Anti-religious activist Richard Carrier wrote a blog posting entitled, “What’s the Harm? Why Religious Belief Is Always Bad.” Carrier comes up with a way to take a common New Atheist talking point and turn it into almost 6000 words of anti-religious posturing. Let’s have a look at one section where Carrier promises to show “Why All Theologies Are Dangerous.” He begins as follows:
First, all religions are systems of lies, designed to keep us trapped and controlled by fear. Liberal, conservative. Doesn’t matter.
That sentence alone tells me that Carrier is not a serious thinker and instead is an apologist who is invested in an extreme agenda. How can we tell? First, note the sense of absolute certainty. Carrier has no doubt about his position and is cocksure he is portraying things as they are. Then, note that part of this sense of certainty entails that “all religions” are “systems of lies.” Whenever someone begins to posture against “lies,” chances are high that we are dealing with someone who is a) emotionally invested in their viewpoint and b) imposes a black and white perspective on complex issues. Y’see, it’s not good enough for religion to be wrong or mistaken. Even deluded is not good enough. It must be a system of lies. Lies, lies, and more damn lies.
But then it gets worse. It turns out the “system of lies” have been “designed.” And these lies ensnare us and control us with fear. In other words, Carrier is now thinking like a conspiracy theorist. For by insisting the “system of lies” has been “designed” to ensnare us, he is effectively proposing a conspiracy – religion is not what it says it is; it is a deliberately designed system out to get you.
The extremist posturing continues:
They can only survive at all, because so many are willing to keep telling and selling the same lies, because so many are so terrified of the truth they’d rather deny it than grow out of it.
Carrier is drawing from his stereotypes here, where all religious people are fearful, immature, liars. Of course, at most, what Carrier describes is some cartoon version of reality that nicely conforms to the narrative of his activist posturing. In other words, rather than accurately describe reality, Carrier is merely displaying his extremist mentality and personality. The only conclusion we can properly reach from his posturing is this – “My, that Richard Carrier fellow sure hates religion.”
And it continues:
But certainly if we believe the truth matters, if we believe growing up and being an adult matters, then we cannot support believing in lies even if they are comforting, and even if the truth must necessarily be disturbing.
I don’t support believing in lies. In fact, I don’t believe in any lies. Take the existence of God. I think God exists, so I say so. I could be mistaken in the end. But even if I was, I would not be lying. I would only be lying if I was an atheist who said I believed in God. And I am not an atheist.
If we do not confront the fact of our mortality, if we hide from it and evade it by fabricating fantasies that we are immortal, we do not really grow up. We remain emotionally stunted, never having come to terms with the truth about ourselves and our lives.
Incredible. Carrier is a 48-year old man who still lives like a college freshman. His priorities in life are drinking, having sex with as many lovers as possible, and trying to dazzle people with his word blizzards. After all, this is the guy who uses his position as an obscure conference speaker to solicit a date:
Through a confluence of events, none of my girlfriends can make it to MythCon in Milwaukee this year. So I’m looking for a date that weekend. You should be aware I’m straight, promiscuous, polyamorous, godless, drink, don’t smoke, and have that cloud hanging over me….I can offer you access to the event, if you don’t already have tickets; and a share of a bed (platonically even), if you haven’t already booked your own room. I’ll also cover drinks. I’ll be at the Aloft hotel in downtown Milwaukee, also the location of the event afterparty, which is probably where we’d spend most of our time together.
It’s hilarious that such a person thinks he can preach to us about “growing up” and coming to terms with the “truth about ourselves.”
Worse, we also fail to make the decisions we would have made had we known this, admitted it, and done what we needed to make peace with it. We are cutting off a lot of happiness and accomplishment and knowledge and experience that even we would agree mattered once correctly aware of the truth, on the false belief that we get to defer it to an eternal future.
I think Carrier suffers the delusion that some of us might envy his life. Sorry, but I can’t think of a single example of any happiness, accomplishment, knowledge or wanted experience that I am lacking because I am a Christian theist. Am I supposed to feel bad because I do not participate in the polyamorous, drunken, godless conference scene?
Likewise, if we do not confront the fact that there is no one coming to save us, no justice assured, no future where we meet our maker or our lost loved ones, that salvation and justice only comes from flawed human beings organizing imperfectly to manifest it, we also, again, remain emotionally stunted, never having come to terms with the truth about the world and its realities and limitations. Being fired up by that harsh reality, to really start supporting the production of more justice in the world, is better. It’s more urgent, more important, that we really do this, if there is no superhero already on it.
