The Lies of Sam Harris

[Half_Man_Half_Wit]

@cosmosdan

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.

Well, perhaps you could tell me then what believing that this organization is “right” is, if not faith? Otherwise, a rose by any other name…

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.

I never said anything about why any particular person joins a religion, and if you believe it’s relevant to the argument I’m making, you haven’t understood it.

It depends on whether the goal is to prevent violence or just change the description of the violence.

I wasn’t aware that it’s either – my goal certainly was merely to show how religion can be used in a destructive manner in which atheism can’t be.

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 don’t advocate ‘no gun’, and by saying no faith, no religion, I pretty much mean that there’s no religion without faith; not all that difficult. I’ve been consistently saying that religion isn’t the reason why people harm each other, but provides means by which people can harm each other. Not sure what you’re not getting about this.

So few are? Any data to support that statement? Almost any organization can be corrupted. I fail to see your point.

It would seem so. First, data: several ten thousand years of killing each other should suffice to show that people, on the whole, aren’t mainly on the ‘love, peace and harmony’-track. Second, yes, any organization that provides means of control or influence over other people can be corrupted in such a way as to exert negative influence and make people do bad things. That’s what I’ve been saying all the time, basically. Third, atheism doesn’t lead to such an organization.

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.

Nope. While communism probably isn’t responsible in a direct moral way for the atrocities committed in its name, it did provide the means by which these atrocities were committed. Same thing with religion – I’ve provided a hypothetical example earlier, it probably escaped your notice, so I’ll just repost it:

@Half Man Half Wit

the population of Country A is devoutly religious, and their head of state is also their religious Head Honcho. What he says is not merely mortal, but divine law. Transgressions against the Head Honcho’s words are transgressions against the almighty himself. Naturally, this can be used to keep the public in line and have them do as they’re told very easily, seeing how there’s an eternity of hellfire waiting for everybody showing the slightest signs of rebellion. If Head Honcho says somebody is the enemy, he is The Enemy because god said so! And if Head Honcho says the enemy should be killed, then by god, the enemy will be killed.

Now, let’s have a look at Country B. They don’t do religion, simply, and their head of state is just that, a political leader. What atheistic measures does he have to keep the public in line? Do what you’re told or else, nothing’s gonna happen to you? Sure, he could resort to military or political means, and he probably has other oppressive means at his disposal, but those aren’t in any way atheistic in nature. His power doesn’t derive from atheism the way Country A’s Head Honcho’s power derives from religion. It can’t, in fact.

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”

I haven’t found where I said anything about ‘taking away the weapon’, but the second statement was actually part of a conditional, you just lost the ‘if’ – as in ‘if when there’s no faith, there’s no religion, then…’ – somewhere along the way.

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.

If there’s no religion when there’s no faith, then I’m validly comparing the consequences of faith with those of atheism.

Are you saying atheism isn’t useful or dangerous?

Actually, yes – atheism is not useful or dangerous.

What I’m claiming is merely that religions wouldn’t exist without faith (let’s just drop that whole ‘leads to’ business). Thus, because of faith, there’s religion. Religion can be used to exert control and influence about its followers – by saying ‘god wants you to do X’. If bad people are at the top of a certain religion, they can use this religion’s means of exerting control and influence to make its followers do bad things – by saying ‘god wants you to kill the unbelievers’, for example. If a person has faith in that religion’s god, and has faith in that religion’s top level people telling him the true will of god, he’ll then have to believe that it’s right for him to kill the unbelievers (or renounce his faith). Thus, he’ll probably kill unbelievers. Which is bad.

Now, with atheism, the position of not having faith, there is no such chain of causality. Communists may be atheists. Nazis may be atheists. Heck, ostensibly religious people may be atheists. But they all may equally well be convinced Roman Catholics (yes, yes, I know, the bad people aren’t ‘true’ Christians; however, they might think they are, yes?). You cannot create an ideology from atheism because it doesn’t make any positive statement about the world – that is, it doesn’t say ‘some aspect of the world is so-and-so’; rather, it is a position of doubting (certain) positive statements made about the world. You cannot get atheists to do something based on their atheism; but you can get believers to do something based on their faith (not all believers not all of the time, but some believers sometimes).

To be absolutely clear, I’m not arguing that religion is evil. I’m not arguing that people do evil solely because of religion (though I do believe religion may be a contributing factor, simply because of the ease with which it allows people to exert control over others). I’m not arguing that there can’t be any good done in the name of religion. I’m not even arguing that mankind is worse off with religion than it would be without (I believe that’s the case, but that’s totally unrelated to my argument here). I’m merely arguing that faith and the rejection thereof have totally different consequences: faith is instrumental for the existence of certain structures that themselves have a variety of effects, some good, some not so good – religions. Atheism doesn’t constitute a building block of comparable structures in the first place. Other structures that can be used in a similar manner as religions may exist, and might totally replace religions in all effects should religions be removed, and those structures may even contain an atheist doctrine, but their existence doesn’t depend on atheism. I don’t see why any of this is so damn controversial.

