Posted via web from danielmiessler.com | posterous

This clip is stellar.

Man, this is so incredibly good, but I continue to grapple with the best line to take in order to convince people.

At times I am quite certain this is the best approach, i.e. shame and disrespect, which is precisely what we give other belief systems that have been left in the past. Alchemy, Astrology, etc. But at times I feel a softer hand is needed, and that this direct and forceful push will do little more than create a vigorous counter-force.

But I think I mostly have my answer. Be aggressive at the abstract level, e.g. in public debate or when encountering attempts to shape policy based on faith, but gentle at the individual level. So if someone comes to you and genuinely wants to have a conversation about the topic, you don’t go all Pat Condell on them, as it would be counter-productive.

So that’s my current approach: aggressive at the abstract level, and gentle on the individual level. ::

My favorite quote:

Non-Muslims are the experts at science and technology, and we invite them from the U.S. and Europe to teach us those things, but in the matters of religion we are expert.

It’s both hilarious and deeply sad that he can’t see that his “expertise” in religion is precisely what keeps him–and people like him–from making any progress in science and technology. ::

And on that point the OED calls atheism ‘the belief that there is no God’–as it’s primary definition, no less–which kind of puts the matter to rest.

But either way, I think this rhetoric from Penn here is quite good.

Well, that’s what happens when you reject Christ…

?

I believe one answer might be the belief in supernatural free will, i.e. the free will given to humans by God, according to Christianity.

This belief can possibly be identified as the cause of many differences of opinion with secular humanists with regard to how people who should be treated who make poor choices, or who are at the extreme end of suffering. Basically, the humanist says, “this person suffers due to inputs from the physical world, which failed him.”, and many Christians say, “he made a choice to do that–a choice given to him by God.”

They are saying very explicitly that odds can be in favor of failure, as determined by reality, and that if said person does fail the responsibility is still on them. And as a result, public policy will be made more in line with that person choosing to fail than on them being a victim of failure, and this difference is of paramount importance in the creation of public policy.

In other words, unfair public policy can be said to stem directly from a belief in the supernatural–specifically, the catastrophic belief that the combination nature + nurture does not result in an outcome–and that instead, each person can be personally held responsible for their failure.

If this is the case, a belief in supernatural free will–as taught by Christianity and the other Abrahamic religions– could arguably be considered a direct and significant cause of the mistreatment of disadvantaged human beings. I think one could argue that this is evidence that religion–or at least religion that preaches this sort of supernatural responsibility–does cause harm.

Thoughts?

What follows is an excellent piece from Reddit on why leaving a religion can be so incredibly difficult. Here is the original thread, which is followed by some excellent discussion.

Here is the post in its entirety, written by Ancient09 of Reddit, for those who don’t like to follow links.

–

It is generally common for atheists to consider that the arguments against religion boil down to science, the facts, debate, etc. It puzzles many why someone when faced with all the evidence for evolution for example would still choose to ignore it. I think that many atheists are ignoring the REAL issue, the true reason why it is hard for someone to reject their religion.

I was raised Christian all my life, in a VERY fundamentalist home. I was taught the earth was 6,000 years old created out of nothing, heaven, hell – the whole thing. I was taught how important it was to witness and attempt to “convert” others. I was taught that even bad things, really bad things, had some sort of divine reason and plan attached to them. I believed this into my early twenties.

When I was finally faced with the irrefutable facts, and raw science behind them, I let go – very reluctantly – of my cherished beliefs. It was not easy, It was like wrestling a priceless gem from someone who would just not let go of it.

When you reject religion, its not like – rejecting the earth is not flat for example. With something like this you can say “Oh ok, now I know” – but religion has a much darker and deep rooted hold on a person, and a much more profound effect.

There were times I was actually in tears thinking about the fact that there was no “afterlife” – and that those I had loved who had died – were really dead. They weren’t watching me, or having some hand in guiding me. They didn’t still “love me”. That was pretty depressing.

