SCILIGION: An Atheist Manifest by Sam Harris
Major points and outline
by Bernie Dehler (2-2-09)

Atheist Manifesto by Sam Harris:
http://www.truthdig.com/dig/item/200512_an_atheist_manifesto/
Update:
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20060203_sam_harris_answers/


Disclaimers:
1. No one speaks for all atheists.  Many atheists may disagree with the writing of Sam Harris.

Summary charge from Sam Harris:
Summary says: “Sam Harris argues against irrational faith and its adherents“
Comment: Is all faith ‘irrational” or just some parts of faith?  Not clear- seems to indicate all faith is irrational.  Obviously that is debatable.
Charge 1: The common occurrence of the rape, torture, and killing of a little girl indicates there is no all-powerful and all-loving God watching over them and their family.
Answer: This is the philosophical debate of “theodicy,” the problem of evil.  My main response is that this is an attack on the behavior of God.  In other words, if God existed, He should do something better than what we observe happening in the world.  My response- what could He do?  Anything else would violate rationality and free will.  For example- How could God prevent this? If he were to restrict the killer- there’d be no freewill.  If he were to kill the murderer before the crime, we would not have known why the murdered was killed- and who else is dying for a possible future crime?
Charge 2: Atheists shouldn’t have to explain their non-belief.  Believers should have to explain themselves.  He says:
It is worth noting that no one ever needs to identify himself as a non-astrologer or a non-alchemist. Consequently, we do not have words for people who deny the validity of these pseudo-disciplines. Likewise, atheism is a term that should not even exist. Atheism is nothing more than the noises reasonable people make when in the presence of religious dogma.
Answer:  I partly agree.
I think the term is reasonable, because most people in our culture do believe in God.  For example, if most people believed in Zeus, I would have to be known as anti-Zeusian.  I don’t have to be known that way here and now because no one believes in Zeus.
While “atheist” is a good descriptor of one’s beliefs, it does have the disadvantage of being negative.  It would be better to be positive, such as the term “Secular Humanist.”  Secular Humanists are known for standing for something- the human capability.  They are not known for what they are against, even though they are against religion.  Likewise, Evangelical Christians (and all other groups) are against something, but better known for what they are “for” (such as preaching the gospel).
Charge 3: Again theodicy- New Orleans and Hurricane Katrina.  People of faith died- as if people of reason would have survived.  He says:
Consider the destruction that Hurricane Katrina leveled on New Orleans. More than a thousand people died, tens of thousands lost all their earthly possessions, and nearly a million were displaced. It is safe to say that almost every person living in New Orleans at the moment Katrina struck believed in an omnipotent, omniscient and compassionate God. But what was God doing while a hurricane laid waste to their city? Surely he heard the prayers of those elderly men and women who fled the rising waters for the safety of their attics, only to be slowly drowned there. These were people of faith. These were good men and women who had prayed throughout their lives. Only the atheist has the courage to admit the obvious: These poor people died talking to an imaginary friend.
Answer: I don’t think these people simply stayed and just trusted God.  They likely tried with all their might to be saved.  I think he’s drawing an unrealistic picture.  Did any atheists die? What percentage? Without the data, it is just speculation, and that is not reasonable or scientific.  His conclusion betrays his own appeal to reason.
Charge 4: The real issue of theodicy brought up- and he claimed to have solved the problem.  He says:
This is the age-old problem of theodicy, of course, and we should consider it solved. If God exists, either he can do nothing to stop the most egregious calamities or he does not care to. God, therefore, is either impotent or evil.
Answer: Same as my first answer; what would Sam Harris suggest that God do differently? How can God do anything different and still allow a reasonable world with freewill?  It is not fair to say something is designed poorly, without specifying a better alternative.  Maybe there is no better alternative, so this is the best world under all circumstances?  I think it is.
Charge 5:  Religious American’s hurt politics because they take Israel’s side and are against evolution being taught in school.  He says:
…who believe that God literally promised the land of Israel to the Jews and who want to stop teaching our children about the biological fact of evolution. As President Bush is well aware, believers of this sort constitute the most cohesive and motivated segment of the American electorate.
Answer:  Christians have a healthy in-house debate about both of these positions, so it isn’t fair to say that Christians believe a certain way on this.  As an evangelical Christian myself, of which Sam Harris seems to be talking, I take an alternative position to the (apparent majority) evangelical Christian beliefs towards Israel (I’m pro-justice and equality; not taking sides) and evolution (I support evolution fully). 
Charge 6: Fundamentalists are more consistent and logical in their (twisted) belief than are moderates.  He says:
When a tsunami killed a few hundred thousand people on the day after Christmas, fundamentalists readily interpreted this cataclysm as evidence of God’s wrath. As it turns out, God was sending humanity another oblique message about the evils of abortion, idolatry and homosexuality. While morally obscene, this interpretation of events is actually reasonable, given certain (ludicrous) assumptions. Moderates, on the other hand, refuse to draw any conclusions whatsoever about God from his works. God remains a perfect mystery, a mere source of consolation that is compatible with the most desolating evil. In the face of disasters like the Asian tsunami, liberal piety is apt to produce the most unctuous and stupefying nonsense imaginable.