This is a strange complaint. Carrier seems to assume religious people don’t lift a pinky when it comes to trying to make the world a “better place” because they are all laying around waiting for Jesus to do it all. Of course, there are plenty of examples, liberal and conservative, where religious people are politically active. What’s more, I think you can turn this point on its head and raise it as a problem with atheism. Some atheists take the nihilistic road and don’t bother trying to make the world a better place because they think it is all meaningless to begin with. Others, because of their awareness of such limited time, become frenzied in their beliefs about establishing a Utopia. When it seems like they will never taste of their social justice Utopia, they become suicidal or violent. We’ve explored examples of this on this blog.
Likewise, if we do not confront the fact that those lost survive only in our memories and the effects of their lives on the world they left behind, we also, again, remain emotionally stunted, never having come to terms with the truth about the world and its realities and limitations. We should be appreciating those we love while they still exist, enjoying our loved ones’ company more now, knowing full well it will end, rather than deferring it to a fictional future; we should be dealing with our grief and loss so we can move beyond it, rather than bottling it up in fear and false hope. Consequently the way of living that admits everyone’s mortality is better. Same, too, if we never learn to let go the imaginary friends of our childhood. Real friends are better. Admitting you are really only talking to yourself is better.
At this point, Carrier has strayed off into some fantasy land. In Carrier’s mind, those lying, fearful, lazy Christians don’t even bother to love each other or even make friends. Really? It’s a strange and baseless claim which indicates just how out of touch with reality one becomes when they live in an anti-religious bubble.
Oddly enough, you could also turn this one back on some of the social justice atheists. We could just as easily argue they spend so much frenzied time, energy, and emotion on their socio-political activism and the Holy Quest for Utopia that they end up neglecting their family members and friends.
In the end, we know that activists like Carrier believe “Religious Belief Is Always Bad.” Nothing new here. It’s a common anti-religious talking point among the New Atheists that traces back to the old Soviet version of militant atheism. The problem is that the case they make is only convincing to those who already agree with the belief. It’s nothing more than a feature of extreme, anti-religious posturing.
Shadow To Light 
Can you name a time where unfettered religion has not led to oppression and force? We have it fairly good these days, and it’s not because the world is more religious. It’s because it isn’t. Unchecked religion historically leads to misery, torture, and death. Doesn’t matter what brand. They all seem to have a love affair with atrocities. Hell, christians even pray for it to happen.
“Can you name a time where unfettered religion has not led to oppression and force?”
If by “unfettered” you mean in total power, then I’ll take it a step further – can you name a time where unfettered ANYTHING has not led to such things?
Those who rise to absolute power are never the good kind. Religious organizations in power are no different than any other group. You think giving anti-theists absolute power wouldn’t lead to absolute misery? Give me a break.
Our relative peaceful state has nothing to do with less religion. It’s been decisively shown that the vast, vast majority of wars and violence throughout history were not due to religious motivation.
jim says, “unchecked religion historically leads to misery, torture, and death.”
If we classify Marxism as a religion, then yes, there is ample evidence from recent history to support this claim. Conversely, if we classify Marxism as something characterised by a lack of religion, then we have ample evidence that however bad religion (any religion) is, it’s not as bad as the alternative.
Richard Carrier > First, all religions are systems of lies, designed to keep us trapped and controlled by fear. Liberal, conservative. Doesn’t matter.
Presumably “all religions” includes the ‘The Satanic Temple’, whose leadership and members are emphatic that their organisation, unlike eg the secular Humanists, certainly is a religion. (Hint, this pretence enables them to mount Church-State Separation legal cases, it prevents the case getting thrown out on the grounds they don’t have a dog in the fight; and also enables them to join in such cases mounted by the ACLU, basking in the publicity, claiming credit, albeit without doing the heavy lifting.)
So that’s another religion for Carrier to add in: “First, all religions are systems of lies, designed to keep us trapped and controlled by fear. Liberal, conservative, The Satanic Temple. Doesn’t matter.”
Doesn’t Carrier’s view basically boil down to the observation that he personally can’t imagine being happy as a Christian because he wouldn’t get to indulge in drunken polyamorous sex whenever he felt like it?
Doesn’t Carrier’s view basically boil down to the observation that he personally can’t imagine being happy as a Christian because he wouldn’t get to indulge in drunken polyamorous sex whenever he felt like it?
Yes. Then he seems to make this into some kind of general objective truth.
Can you name a time where unfettered religion has not led to oppression and force? We have it fairly good these days, and it’s not because the world is more religious. It’s because it isn’t. Unchecked religion historically leads to misery, torture, and death. Doesn’t matter what brand. They all seem to have a love affair with atrocities. Hell, christians even pray for it to happen.