It is strange how religion gives you a way to reject the reality of death – which I guess does help to ‘ease your suffering’, that you “know they went to a better place” – but it also prevents proper mourning. When someone you love dies, and they tell you on their death bed that they will see you one day in heaven, you are more prepared for them to “die” because you know they aren’t really “dead”.

To reject heaven and accept atheism – is not merely about science, facts, beliefs, etc – it is about accepting the reality of all those who have died – being really dead. It is accepting the same reality about everyone you love NOW one day being – really dead. It is accepting the same reality about YOU one day.

The older you are, the more dear loved ones have passed away, the harder it will be to reject the notions of religion. To reject religion requires the re-mourning of everyone who you love who has died.

Death is just one piece of a very complex puzzle. If you have spent your whole life “living by faith” – and you have made decisions “by faith” that have resulted in really bad situations in your life, you now have to own up to the fact that these situations came about because of YOUR choices. You do not have God to take the burden of this. You can no longer say “This happened because God has some plan for my life”.

By rejecting religion, you must also reject the notion that you can avoid responsibility for poor life situations. That too is a hard pill to swallow. Next, you must reject the idea that your path is somehow guided, that God is walking with you, that you are not truly alone as you walk through life. Imagine a man walking through a room on planks of wood suspended over spikes with large holes to fall in if you take a wrong step. He always manages to take the right next step, but he is never afraid because he “knows” that this is a solid wood floor he is walking on. Now turn on the lights.

To reject religion means to accept the idea that you CAN fall – and fall HARD. It means you have to recognize that up until now you have been fortunate – but now you have to force yourself to think about your next steps.

If you have been spending your life “following Christ”, or witnessing to people, to the extent of even studying this in college, or spending hundreds and hundreds of hours reading and studying the Bible, praying, etc – only to find out that ALL of it was utterly and totally useless, then you have another hard pill to swallow. Imagine swallowing that pill as an older person.

To accept this means to accept that you have lived a large part of your life in vain, while thinking it was purposeful. Talking to such a person about atheism is similar to telling them that their whole life is without purpose, misguided, and that they have missed out on the only opportunity they will ever have to live life.

Surely one can then see why the concept of atheism is offensive and infuriating to so many people.

Then there is the concept of a personal relationship with God. The idea that God and you are “friends”. That you are somehow “above the world”. That you are living in a bubble safe and protected by God himself.

To reject religion, means accepting that you are just like everyone else – and in fact, worse off than most and behind the race because of your past religious belief. To someone who has spent a lifetime believing they are special in this regard, a piece of them is gone, never to return.

Worse than this, such a person values their imaginary relationship with God more than any aspect of their REAL personality. Who you really are takes second stage to your supposed relationship with the almighty. Rejecting this is surely very difficult, as it entails rejecting a large part of the perceived value someone has in themselves.

I know I have not covered it all, but I hope I have helped to show that there is more to the picture of “religion vs atheism” than merely science, and facts.

The emotional side of religion is by far a larger and darker obstacle than any other that would stand in the way between someone’s freedom from delusion and accepting reality.

–

I think this is just a great way to capture the struggle so many intelligent, logical people face when they try to free themselves from religion and embrace a secular perspective. This happened to me even, and I was one of the lucky ones who didn’t face any sort of active indoctrination. I can only imagine my difficulty multiplied many times over for someone who wa.s

[ * For the image of leaving a religion I personally like the black hole metaphor, where you describe someone on the verge of leaving as pushing (outward) toward the event horizon, or, "nearing escape velocity". This isn't so much for any negativity regarding being *in* the black hole (or religion itself), but more as a description of how hard it is to escape from both. ]

I have debated here at great length the degree of benefit or harm offered to society by religion. My position is that religion–even in its so-called moderate forms–causes more harm to modern society than it offers in return.

