Sam Harris - Myth Buster or Myth Maker?, part 10 of 10

This is part ten of a ten part essay which seeks to respond to Sam Harris as he attempts to dispel what he considers to be myths about atheism in his article Ten Myths, Truths About Atheism.

This portion deals with the topic of “Atheism provides no basis for morality”.

Part 1: Introduction and “Atheists believe that life is meaningless”
Part 2: “Atheism is responsible for the greatest crimes in human history”
Part 3: “Atheism is dogmatic”
Part 4: “Atheists think everything in the universe arose by chance”
Part 5: “Atheism has no connection to science”
Part 6: “Atheists are arrogant”
Part 7: “Atheists are closed to spiritual experience”
Part 8: “Atheists believe that there is nothing beyond human life and human understanding”
Part 9: “Atheists ignore the fact that religion is extremely beneficial to society”
Part 10: “Atheism provides no basis for morality”

“10) Atheism provides no basis for morality”:
Here Sam Harris, apparently and in his own mind, proves that atheism most certainly does have a basis for morality “moral intuitions that are (at some level) hard-wired in us and that have been refined by thousands of years of thinking about the causes and possibilities of human happiness.” Elsewhere, Sam Harris makes reference to “fresh moral imperatives” and “conceptual revolutions.”[i]


First, we should ask how he knows this and secondly what it means. What is hard-wired? How did it get hard-wired? When was it hard-wired? Why is it hard-wired? Why should we heed this moral intuition? What happens if we do not heed it? Who administers this moral “law”? If I am hard-wired what happens if I short-circuit? In fact, there are atheists, like Prof. Richard Dawkins, who believe that we are just apes, “We are not, then, merely like apes or descended from apes; we are apes.”[ii] Moreover, Charles Darwin wrote (in The Descent of Man, p. 180, “In a series of forms graduating insensibly from some ape-like creature to man as he now exists, it would be impossible to fix on any definite point when the term ‘man’ ought to be used.”


What is of the utmost importance to note, when an evolutionary concept is appealed to in order to account for hard-wired absolute morals, is that, as Sam Harris does here, what is being told to us is a story. He does not produce one shred of evidence but merely tells us a tale and asks us to believe him that this did occur. Instead of evidence Sam Harris appeals to time, he appeals, by faith, to a time in the future when his beliefs will be proved true (see my essay The Gap Filler). This is such a common fallacy in atheistic arguments that I have termed it: the fallacy of validation by projection (see this essay for elucidation). Elsewhere he writes, “If we better understood the workings of the human brain, we would undoubtedly discover lawful connections between our states of consciousness, our modes of conduct, and the various ways we use our attention. If we ever develop such a science, most of our religious texts will be no more useful to mystics than they now are to astronomers”[iii] (emphasis added. Also, see the “His pseudo-scientific complex” portion of this essay to see how Sam Harris is becoming a scientist in order to find proof of that which he already believes).


When does this moral intuition apply to us and not to our less evolved ancestors? And please do not miss the greater point here: if, as Sam Harris posits, our moral intuition has be undergoing refinement for millennia this intuition is tentative. How do we know when the intuition will change, in its refining process and bring about different morals? How can Sam Harris condemn any past actions of theists or atheists since they were merely following their moral intuitions, the intuition that was refined to a certain degree? How can he condemn today’s actions since our morality is constantly undergoing this refining process? It may changing at this very moment. According to Prof. Richard Dawkins the way we know how morality is changing is that “it’s in the air” (see here). Also, note that Sam Harris argues that rape was once an evolutionarily beneficial act (see my essay Sam Harris: The Rape Comments).


Moreover, Sam Harris states that “If a person doesn’t already understand that cruelty is wrong, he won’t discover this by reading the Bible or the Quran – as these books are bursting with celebrations of cruelty, both human and divine.” Firstly, we should ask how he knows that that no one can discover that cruelty is wrong by reading the Bible. Again, and again, he is basing his comments on gross generalizations. He does this again in stating, “Whatever is good in scripture – like the golden rule – can be valued for its ethical wisdom without our believing that it was handed down to us by the creator of the universe.” But it is precisely theistic systems that have brought us the golden rule, which has influenced millions upon millions of people. What has atheism’s moral intuition brought us? “God is dead” just does not seem to be of the same caliber.