That powerful old argument:
1) Whatever leads (lead, historically) to misery torture and death is unfettered, unchecked religion.
2) We are seeing less misery, torture and death.
3) Therefore there must be less unfettered, unchecked religion nowadays.
Can you name a time where unfettered religion has not led to oppression and force?
I think you are confusing human nature with religion. Human nature unfettered results in oppression, misery, torture, and death. Are you under the impression that if we just take religion out of the picture, this will not be true?
We have it fairly good these days, and it’s not because the world is more religious.
We have it fairly good these days because the United States took out the Nazis and then the Soviet Communists. If this had not happened, you’d be living in either a Nazi or Soviet reality and I am not sure that would be “fairly good.” As for the United States, I think the big complaint about it is that it has been too religious.
Hi Michael. Interesting perceptions. Thank you for your reply. I live in a highly evangelical area, and I keep hearing through their religious eyes that this is the worst, most corrupt generation and jesus should be returning any day to take over. Statistically it is the safest time in history to be alive. As real equality inches closer (against the efforts of religious groups), women, minorities, and those of alternative lifestyles have more equality today than any time. But that is being threatened by those that are religious. Would you agree that the possible perception of sin and the fears generated through the Christian faith mindset is is askew from reality? Watch any religion based news source here in the states and it’s all doom and gloom. Endless podcasts and articles about end times, articles, sermons, etc, all warning the apocalypse. Why is that? You make a good point about human nature, but I wasn’t really talking about soviets and Nazis, I’m generally referring to religion in virtually every town and hamlet. Not a rogue masochist here and there, but widespread wherever religion planted its roots. The caste system of India and its Hindu roots, the Christian missionaries that brought horror every where they marched or sailed—The americas, Australia,Europe and the barons of the Middle Ages, the muslims still have it going where they control the governments, even in little pockets in freer systems where things like sharia law gain a foothold, and we all know the Old Testament and the Jews. So in your opinion, this is human nature, not the cause from religion? It appears, even the casual observer could see these connections, and only when those things are pressed back do the Cotton Mathers of the world fade out and peace gains a foothold. Whether the outcome is intentional or not is not the point. It’s what the systems of religions do, and of course, the Christian god either knows this or he didn’t see it coming. If he didn’t see what ” go ye into the world was going to do, so much for omnipotence. If he did see it, not very nice thing to do.
I live in a highly evangelical area, and I keep hearing through their religious eyes that this is the worst, most corrupt generation and jesus should be returning any day to take over. Statistically it is the safest time in history to be alive.
There are also more religious believers than ever before and larger numbers of people know more about their religious beliefs than ever before.
Very significant improvements in standards of living are observed across the world, including in areas with large numbers of religious believers, and these improvements were taking place historically in societies composed of large numbers of religious believers.
Secular-atheist dominated societies demonstrated no superiority in this pattern of development, even compared to actual theocracies.
I’m generally referring to religion in virtually every town and hamlet. Not a rogue masochist here and there, but widespread wherever religion planted its roots. The caste system of India and its Hindu roots, the Christian missionaries that brought horror every where they marched or sailed—The americas, Australia,Europe and the barons of the Middle Ages, the muslims still have it going where they control the governments, even in little pockets in freer systems where things like sharia law gain a foothold, and we all know the Old Testament and the Jews.
Look, religion was/is just present everywhere in human societies once they pass a certain level of population.
And, I am guessing that the great majority of these societies (and also the ones that adopted some kind of anti-religious state ideology in the 20th C.) will fail to live up to your moral standards.
It appears, even the casual observer could see these connections, and only when those things are pressed back do the Cotton Mathers of the world fade out and peace gains a foothold.
It looks to me more like an exercise in confirmation bias. Generic ‘religion’ is a very vague and ambiguous concept, you can shape it’s definition and content as you want to support your particular hypothesis and exclude anything that falsifies it.
I live in a country whose religious landscape is completely different to that of the US. There are very few evangelical Christians. They are carefully monitored by the security services. Until the 1980s the population was 80% atheist and only anti-religious atheists were allowed to hold political power. It provides an obvious and vivid falsification of your claims.
jim said, “the Christian missionaries that brought horror every where they marched or sailed.”
If you had a choice between the horrors wrought by Christian missionaries and the horrors wrought by Marxist revolutionaries who denounce religion and God, which would you choose?
@jim – First off… Paragraphs, man. Paragraphs. Anyway, on to what you wrote.
