Sam Harris @ Big Think 3 - Sam Answers Criticisms about Atheists' Interpretation of Religion

[ZombieHorde]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vfeGrNF7hr0&feature=related

Sam Harris answers three criticisms/questions some theists have for some atheists.

1. Atheists use a fundamentalist reading of the Holy Bible.

2. Is it possible God was speaking in metaphors?

3. Is there a possibility of a creator?

[LAGC]

1. Comparative religion I think is one of the strongest arguments against monotheism.

I mean, Christians are certain Jesus is the only way to salvation because the Bible says so.

Muslims are equally certain that Jesus was just another man, because the Koran says so.

Just the fact that both religions exist and have garnered millions of followers proves that either there exists multiple gods, or millions of people believe in something that simply isn't true. If we rule out the prior, what are we left with? If you're a Christian and you acknowledge that millions of people (Muslims) could erroneously believe in something that isn't true, how can you not look at your own religion and ask the same question? Could it be, that millions of Christians have been deceived as well? We know its certainly possible, just by the fact that the other religion exists, and in such numbers!

I think Sam Harris really nails it when he points out: What great knowledge or revelations has the Bible or Koran brought us that any 1st century man couldn't have come up with? Surely, if they were the work of an omniscient deity, there would be SOME mention of the human genetic code, or some advanced technology in technical terms that any desert dweller couldn't come up with. Indeed, a book actually written by God would look a lot different than the Bible or the Koran.

[BurtWorm]

2. God was speaking in metaphors?

When I hear shit like that and realize people sincerely believe it, I just want to weep.

[struggle4progress]

3. Well, I got through about one minute of that. Sam's answer to #1 seems to be: "Lots of folk use

a fundamentalist reading of the Bible"

*yawn*

Thanks, Sam. Life is short, and Captain Obvious is boring

By way of constructive criticism, I will add that the dude might benefit from some professional advice about how to give an effective lecture

[Imperialism Inc.]

4. Not surprisingly, since you didn't bother listening to it, you missed the point completely.

After pointing out that some people do indeed believe the Bible literally, he concedes that it is also possible to cherry pick which parts you want to take literally and which you want to discard. Almost no Christians or Jews want to stone adulterers. Parents don't want to treat their child's mental illness by assuming it is caused demons but prefer a psychologist. The point he makes is that the Bible is very clear on these things but people reject them anyway, because of outside pressure to abandon such barbaric beliefs. And that this pressure is not from the religion itself but from the advancement of human knowledge and culture , primarily through science.

[trotsky]

5. Bingo.

A lot of liberal believers have a really hard time confronting that reality, though. They like to imagine that their religion has corrected itself rather than the truth, which is that secularism and enlightenment corrected/muted/tamed their religion, (thankfully) to the betterment of humankind.

[onager]

6. "Corrected itself?"

:rofl:

I nominate this cranky old bastard as an Official Gnu Atheist, even though he's been dead more than 100 years:

During many ages there were witches. The Bible said so. The Bible commanded that they should not be allowed to live.

Therefore the Church, after doing its duty in but a lazy and indolent way for eight hundred years, gathered up its halters, thumbscrews, and firebrands, and set about its holy work in earnest. She worked hard at it night and day during nine centuries and imprisoned, tortured, hanged, and burned whole hordes and armies of witches, and washed the Christian world clean with their foul blood.

Then it was discovered that there was no such thing as witches, and never had been. One does not know whether to laugh or to cry.

Who discovered that there was no such thing as a witch -- the priest, the parson? No, these never discover anything.

At Salem, the parson clung pathetically to his witch text after the laity had abandoned it in remorse and tears for the crimes and cruelties it has persuaded them to do.

The parson wanted more blood, more shame, more brutalities; it was the unconsecrated laity that stayed his hand.

In Scotland the parson killed the witch after the magistrate had pronounced her innocent; and when the merciful legislature proposed to sweep the hideous laws against witches from the statute book, it was the parson who came imploring, with tears and imprecations, that they be suffered to stand. - Mark Twain, "Religious Practice"


http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/twainwp.htm

[BurtWorm]

8. And even after the church has been corrected, it takes them centuries to acknowledge it publicly.

Then they might offer an apology to all those dead witches and congratulate themselves for being moral enough to do so.

[More Than A Feeling]

9. The way you put it makes it sound

like a dominance thing. What would you be saying if religious people hadn't understood their religion in a new way as things changed over time? Seems like religious people just can't win with you.

[ZombieHorde]

7. If the answer is obvious, why do people put down atheists for using a fundalmentalist reading

of the Holy Bible?

You have accused atheists of using a fundamentalist reading of the Holy Bible. Why would you do such a thing if the answer is obvious?