My argument, in summary, is that religion is the direct cause of significant anti-intellectual sentiment in this country, and that this disrespect of logic and reason, as a foundation for public discourse, erodes American society as a whole. I feel that, for most people, separating religion from thought regarding civics, politics, and one’s general approach to life is not possible. And given that, the mixture that inevitably occurs results in an interpretation of the world that inhibits human progress.

The counter-argument I receive most from religious apologists is that the negativity in religion comes from extremists alone, and that moderate religion is nearly invisible in society. They go even further, saying that religion as a whole in America nets a positive effect, if anything.

I strongly disagree, and I think this article from Pew Senior Research Fellow David Masci supports my position. In this article he presents some compelling evidence regarding what American’s really think about their separation between religion and public discourse. I hope the apologists take notice.

Disturbing

• 42% of Americans outright reject evolution
• Another 21% say that evolution was guided by God
• Only 26% think it happened naturally

26%

Are you kidding me? That’s only one quarter of Americans that realize humans evolved naturally. 1 out of 4. It’s not some minority of extremists that reject science in America–it’s the overwhelming majority. And it’s not because they don’t know what scientists believe: nearly two-thirds of adults say they believe scientists agree on evolution. And it’s not that they think science is bad, either. 87% of respondents said scientific developments make society better.

So where’s the disconnect? Simple, they think science is good for some people but not for the religious. If they have to make a choice between what’s scientifically correct and what feels right to them, for religious reasons, they’re going to choose religion. This is precisely the sentiment that seeps into public discourse and causes harm to modern society.

When asked what they would do if scientists were to disprove a particular religious belief, nearly two-thirds (64%) of people say they would continue to hold to what their religion teaches rather than accept the contrary scientific finding, according to the results of an October 2006 Time magazine poll.

Breathtaking. But it gets worse.

Indeed, in a May 2007 Gallup poll, only 14% of those who say they do not believe in evolution cite lack of evidence as the main reason underpinning their views; more people cite their belief in Jesus (19%), God (16%) or religion generally (16%) as their reason for rejecting Darwin’s theory.

This, in my opinion, clearly explains why it’s so difficult to debate with the religious right in this country. Quite simply, if facts don’t matter as much as feelings, you have no discussion. I think this can be seen clearly in the current healthcare reform debate. As Johann Hari points out in a recent piece, the problem permeates all areas of discourse:

They insist gay marriage would cause the institution of the family to collapse. In reality, where it has already been introduced in Europe, heterosexual families continue just as before. On the list goes: evolution is a lie, a blastocyst is akin to a baby, torture produces actionable intelligence…

And he goes on to make make my exact point:

How do they train themselves to be so impervious to reality? It begins, I suspect, with religion. They are taught from a young age that it is good to have “faith” – which is, by definition, a belief without any evidence to back it up. You don’t have “faith” Australia exists, or fire burns: you have evidence. You only need “faith” to believe the untrue or unprovable. Indeed, they are taught that faith is the highest aspiration and most noble cause. Is it any surprise this then percolates into their political views? Faith-based thinking spreads and contaminates the rational.

So, perhaps Hitchens was being a bit hyperbolic when he said, “religion poisons everything”, but it does poison rational debate, and therefore the foundation of modern society. So, yeah, it might as well be everything. And unfortunately, contrary to what the apologists will tell you, this behavior is not isolated to some small subset of believers. Polling has shown us repeatedly that much of the American public is willing to outright reject truth not due to a lack of evidence but directly because of religion.

Teaching people to rely on religious upbringing rather than evidence has direct, negative, and lasting repercussions in our society (stem cell research, abortion, health care, etc.). This type of irrational belief is clearly not something that can be partitioned off from the shared and secular world. And because of this, the practice of teaching people to put religious beliefs before evidence (the very definition of faith) is inherently dangerous. The sooner we all realize this the better off we will be. ::

Few in the scientific community would debate Darwinian theory, but evolution is far from universally accepted among the public at large. While 87% of scientists say humans and other living things have evolved as the result of processes such as natural selection, only a third of the public agrees.