I live in a highly evangelical area, and I keep hearing through their religious eyes that this is the worst, most corrupt generation and jesus should be returning any day to take over. Statistically it is the safest time in history to be alive. As real equality inches closer (against the efforts of religious groups), women, minorities, and those of alternative lifestyles have more equality today than any time. But that is being threatened by those that are religious.
Yes, and that has changed for all sorts of reasons – including religious ones. Religious groups have, and continue to, promote well-being in all sorts of ways. My church is trying to empty the foster care system by adopting as many foster kids as possible. Other churches have other ways of helping their communities. I won’t pretend all do, but I think it’s rather ridiculous for you to assume everyone who is working to help someone else must not be religious.
Would you agree that the possible perception of sin and the fears generated through the Christian faith mindset is is askew from reality?
I read this a few times and can’t tell what you’re asking. Care to rephrase?
Watch any religion based news source here in the states and it’s all doom and gloom. Endless podcasts and articles about end times, articles, sermons, etc, all warning the apocalypse. Why is that?
What on earth are you listening to? I know a few people who think we’re in the end-times, but nothing to the extent you’re talking about. I can think of dozens of other topics I hear Christians regularly talk about, though.
You make a good point about human nature, but I wasn’t really talking about soviets and Nazis, I’m generally referring to religion in virtually every town and hamlet. Not a rogue masochist here and there, but widespread wherever religion planted its roots. The caste system of India and its Hindu roots, the Christian missionaries that brought horror every where they marched or sailed—The americas, Australia,Europe and the barons of the Middle Ages, the muslims still have it going where they control the governments, even in little pockets in freer systems where things like sharia law gain a foothold, and we all know the Old Testament and the Jews. So in your opinion, this is human nature, not the cause from religion?
I think they main issue with the way you’re looking at this is you’re only considering half the evidence. I won’t deny for a second that people of all religions have done really terrible things. But if religion is the main cause of evil and abuse, then we should see things dramatically improve whenever they become less religious, and the countries that are more strongly atheistic should be the ones that are the most equal. But North Korea, China, and the erstwhile Soviet Union were hardly examples of human rights and dignity. As others have noted, there are plenty of examples where things get worse when faith is abandoned. All this implies that neither religion nor lack of religion is the sole, or even primary, cause of human suffering. Did life get better after the French Revolution tried to stamp out religion?
For instance, I agree that several Christian missionaries did some very bad things. I also think some did some very good ones. Christian missionaries were instrumental in abolishing Sati. I think you’ll agree that’s a win for women’s equality. Or, consider their impact on the Auca/Huaorani tribes.
It appears, even the casual observer could see these connections, and only when those things are pressed back do the Cotton Mathers of the world fade out and peace gains a foothold. Whether the outcome is intentional or not is not the point.
Sure, just like a casual observer can see the connections between a person’s skin color and their likeliness to commit a crime. Especially if you only look at half the evidence.
It’s what the systems of religions do, and of course, the Christian god either knows this or he didn’t see it coming. If he didn’t see what ” go ye into the world was going to do, so much for omnipotence. If he did see it, not very nice thing to do.
Not if you only look at the evidence you want to see, I suppose. I hope you’ll look at the rest, but I understand how strong confirmation bias can be.
>Is Religious Belief Always Bad?
Not when it actually aligns with ultimate truth. I Jesus is who He said He is, vs. what Carrier says Jesus is, then that is the one case where religion is good but also all other religions are bad!
@Featherfoot: in relation to the following question from jim:
I interpreted it as a circumlocutious way of saying, “would you agree that Christian ideas about sin make you a bunch of intolerant, homophobic bigots?” Or something approximating that. The “fears” and “askew from reality” parts pretty much demand an interpretation which includes some kind of “phobia” that relates to “sin” and “the Christian faith”, and “homophobia” is the one within closest reach.
Jim,
If I were to choose one word to describe your last reply it would be….selective. You come across as someone who starts with a conclusion – religion is always bad – and then looks for various ways to support this preconception. But don’t you think it a tad extreme and superficial to insist that religion is always bad? If that’s not the extreme position, what would be the extreme position?
Look, I still think you are confusing human nature with religion. That human nature can use religion to express its dark side hardly seems all that remarkable to me. You seem to think religion is some kind of other-worldly mist that comes along and magically poisons people, making them do things they would never do if not for the evil mist. So I asked if you think none of this bad stuff would ever happen if we could get rid of religion. You did not answer.