Answer: Again, this is all about theodicy.  I think moderates do have a good answer.  Tsunamis come from earthquakes under water and are part of our evolving earth.  We are to learn- just as we learn to be careful with fire so we don’t burn.  What kind of irrational world would we have if God protected us from every natural calamity?  Yet as believers of God, we can feel love and fellowship with God and feel that He helps us through these crises.  In many ways, Christ is with us in our suffering, and we identify with him in our suffering.
Romans 5:1-8
      1Therefore, since we have been justified through faith, we[a]have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, 2through whom we have gained access by faith into this grace in which we now stand. And we[b] rejoice in the hope of the glory of God. 3Not only so, but we[c] also rejoice in our sufferings, because we know that suffering produces perseverance; 4perseverance, character; and character, hope. 5And hope does not disappoint us, because God has poured out his love into our hearts by the Holy Spirit, whom he has given us. 
     6You see, at just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly. 7Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous man, though for a good man someone might possibly dare to die. 8But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.
Charge 7:  Moderates believe in God just because it feels good.  He says:
It is perfectly absurd for religious moderates to suggest that a rational human being can believe in God simply because this belief makes him happy, relieves his fear of death or gives his life meaning. The absurdity becomes obvious the moment we swap the notion of God for some other consoling proposition…
Answer: I suppose it is true if moderates believe that way.  I’m a moderate and don’t believe that way, so I don’t know really what his definition of a moderate is.  Maybe he’s referring to someone like a Unitarian?
Charge 8: Pascal’s Wager and Kierkegaard’s leap of faith don’t make sense because there must be a link to facts and a person’s acceptance of it.  He says:
Here we can see why Pascal’s wager, Kierkegaard’s leap of faith and other epistemological Ponzi schemes won’t do. To believe that God exists is to believe that one stands in some relation to his existence such that his existence is itself the reason for one’s belief. There must be some causal connection, or an appearance thereof, between the fact in question and a person’s acceptance of it. In this way, we can see that religious beliefs, to be beliefs about the way the world is, must be as evidentiary in spirit as any other.
Answer: I think Harris is trying to say that things should only be believed upon reason.  Pascal’s wager has to do with decisions where not enough information is available.  The same case is with the “leap of faith.”   Pascal’s wager and the “leap of faith” are for people who see a reasonable possibility and grab hold of it.  These are only invalid if the non-existence of God could be proven- which it can’t.  As well, there are indications that there is a God- and that is that we are here discussing these things (the miracle of life).  Given the evidence for God, Pascal’s wager and the “leap of faith” is reasonable.
Charge 9: Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot are not examples of atheism being bad.  He says:
People of faith regularly claim that atheism is responsible for some of the most appalling crimes of the 20th century. Although it is true that the regimes of Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot were irreligious to varying degrees, they were not especially rational. In fact, their public pronouncements were little more than litanies of delusion—delusions about race, economics, national identity, the march of history or the moral dangers of intellectualism. In many respects, religion was directly culpable even here.
Answer: People like Harris charge that religion is a cause for the worst wars, when in fact it is likely atheists were.  In defense, Harris says that these are poor representatives of atheism, and shouldn’t reflect on atheism.  These bad rulers were anti-reason.  So now Harris is not standing for atheism, but reason.  This would be like a Protestant denying the sins of Catholics, as if they are better Christians.   As far as I know, Christians acknowledged previous sins (the inquisition, pogroms, etc), will atheists?
Charge 10: There is no God gene.  Many countries are atheist and past the religious issue.  He says:
The level of atheism throughout the rest of the developed world refutes any argument that religion is somehow a moral necessity. Countries like Norway, Iceland, Australia, Canada, Sweden, Switzerland, Belgium, Japan, the Netherlands, Denmark and the United Kingdom are among the least religious societies on Earth.
Answer: Let’s see stats (just the first four listed).  From the CIA country profiles webpage:
Norway: Church of Norway 85.7%, Pentecostal 1%, Roman Catholic 1%, other Christian 2.4%, Muslim 1.8%, other 8.1% (2004)
Iceland: ChrLutheran Church of Iceland 82.1%, Roman Catholic Church 2.4%, Reykjavik Free Church 2.3%, Hafnarfjorour Free Church 1.6%, other Christian 2.8%, other religions 0.9%, unaffiliated 2.6%, other or unspecified 5.5% (2006 est.)
