In Dostoevsky’s famous novel The Brothers Karamazov, Ivan Karamazov famously insisted that without God, everything is permitted. This, of course, is simply untrue. Morality is not dependent on the existence of God, and centuries of nontheistic ethical philosophy, from deontology to utilitarianism, has demonstrated this fact. Indeed, contrary to Ivan Karamazov, it is instead true that with God, everything is permitted. Because human beings do not have access to the thoughts of their deities, their religious moral systems frequently conflict with and contradict each other. This has been demonstrated empirically over and over again, as people have at once justified slavery and the abolishment of slavery on religious grounds; they’ve justified indiscriminant killing and the turning of the other cheek on religious grounds; and they’ve justified terrorism and nonviolence for religious reasons. Even worse, the nature of religious faith, or what amounts to beliefs held to be absolutely certain in the absence of any evidence, allows for the justification of any belief whatsoever. With faith, everything is permitted.
If a belief is grounded in faith—that is, if the belief has no basis in evidence or reasoning—then there is no means for adequately and objectively determining whether a belief is true or false. Removed from the irritating responsibility of being shackled to and corresponding to reality, truth becomes whatever one wants it to be. This, in essence, is the meat of the New Atheist’s criticism of moderate religion. Clearly, religious fundamentalism and extremism is directly more harmful than more liberal religious interpretations or a vague spirituality, but both the extremists and moderates nevertheless engage in a style of thinking that makes extremism possible. With faith, everything is permitted, and the religious moderate’s faith-based thinking legitimizes the faith-based thinking that is more extreme, whether it be the religious justifications for terrorism to religious oppression of homosexuals and women.
As WK Clifford once argued in his famous essay The Ethics of Belief: “It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence.” I do not go as far as Clifford in that I do not think it is always wrong to believe something with insufficient evidence, but I do believe it is wrong to legitimize faith-based thinking and even worse to praise it as a virtue. To believe without evidence can lead to a number of unintended and harmful consequences. In that sense, the benign religious moderates of the world are not direct dangers, but they harbor a terrifying potential for danger, and they stoke the flames of unreason present in extremists and fundamentalists, unable to criticize their evil deeds adequately with their faith-based criticisms, unmoored from reality, and engaging in exactly the same type of thought that causes and encourages religious extremism. And not only that, but the moderate’s religious beliefs are also false, which is no small charge.
Of course, I have been generous in assuming religious moderates are not themselves harmful, but this assumption is not correct, and denying it only further bolsters my case. To use only one example, consider the role liberalized moderate religion and spirituality play in the complementary and alternative medicine movement. Despite its good intentions, the alternative medicine movement is dangerous and harmful, fostering unwarranted skepticism toward medicine that actually works (as in the antivaccination movement) and promoting medical modalities that do not actually work. Many of these alternative medical modalities are justified on the basis of appeals to vague spirituality and westernized bastardizations of Eastern religions, as well as on criticisms of scientific study and research in order to emphasize intuition and faith as “other ways of knowing”. In this way, faith-based thinking can be dangerous, and even the most well-meaning and charitable beliefs can pave the way to destruction if they are not adequately based on evidence and legitimate reasoning.
There is also much to be said for criticizing religious believers, even the moderates, simply because they are wrong. It is not necessary to demonstrate that a belief is harmful to nevertheless show that it is incorrect. There is certainly less harm in beliefs concerning big foot and extraterrestial aliens than there is in fundamentalist religion, but I criticize these beliefs, too, on the basis of the lacking evidence and the silly credulity of those who jump to unwarranted to conclusions. Like religion, though, these beliefs can also become something dangerous in many ways, like when a naive believer in psychics empties her bank account to pay a psychic to cleanse her negative aura, or when believers in extraterrestial life commit mass suicide to join the UFO trailing behind the Hale-Bopp comet.