After observing the atheist community for many years now, it seems rather clear to me that for the atheist community, religion serves as both a scapegoat and a boogeyman. After all, without the scapegoat/boogeyman, what happens to the atheist community? The community that has gotten rid of religion turns on each other. Myers bans Carrier and Carrier sues Myers. One group of atheists sets out to destroy the reputation of various atheist leaders (Krauss, Silverman, etc.) We hear constant accusations of oppression, sexism, racism, etc. among the atheist community from fellow atheists. At least with the boogeyman/scapegoat in place, some atheist bloggers can get the community to unify and attack and smear an orphanage.
Sorry, but if religion was so bad and so evil, you would think a community that rid itself of something so toxic would be abundantly superior to religious communities. But I don’t see a shred of evidence to support that point. Which leads me to wonder – can the notion that religion is always bad be falsified?
As for the Nazis and Soviet Communists, I was replying to your claim that “We have it fairly good these days, and it’s not because the world is more religious.” I’m simply pointing out that we would not have it fairly good these days if either the Nazis or Communists were the dominant powers of our day. And why is it that they are not the dominant powers?
Finally, you wrote:
Watch any religion based news source here in the states and it’s all doom and gloom. Endless podcasts and articles about end times, articles, sermons, etc, all warning the apocalypse. Why is that?
How is that much different from any secular news source? It’s all doom and gloom – global warming, Trump is going to make himself dictator and get us all in a nuclear war, Victims Everywhere. And I’ve spent a good part of my life watching atheists run around like Chicken Little warning us all about the Coming Theocracy that never seems to come.
Like I said, you’ve been selective.
Great comment. Just to clarify, I was faithful in the church for fifty years of my life. I made all the excuses for it, bought into it with all the devotion I had. So I am not selective at all. I just finally realized that actual Christians are teaching one thing, while we observe another. Virtually every catch phrase like god is good, god is love and so forth, is not what we see in the Bible or in the decisiveness of our religious society today. Sorry if you think I’m too broad in my analysis, but if you pick a Christian teaching, I can see the complete opposite in reality. It’s really quite amusing and cleverly presented, but it doesn’t add up to any observable reality. Without volumes of apologetic excuses, not one thing stands on its own merit. It absolutely obvious to me. Since I lost faith I found the real key to understanding the mysteries is unbelief. The entire thing opened up before me as plain as day. Quite remarkable. Thank you for taking the time to comment. I will reflect on what you think about my approach. I do strive for excellence and appreciate your feedback and civility.
Nice deflection. You didn’t answer the question but accused another faulty system.
jim, it would be helpful if you made some clear reference as to which response goes with which comment, since the main website view presents it all as a flat list. If the “another faulty system” remark above was directed at me and my references to Marxism, then you’ve missed the point. The fact that the alternatives are as or more flawed is the point. As Michael said:
Similarly, you do not answer whether you would rather face Christian horrors or Marxist horrors. Michael also said that your reply was “selective”, and you responded:
Your past experience has nothing to do with the kind of selectivity in question here. You are selecting negative examples which you specifically see as being the fault of religion, then working backward to your general thesis that, “unchecked religion historically leads to misery, torture, and death.” The point is, “compared to what?” This is significant, because even if it happens to be true that “unchecked religion” produces the results you claim, you still have to demonstrate that the alternative is better rather than worse, or else your claim is a bluff, since the presence of religion would count as a net positive if the alternative is worse.
So, when you look at the 20th century as a whole, containing, as it did, plentiful examples of misery, torture, and death, what rough portion of that malignancy would you blame on “unchecked religion” in general, or Christianity in particular? I keep raising Marxism, since it is the recent large-scale historical example of an unchecked anti-religious, anti-theistic ideology, and its misery, torture, and death scorecard is hard to beat. Seriously, if you want mass starvation, oppression, incarceration, misery, and death, the track record of thoroughgoing Marxism is hard to beat.
There is also the question of selectively ignoring the up-side — the benefits and good examples. What kind of influence was behind the end of slavery in the West, for example? Hint: not Darwinism or Marxism.
In that very lengthy blog post Richard Carrier moves through sections entitled “Why Conservative Theologies Are Dangerous”, “Why All Theologies Are Dangerous”, “Liberal Theologies Entail Broken Epistemologies”, “Yet Further Dangers of Moderate Religion”, “Giving Liberals Their Due” then finally the “Conclusion”. Though it becomes plain Carrier detests Conservative Christians more than Liberal Christians, he detests the lot, it’s a case of his declaring Liberal Christians better than Conservative Christians, BUT…
First, an aside on Carrier’s claim that Christians all have “broken epistemologies”: er, surely epistemology is a whole field, so you can no more have multiple epistemologies than you can have multiple metrologies or multiple meteorologies; I don’t have an epistemology, I have my reasons (and my reasons for my reasons, and the huge under-iceberg of other ideas into which my expressed views and ideas fit and from which they spring); and I no more have a systematic epistemology than I have a systematic theology; it looks to me like “epistemologies” is a pretentious synonym for what you and I simply term “reasons”.
