Sam Harris – do not cast the first stone
(You may want to read the Over view blog on conference first to get a background on Sam Harris’ led balloon – the blog below this one, though not essential)
Sam Harris says stop being atheists!
Well considering the response a pin dropping at the back of the hall would have got everyone turning their heads you would have thought that was what he had said. He was talking about tactics, for example, when discussing stem cell research why would you have to resort to stating atheism as a clinching reason when other more effective ones can be used?
Sam says consciousness is mystical!
Which is what one questioner seemed to suggest accusing him of being a super naturalist, when he had said he is a materialist, yet maybe we just need to find more evidence as to what makes the whole thing tick which may be different from the western interpretation. Naturally I will not quote people who were talking frankly to me, as it was off the record. But many people there seemed to suggest that Sam was too much the philosopher and not the activist. Perhaps their view could be summed up with Mat Chapman (great grandson of Darwin) that atheists should show they care by getting involved in social justice issues, in his words adding litmus tests to being atheists.A concern I had was that looking round the conference you would get the impression that atheism and democrat politics were the same thing. Now statistically that may be the case, but I also know many democrats involved in left wing religious groups too.
Yet atheism is that by logic you cannot deduce there is a god, and the evidence that we have strongly suggests otherwise. It will not tell me whether abortion is something women should have on demand, the size of the public sector, what rate of income tax the top 10 per cent of earners should pay, whether children should have free school dinners. To answer these questions the “A” word would not come up once in my responses, because it does not answer the questions.
I tackled Mat on that point. When it comes to politics atheism does not tell me in England whether I am Conservative, Labour or Liberal Democrat. Atheists will be found on all sides of the house. My concern as a secularist is that religion and faith is not given an access to policy making that it does not deserve based on faith being considered venerable. That reason and science are under threat. Yet if we start tagging on political subjective issues to the Atheist bandwagon then the big tent idea goes out of the window. How many biologists, writers, politicians will be out in the cold if the movement ends up with economic doctrines they are opposed too that could help with education and science?
Yes it is good to show we care, but when tackling social issues this is not because I am an atheist, rather because I am a liberal in the Rawlsian tradition, and as a social libertarian when it comes to people living their lives. I had this vision of wearing my “A” T shirt in a soup kitchen – nothing wrong doing that but I cannot help that I would tackle homelessness for the reason Bertrand Russell did, not because we are not Christians.
As to Sam Harris, I know he gets stick. Probably considering the Out campaign of RDF it may seem that I would be opposed to what he was saying about ditching the Atheist word. Yet one of the first threads I ever created was on what we should call ourselves and with thousands of hit’s on that thread it leads me to think that this issue is one that the movement thinks about.
I agree that when destroying a religious person’s point of view I can let them refer to the bible and I can use reason and science, without having to lie down in the chalk outline on the floor by stating “as an atheist” which immediately turns some people off the message (Sam’s line). Do you perhaps think that is not the issue? Simple test – go to a bar and buy someone a drink at random. Get chatting for a few minutes then mention you are an atheist. If they are religious or have belief in belief the shutters will go down immediately even though you have been talking freely for a few minutes.
I noticed that in a lift at the conference. Talking to this gentleman with a child, said how great it was. When someone said it was the Atheist Alliance International he flinched. The point I am trying to make is that some social issues will be harder to promote if we tag atheism on to it.
Reason and science are under threat. One day being an atheist will not be a big deal. It will happen, if we can have the enlightenment, if we can go from the wheel to landing on the moon it is possible. It is by no means a guaranteed progression, nor does it mean that we will not have to stand tall, stand out and challenge faith and the consequences of this meme.
I honestly think we should not abandon the word atheist. I am not afraid of using the word, and I am only just getting used to the idea of Brights (“Come OUT it’s BRIGHT!” was all I could think of to chant outside White House) and yes I think there is a good reason. Is it BRIGHT to look for evidence for positions on scientific questions? Is it BRIGHT to use reason to work out how we should make sense of how we live our lives?