Australia: Catholic 26.4%, Anglican 20.5%, other Christian 20.5%, Buddhist 1.9%, Muslim 1.5%, other 1.2%, unspecified 12.7%, none 15.3% (2001 Census)
Canada: Roman Catholic 42.6%, Protestant 23.3% (including United Church 9.5%, Anglican 6.8%, Baptist 2.4%, Lutheran 2%), other Christian 4.4%, Muslim 1.9%, other and unspecified 11.8%, none 16% (2001 census) webpage
USA: Protestant 51.3%, Roman Catholic 23.9%, Mormon 1.7%, other Christian 1.6%, Jewish 1.7%, Buddhist 0.7%, Muslim 0.6%, other or unspecified 2.5%, unaffiliated 12.1%, none 4% (2007 est.)
Summary- USA is unique with high percentage of Protestants (independent Christians).  Canada is mainly Catholic, Iceland highly Lutheran, and Norway highly Lutheran.  Australia seems to have the most diverse Christian mix.  Since all of these have extremely high religious majorities, how can atheists claim anything?
Charge 11: The USA is full of Christian literalists and this makes us greedy as a culture. He says:
The dubious link between Christian literalism and Christian values is also belied by other indices of charity. Consider the ratio in salaries between top-tier CEOs and their average employee: in Britain it is 24 to 1; France 15 to 1; Sweden 13 to 1; in the United States, where 83% of the population believes that Jesus literally rose from the dead, it is 475 to 1. Many a camel, it would seem, expects to squeeze easily through the eye of a needle.
Answer: This has less to do with religion and more to do with a culture of greed.  I agree the church-at-large should be more vocal about this abuse, but the problem is with our culture and idea of striking it rich through hard work.  Most people don’t seem to understand fairness, and seem to think that to complain about this makes one a communist.  Rather than blaming this as a false teaching of the church, I think the church may be to blame in another way, for not speaking out against this greed (a sin of omission rather than a sin of commission).  
Another reason why Americans may have much higher ratios is also because we are more dominant and successful (which doesn’t justify it).  But if this is true, it may indicate that other countries, like France, may be just as greedy as the USA if they had the same kind of business success.  This is just speculation on my part.
Thirdly, I am perplexed that an atheist would even raise this as an issue.  How could the atheist answer the critic who says “It is ok, these CEO’s earned it!  No price is too high!”
Charge 12: Violence in the name of religion.
Answer: This may all be very true for Islam, but it is impossible to show that Christ (or his followers) would be for violence.  In fact, the opposite is obvious… Jesus says to “love and pray for your enemies” and “turn the other cheek.”  The only violent Christians are the ones who don’t understand the plain teaching of Jesus and the disciples (the New Testament).
Charge 13:  Religious toleration is not the answer; religious eradication is.  He says:
Answer: It seems obvious to me that if the goal is to remove religion from the world, it could either be by bruit force (death and imprisonment) or by peaceful means.  Obviously he does not recommend force, as other atheist leaders have tried previously (Stalin, etc.).  Peaceful means will require education.  Education requires dialogue.  Therefore- all the interreligious dialogue would be the key and opportunity for reason to prevail.  How can you get rid of faith without dialogue and discussion?  No solution is offered- that is intellectually lazy!  He demands that dialogue is not the solution, yet offers no other path to get there.
Charge 14: No one should pretend to be sure when they are relying on faith.  He says:
When we have reasons for what we believe, we have no need of faith; when we have no reasons, or bad ones, we have lost our connection to the world and to one another. Atheism is nothing more than a commitment to the most basic standard of intellectual honesty: One’s convictions should be proportional to one’s evidence. Pretending to be certain when one isn’t—indeed, pretending to be certain about propositions for which no evidence is even conceivable—is both an intellectual and a moral failing. Only the atheist has realized this. The atheist is simply a person who has perceived the lies of religion and refused to make them his own.
Answer:  “When we have reasons for what we believe, we have no need of faith;”  As religious, we do have reasons for what we believe, and we also have faith because we only have partial information.  Religious people that I know don’t claim to have “no reasons” for their faith.  Everyone agrees that “One’s convictions should be proportional to one’s evidence.”  These convictions are called… FAITH!!!  Yes- no one should pretend to be certain when they aren’t.  Only the atheists realizes this… oh really?  Obviously that is nonsense and not based on any scientific fact.  “The atheist is simply a person who has perceived the lies of religion”  … as if all religion is nothing but lies- another childish statement that can’t be supported by facts. 
One comment from his update:
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20060203_sam_harris_answers/
His last point is that religious faith is wrongly assumed to keep people moral.  He says:
The idea that there is a necessary link between religious faith and morality is one of the principal myths keeping religion in good standing among otherwise reasonable men and women.  And yet, it is a myth that is easily dispelled. 
This brings me to personal experience.  I once took care of two nephews, third and sixth grade brothers.  At first, then didn’t know how to get along and fought constantly.  I prayed with them every night, and one prayer was that they get along, be Christ-like, etc.  Slowly I saw the change in them- they were transformed, and it was evident to me that they were changed from the inside-out.  They were not being good to just follow the rules- something inside of them changed.  It was a strong demonstration to me of the power of God to transform lives.  In this way, my experience is just the opposite of what Sam Harris wrote, regarding religion not being needed for good morals and behavior.



1