PZ Myers’ Response to Sam Harris

doughtfuldaughter,

I totally disagree with: “but atheist is a word that cleanly explains what we believe. We believe in no deity.”

That statement is simply not true and you bring up that point when you state: “Unfortunately, so many people equate atheist with puppy kicking and baby seal clubbing,….”

I think I am an atheist, but many tell me I am agnostic, freethinker, etc. We must first define “God”, “god” “deity” and “believe”.

It is not that clear cut. I do not believe in the personage of GOD, but am a spiritual person who believes in a “higher power”. Am I an atheist?

I have an issue with people who behave in a separatist manner yet don’t want to be “isolated”. It a contradiction in it’s simplest form.

One of the main problem I see with religion is that it separates people. One of the ways it does this is with labels. “I am this” “I am that”. Why would someone who disagrees with the way people of religion live and yet want to adopt their methods?

The issue is not black and white. I agree with Sam Harris on some levels and disagree with him on others. One thing I am sure of is that “Atheism” is starting to sound like a religion and that can’t possibly be good.

I’m proud to use the label Humanist because it is a label that pretty much sums up everything about me.

Thing is, I still have this feeling that Sam Harris isn’t telling us everything and given what I know about this area, if he was down here, he may have received some serious flack. Then again, I maybe over-analyzing what he said too. It would not surprise me though.

My English prof praised Harris for being able to influence others because he organizes his thoughts. I said, “No, not with his lastest.” Regardless, his latest tells me something is wrong and he’s not telling us. “We should go under the radar—for the rest of our lives”? Sounds like a man who’s frighten for some reason. This makes me ask, “What happened?”

Maybe not, but I am a bit tired of hiding and isn’t working under the radar a bit like hiding? I see nothing wrong or threatening about saying I’m a Humanist or even a non-theist. If the other person takes it as a potential threat then they need to learn to ask questions or do some research. I really don’t want to pound theism out of anyone and that is not what Humanism is about anyway. Nor is atheism without being a Humanist or any other added title, even though there are some atheists that do take a militant stance. Now those are the people that need to chill out a little, because they do give others a bad rap just as religious extremists give the religious a bad rap.

I’m not talking about strong-arm politics either. I’m just saying we shouldn’t hide and it really doesn’t matter what title we choose. Or it shouldn’t at least. Does a bi-racial person need to hide under the radar anymore? There was a time when a bi-racial person who could pass for White did just that and kept their mouth shut about their identity. I don’t think it was very fair to them that they had to hide their genetic origin.

Yes, I know. We’re not talking genetics, but since Harris did bring it up racism in his article it seems to me it’s fair game. The last thing I want my older son, who takes after me, to do is hide his background. He is both Black and White. Both my sons are, but my older son could “pass for White” esp if one did not know what they were looking at when they looked at him and it’s happened a time or two in his life. When he was in middle school, the students for some reason segregated themselves. My older son happened to sit with the Black kids without giving it a second thought and one of them said, “What are you doing here? You’re White.” He proudly, though a bit defiant, said, “My daddy is as Black as you!” The students looked him over and finally let him stay with no more attitude.

He gets it from both sides, but the point is, if people of colour can stand up and proudly say, “Black is beautiful” or say like my son did that his daddy is Black (and remember there was a time he still would have been ousted by either side) why can’t we be proud of who we are? I think I would be a hypocrit if I refused to say, “I’m a Humanist” and revert to keeping my mouth shut or say I’m something I’m not out of fear of what Christians would do to me. My son doesn’t have to have fear of others because he is not all Black or all White. Neither one of my sons do for that matter, even though my younger son gets it more from some White people. So, I’m a Humanist with a “Christian cultural background”, but only because I was born into Christianity. Big deal.

I didn’t choose to be born into Christianity anymore than a child born into Judaism or Islam did (or a child who is other than White), but I did choose to be a Humanist.

My view is that I’m going to continue to call myself a skeptic and an atheist and a freethinker, and I’m going to suggest that everyone else continue to call themselves whatever labels they think best describe their views. And I’m going to work cooperatively with everybody who fits into the broadest class of freethinker, whatever they happen to call themselves, as long as they act with integrity and honesty. And if they don’t, I’m going to call them on it. And I encourage everyone to do the same.