[i] Sam Harris, The First Ten Pages
[ii] Richard Dawkins; fellow of New College and lecturer in zoology at the University of Oxford, writing in the Late City Final Edition 4-9-89
[iii] Sam Harris, The First Ten Pages

Continue reading Sam Harris - Myth Buster or Myth Maker?, part 10 of 10...

Sam Harris - Myth Buster or Myth Maker?, part 9 of 10

This is part nine of a ten part essay which seeks to respond to Sam Harris as he attempts to dispel what he considers to be myths about atheism in his article Ten Myths, Truths About Atheism.

This portion deals with the topic of “Atheists ignore the fact that religion is extremely beneficial to society”.

Part 1: Introduction and “Atheists believe that life is meaningless”
Part 2: “Atheism is responsible for the greatest crimes in human history”
Part 3: “Atheism is dogmatic”
Part 4: “Atheists think everything in the universe arose by chance”
Part 5: “Atheism has no connection to science”
Part 6: “Atheists are arrogant”
Part 7: “Atheists are closed to spiritual experience”
Part 8: “Atheists believe that there is nothing beyond human life and human understanding”
Part 9: “Atheists ignore the fact that religion is extremely beneficial to society”
Part 10: “Atheism provides no basis for morality”

“9) Atheists ignore the fact that religion is extremely beneficial to society”:
Interestingly enough, while Sam Harris seeks to debunk the “myth” which states that atheists ignore the fact that religion is extremely beneficial to society, he does just that.


He ignores this fact and instead points out that this benefit fails “to demonstrate the truth of any religious doctrine,” which was not the “myth” that he sought to dispel. Sam Harris ends this section by appealing to a myth of atheism’s own making which basically states that only atheists have pure motives.

On the other hand, he pontificates about the virtues of secular societies. Yet, arguing as he does I would simply retort thusly, “Noting successful secular societies fails to demonstrate the truth of any secular belief.”
Continue reading Sam Harris - Myth Buster or Myth Maker?, part 9 of 10...

Sam Harris - Myth Buster or Myth Maker?, part 8 of 10

This is part eight of a ten part essay which seeks to respond to Sam Harris as he attempts to dispel what he considers to be myths about atheism in his article Ten Myths, Truths About Atheism.

This portion deals with the topic of “Atheists believe that there is nothing beyond human life and human understanding”.

Part 1: Introduction and “Atheists believe that life is meaningless”
Part 2: “Atheism is responsible for the greatest crimes in human history”
Part 3: “Atheism is dogmatic”
Part 4: “Atheists think everything in the universe arose by chance”
Part 5: “Atheism has no connection to science”
Part 6: “Atheists are arrogant”
Part 7: “Atheists are closed to spiritual experience”
Part 8: “Atheists believe that there is nothing beyond human life and human understanding”
Part 9: “Atheists ignore the fact that religion is extremely beneficial to society”
Part 10: “Atheism provides no basis for morality”

“8) Atheists believe that there is nothing beyond human life and human understanding”:
Sam Harris’ response to this “myth” is perhaps the most incoherent of his apologetic. He states, “Atheists are free to admit the limits of human understanding in a way that religious people are not.” Yet, is it virtually a tenet of “religious people” that it is precisely because of the limits of human understanding that God has given revelation.

He then speculates about whether there might be “complex life elsewhere in the cosmos.” If there is, they might have developed a more sophisticated understanding of the universe than us. If they have done so, then they might be even less impressed by the contents of the Bible and the Quran than are atheists. In other words, he has retreated into the realm of sci-fi wherein extraterrestrials side with atheists—need any more be said?

Lastly, he makes a good old fashioned baseless claim, “the world’s religions utterly trivialize the real beauty and immensity of the universe.” Not only is this baseless but he does not bother explaining just how this is the case.

Continue reading Sam Harris - Myth Buster or Myth Maker?, part 8 of 10...

Sam Harris - Myth Buster or Myth Maker?, part 7 of 10

This is part seven of a ten part essay which seeks to respond to Sam Harris as he attempts to dispel what he considers to be myths about atheism in his article Ten Myths, Truths About Atheism.

