stranger comes into your village to talk about this new god named Jesus. But if you’re a Christian and a stranger comes into your village to talk about Freya, then there’s a problem. ---
**Author:** ![Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/half_man_half_wit/32/21766_2.png) [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Half_Man_Half_Wit)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2009, 6:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-sam-harris/487748/115 "2009-03-06T18:38:14Z")
I’m not sure I know any other definition of faith other than ‘unsubstantiated belief’ – unsubstantiated in the sense that it isn’t sufficiently indicated by evidence or simply can’t be shown to be true, either because it just isn’t, or because its object is supposedly intangible to a degree that makes it inaccessible to the common methods of ascertaining truth. Perhaps you should give your definition, if it is in conflict with mine? ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2009, 7:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-sam-harris/487748/116 "2009-03-06T19:30:02Z")
But how do you substantiate any belief? Every belief we have about the universe is contingent, because we are fallible finite beings who constantly make mistakes. The guy who believes a river god drowned Timmy last spring doesn’t believe it on faith, be thinks he has pretty good reasons for his belief. Now, we can say that we know that his belief is incorrect, that there is no such thing as a river spirit, and the river spirit didn’t get angry at Timmy. But his belief isn’t unsubstantiated, rather it is incorrect. If we define “faith” as any unsubstantiated belief then we’re going to find very few people who have any sort of faith, unless we define “unsubstantiated” as “something I personally judge to be weakly substantiated”. I agree that many religious ideas are examples of superstitious behavior as Skinner defined it. I just don’t think calling superstitious or incorrect beliefs “faith” is helpful. Did you drive through that red light because you had faith that it was green? No, you just didn’t notice it was red. Did you drive through the green light because you had faith that green lights are safe? No, you just didn’t notice the truck running the red light and the last 10,000 times you drove through a green light it was safe so you didn’t pay any attention to whether this particular one was safe. Do you knock on the dashboard three times before you drive through a green light because you have faith that knocking will keep you safe? No you don’t have faith that knocking keeps you safe, you have a mistaken belief that knocking keeps you safe, which you arrived at because the last 10,000 times when you knocked nothing bad happened so therefore the knocking must keep you safe. Whether you knock three times or ask Jesus to keep you safe, they are examples of the same type of behavior. ---
**Author:** ![Blalron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/35a633/32.png) [@Blalron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blalron)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2009, 11:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-sam-harris/487748/117 "2009-03-06T23:18:38Z")
> [@Fantome](#): > > Semantics. Most of us define religion the way that the first hit on [dictionary.com](http://dictionary.com) does. It would make sense that some Buddhists would like to label it as a religion though because of the special protection and government perks (in most Western countries) that go with it. It would be nice if I could get the government to buy into my weekly poker game being sacred. You are wrong… in fact, you are wrong according to the very [source](http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion?qsrc=2888) you are citing as authoritative! Shame on you! 😛 Ok, maybe the first listing doesn’t apply to buddhism. But so what? Just because it’s listed under definition #2 doesn’t make it any less valid. The word “set” has a 119 different listings, and I dare you to argue that only listing #1 is valid! > [@dictionary.com](#): > > re⋅li⋅gion >    /rɪˈlɪdʒən/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [ri-lij-uhn] Show IPA > –noun > > 1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs. > 2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; **the Buddhist religion**. > 3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions. > 4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion. > 5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith. > 6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice. ---
**Author:** ![Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/half_man_half_wit/32/21766_2.png) [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Half_Man_Half_Wit)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2009, 1:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-sam-harris/487748/118 "2009-03-07T01:22:45Z")
> [@Lemur866](#): > > But how do you substantiate any belief? I’m going to stand by what I wrote in my last post – by supporting it with evidence, or showing it to be true, at least as far as such a thing is possible (which it is, at least in some cases – some mathematical statements at least can be shown to be true within a given framework). I can substantiate my belief in the existence of black sheep by discovering one, for instance. > [@](#): > > Do you knock on the dashboard three times before you drive through a green light because you have faith that knocking will keep you safe? No you don’t have faith that knocking keeps you safe, you have a mistaken belief that knocking keeps you safe, which you arrived at because the last 10,000 times when you knocked nothing bad happened so therefore the knocking must keep you safe. Whether you knock three times or ask Jesus to keep you safe, they are examples of the same type of behavior. How is believing either the knocking thing or Jesus will keep you safe not faith? What, to you, would be faith, if not this? ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2009, 12:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-sam-harris/487748/119 "2009-03-07T12:58:27Z")