I disagree with Harris when he says that people should stop using any of those labels and fly under the radar. I agree with him when he says that atheism is not a worldview–it’s a small but significant component of a large set of possible worldviews.

I’ve written more about this at my blog.

This is a bit off topic, but it relates to all the entries of the past couple of weeks that I have read here on this site. I would like to ask readers, and also Friendly Athiest: Why the hostility toward “believers.”

On any given day, if you ask me if I believe in God, I might say “I’m agnostic” or I might say “I’m an atheist.” Such is my personal status on faith right now. But I have NO hostility toward believers, nor do I feel that I have any responsibility or need to persuade them to see things my way. Religion seems to help some people to cope better with life, and it also seems to help some people to be more charitable, patient, or whatever. To the extent that religious beliefs create problems in the world or for you personally, why not just tackle those specific issues? Because not ALL believers cause problems for atheists, therefore you really cannot argue that religion is an evil that must be stamped out. That is wholly untrue. For most people, religious belief is benign and in most cases, another’s religious beliefs do not intersect with your life. What business is it of yours what others believe?

When I first visited this blog, there was an interesting discussion going on and I thought I might hang out here to learn more about my own feelings and about the feelings of other atheists/agnostics. But what I see going on here seems an awful lot like what Christian and Muslim zealots do when they try to “convert” the world. Why are you trying to convert the world to your belief system? Why not just live and let live?

Seeking serious and genuine responses. Thanks.

Happy Nat, why shouldn’t people be able to put their money toward the things they believe in? Are you putting money toward promotion of gay marriage? Are you putting money toward the protection of the environment? It’s a free country; you promote your own interests and everyone else promotes theirs. I don’t see the problem here.

As for people going hungry and needing shelter — well, there are some very valid philosophical viewpoints in favor of personal responsibility, so you can’t blame people for not wanting to sink even more resources into the welfare system. This is a real hot button for me. I grew up in an extremely poor home, was taught that welfare is a disgrace (consequently we went hungry a lot — something I do not agree should have happened just so my mother could teach us this principle), and I was independent by the age of 16, declared an emancipated minor in a court of law. I had to drop out of highschool to get a job to support myself, which I did. I worked for two years as a waitress and then as an office worker. I petitioned to go to college (having no highschool diploma and low SAT scores as I’d never heard of SAT preparation classes and had never taken such an exam in my entire life) and received government grants for tuition. My GPA my first semester in college was a 3.4. Not bad for a 10th grade dropout. I wanted to major in English, my first love, but knew it would be hard to make a living so I responsibly opted for a degree in Nursing instead. I kept my legs closed, thanks to my religious upbringing, so no illegitimate children to support (or to allow the government to support). I didn’t turn to drugs, prostitution, or crime, nor did I assume that the world or various rich people should take care of me. I did, however, harbor a lot of resentment toward my parents, who were the only people I felt had shirked their responsibility toward me. I didn’t try to trick a man into marrying me so I could get a meal ticket. In short, I relied upon myself. My siblings had a similar story (of course, as we all came from the same family). We were the first in our ENTIRE extended family to get a college degree. We saw our cousins going on welfare, getting knocked up by ex cons, and becoming drug addicts. Such is the family *I* came from. I did better. All that to explain why I have NO sympathy for people who cannot feed and shelter themselves in America. Sorry. (Unless they are under age 16, but even children are capable of making wise choices if they have the right bent). I am simply not convinced that a religious person should refrain from building creation museums (as silly as I think those are, by the way) and instead fund more welfare for the character-challenged among us. If you feel that the hungry and unsheltered are complete victims of a selfish or hypocritical society, then you should work another job and hand over all your paychecks to the victim of your choice. As I see it, we already pay an EXORBITANT amount of money into the welfare system. Don’t ask taxpayers or Christians or anyone else to pay more; instead, make that YOUR pet project, and YOU should pay more. Unless you’re a hypocrite too . . .

Who gives to charity?

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/JohnStossel/2006/12/06/who_gives_to_charity

batyah, I’m very glad that you were so resourceful, and responsible and smart enough to achieve what you did. Congratulations.

However, it’s not very useful to look to one or two – or even two dozen – examples of extraordinary people overcoming the odds and becoming successful, because the truth is that most people simply can’t do that. They don’t have the brains, they don’t have the drive, they don’t have the optimism, or the luck, or whatever it takes to overcome as you did.