So maybe it is difficult to separate how humanism influences political stances, that it is complex how we make our decisions on these issues. Often social issues of abortion, education, science we will be tackling SUPERS and well meaning MURKERS. The question I think is one of tactics – and people even question the use of the word bright.
I think we can honestly discuss these things without the stoning of Sam Harris, who I am glad to have – someone that will speak knowing he will have stones hurled. If we do not have room in the tent for Sam Harris then I put it to those people that litmus tests for atheism for people to be “one of us” is a slippery slope to us becoming an exclusive club, and perhaps even worse analogies.
Our focus is on defending reason and science, the separation of church and state, and the removal of faith as having a special significance in the policy making process. Lets not make the struggle any more difficult by leaving people on the way side that could otherwise help us in these goals.
Sam Harris talk can be read here:
http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,1702,The-Problem-with-Atheism,Sam-Harris,page1#comments






I agree and it’s admirable that Harris was ballsy enough to bring it up at the convention which further demonstrates the veracity of the reasonableness of atheists and the like. Hopefully this discussion will continue and atheists will not get labeled into a generic liberal title thrown about disparagingly by those pushing some incendiary fundamentalist exclusionary purpose (plagiarizing myself). Meritorious of most atheists (am generalizing) is the individualism and my thoughts are that this is what ultimately each atheist should promote in addition to our endorsement of reason, which ultimately leads the way to science. I wholeheartedly agree that our most important focus nowadays be on “the separation of church and state and the removal of faith as having a special significance in the policy making process”. Great post and thanks!
Pamela
October 4, 2007 at 1:26 pm
You have some great essays on your myspace page and would recommend reposting them here on your wordpress blog. Keep up the good work
)
Pamela
October 4, 2007 at 1:37 pm
Thanks Pamela, as you can guess myspace was up before a friend (Mat’ the driver in the police question atheists blog) recommended this site for my blogs.
Will try and get some on here. Any in particular you liked on myspace?
Thanks for the encouragement.
homoeconomicusnet
October 4, 2007 at 1:46 pm
I’m a sucker for anything philosophical
)
Pamela
October 4, 2007 at 1:55 pm
[...] Sam Harris Speech at the AAIC 5 10 2007 Much has been discussed about Sam’s speech on the adverse effects of using the term atheism. His speech was commendable and one of some philosophical reflection and debate and I have commented as much on other blog posts: …it’s admirable that Harris was ballsy enough to bring it up at the convention which further demonstrates the veracity of the reasonableness of atheists and the like. Hopefully this discussion will continue and atheists will not get labeled into a generic liberal title thrown about disparagingly by those pushing some incendiary fundamentalist exclusionary purpose (plagiarizing myself). Meritorious of most atheists (am generalizing) is the individualism and my thoughts are that this is what ultimately each atheist should promote in addition to our endorsement of reason, which ultimately leads the way to science. I wholeheartedly agree that our most important focus nowadays be on “the separation of church and state and the removal of faith as having a special significance in the policy making process”. [...]
Sam Harris Speech at the AAIC « pam3la
October 5, 2007 at 9:53 pm
[...] in the weblogs Friendly Atheist, (here, here, here , here and here) and Homo economicus’ Weblog (here, here and [...]
Problems with atheism? « Open Parachute
October 6, 2007 at 7:04 pm
Hi, my name is disman-kl, i like your site and i ll be back
Ivan
November 29, 2007 at 10:53 am
[...] Alliance International 2007 Conference in Washington DC - which include such highlights as Sam Harris’ speech that shocked his audience, the police detaining us outside the Pentagon, and an argument about [...]
A new look side bar « Homo economicus’ Weblog
August 13, 2008 at 2:02 am
[...] misses what Sam Harris said at the AAI 2007 Conference – that we do not need to attack religion when talking about stem cell research, abortion or [...]
Sensibilities nonsense in Atheist Approach « Homo economicus’ Weblog
May 30, 2011 at 6:45 pm