Truth should ultimately matter more than appeals to negative consequences. This is because truth itself can lead to negative consequences. Some people cannot cope with the realization that there is no God, and may kill themselves. Some people may be crippled by existential fears of death when realizing that there is no afterlife or no soul. The truth need not always benefit people. Similarly, false beliefs can cause amazing acts of goodness and kindness, as in the charitable contributions of churches. Only by seeking the truth through evidence-based reasoning, however, can we adequately protect against the needless harms of faith-based thinking. It is often said that there are more ways to be wrong than to be right. For example, if the length of a ruler is twelve inches, then there is only one correct answer (12 inches), but an infinite number of incorrect answers (-13 inches, 2 inches, pi inches … and so on). In that sense, one can also say that there are more ways to do wrong through falsehood than to do wrong with reality. Thus, to guard against the almost-infinite possibilities for faith-based wrongdoings, I value truth. Of course, it can also be said that there is an infinite possibility to do good with faith-based reasoning. This is true, but faith-based reasoning does not guarantee this possibility, and in such a world where evidence does not matter, there is no way to guard against or prevent the innumerable potential evils that could crop up. It is best, then, to simply accept the truth, the good with the bitter. As such, we should criticize religious moderates and extremists, because both have the potential to do untold harm, and because both can do untold harm for imaginary and false reasons.
Beyond that, I also believe that truth is an intrinsic value. Like many atheists, I would prefer to live in a universe in which there is an eternal afterlife, and I often suffer a vague dread and angst at the thought of my inevitable demise. But I also value this bitter truth, not because it is good or bad, but because it simply is—because it is true. With that said, I shall close with a poem by Stephen Crane, “In the Desert”, the sentiments of which reflect my personal values concerning truth better than I could ever convey:
In the desert
I saw a creature, naked, bestial,
Who, squatting upon the ground,
Held his heart in his hands,
And ate of it.
I said: “Is it good, friend?”
“It is bitter—bitter,” he answered;
“But I like it
Because it is bitter,
And because it is my heart.”
12 comments
Harry
25 December, 2009 at 4:10 PM (UTC -6) Link to this comment
I’ve always loved that poem at the end, and I love your writing about the fact that with faith everything is permitted. It’s brilliant!
Ben
26 December, 2009 at 12:46 AM (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Not sure I buy the Sam Harris argument that moderates are sheltering the extremists. Especially with Christian religion, the cult think by design, yields even stronger passions when your tiny little group is the only god-fearing bunch on the planet. The extremists already typically denigrate the vast majority of “luke warm” Christianity and are skeptical that most Christians are really Christians, so they have many reasons to completely disregard whatever the compromised moderates and liberals think.
I don’t think it’s worth saving the argument (since as you point out, moderates cause immediate problems with solidarity in their own right), but you might be able to say that more people are exposed to religious thinking that tends towards extremism, by being a moderate. The God of the static Bible certainly is no moderate, so there will always be a turn over.
Ben
Lizz
30 December, 2009 at 4:18 PM (UTC -6) Link to this comment
I quite agree – and I’m trying really really hard not to giggle like a maniac over the fact that the entire time I was reading this lovely piece of logic I kept getting distracted by the scientology.org advertisement next to it. Thank you, google advertising, for once again finding the single least helpful advertisement in your vaults and placing it on display where it can be laughed at indiscriminately.
Tim
4 January, 2010 at 12:27 AM (UTC -6) Link to this comment
There is in argument that exists that if all things cannot be rationally explained they cannot be believed. Unfortunately, not all things can be rationally explained. I dont conciously control my own heartbeat. I don’t know everything about how my organs function. I don’t know how my brain manages the millions of messages my body is sending every second. Do you? If we understood all of this why can’t we prevent our own deaths? Our knowledge is limited, so to say that everything that is believed must be explained in rational terms is absurd.
I quote from evolutionary theorists to prove my point. To explain our existence we get this quote… “A long time ago nature began a grand experiment.” Oh really? Is nature a person? Is nature a logical thinker? Does nature have a mind? If this is so than the argument against creationism is made obsolete by the very words of the evolutionists themselves. If nature can create a mind does it not stand to reason that nature must have a mind? Hello?
In truth, I don’t know how we got here. I don’t necessarily buy the Adam and Eve story. However; I don’t buy pure evolutionary theory either, because it eventually divorces itself from its own foundation at some point. Namely, nature itself. If nature creates all things, then nature itself is “GOD”, for lack of a better term.
