Recommended reading from an Atheist

[Celebrindal]

The Dragon In My Garage
by
Carl Sagan
"A fire-breathing dragon lives in my garage"

Suppose (I'm following a group therapy approach by the psychologist Richard Franklin) I seriously make such an assertion to you. Surely you'd want to check it out, see for yourself. There have been innumerable stories of dragons over the centuries, but no real evidence. What an opportunity!

"Show me," you say. I lead you to my garage. You look inside and see a ladder, empty paint cans, an old tricycle--but no dragon.

"Where's the dragon?" you ask.

"Oh, she's right here," I reply, waving vaguely. "I neglected to mention that she's an invisible dragon."

You propose spreading flour on the floor of the garage to capture the dragon's footprints.

"Good idea," I say, "but this dragon floats in the air."

Then you'll use an infrared sensor to detect the invisible fire.

"Good idea, but the invisible fire is also heatless."

You'll spray-paint the dragon and make her visible.

"Good idea, but she's an incorporeal dragon and the paint won't stick."

And so on. I counter every physical test you propose with a special explanation of why it won't work.

Now, what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? If there's no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists? Your inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it true. Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless, whatever value they may have in inspiring us or in exciting our sense of wonder. What I'm asking you to do comes down to believing, in the absence of evidence, on my say-so.

The only thing you've really learned from my insistence that there's a dragon in my garage is that something funny is going on inside my head. You'd wonder, if no physical tests apply, what convinced me. The possibility that it was a dream or a hallucination would certainly enter your mind. But then, why am I taking it so seriously? Maybe I need help. At the least, maybe I've seriously underestimated human fallibility.

Imagine that, despite none of the tests being successful, you wish to be scrupulously open-minded. So you don't outright reject the notion that there's a fire-breathing dragon in my garage. You merely put it on hold. Present evidence is strongly against it, but if a new body of data emerge you're prepared to examine it and see if it convinces you. Surely it's unfair of me to be offended at not being believed; or to criticize you for being stodgy and unimaginative-- merely because you rendered the Scottish verdict of "not proved."

Imagine that things had gone otherwise. The dragon is invisible, all right, but footprints are being made in the flour as you watch. Your infrared detector reads off-scale. The spray paint reveals a jagged crest bobbing in the air before you. No matter how skeptical you might have been about the existence of dragons--to say nothing about invisible ones--you must now acknowledge that there's something here, and that in a preliminary way it's consistent with an invisible, fire-breathing dragon.

Now another scenario: Suppose it's not just me. Suppose that several people of your acquaintance, including people who you're pretty sure don't know each other, all tell you that they have dragons in their garages--but in every case the evidence is maddeningly elusive. All of us admit we're disturbed at being gripped by so odd a conviction so ill-supported by the physical evidence. None of us is a lunatic. We speculate about what it would mean if invisible dragons were really hiding out in garages all over the world, with us humans just catching on. I'd rather it not be true, I tell you. But maybe all those ancient European and Chinese myths about dragons weren't myths at all.

Gratifyingly, some dragon-size footprints in the flour are now reported. But they're never made when a skeptic is looking. An alternative explanation presents itself. On close examination it seems clear that the footprints could have been faked. Another dragon enthusiast shows up with a burnt finger and attributes it to a rare physical manifestation of the dragon's fiery breath. But again, other possibilities exist. We understand that there are other ways to burn fingers besides the breath of invisible dragons. Such "evidence" -- no matter how important the dragon advocates consider it -- is far from compelling. Once again, the only sensible approach is tentatively to reject the dragon hypothesis, to be open to future physical data, and to wonder what the cause might be that so many apparently sane and sober people share the same strange delusion.

Edit: My bad about the color =P No preview post in the quick reply tab.

[Tea on tuesday]

Originally Posted by Celebrindal

Has anyone in this thread read any of these books? If so, what do you agree with or disagree with?

I've read most of them, but somehow I don't think that was intended for me.

edit: Also Celebrindal you should read this. $8 used...

[Jedah]

Originally Posted by Celebrindal

Has anyone in this thread read any of these books? If so, what do you agree with or disagree with?

You people are making arguments that were dealt with in the books layed out in the original post.

Really, I'm just not digging the pop culture press surounding atheism because alot of it seems intellectually vapid. Maybe its because of the audiences the books were written for, but the God Delusion and The End of Faith really rubbed me the wrong way (especially Harris when he starts talking about political issues and historical events). The hostility both display towards religion bothers me, not because fundamentalists don't deserve it, but because theres the implication that there would be less bloodshed and discrimination in religion's absence. I really don't see that being the case, people are just as capable of justifying what they want to justify using pseudoscience (social darwinism and eugenics in the 20's) and reason (ideologies of the 20th century).

EDIT: Sorry if I was being too pedantic in your thread, just poking the hornets nest like any good critical thinker.

EDIT 2: The Daniel Dennett Youtube video was interesting; does his book continue his line of reasoning, or does he stop simply with "well, I know alot of moral atheists?" Do you know of any authors who explore the shape of the moral landscape in the absence of religion?

