According to Atheist Sam Harris, Atheism is a Preposterous Belief

by Kyle Butt, M.A.

Printer version | Email this article

Sam Harris wrote a caustic book against all religious faith that he titled, The End of Faith. As with most of the modern atheistic writers, Harris related numerous atrocities committed in the name of religion as evidence that religious faith is inherently flawed. To press his point, he stated:

Whenever you hear that people have begun killing noncombatants intentionally and indiscriminately, ask yourself what dogma stands at their backs. What do these freshly minted killers believe. You will find that it is always—always—preposterous (2004, p. 106, ital. in orig.).

While Harris is wrong to categorize New Testament Christianity with other faiths (see Butt, 2007), he is right to conclude that people today who indiscriminately kill noncombatants are deluded by some type of preposterous belief. Unfortunately, Harris fails to see that by making this statement, he has condemned atheism as a preposterous belief.

The term “noncombatant” is not difficult to understand. It simply means any person who is not actively engaged in a war, riot, or combat situation. Generally speaking, this term describes innocent women and children. For instance, Harris listed several examples of situations in which men, women, and children were killed simply because they belonged to a certain ethnic group. If we were to ask what category of human beings could best be described as “noncombatants,” we would be forced to conclude that babies necessarily fit the category. Thus, any modern belief system that advocates the killing of innocent babies must be backed by a preposterous belief—according to Harris.

When we look into Harris’ writings, we discover that his atheistic philosophy completely justifies the indiscriminant killing of unborn humans. Harris, like his atheistic cohorts, supports abortion. How could Harris miss the connection between his pro-abortion stance and the indiscriminant killing about which he rages? The answer is clear from his own writings, because he posed a very similar question:

How is it, after all, that a Nazi guard could return each day from his labors at the crematoria and be a loving father to his children? The answer is surprisingly straightforward; the Jews he spent the day torturing and killing were not objects of his moral concern. Not only were they outside his moral community; they were antithetical to it. His beliefs about Jews inured him to the natural human sympathies that might have other wise prevented such behavior (2004, p. 176).

Harris correctly concluded that the Nazi soldiers justified their villainous deeds by claiming that Jews were less than human and not worthy to be in the same moral community as the Nazis. Of course, Harris does not believe the Nazis had the right to hold this belief. And he believes that they were guilty of real moral wrong. Yet, shockingly, only one page later he implies that his brand of atheism is in the same position as the Nazi soldier’s belief. He states:

Incidentally, here is where a rational answer to the abortion debate is lurking. Many of us consider human fetuses in the first trimester to be more or less like rabbits: having imputed to them a range of happiness and suffering that does not grant them full status in our moral community. At present, this seems rather reasonable. Only future scientific insights could refute this intuition (p. 177, emp. added).

The Nazi soldier killed Jews all day and justified it by saying they were outside his moral community. The atheistic popularizers like Sam Harris support the indiscriminant slaughter of innocent, unborn children, and justify their belief by concluding that unborn babies do not have “full status in our moral community.”

According to Harris, we must look to see what preposterous dogma undergirds the atheistic community’s support for abortion. When we do, we find the irrational idea that humans are natural organisms that have evolved from lower life forms over billions of years. This outrageous belief strips humanity of the dignity that comes only with belief in a divine Creator. Furthermore, the atheistic assertion establishes humans as the final authority that determines which people should be granted full status in our moral community.

If atheism is true, it would be morally acceptable to redefine humanity’s moral community to include animals, or exclude certain categories of humans. Furthermore, it would be morally justifiable to indiscriminately kill noncombatants based on arbitrarily chosen criteria like age, mental capacity, or physical ability. But Harris has correctly stated that any belief system that allows such actions “is always—always—preposterous.” According to Harris, then, we must conclude that atheism is preposterous.

REFERENCES

Butt, Kyle (2007), “All Religion is Bad Because Some Is?” [On-line], URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/3546.

Harris, Sam (2004), The End of Faith (New York: W.W. Norton).

NYTimes finally acknowledges that anti-Prop. 8 mob is harassing traditional marriage supporters

By Michelle Malkin  •  February 8, 2009 06:11 AM

Hell is frozen over. The New York Times has finally come to the realization that the anti-Prop. 8 mob in California is intimidating traditional marriage supporters with its blacklist maps.

What took them so damn long?

FOR the backers of Proposition 8, the state ballot measure to stop single-sex couples from marrying in California, victory has been soured by the ugly specter of intimidation.

Some donors to groups supporting the measure have received death threats and envelopes containing a powdery white substance, and their businesses have been boycotted.

The targets of this harassment blame a controversial and provocative Web site, eightmaps.com.

…The site pits…cherished values against each other: political transparency and untarnished democracy versus privacy and freedom of speech.

“When I see those maps, it does leave me with a bit of a sick feeling in my stomach,” said Kim Alexander, president of the California Voter Foundation, which has advocated for open democracy.

(link)

A failed presidency is now unavoidable

Monty Pelerin

For the past couple of months I have worried about the risks of a failed presidency. No one should want this, regardless of party affiliation. It is harmful and dangerous to our economy and country. However, it appears obvious to me that the royal regime known as Obama has ended.

Seth Leibsohn writing in the National Review summarized it this way:

“This is reminiscent of the Jimmy Carter years – the last time the U.S. was seen as weak – unable to move and coax other countries, unable to reassure dependent allies, unable to have the respect of the world and, of course, unable to move the mullocracy of Iran.”

Even the liberal media are beginning to question the effectiveness of  the President. The media, in full Camelot mode, are slow to react and often lag what the populace started to recognize months ago. Quotes like these, however, suggest they are not far behind.

The NYT reports: “China held firm against most American demands. With China’s micro-management of Mr. Obama’s appearances in the country, the trip did more to showcase China’s ability to push back against outside pressure than it did to advance the main issues on Mr. Obama’s agenda, analysts said.”

The Washington Post: “If there was any significant change during this trip, in fact, it was in the United States’ newly conciliatory and sometimes laudatory tone. . . . Obama’s trip stood in stark contrast to visits by his predecessors.”

The Times stated that Obama was given “less respect than was given presidents Bush or Clinton.”

All of the above quotes can be found in this highly recommended post by Seth Leibsohn.  He concluded his piece:

“Not a very good first year for America, or the world, under a new leadership that promised a new respect, a new start, and a new way of doing business. It’s new alright – it just isn’t any good.”

We have a failed presidency that cannot be retrieved. The dream cannot be rebuilt because there was never a foundation to begin with. It was all show and no substance. Yes, it created much excitement and (false) hope. But so did Elmer Gantry and James Jones. However, the image was akin to an old Hollywood set, all facade and no depth. Now the winds of reality are slowly and inexorably tearing the facade away.

The politicians in Congress see these same signs and read the polls. At this point they are trying to decide what is least dangerous for their individual careers. For the Republicans that probably means pouring gasoline on Obama’s burning ship of state. For the Democrats, it is a more difficult problem. Ultimately, I believe they will abandon ship. Politicians of both parties are like rats; they are survivors. All politicians will take that course which they believe gives them the best chance for individual survival. Loyalty be damned.

Hang on, this will be a rough period ahead.

Chris Matthews’ leg is not tingling anymore

Seems like liberals are waking up to the fraud that Hussein Junior is. Things are getting so bad for the kenyan that even Chriss Tingly is starting to have doubts about him.

See the short clip