[cosmosdan]

@Half_Man_Half_Wit

Well, perhaps you could tell me then what believing that this organization is “right” is, if not faith? Otherwise, a rose by any other name…

Possibly indoctrination, or cultural and family pressure. Those seem realistic.

I never said anything about why any particular person joins a religion, and if you believe it’s relevant to the argument I’m making, you haven’t understood it.

Excuse me, you said faith causes, or leads to religion right? I’m saying there are other factors and faith may not always be the primary one. That seems relevant.

I wasn’t aware that it’s either – my goal certainly was merely to show how religion can be used in a destructive manner in which atheism can’t be.

Yes, an orange can be used of orange juice and an apple can’t be. I agree. My point is neither theism or atheism {the proper comparison} lead to moral crimes without some other factor that both can be vulnerable to.

<snipped for brevities sake>

It would seem so. First, data: several ten thousand years of killing each other should suffice to show that people, on the whole, aren’t mainly on the ‘love, peace and harmony’-track. Second, yes, any organization that provides means of control or influence over other people can be corrupted in such a way as to exert negative influence and make people do bad things. That’s what I’ve been saying all the time, basically. Third, atheism doesn’t lead to such an organization.

That’s not data. You made a claim you haven’t supported. can you?

I’ll respond to the rest after work.

[Half_Man_Half_Wit]

@cosmosdan

That’s not data. You made a claim you haven’t supported. can you?

You’re actually questioning my claim that people harm each other? That few people are good through and through?

[cosmosdan]

@Half_Man_Half_Wit

You’re actually questioning my claim that people harm each other? That few people are good through and through?

I didn’t realize your claim was that broad and non relevant. We were talking about believers and the extremes of moral atrocities and the good done by believers. I assumed your argument was that believers do more bad than good. Believers and people in general don’t have to be good through and through to accomplish good things. The point that I’ve been trying to make is the same faith you say can lead to moral crimes also leads to a lot of positive acts. No faith, no religion, we lose the positive as well and still haven’t addressed the real cause.

What I’m claiming is merely that religions wouldn’t exist without faith (let’s just drop that whole ‘leads to’ business). Thus, because of faith, there’s religion. Religion can be used to exert control and influence about its followers – by saying ‘god wants you to do X’. If bad people are at the top of a certain religion, they can use this religion’s means of exerting control and influence to make its followers do bad things – by saying ‘god wants you to kill the unbelievers’, for example. If a person has faith in that religion’s god, and has faith in that religion’s top level people telling him the true will of god, he’ll then have to believe that it’s right for him to kill the unbelievers (or renounce his faith). Thus, he’ll probably kill unbelievers. Which is bad.

Now, with atheism, the position of not having faith, there is no such chain of causality. Communists may be atheists. Nazis may be atheists. Heck, ostensibly religious people may be atheists. But they all may equally well be convinced Roman Catholics (yes, yes, I know, the bad people aren’t ‘true’ Christians; however, they might think they are, yes?). You cannot create an ideology from atheism because it doesn’t make any positive statement about the world – that is, it doesn’t say ‘some aspect of the world is so-and-so’; rather, it is a position of doubting (certain) positive statements made about the world. You cannot get atheists to do something based on their atheism; but you can get believers to do something based on their faith (not all believers not all of the time, but some believers sometimes).

So, you’re saying religion wouldn’t exist without faith but you’re not really advocating no religion. Slightly confusing.
Here again you’re incorrectly equating religion {a system of beliefs} with atheism {not a system} but I think I understand. Theism, faith, then religion.

Any organization can be corrupted by a lust for power, wealth, control. That’s where the example of communism is relevant. If a moral crime is committed it really doesn’t matter to the victim[s] whether the person is a religious zealot or a power hungry atheist.

If it seems far more likely for a theist to be corrupted I’d say that’s because there are far more theists than atheists. Now we are beginning to see people whose actions are motivated by atheism and atheist organizations so we see it is possible for either a theist or atheist to be moved to action, based on a belief or a lack of it. I’d say an atheist who acts on their atheism has more of a positive belief than a lack of it.

I don’t see any meaningful difference between “God said to do it” and “the leaders of my organization said to do it” when it comes to a moral crime.

So, I think I see your point,

my goal certainly was merely to show how religion can be used in a destructive manner in which atheism can’t be.

My point is that either a theist or an atheist can be a member of an organization with a dogmatic , controlling mind set and be party to moral crimes. I think it is other factors besides atheism or theism that are key. If that’s the case, whether a particular act was justified by religion is irrelevant to the core problem.

Neither theism nor atheism by themselves can be used in a destructive manner. Without other factors and actions both are equally neutral.

[Half_Man_Half_Wit]

OK. I give up. I can only so often try to clarify my position. At some point I have to acknowledge it’s futile, and I think that point is now.

[cosmosdan]

@Half_Man_Half_Wit

OK. I give up. I can only so often try to clarify my position. At some point I have to acknowledge it’s futile, and I think that point is now.

I agree, we’ve reached an impasse. It’s not that I don’t understand your position. I just don’t agree. Such is the nature of debate. Cheers.