[Celebrindal]

Nothing to be sorry about. If you cannot agree with Dawkins and Harris because of their arrogance, then I suggest again, to read Dennett's Breaking the Spell. If anything, watch the video I posted about him first.

[Hyarth]

Originally Posted by Eomer

Tea, I'm constantly amazed that you can repeat yourself over and over in these kinds of threads without resorting to name calling. You're far more patient than I!

Amen! I was just about to ask people to shut the fuck up and get back to talking about the books, and not debating the semantics of the matter when I saw this gem.

I've got Dennet's "Breaking the Spell" at my feet. It arrived yesterday and I'll begin it after I finish Collapse (assuming I don't start Altered Carbon first). Thanks to this thread, I can add the Sagan title to my list of things to read. Lets have some more!

Oh, and a parting shot. Regardless of what "side" you're on, if you're going to take jabs at the other, ffs do it in full context. Doing otherwise makes you look like a mouth-breathing moron. And I don't necessarily mean context of other posts, but that of the world at large.

[Grumath]

I have read Sam Harris' stuff and watched a lot of his debates. The videos in the Science vs Religion thread got me interested in Dawkins, and I have been thinking about picking up his books (thanks for that btw Celebrindal).

I can understand the point of view some people have about these 2 being arrogant and harmful to the secular cause, but both of them see us as being in a state of emergency. Whether this is true or not can be debated, but if you are truly in the frame of mind that we are rapidly approaching a castastrophe, behavior like this can be understood more. If someone had run around Europe in the 1920s and 1930s screaming at the Jews to get the hell out cuz the holocaust is coming, they would have seen that person in the same light as many see Harris and Dawkins. It is scary when you think about what COULD happen if things continue the way they are trending. And Harris and Dawkins have a lot more evidence than my imaginary pre-holocaust dude.

As far as the agnostic/atheist derailment... I am surprised no one brought up the old Tea-Pot arguement, although the dragon example was close. If I told you there was a teapot in orbit around the sun, would you have reason to believe me based on my word? No. Would you have a reason to be agnostic about it and say "Well I don't know one way or the other". No. Would you be correct in dismissing my idea of this teapot until it was proven, or at least some evidence surfaced? Yes. You are an atheist about this teapot, not agnostic. Dismissing a rediculous notion and believing that reidculous notion cannot be possible are different. Many call this strong atheism and weak atheism. Strong being the "Faith" that God doesn't exist, and yes that is just as dogmatic as theism. Dismissing the absurd without having proof makes you a weak atheist, since its not the same as saying "I don't know" which is what an agnostic is.

Most of the brilliant people in the world fall into this weak atheist category (sorry whoever earlier said atheists were dumb). They know they cannot say there is 100% chance there are no god(s). But as scientific thinking people, they can dismiss things that have no data/relavence. If/when data did surface, like in all science, they would re-examine their outlooks. Something religions as a whole do not do. That is one of the great points Harris and Dawkins make in their books. Religion has no self correcting mechanism. Unlike everything else in our society, it is nearly immune to criticizing for most people. Things do not change and get better without critical thinking.

Letter to a Christian Nation is a book you wish everyone in the country would read (at least if you are secular in thinking). Not necessarily agree with everything, but just read and think about a lot of the points. I have turned quite a few friends on to Harris, both believers and non. They all are amazed at how down to earth and simple his arguements are. Its almost like those comedians whose jokes make you laugh because its so obvious and yet you never really thought about it. Dawkins also argues that a lot of theists could probably be swayed into more rational thinking if these obvious issues were just pointed out. That seems to be more Dawkins angle. Opening people's eyes to some scientific alternatives that they have been ignorant of (many times unknowingly so). Harris argues that these moderates give shelter and protection to the extremist actions that cause the problems of today. So they both seem to want to help these moderates take the plunge into the evil "atheism".

[Jedah]

Originally Posted by Grumath

I can understand the point of view some people have about these 2 being arrogant and harmful to the secular cause, but both of them see us as being in a state of emergency. Whether this is true or not can be debated, but if you are truly in the frame of mind that we are rapidly approaching a castastrophe, behavior like this can be understood more. If someone had run around Europe in the 1920s and 1930s screaming at the Jews to get the hell out cuz the holocaust is coming, they would have seen that person in the same light as many see Harris and Dawkins. It is scary when you think about what COULD happen if things continue the way they are trending. And Harris and Dawkins have a lot more evidence than my imaginary pre-holocaust dude.

See, I just can't buy that, or rather, that religion is really the problem. If religion disapeared tommorow, then people would attach themselves to secular ideologies and the results would be the same. The absence of religion doesn't innately make people any smarter or less inclined to submerge themselves in causes; people can try and say that science can fill the void in place of religion, but science isn't really capable of supplying meaning beyond a purely mechanical understanding of life.

[Grumath]

Harris argues in his book that dogma in general is to blame, but the most ignorant and damaging dogma today is the form of religious dogma. You are right to an extent though. The ignorant masses will probably always seek something to hold onto or have faith in. Would the world be better off if this faith was in something at least somewhat modern though? I think so. 2000 year old ideologies have little to no place today. Have a modern dogma if you have to have one. Have one that is based in some amount of rational thinking... Have one that isn't so conflicting with other aspects of society. Have faith in the human species, not fairy tales... As we move toward globalization and a world society though, something has to change. I think we have to move foward (and that involves tearing down a lot if not all of religion and many other dogmas) or we are doomed to regress to a more tribal and crude state of affairs. I think that is the gist of Harris and Dawkins' outlook on the near future. Something is going to have to give...