(Peter Boghossian and his Street Epistemologists have evidently fallen into the same pretentiousness.)
What of Carrier’s own “epistemology”? In the “Liberal Theologies Entail Broken Epistemologies” section he first quotes approvingly (hence ‘owns’) Greta Christina’s “verifiable evidence”, then uses it himself in “Revering [the Bible] prevents us from doing instead what we ought to do, which is question why anything we think is correct, and come up with verifiable reasons before committing to it.”
“Verifiable”, no less; colour me unimpressed. There was me thinking that verificationism, the central plank of Logical Postivism, had been thoroughly debunked by Karl Popper, in his “The Logic of Scientific Discovery”, many decades ago. Just what crap methods for reaching trustworthy knowledge does Carrier espouse?
(PS: trustworthy knowledge is what you can have faith in; so what’s the atheist problem with faith?)
*
The “Giving Liberals Their Due” section is interesting because Carrier contradicts three of the Four Horsemen:
Carrier mentions only two Horsemen: but if you think Jerry Coyne doesn’t espouse essentially the same view as the other two, if anything much more strongly, just look at how Coyne insists on the incompatibility of science and religion — that’s science broadly drawn, science so broadly drawn he claims plumbing is science, so it seems for Coyne plumbing is incompatible with religion — it seems for Coyne <everything that isn’t religion is incompatible with religion; and just look at how Coyne explodes into a hissy fit whenever there’s an accommodationist™ or accommodationism™ in sight (with an accommodationist™ being anyone who is either a moderate Christian or a moderate atheist); no, I don’t think Coyne could entertain the idea that the Overton Window could possibly overlap moderate Christianity and atheism.
In a response earlier this year discussing that allegation (as Carrier put it) of Harris’ in the context of the Overton Window I commented: “Harris has it backwards: the religious literalists are a further-out contrast group to religious moderates; by framing one side of the Overton Window, by being the fringe to be critical of, the religious literalists do not enable anything very critical to be said about religious moderation.”
I ‘swap-fixed’ the OP’s Harris quote for him: “The problem that religious literalism poses [for Harris] is that it does not permit anything very critical to be said about religious moderation.
https://shadowtolight.wordpress.com/2017/02/09/sam-harris-criticizes-religious-moderates-and-misses-the-target/#comment-23482
This extended quote of Carrier is not praise for moderate or liberal Christians; it summarises along the lines of moderate or liberal Christians not being as bad as sometimes painted, they are at least a continuous pathway for conservative Christians to eventually become atheists; and the sooner that happens, and even the moderate or liberal Christians wither away, the better.
But it’s always fun when the New Atheists contradict each other. Explicitly. By name. With detailed reasons why the contradicted ones are wrong. I wonder whether we see honour-shame in action, with the esteem of actual or potential fans being the commodity in short supply; if he points out how ‘Big Name’ New Atheists are daft they’ll turn to Carrier; and I am minded to twist John the Baptist’s words to apply here: “I must increase, [so] they must decrease.”
(It’s even more fun when the New Atheists attack each other.)
> This is a strange complaint. Carrier seems to assume religious people don’t lift a pinky when it comes to trying to make the world a “better place” because they are all laying around waiting for Jesus to do it all.
I am minded of PZ Myers’ 18 August 2018 blog post entitled, “I may have found a mirror universe”, where Myers quotes a small part of a litany of evils that “John Pavlovitz, a liberal Christian” ascribed to Christians in a post in June 2017:
Myers then explains it sound familiar because he sees the atheist/skeptic movement has taken the same toxic path. “It was like looking in a mirror.”
Myers opines that:
*
I decided to examine Pavlovitz’s full list of complaints against Christianity, and in doing so discovered that David Marshall had gone through Pavlovitz’s allegations one by one and had been very critical of each. Whether or not the allegations all (or just the ones Myers specifically mentions) do apply to the atheist/skeptic movement, Marshall argues cogently that they are misdirected at Christianity, giving reasons why Pavlovitz is wrong on each point. The whole is worth reading, but I’ll let part of the recapping end-passage sum it up:
*
After reading Marshall, I wondered where Pavlovitz got his ideas and allegations from; but anyone who has read Hemant Mehta’s Friendly Atheist blog will realise that Pavlovitz’s ideas and allegations are very similar to those which flood out of the propaganda machine that is Mehta’s blog; Pavlovitz allegations echo Mehta’s relentless propaganda, could have come straight from Mehta, are what you would make when you swallow Mehta uncritically.