Also, your faith in our current modern medical science is a tad misplaced. I’ve worked in health care taking care of individuals and as a representative of an insurer. The majority of medications we take to control “conditions” actually have a hand in creating other negative conditions, and in some cases actually have a hand in destroying the organs that we depend upon for physical life. That having been said, if we look at the raw statistics, without categorizing by disease, the biggest killer in the US today isn’t cancer, heart disease, stroke, etc. If you add up all the deaths by infectious disease acquired in hospitals, all the deaths by surgical error, misdiagnosis, medication errors, deaths by side-effects of medications, prescribed overdoses, negative interactions between prescribed medications, and deaths by allergic reactions to prescribed medications…guess what?
The leading cause of death in the United States is our own health care system. THAT my friend is a RATIONAL FACT. I hope you sleep well knowing all is “rational” and “logical” here.
Saint Gasoline
4 January, 2010 at 7:24 PM (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Tim, you seem to be horribly confused by a lot of things.
First of all, your argument that not everything is rational doesn’t make sense. The fact that we can’t explain something currently doesn’t mean that something is irrational. It could be that we simply haven’t understood it yet. You haven’t demonstrated at all that there must be an irrational component to reality. There very well could be, but you certainly have not given me any reason to think so.
Second, you seem to be naive when you think a scientist is being literal when he says “Nature began a grand experiment”. This is called figurative language. He does not literally believe that nature is capable of thoughts and performing experiments. For instance, if I were to tell you that the facts speak for themselves, I’m not saying that facts can literally speak—what this means is that the facts plainly support a certain conclusion. In the example you’ve given, all the biologist is saying is something equivalent to “A long time ago life began to exist” in a poetic, metaphorical way.
Third, I don’t have “faith” in medical science, and I never said it was perfect. But your statistics do not point to the conclusion you seek, which is that medical care is more dangerous than not receiving it. Suppose, for instance, that I formed a clubhouse and only allowed really sick people to enter this club. It wouldn’t be surprising that the statistics would show that many people died in this clubhouse. That doesn’t mean the clubhouse is causing the deaths, only that it is correlated with the deaths—and the reason for that is quite clear in this example. Medical care is quite similar—it is a clubhouse that tends to admit lots of sick people who need complex surgical procedures performed, and it is natural to expect deaths through error or otherwise. If you really want to try to justify your claim, look at statistics comparing lifespans before modern medicine and nutrition and those of today. So no, what you’ve said is not a “rational fact” as you put it, but a misguided interpretation of rational facts. But nice try!
Lori
7 January, 2010 at 2:29 PM (UTC -6) Link to this comment
I tend to agree with Tim re hospitals, doctors and medicine. I believe he quotes accurate figures in relation to nosocomial infections, medical errors, administrative errors, and most importantly, the side effects of medicine. I have chosen not to take medicine. I have a doctor who is willing to work with me. I am pretty healthy. He wanted to be me on about 3 meds for legitimate conditions. I have cured those conditions with food, supplements and exercise.
I do agree with you re Tim’s literal interpretation of nature vis-a-vis god. I liked your sermon and use the same argument when talking about the bible. One can justify anything using that book. It’s all meaningless blather, and quite a vicious god, at that. I was brought up with the bible and found the personification of god rather cruel, lonely, hateful and plainly in need of a wife. The 2nd Testament, relaxes his anger, but then increases it when his disciples interpret what they think are his meanings. My favorite shocking remark is why does god need a penis? That’s always a show-stopper.
I loved your test and I did agree with the conclusion.
Mike
5 February, 2010 at 7:13 PM (UTC -6) Link to this comment
A great read! Articles such as this is the reason why I subscribe to your website. Maybe you could explore the effects of anti-intellectualism in American media on youth culture. I’m sure your take on it would be enthralling. Great quote at the end of that article! Cheers!
Will
7 February, 2010 at 5:18 PM (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Wow, this really is a great read. I appreciate your summing up the modern athiest’s problem with faith-thinking, that “with faith, anything is possible.” Let me say that Christians have historically abused their own Scriptures to piggy-back whatever belief that they wanted to support – the Crusades, murder under John Calvin, American slavery, violation of civil rights for African-Americans, prejudice,,….well, you get the point.
