Why Are Athiests so Angry?

Sam Harris answers the question of why are athiests so angry at Jewcy (reprinted at Huffington Post). Here’s a portion of his post:

The United States now stands alone in the developed world as a country that conducts its national discourse under the shadow of religious literalism. Eighty-three percent of the U.S. population believes that Jesus literally rose from the dead; 53% believe that the universe is 6,000 years old. This is embarrassing. Add to this comedy of false certainties the fact that 44% of Americans are confident that Jesus will return to Earth sometime in the next 50 years and you will glimpse the terrible liability of this sort of thinking.

Nearly half of the American population is eagerly anticipating the end of the world. This dewy-eyed nihilism provides absolutely no incentive to build a sustainable civilization. Many of these people are lunatics, but they are not the lunatic fringe. Some of them can actually get Karl Rove on the phone whenever they want.

While Muslim extremists now fly planes into our buildings, saw the heads off journalists and aid-workers, and riot by the tens of thousands over cartoons, several recent polls reveal that atheists are now the most reviled minority in the United States. A majority of Americans say they would refuse to vote for an atheist even if he were a “well-qualified candidate” from their own political party. Atheism, therefore, is a perfect impediment to holding elected office in this country (while being a woman, black, Muslim, Jewish, or gay is not). Most Americans also say that of all the unsavory alternatives on offer, they would be least likely to allow their child to marry an atheist. These declarations of prejudice might be enough to make some atheists angry. But they are not what makes me angry.

As an atheist, I am angry that we live in a society in which the plain truth cannot be spoken without offending 90% of the population. The plain truth is this: There is no good reason to believe in a personal God; there is no good reason to believe that the Bible, the Koran, or any other book was dictated by an omniscient being; we do not, in any important sense, get our morality from religion; the Bible and the Koran are not, even remotely, the best sources of guidance we have for living in the 21st century; and the belief in God and in the divine provenance of scripture is getting a lot of people killed unnecessarily.

11 Comments

  1. 1
    Dave from Princeton says:

    Damn right!

  2. 2
    Christopher says:

    Maybe athiests are angry because more harm has been carried out against humanity in the name of God and religion than anything else.

    As a recovering Catholic, I speak from experience.

  3. 3
    John says:

    The myth that religion has caused more bloodshed is really getting old and tired. Consider the fact that the 20th Century was the most violent century in human history. Now consider the fact that that blood shed was led by Athiests such as: Adolph Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Bennito Mussolini, Idi Amin, Mao Tsi Tong, Paul Pot, countless African dictators, corrupt governments in Latin countries, as well as, Communists governments in Europe and Asia, all responsible for the death and oppression of countless people. Which by the way has continued into the 21st Century. Some Athiests like most people who are intolerant to Christianity (not religion!), are so because of the challenges Christianity presents to their own wretchedness. Fact is, people suck. The tenets of Christianity as presented in the Bible are very comprehensive and I encourage you Bible stompers to search it out yourselves, as opposed to lamenting over your bad church experience. I truly wish Athiests would actually read The Origin Of Species for what it is, a theory. This is why Darwin, who was Agnostic, not Athiests (and studying to be a clergyman before his daughter died)was hesitant in presenting his not so original theory (Evolutionist theory had been floating around since the ancient Greeks)because of what it would predictably encourage, not because of fear of religious zealots. Even Darwin never dismissed the possibility of God in his work. Athiests merely took his work and ran with it, oh to happy to finally have their own “bible” to justify themselves. Which by the way is unraveling quite fast amidst the scientific research of the past 50 years. For those of you who claim you are seekers of truth, I highly recommend: “Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution” By Dr. Michael Behe/ “Icons of Evolution” by Dr. Jonathan Wells/”Case For A Creator” by Lee Strobel (Award Winning Journalist of the Chicago Sun Times and former Athiest).

  4. 4
    Ron Chusid says:

    John,

    There has been plenty of controversy over whether Hitler was an athiest with bulk of the available evidence suggesting he was not. Hitler often acted in the name of Christianity (although this was most likely a tool as opposed to any profound religious beliefs).