Perhaps Pavlovitz should have read more Marshall (and similar) and less Mehta.
Off topic, but wasn’t it mostly the Soviet Communists who took out the Nazis?
“Off topic, but wasn’t it mostly the Soviet Communists who took out the Nazis?”
Yes, they took the brunt of the Wermacht’s assault (civil casualties are in the order of the tens of millions; military casualties are in the order of the millions, both due to military incompetence and the viciousness of the assault. Only the Japanese killed in an equal order of magnitude, especially in the China war) and also made the most damage. This was combined among the allied powers. Basically Roosevelt and Churchill said to Stalin you take care of the Germans in the eastern front, and we take care of everything else — the Russians had earlier made a pact with the Japanese, which close that front, something that Hitler at the time was counting on. The axis powers, contrary to the allied ones, were always turning on each other and never collaborated on any significant extent.
I’m always amused when atheists try to paint believers as “trapped” or “controlled by fear.” I ask compared to what? It’s a rather condescending and the smugness smells like a type of person that would shit his pants when dropped in the middle a war zone.
@ThirdCoast: accusing other people of fears and phobias is a poor substitute for actual courage.
Great comment. Just to clarify, I was faithful in the church for fifty years of my life. I made all the excuses for it, bought into it with all the devotion I had. So I am not selective at all.
But you have been selective in your treatment of religion. Thus far, you have both chosen and framed your examples to support the atheist talking point about religion always being bad.
Sorry if you think I’m too broad in my analysis, but if you pick a Christian teaching, I can see the complete opposite in reality.
The Christian teaching concerning the human condition is spot on. In fact, this played a large role in me becoming a Christian after having been raised in a purely secular environment.
It’s really quite amusing and cleverly presented, but it doesn’t add up to any observable reality. Without volumes of apologetic excuses, not one thing stands on its own merit.
Again, the Christian teaching concerning the human condition is spot on and has matched observable reality countless times throughout my life. In fact, it has been a remarkably effective guide.
It absolutely obvious to me. Since I lost faith I found the real key to understanding the mysteries is unbelief. The entire thing opened up before me as plain as day. Quite remarkable.
Yet you buy into this crackpot, propagandistic notion that religion is always bad. I see no evidence that you have found some key to understanding the mysteries. I see only tired, dime-a-dozen, talking points.
Being predisposed to defend faith is very familiar to me. You do paint a pretty broad brush and have not much idea how I got to where I am today. I have yet to read an atheist book. My conclusions were my own with scripture, prayer, and three weeks alone in the Panama. Jungle. Rather than rehash the entire thing again, I didn’t buy into anything, and if my views are independent conclusions that match others…I guess that should tell me something… and you
Born into a certain lair, depending on to who from where, was raised into a strict belief, that if well followed would cause relief. A way of life so grand it’s said, to have raised up living from the dead, and if believed with all my heart, life would light the often dark. Applied my self into the way, paid my tithes and learned to pray, read the book and proved all things, and stayed high in religions rings, then somehow many years had past, and things weren’t adding up so fast. Some doubts were hushed and hard to say, was I the lone who felt this way? When I would list but a concern, read more scripture you will learn, apply your faith and don’t surrender, hope is where the life will render. And so It was, I began again Doubling down I did my best, and to the lord I took a test, to verify most carefully, his book of words and then I’d see, but by and by the search from me, had eyes that crossed with dotted tees, and woeful were the histories. I read and pondered every verse, the lord it seemed he was a curse, to opened eyes on every verse, things are not what they seemed. And so I prayed In earnest gave I the lord my plea, invested years in him you see, certain that a faithful soul, could hear his word if truth be told. Wanting to believe the words, that marked the pages so absurd, to say I needed little reason, but just one would do. Retiring to a quiet thicket, the lords voice came by sound of crickets It all unraveled very fast, not a thing or two would come to pass, as soon as opened eyes could see, deceived by friends and trusted creeds, that one who thought as smart as me, could fall into a trap so deep, set by ones who cared for me. If only just one part was right, I could continue in the fight, but no god hears the words you say, but alas your life is trapped by faith.