[Jedah]

Originally Posted by Grumath

Harris argues in his book that dogma in general is to blame, but the most ignorant and damaging dogma today is the form of religious dogma. You are right to an extent though. The ignorant masses will probably always seek something to hold onto or have faith in. Would the world be better off if this faith was in something at least somewhat modern though? I think so. 2000 year old ideologies have little to no place today. Have a modern dogma if you have to have one. Have one that is based in some amount of rational thinking... Have one that isn't so conflicting with other aspects of society. Have faith in the human species, not fairy tales... As we move toward globalization and a world society though, something has to change. I think we have to move foward (and that involves tearing down a lot if not all of religion and many other dogmas) or we are doomed to regress to a more tribal and crude state of affairs. I think that is the gist of Harris and Dawkins' outlook on the near future. Something is going to have to give...

I'd argue that a dominating faith thats secular and modern could be as bad or worse than religious dogma. Modern ideologies that seek the perfection of man and society own up to much of the dead in the 20th century. Dogmatism may be to blame for all of this, but that has nothing, innately, to do with religion; thats a matter of degree, not the subject matter itself.

[Ilex]

This is by far the most interesting thread currently on the forums.

[Grumath]

I don't think religion in its current form is compatible with a global culture which, like it or not, is where mankind is headed. Religion will have to undergo drastic changes, or something will have to replace it. I think just getting it out of the socio-policital arena would make it work. Many Euro countries have religion as just a customary/personal type or thing, and I think they are better off because of it. Even the Founding Fathers all agreed that religion had no place in politics. I don't mind it sticking around, but I am not sure if it can do so AND completely receed from every aspect of life other than personal (which is the only place it needs to be). Harris would argue that as well. Its too married to everything else, so it has to be removed, like an organ too riddled with cancer to save.

As far as a secular "faith", I don't have much opinion on that, maybe the OP can suggest some books that deal with that... I don't think its out of the question to have a more modern and logical belief system or "faith" though. Sounds better than 2000 year old ideas clashing and causing average and above average citizens to fly planes into buildings or revel in jihad and holy war.

Most dogmatic problems that you talk about causing bloodshed, although secular on paper, are pretty damn close to religious. The nasty regimes of the 20th century were essentially large cults. The leaders were not accountable to anyone, they had absolute power, no checks and balances... They REPLACED god in their society. They were worshipped, feared, and obeyed like any vengeful god in scriptures. They became so enthralled with power, that they went mad with it and pretty much believed they were divine in a sense. So yes, this made them secular or atheist, but it was an affect of their situation, not the cause in my opinion. Their are quite a few good books about this subject too.

[Screamfeeder]

The bible tells me that my girlfriend is going to hell because she will not cover her head or shave it.

The bible tells me that it's cool to give my daughter over to some rapists and then cut her up and send her body parts all over the fucking place.

The bible tells me a white haired, flame-eyed, feet made of brass, sword coming out of his mouth son of god is going to pop out holding some stars and be like, "Yo, whats up?"

If you still buy into this bullshit I respect your opinion and will make sure your voice is not ever ever censored. You are deserving of having your voice heard.

But that still makes you a raving lunatic devoid of any and all critical thinking capacity. Dress it up however you like christians, your shit is fucking crazy.

EDIT-Just had to CMA here for the "devout" that are going to call me a bigot/intolerant/hatemonger/whatever.

I don't hate christians and I don't hate religion.

I don't hate schizophrenics and people that kill other people because of voices either.

I don't hate people that claim they were taken aboard a "mothership" and had a giant squid shoved up their ass.

I don't hate people that take a picture of cigarette smoke and say it's a ghost of some 1840's ghost girl trying to communicate.

I just think all of the above people are seriously devoid of critical thinking capacity.

Good Book BTW.

[Jedah]

Originally Posted by Screamfeeder

The bible tells me that my girlfriend is going to hell because she will not cover her head or shave it.

The bible tells me that it's cool to give my daughter over to some rapists and then cut her up and send her body parts all over the fucking place.

The bible tells me a white haired, flame-eyed, feet made of brass, sword coming out of his mouth son of god is going to pop out holding some stars and be like, "Yo, whats up?"

A literal interpretation of the Bible is, of course, sheer madness. Jospeh Cambell did wonderful work exploring the archetype of myth/storytelling; to people who are hung up on the true/false dichotomy of the Bible, I'd suggest reading "The Power of Myth."

[Screamfeeder]

Originally Posted by Jedah

I'd suggest reading "The Power of Myth."

I have the PBS series saved on DVD somewhere. I will check into the book but as far as I know they are more or less the same.

[Jedah]

Originally Posted by Screamfeeder

I have the PBS series saved on DVD somewhere. I will check into the book but as far as I know they are more or less the same.

Last I could recall they are.