This portion deals with the topic of “Atheists are closed to spiritual experience”.

Part 1: Introduction and “Atheists believe that life is meaningless”
Part 2: “Atheism is responsible for the greatest crimes in human history”
Part 3: “Atheism is dogmatic”
Part 4: “Atheists think everything in the universe arose by chance”
Part 5: “Atheism has no connection to science”
Part 6: “Atheists are arrogant”
Part 7: “Atheists are closed to spiritual experience”
Part 8: “Atheists believe that there is nothing beyond human life and human understanding”
Part 9: “Atheists ignore the fact that religion is extremely beneficial to society”
Part 10: “Atheism provides no basis for morality”

“7) Atheists are closed to spiritual experience”:
Sam Harris defines “spiritual experience” as “experiencing love, ecstasy, rapture and awe.” These he claims are experienced and sought by atheists. But, he claims, “What atheists don’t tend to do is make unjustified (and unjustifiable) claims about the nature of reality on the basis of such experiences.” The problem is that they do. In fact, Sam Harris has experienced much ecstasy, rapture and awe induced by hallucinogenic drugs and atheist-Buddhist meditation. From these he concludes that God is irrelevant to a “spiritual experience.” Although, what if God was reaching out to him through these experiences? It appears he discounts this possibility by relying on his presupposed and particular atheist worldview. He already believes, without being able to prove it, that religious is “a humble species of terrestrial credulity” (see the “His pseudo-scientific complex” section of this essay).

Atheists have life experiences upon which they build their particular worldviews. Apparently unbeknownst to him, Sam Harris comes closer to the truth than he may have realized. Referring to personal betterment he states,

“Do the positive experiences of Christians suggest that Jesus is the sole savior of humanity? Not even remotely – because Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims and even atheists regularly have similar experiences.”

Moreover, he states that knowing whether Jesus wore a beard, was born of a virgin or rose from the dead “are just not the sort of claims that spiritual experience can authenticate.” Yet, these are diversionary tactics since no one (except, perhaps, extreme mystic types) is claiming these conclusions based personal betterment or spiritual experience.


Moreover, atheism is not free from this feel-good leads to truth non-sequitur. Prof. Richard Dawkins argued that “people experience freedom when they leave religion or God” (see here and here).

To be perfectly fair, there are believers who simply state, “I have faith because I believe, I believe because I have faith, I just believe what I believe on faith and I have faith in what I believe,” or some such thing. This is not only sad because it is not up to the intellectual standards of atheism but because it is not the manner in which the Bible functions.

For instance, regarding the resurrection Paul does not say, “See how you feel about it, pray about it, just believe it,” but he points out that, at the time of his writings, eyewitnesses were still alive, “…He appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep” (1st Corinthians 15:6). Get the point? Paul is saying go and ask them! Luke did just that (see Luke chapter 1).
Continue reading Sam Harris - Myth Buster or Myth Maker?, part 7 of 10...

Sam Harris - Myth Buster or Myth Maker?, part 6 of 10

This is part six of a ten part essay which seeks to respond to Sam Harris as he attempts to dispel what he considers to be myths about atheism in his article Ten Myths, Truths About Atheism.

This portion deals with the topic of “Atheists are arrogant”.

Part 1: Introduction and “Atheists believe that life is meaningless”
Part 2: “Atheism is responsible for the greatest crimes in human history”
Part 3: “Atheism is dogmatic”
Part 4: “Atheists think everything in the universe arose by chance”
Part 5: “Atheism has no connection to science”
Part 6: “Atheists are arrogant”
Part 7: “Atheists are closed to spiritual experience”
Part 8: “Atheists believe that there is nothing beyond human life and human understanding”
Part 9: “Atheists ignore the fact that religion is extremely beneficial to society”
Part 10: “Atheism provides no basis for morality”

“6) Atheists are arrogant”:
Sam Harris denies that atheists are arrogant yet, judge for yourself if the following statements could be considered are arrogant or not:

—“atheists are often among the most intelligent and scientifically literate people in any society,” they find religious claims “to be ridiculous.”

—“it is possible to be a scientist and still believe in God – as some scientists seem to manage it,” apparently, it is possible to be a scientist and still be ignorant enough to believe in God.