> [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](#): > > Well, religion certainly isn’t assembled from a list of ingredients, but it grows from an initial proposition – from faith. The comparison would only be apt if eggs naturally grew into cakes occasionally, and in that case, I’d certainly say that eggs lead to cakes. Religion from faith is an evolutionary process, basically – the starting point (faith) does not exclusively determine the end point, but the end point is certainly predicated on the starting point. I notice that another poster just just pointed out to you that some people are exposed to the organization and told it’s “right” before they have faith. I think religion and the nature of a what particular religion a person joins is based on a mix of factors that could be compared to a list of ingredients pretty easily. Regardless, I think we’ve exhausted the subject. > [@](#): > > How not? If, when there’s no faith, there’s no religion, then it’s not possible to give a religious justification for some moral crime. It depends on whether the goal is to prevent violence or just change the description of the violence. Let’s keep this no faith, no religion comment in mind for later in the post. > [@](#): > > I’ve never claimed that there aren’t – in fact, I’ve been careful to point out that I don’t buy into the whole ‘root of all evil’-thing when it comes to religion. Great, but when you advocate, no gun, and make a statement like, no faith, no religion, what do you mean? Your argument seems pretty inconsistent. > [@](#): > > I’ve also never claimed that no good can come from religion – as I said before, if all the followers of some religion are all about love, peace & harmony that’s a great thing, the problem is just that so few really are, and also that the network established by religion can be equally well used to spread moral corruption. So few are? Any data to support that statement? Almost any organization can be corrupted. I fail to see your point. > [@](#): > > Look, the original assertion as raised in this thread was that since communism is to atheism what religion is to faith, it’s as possible to commit atrocities in the name of atheism as it is in the name of faith. I’ve argued that that’s not the case, not because atheists can’t be every bit as fucked up as the worst religious fundamentalists, but because atheism doesn’t give rise to communism (or any other ideology) the way faith gives rise to religions. I actually thought we were more or less on the same page there. We’re not. I mentioned a ways back that we seemed to be on tangents. I thought perhaps we had cleared that up. Evidently not. I’ve said several times that I wasn’t claiming atheism caused communism or that the moral crimes committed by Stalin were done in the name of atheism. What I’ve been saying is the the real driving force behind such crimes seems to be something not linked to either theism or atheism. If that’s true,that means the issue of faith causes religion but atheism doesn’t cause communism, and what justification was used, be it religion, or communism, doesn’t matter. If I’m correct then those factors are no longer relevant to any goal of eliminating that type of violence, or assigning responsibility. > [@](#): > > I’ve never once argued for religion to be removed. In fact, I believe you’re right, we’d find other means and reasons to kill each other. But they won’t be atheistic in nature the way killing someone because they have the wrong altar in their house is religiously motivated, and hence, ultimately, follows from faith. Then you need to read your own posts more carefully. I’m not sure what other implication I can take form your “take away the weapon” analogies or your statement above about “no faith no religion” > [@](#): > > A little hypothetical: Say we’ve got a situation where one person is violently angry at another, perhaps because the other slept with their spouse, or stole them some money, or whatever. They’re both confined into the same space for some period of time. Do you think the situation would lead to the same consequences if one of them has a knife as it does when there’s no knife? Don’t you think, on average, the consequences will end up being worse in the case with the knife? Surely, one of 'em might end up dead in both cases, but thanks to the ease of killing the knife provides, I’d wager that that’s more often the case if the knife is present. This analogy fails. I’ve allowed the weapon analogy even though it’s imperfect but let’s keep in mind that religion is not a weapon. Christianity also teaches forgiveness and mercy. so the knife seems equally likely to keep violence at bay. > [@](#): > > Religion is like the knife: not in itself bad, but easy to abuse to perpetuate bad actions. Atheism is like the lack of knife: not in itself able to prohibit committing bad actions, but at least it doesn’t make them any easier. And here again you’re comparing the complexities of a belief system {religion} with something that is not a belief system. It doesn’t work. Stop doing it. Not only that the analogy is flawed. The knife is just as useful as it is dangerous. Are you saying atheism isn’t useful or dangerous? ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2009, 12:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-sam-harris/487748/120 "2009-03-07T12:59:44Z")
> [@Blalron](#): > > You are wrong… in fact, you are wrong according to the very [source](http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion?qsrc=2888) you are citing as authoritative! Shame on you! 😛 > > Ok, maybe the first listing doesn’t apply to buddhism. But so what? Just because it’s listed under definition #2 doesn’t make it any less valid. The word “set” has a 119 different listings, and I dare you to argue that only listing #1 is valid! Thanks for pointing that out. I thought the whole semantics bit was so lame I didn’t even bother to go to [dictionary.com](http://dictionary.com). [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-sam-harris/487748.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-sam-harris/487748.md?page=7)