Another 22% of the public say humans have evolved, but “a supreme being guided the evolution of living things for the purpose of creating humans and other life in the form it exists today.” Three-in-ten Americans say humans and other living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time, a belief shared by only 2% of scientists.

Younger adults, ages 18 to 29 (40%), and the college educated (45%) are the most likely to believe in evolution, but in neither group does a majority agree.

Image from Pew

These numbers are simply staggering. It seems the trends are that as you become:

• younger
• less religious
• more educated
• more liberal (Democrat vs. Republican)

…you become more likely to believe in us evolving without supernatural influence. The last bit from the Pew article was telling:

The only group in which a majority says that humans evolved through natural-selection are the religiously unaffiliated (60%).

[ Edited for clarity. ]

This is an excellent debate. It’s much like the debate Carl and I’ve been having here for months, only much less focused on specific points…and Sam Harris writes significantly better than I do.

This is a must-read.

Here’s a quote I particularly like from Harris:

The argument that there is no deep conflict between scientific rationality and religious faith because some scientists are religious, and all religious people value some science, is a false one—and it has become a stultifying shibboleth. Is there generally no conflict between marriage and adultery simply because the two are so often found together?

I encourage all of my religious-moderate-friendly readers to read this in its entirety. I think it’ll give a new voice to the argument I’ve been making here for a long time now. ::

Links

[ Sam Harris vs. Phillip Ball | reasonproject.org ]

I refuse to be told, “I have a meek and mild savior for you, and if you don’t accept him you will be tortured forever”. Anyone who believes this is a wicked and delusional idiot. I will not be talked to in that tone. That is the language of totalitarianism and dictatorship, and it’s a very great relief to know that it’s completely mythical.

I think this is a very concise and powerful way of encapsulating the entire Christian proposition. It is, however, on the offensive side of my current personal rhetoric scale, so I’m not likely to employ it very often. But in the cases where I might, I intend to commit this to memory. ::

[ The Problem with Religious Moderates | beliefnet.com ]

And yes, it saddens me that due to a lack of time I bring to bear the work of other thinkers in my attempt to convince my friends here that mainstream societal support for religion is harmful–even in moderate forms.

I would like to have continued arguing alone, and I will bring more of my own approach to the debate later, but for now I enlist the help of others. ::

I see only with deep regret that God punishes so many of his children for their numerous stupidities, for which he himself can be held responsible; in my opinion, only his non-existence could excuse him. — AlbertEinstein

Brilliant.

I am for directly refuting these claims due to the fact that there is no evidence to support the existence of the creator that is required for the claims to be true. Or, at least no more evidence than there is for Isis or Thor. Furthermore, my more practical argument is that these types of beliefs have negative effects on society.

When I take this line I am vehemently opposed by many of my readers and friends. Their argument is essentially that moderate religion is harmless, and that there’s no reason to actively oppose it. Or, to put it in a more pointed way, they argue that my objection to their beliefs is no different than their beliefs themselves.

So this raises a question:

Are any beliefs worthy of ridicule in society? And if so, what separates those beliefs from those of the mainstream religious?

My stance on the first question is a definitive, “yes”. Many beliefs are, quite literally, ridiculous. That is to say they are “worthy of ridicule”. In other words, if someone were to claim to believe such a belief, it would be acceptable to openly dismiss and then ostracize them.

So what are some examples of such beliefs with respect to modern, western society?

• The belief that Elvis is still alive
• The belief that humans shared the earth with dinosaurs
• The belief that the earth is 5,000 years old
• The belief in leprechauns or fairies
• The belief that praying is an alternative to emergency medical treatment
• The belief in alchemy vs. chemistry
• The belief in medieval, witchcraft-style magic

Surely these have varying levels of believability among different groups, but in general if you’re interviewing for a mainstream job making more than $50,000, and the subject turns to your personal life, you would never want to voice any of the opinions mentioned above.