    The real problem is the use of state power to enforce one’s beliefs upon others. This has typically been a problem with regards to religion. In the 20th century fanatic beliefs such as Communism were often spread in a manner analogous to religion. Communism and Fascism have characteristics quite similar to religious belief which led to wars which were similar to the wars caused by religion.

    I’m afraid you totally misunderstand the meaning of “theory” when used in science, which is quite different from how the word “theory” is interpreted by the public. Evolution is called a theory by the scientific use of the word, not how the public misinterprets it. Evoution is established science and a foundation of modern biology. Evolution does not say whether or not there is a god. Many people believe that evolutoin is the manner in which god caused complex life to develop from similar life forms.

    There are plenty of books attacking evolution, but they are all transparent attempts to replace science with religious dogma. There is absolutely no controversy over evolution in the scientific community even if there are some who choose to place religious dogma over science.

  5. 5
    Mandelbug says:

    “The real problem is the use of state power to enforce one’s beliefs upon others. This has typically been a problem with regards to religion. In the 20th century fanatic beliefs such as Communism were often spread in a manner analogous to religion. Communism and Fascism have characteristics quite similar to religious belief which led to wars which were similar to the wars caused by religion.”

    Yes, but atheism has characteristics that are similar to religion as well: faith in a non-verifiable principle (the non-existence of God), a strong tendency to scorn other systems (in this case, by dubbing them stupid and non-logical) and a tendency to split the world into black-and-white categories (smart atheists, stupid everybody else).

    That said, I think atheism possesses some unique characteristics that tend to make it especially susceptible to the worst religious characteristics.

    1. Atheists don’t have a “safety net.” A Christian or Muslim can largely separate his/her beliefs from day-to-day action (“Give unto Caesar’s what is Caesar’s…”). They may not always do this, but they have a strong recourse in the “Next World.” Atheists don’t have a “Next World,” so they tend to emphasize the immediate importance of their beliefs in the here and now. Furthermore, this makes atheists more likely to associate with radical social movements (like Communism and Fascism) because they feel a need to affect the current world. Since these radical movements seldom end well, atheists frequently become accessories to dangerous movements.

    2. Atheism has no built-in standard of morality. All other major religions have built-in moral standards. They may not be very good, but they exist. Atheism doesn’t: therefore, a radical atheist (i.e. Pol Pot) doesn’t necessarily have any line he won’t cross.

    3. Atheism tends to view others as stupid, not merely deceived. A Christian looks at a Muslim, and (should) think “There’s a poor soul who’s been misled.” The atheist looks at the Muslim and thinks “There’s another idiot following an illogical creed for no reason.” The religious response may inspire pity, may inspire feelings of superiority, and (may) even lead to violence to stop the “deception.” But the atheist’s response leads to contempt, which makes bigotry and violence so much easier than pity.

  6. 6
    Ron Chusid says:

    Mandelbug,

    Your views on atheism differ greatly from what most atheists actually believe.

    1) You have it backwards in point one. Atheists believe there is insufficient evidence to prove that there is a god and therefore do not base their belief system or day to day actions on whether or not there is a god. In contrast many Christians and Muslims to allow their religious beliefs to influence both their day to day actions (which doesn’t really matter to others in most cases) and also allow this to influence public policy (which does matter to others.)

    2) Atheists separate standards of morality from a belief in a god since neither the existence of a god or what a god, if one did exist, believes is moral cannot be determined by humans. This does not mean that atheists do not have standards of morality. Having a supposed built-in belief system has not prevented religious people from committing atrocities. Whether or not a person really holds reasonable standards of morality is independent upon whether they believe in a god. There are good and bad people among both those who do and those who do not believe in a god.

    3) Believing that others is stupid is not an inherent part of being an atheist. Some may believe this and some may not, but this is not a component of atheism. In contrast, the belief that they are right and others are wrong is an inherent belief in most religions. Many religions include spreading their beliefs, and even imposing their beliefs upon others, as a part of their religious belief. We’ve seen many wars fought over spreading one’s religious beliefs.