Let us agree that mere abuses (and idiots to be blunt) do not necessarily void a point. Try this logical following and see if it helps to ground some faith-thinking in at least a justifiable way…
Faith is necessary to accept the Bible as authoritative, because only the Bible can rightly call itself authoritative. God alone can say who He is, really; anyone else must quote Him. This is a circular argument, but it must be for the sake of consistency. If we appeal to reason to justify the Bible’s claims, then we have made our reason – not the Bible – the deciding factor on what is true. Thus, it makes sense – if you believe that God is right and true – to believe the Bible without sufficient rational explanation, because it is based not on rational explanations, but rather on God’s revelation…hmmm…that might be a longer conversation that just here…email me if you want more, okay?
One point that I wish Christians could really take away from your blog – may you gain more and more readers! – is that we must provide – or be able to provide – an explanation for our beliefs. Just saying “Because God said so” is equivalent to saying “Because I said so” unless we can show how God says that…i.e. “Where does God say that in the Bible?” If we’re pointing to the Bible, and having an honest discussion, we should be able to come to a common answer, or at least a very few amount of possible answers. It is a difficult book to interpret, but if Christians are correct that God moved people to say these things, and that God is a God who prefers order to chaos, then these words should move us to common conclusions, ways of life, and ways of thinking.
And Lori: I appreciate the question, “Why does God need a penis?” I can imagine a lot of Christian crowds being shocked that you actually used the anatomical term instead of “wee-wee” or something….It makes me laugh. For what it’s worth, I don’t have a very good answer, but I appreciate the question. Perhaps we’ll be able to discuss that sometime…
Grace and peace,
Will
Mike
10 February, 2010 at 11:30 AM (UTC -6) Link to this comment
“that God is a God who prefers order to chaos, then these words should move us to common conclusions, ways of life, and ways of thinking.”
I think you’d have a hard time working with this point. There are some major logical problems with the idea of the judeo-christian god being a “loving” God, like the existence of evil for one (see Epicurus). Also, just look to the numerous conflicting claims stemming from the myriad christian denominations, all of whom say that they have the “true interpretation”. The problem with taking the Bible seriously is the major contradictions it presents within its texts. Just compare the story of the ten commandments with Leviticus (or as I once heard it described “101 reasons to stone your neighbour, and his goat”.
And I think this brings me to the main qualm that atheists have with all religions, is the idea of accepting an idea as truth, merely on faith. Faith is making a virtue out of not thinking and it’s inherently dangerous and destructive.
Look, everyone is looking for answers to the big questions (who am I? Why am I here? Where am I going?), but sometimes people want to know the answers so badly, that they’ll believe just about anything. To surrender your powers of reason to the “authority of the Bible” is simply the worst thing you can do for yourself, and society.
“One must be oneself very little of a philosopher not to feel that the finest privilege of our reason consists in not believing in anything by the impulsion of a blind and mechanical instinct, and that it is to dishonour reason to put it in bonds as the Chaldeans did. Man is born to think for himself.” -Denis Diderot-
simple spell
20 May, 2010 at 10:39 PM (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Can I use part of your post in my website if I link you back?
Amanda
23 July, 2010 at 2:11 AM (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Hello, thanks for the entertaining blog and comic strips.
I am a creationist and a strong proponent of the argument that our existence today leads to a point back in time when we must have been created by a sentient being. I do not quite like to believe that the attributes of the universe we witness today as a result of random-occurring events. The main point I am trying to put out here is that the theories of either camp cannot be empirically proved to be representative of any truth. In my opinion, what separates people into both sides of the arena is pure personal experience and belief. Atheists assert that our ‘faith-based thinking’ is logically flawed and undesirable. But the truth is nobody knows if we are indeed wrong. In the same vein of argument, how is it that atheists could bring themselves to believe that the universe was indeed not created by God when there is no evidence to prove so. Are atheists not, above their arguments which I reiterate have hitherto not been proven to be valid, also putting mere ‘faith’ in their own reasoning?
Hope you could share your thoughts.
Marcellus Stayrook
24 January, 2011 at 10:15 PM (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Justly , I’d say that irreligion is pretty much the definite approach towards ‘zest’ .