The question is, “why”?

As Sam Harris likes to point out, the reasons is simple. There would be immediate repercussions. You would likely not get the job, and when you left the person interviewing you would tell all of his/her associates about how nutty the last interviewee was. In short, ridicule.

The Link

My opinion on confronting religious beliefs is based on a simple concept.

We already today, in mainstream society, openly reject many foolish beliefs that are less outlandish than believing one is, to some degree, in communication with the creator of the universe, and that worshiping this invisible entity will yield immortality.

Assuming we survive long enough, this belief will fall squarely into the list I’ve made above. This has already happened in many European countries (which, by the way, are more educated, have less crime, and enjoy more overall societal health).

It’s time to do the same here. Call it what it is. Insane.

Harmless, Therefore OK

Once I make my previous point, the standard apologist line is invariably that no harm comes from moderate belief (even if it’s preposterous), and that such beliefs should therefore be left alone.

Well, first of all, I don’t believe this to be true. I believe moderate belief serves as the foundation for extreme belief, and without everyone giving moderate belief (in telepathic communication with the creator of the universe), there would be an overwhelming backlash against extremists. The reason this has not happened is simply because, with regard to the nature of reality, the beliefs of moderates and extremists are pretty much identical.

In short, you can’t attack an extremists view of reality without attacking the moderates’ view a well. Here’s an example conversation between an atheist, a Christian extremist, and a Christian moderate.

Atheist to Extremist: You believe the creator of the universe communicates with you, and indicates to you what path you should take in life? Are you nuts?
Moderate to Atheist: Actually, we believe that too.
Atheist to Moderate: Oh, ok…
Atheist to Extremist: So you actually believe that if you obey these feelings you have, as per this book you have, that you will live forever? Like, longer than the universe? Surely you see how silly that sounds.
Moderate to Atheist: Actually, we believe that too.
Atheist to Moderate: Oh, ok… (confused)
Atheist to Extremist: You really believe that an omnipotent being made a sacrifice by sending his son (a human concept) to die for us (even though he knew he would die, and knew he would be resurrected), and as a result humanity has a debt to pay him? Does that make any sense to you?
Moderate to Atheist: Actually, we believe that too.

(cont…)

The basics are the same for the extremists and the moderates. They both accept the exact same ridiculous core beliefs…the difference is simply how they choose to act on them. And since that’s open to interpretation, and the ever-changing whims and fads of a particular church or family to teach–the seeds of extremism are present in every moderate who embraces these fantasy-based core doctrines.

I believe the answer is to move, as a society, to reject the core ideas themselves–just as we already have with the other fantasy-based beliefs we’ve already collectively put into the “ridiculous” category.

In short, ideas don’t become less preposterous just because more people believe them, and we should be willing to discard ideas, no matter their popularity, if they are unsupported by evidence.

Notes

^[1] When I say “moderate” Christian, I mean one who shares a common, mainstream Christian set of beliefs, including the belief in hell for non-believers and the belief that Jesus will return soon to bring upon the end of days. These are not fringe beliefs; they are mainstream.

^[2] God killed millions of people in the Bible. That’s a fact. And that fact will always be available to anyone who wants to use it as justification to kill others. It’s there in black and white. The moderation that prevents this from happening does not come from the religion itself, but rather from the opposite–logic and reason.

I think I’ve made a decision to be more direct in my attacks against beliefs in the supernatural (including religion). I make this decision based on an overarching belief that religion is an impediment to societal progress. But I want to make a distinction.

I want to be more aggressive against religious ideas, but at the same time avoid being directly offensive to the individuals who buy into them.

Basically, I am embracing more and more Sam Harris’ view that open ridicule is the best way to handle outrageous claims, but at the same time I realize how ineffective it is to attack individuals directly; in fact it’s often counterproductive.

So I need to do both somehow–be more openly critical of non-rational beliefs, but keep the attacks abstracted from those who believe them.

Thoughts? ::