  7. 7
    Mandelbug says:

    1. “Atheists believe there is insufficient evidence to prove that there is a god and therefore do not base their belief system or day to day actions on whether or not there is a god.”

    I disagree. Personal beliefs always affect our actions. Now, in any given group, you will have radical, dangerous people who do radical, dangerous things (e.g. Stalin and Torquemada). However, many religions have such a strong emphasis on the Next World that their members (even the dangerous ones) are content to leave some things untouched.

    Take, for instance, Hobbes’s analysis of a Christian state. His essential argument was that, because Christians have a primary focus on the Next World, they’ll tend to be less inclined to radical change in this one. When you examine this theory in a recent historical context, it seems to be supported: most radical movements (Communism, Fascism, Third Way, even strong nationalism) tend to have strong atheistic components.

    2. I’m not denying that most atheists have some moral code. What I am saying is that there is no basic standard of morality to which an atheist has to subscribe. Even the most radical religious leaders usually continue to embrace some basic standards (Torquemada, for instance, was actually rather restrictive in the methods of torture he allowed, given the standards of his time). Atheism opens the door to the complete abandonment of moral standards. It’s not a likely consequence of atheism, but it is an impossible consequence of theism.

    3. I’ll concede, you have a good point here. However, I think you can agree that contempt of theism is a common trait of atheistic thought, which may make an inclination to violence among the radical members of atheism more feasible.

    Again, I’m not arguing that atheism is (per se) morally bankrupt in comparison with other religions. What I am saying is that there are a great many trends in atheism that make is susceptible to the worst religious behaviors; that these trends have been thoroughly acted out in the 19th and 20th centuries; and that atheism lacks “safety net” features that many religions have (such as a recourse in a Next World).

  8. 8
    Ron Chusid says:

    You continue to have many misconceptions.

    1) Beliefs in a Next World do not prevent radical ideas. It can work either way. The Muslim belief in rewards in the after live has contributed to a considerable amount of violence.

    Many religions, such as Judaism, show little or no interest in an afterlife, so this is hardly a meaningful argument against atheism.

    Fascism frequently does stress religion, so your conclusion to this point is also erroneous.

    2) It is irrelevant that there is no moral code that atheists have to subscribe to. An atheist can be good or evil, as can someone who believes in religion. Religion does not guarantee that someone will subscribe to a good moral code. Religion can lead someone to do good, or it can be used to justify evil. The abandonment of moral standards is no greater under atheism than among the religious. In contrast, the religious can use religion to justify evil, while this is an impossible consequence of theism.

    3) This is rather ridiculous. Sure there are some atheist writers who deride theism as a irrational belief. To go from this to suggest they support violence against theists is totally absurd. In contrast there is a long history of theists using violence to impose their religion upon others.

    Your claim that there are trends in atheism which make it susceptible to the worst in religious behaviors simply does not hold up. Whether or not a person believes in a god offers little predictive value as to whether they are good or evil. However there is a problem when people use the power of government to impose their views upon others.

  9. 9
    Spectator says:

    I was raised as a christian and what made me question my faith wasn’t how athetist or agnostics behaved but rather how christians and religious people behaved. I noticed that there wasn’t enough difference.

  10. 10
    alex says:

    it is absolutely absurd to believe that a person does evil things because he doesnt believe in a higher power.people do what they want to do and for the most part people try to good.in some case people do bad things cause for whatever motivations i.e. poverty,addiction,abuse,mental illness etc. they do evil things but it has nothing to do with athiesm.if an athiest does an evil thing im pretty sure his lack of belief has anything to with.
    on the other hand for good people to do evil things it takes religion.

  11. 11
    David says:

    Why is it that someone who calls themself a Christian can reason, if pressed, that; “No of course someone named Jonah did not actually live in the belly of a whale. Or, the likelyhood that every living creature on earth was loaded into a boat is a bit adsurd.” Yet that same person can say without a doubt that an individual 2000 years ago came back from the dead and then went bodily to a cloud. This is bewildering to me and many who will never be elected to a major public office in this nation.

Leave a comment