So, what are we as a society supposed to do with the vast numbers of people who don’t fit your mold? Have you no empathy toward them whatsoever? Even you admit that your parents were irresponsible to let you go hungry in order to teach you a lesson or stick to their principles. Are we supposed to kick hungry children to the curb?

I for one do not want to live in a society where children beg on the streets and pregnant women have no access to supplemental food or income. Do you?

Karen, I agree with you that children should not be made to suffer. But my solutions would be regarded as too extreme and harsh: I believe that if you are old enough to make a baby, you are old enough to deal with consequences, period. That means that if you make a baby and cannot or will not take care of it, then the child should be seized immediately (no second chances; you were warned) and placed with people who will love it and nurture it. Too bad if you feel bummed that your child was taken away. And if you dare to get yourself pregnant again, you face stiffer penalties — I don’t know, maybe forced sterilization. At some point, the message has to be conveyed that children are precious and if you are unworthy of having them, we will take them away from you and give them to someone else.

Handing out money to these kind of people does not help the situation at all. Many times these people do not use the money to feed or care for their children anyway — instead I’ve seen women support any number of able-bodied shiftless male sperm inseminators while their children continue to go neglected and hungry.

Do not paint me as an uncaring, unsympathetic person. Nothing could be further from the truth. I get angry when I see children mistreated and neglected — I do not care one whit if their parents were also mistreated and neglected.Once you reach a certain age, you should make the necessary changes in your life. At the very least, stop breeding. It doesn’t take much brainpower to look around you and figure out that you need to start doing things differently in order to change your life. It isn’t as if the US isn’t chock full of incredible role models. There are MANY resources in America already, and many wonderful and generous people. I know, because I took advantage of their offers of help. It is not as though I did it all on my own, so I am not asking anyone else to do it all either. What I’m asking is for everyone to BE RESPONSIBLE and put out even the tiniest of efforts. MOST people you see in dire straits are there not because of discrimination or lack of brain power; they are there because they have no moral character. This is where the religious right is correct 100%. Instead of giving handouts, start giving instructions (I agree that these people need to be led by the hand). Have penalties for failure to follow instructions. Start taking the children away — there are more than enough childless couples looking to adopt.

There is an old adage that is so, so true: Unrewarded behavior does not get repeated. This is a psychological fact. When public assistance is reduced for every additional child born, the birth rate in that region goes down. DUH! When men are chased down and forced to pay child support, they do. Many of these people live in circumstances that we consider horrific, but by THEIR standards, it’s not so bad, so they are not motivated to change. THEREIN LIES THE PROBLEM. Where you see a problem and think the solution lies in easing suffering, I see a problem and think the solution lies in allowing the person to feel even more suffering. Clearly, they are not at their tipping point yet, that point at which they are motivated to say to themselves “this isn’t working for me; I need to do something different.” Obviously, as I have said before, the children should be removed from the home as they should not be made to suffer for their parents’ stupidity. If mass orphanages need to be built, so be it. The breeding has got to stop, and the perpetuation of one welfare generation after the next must be broken.

Liberals think they are so open hearted to want to give and give and give. But all that has done is create generations who have expectations that someone else will take care of them. It is wrong to hobble a person by making them believe that they are not capable of changing their lives for the better. Instead of sending victim creating messages like “Life is so unfair; the rich get everything; discrimination is the big boogey man” we should be sending messages of “You can do it; you can be anything you want; others before you have done it and are waiting to help you and show you how.”

How did we go from titles to taking children from their mothers? I don’t think totalitarianism is the answer either. I agree with Karen, you ideas Batyah are abhorrent. Frightening also. Why don’t you just slaughter these people too while you are ate it, but make it a slow painful death? That’s basically what you are suggesting and some people just might even commit suicide with your ideas, but what do you care.

Re: Stossel:
The problem with trying to import that study into this discussion is that the distinction was made between “religious” and “non-religious”.
I can’t remember the exact stats, but don’t something like 20% of Americans consider themselves “non-religious” but believe in god/the supernatural?
I’m not saying a more nuanced study will produce different results, just that to consider it a characteristic of atheists you first have to separate atheists from other non-religious folk.