One last thing, I have acknowledged your comment about Christianity teaching the human condition..I have written about this before as well. Whoever wrote the scripture and led this evolution of Christianity to faith and grace has played a masterfully skilled hand at manipulation. I have some very detailed posts about this type of psychology, and will dig them out if you care to look. But they are in my blog.
Being predisposed to defend faith is very familiar to me. You do paint a pretty broad brush and have not much idea how I got to where I am today.
I’m not painting with a broad brush. You are. You are the one defending Richard Carrier’s crackpot notion about religious belief always being bad. As I said, in doing so, you treat religion as a scapegoat and a boogeyman. I am simply reacting to your words.
I had never heard of him til you posted that. I don’t think all religious belief is bad. There is an element in religion that fills a need. As Eric Hoffer stated about the true believer, about 35% of the people will always look for comfort outside themselves. But interestingly, the Abrahamic religions seem to need the most governing. They basically demand religious autonomy then give it away to a god figure that monitors their every move and thought. They obviously need strict liberal governing, or is that another hand-wavable contradiction? I prefer no prepackaged dogmas myself. That would be quite tolerable. Religion is, like every other organization today, a highly evolved, skillfully presented way of selling things. Like nike, Microsoft, google, the best of the best have tweaked the lighting and the sound, the voice roll speech and manufactured emotion (often through lies) and played on human emotion and gullibility with staged art. It’s not even remotely hard to see that. Spirituality is a high tech money game for most adherents. God nowhere to be found without it. Unless your in a traumatic swing of life where chemicals and desperation can alter brain chemistry that can be duplicated in a lab or study over and over.
I gather that the argument goes something like this: jim had an epiphany regarding the non-existence of God while in the Panama jungle, much like Jerry Coyne did while listening to Sgt Pepper’s. The non-existence of God means that religion (of the theistic variety) is a huge sham. To a first approximation, any belief in a sham is bad, so Richard Carrier is essentially correct. QED.
If I’ve left out any important details, I’m sure jim will correct me.
I had never heard of him til you posted that. I don’t think all religious belief is bad.
You should have mentioned this from the start. I wrote a reply to something Carrier wrote and you were the first to reply with “Can you name a time where unfettered religion has not led to oppression and force?….” Would you agree that, given this context, a reasonable person would conclude you were trying to defend Carrier’s point? Is there something I wrote in that blog posting that you would take issue with?
I think his morality is off the chain. He doesn’t do atheism much favor with tone. I get a little passionate from time to time and it comes through as well. Reading him is not the type of person I would choose to,represent me. He has some points I agree with mixed in with hatred and he has forgotten how to love. I could learn a little from that. “When you look into the chasm for too long, remember the chasm looks back”
That enigmatic last comes from Nietzsche, translated from Beyond Good and Evil”. A fuller quote, albeit with a more archaic translation, would be:
Hemant Mehta likes to link to atheist activist videos, together with a summarising blurb. One recent blurb says:
Apparently there’s “4 Ways”, but having little interest in videos where the presenters/makers usually prove themselves nowhere near as clever as they aspire to be, and similar interest in either of the two names Mehta mentions, I’ll just look at the sole Way that Mehta bothers to summarise:
Well well, I’ve come across this method myself – read Richard Carrier’s blog, with its many outraged responses to anyone and everyone who dares to criticise anything he has written. Outraged and vituperative, Carrier is not just over-the-top offended, he is over-the-top offensive in personal attack on his critics, taking plenty of shots at his opponents. Is he trying to make his positions off-limits? I presume that’s why he bullies, why he tries to make every encounter with critics a bruising experience.
I observe a genuine top dog is relaxed, confident and tolerant; it’s the weaker, scared dog that barks incessantly and snarls. And bites. Hard.
Is there anyone else, can I match Mehta’s two villains? Ah, Slippery (or Quantum) Sam Harris, who’s forever railing against his malicious opponents. Harris considers himself to be unfairly attacked; and often, indeed “fairly uniquely” often; and with an “extreme degree” of unfairness:
Harris complains because his opponents criticise claims he’s made, positions he has adopted, whereupon he’s keen to point out he’s also said other things, things which are different from what’s criticised or even contradicting what’s criticised; he doesn’t have to deal with his opponents’ criticisms because it’s always the other claims and positions that are his real ones; so the things he’s criticised for are off-limits because – shades of Carrier – that’s deliberate (“part of their strategy” hence malicious) misrepresentation by nasty people.
So let’s re-write Mehta’s quote to apply to the duo:
Funny how an evasion technique claimed to be (or actually is – I didn’t watch) used by people the video-maker (and presumably Mehta) considers are woo-mongers has its counterpart used by New Atheists.