—Theism is “wishful thinking,” “self-deception” and “consoling delusion.”

—Elsewhere, Sam Harris refers to those with whom he disagrees as possessing “encyclopedic ignorance.”[1]

—He refers to the “hallowed travesties that still crowd the altar of human ignorance.”[2]

—He looks forward to the day when raising one’s children according to ones religious faith will “be broadly recognized as the ludicrous obscenity that it is.”[3]

—He refers to Intelligent Design “theorists” (he quotes the word theorists) as “scary religious imbeciles.”[4]

—He states that “the Bible and the Koran both contain mountains of life-destroying gibberish.”[5]

—He makes reference to “the abject stupidity of religious fundamentalism,”[6] and calls their beliefs, “these preposterous things,”[7] and further claims that “they are clearly committed to a massive program of self-deception.”[8]

—He calls religion in America a “thriving marketplace of ignorance.”[9]

—As noted in part 1, he looks forward to a time when “making religious certitude look stupid will be exploited, and we’ll start laughing at people who believe…We’ll laugh at them in a way that will be synonymous with excluding them from our halls of power.”[10]

—He refers to Chris Hedges, whom he describes as a religious moderate, in stating, “I really could not have hoped to find a more lumbering, bellicose, and sanctimonious perpetrator of this obscurantism.”[11]



—Prof. Richard Dawkins, a fellow militant atheist, refers to, “religious idiots like Bush or those who voted for him.”[12]

—He also wrote that Sam Harris’ book, The End of Faith, “is one of those books that deserves to replace the Gideon Bible in every hotel room in the land.”

—And what is Sam Harris’ own view of his book Letter to a Christian Nation? Apparently, it is an atheist proselytizing tract, “It’s a book that a person could simply hand to a member of the religious Right and say, ‘What’s your answer to this?’”[13]

Lastly, we point out that, elsewhere, Sam Harris wrote, “‘respect’ for other faiths, or for the views of unbelievers, is not an attitude that God endorses…the central tenet of every religious tradition is that all others are mere repositories of error or, at best, dangerously incomplete.”[14] This, coming from an atheist who believes that he are right and everyone else is wrong. Moreover, this is coming from the same Sam Harris who wrote, “some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them.”[15]

C. S. Lewis, one time atheist and later Christian scholar, wrote:

“If you are a Christian you do not have to believe that all the other religions are simply wrong all through. If you are an atheist you have to believe that the main point in all the religions of the whole world is simply one huge mistake. If you are a Christian, you are free to think that all these religions, even the queerest ones, contain at least some hint of the truth. When I was an atheist I had to try to persuade myself that most of the human race has always been wrong about the question that mattered to them most; when I became a Christian I was able to take a more liberal view.”[16]

[1] Sam Harris, The First Ten Pages
[2] Sam Harris, Science Must Destroy Religion
[3] Sam Harris, Science Must Destroy Religion
[4] Sam Harris, The Politics of Ignorance
[5] Blair Golson, Sam Harris: The Truthdig Interview
[6] Blair Golson, Sam Harris: The Truthdig Interview
[7] Blair Golson, Sam Harris: The Truthdig Interview
[8] Blair Golson, Sam Harris: The Truthdig Interview
[9] Blair Golson, Sam Harris: The Truthdig Interview
[10] Blair Golson, Sam Harris: The Truthdig Interview
[11] Sam Harris, Sam Harris Strikes Back
[12] Richard Dawkins, in the comments section of Sam Harris’ article The Politics of Ignorance
[13] Blair Golson, Sam Harris: The Truthdig Interview
[14] Sam Harris, The First Ten Pages
[15] Sam Harris, The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason (New York: Norton, 2004), pp. 52-53
[16] C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity, (New York: The MacMillan Company, 1960), p. 29
Continue reading Sam Harris - Myth Buster or Myth Maker?, part 6 of 10...

The Godhead’s Goathead

And now for something a bit different:

National Public Radio is running a project called:
“This I believe - a public dialogue about believe—one essay at a time”

They placed my essay on their website.
If you are so inclined as to read it, The Godhead’s Goathead



Continue reading The Godhead’s Goathead...

Sam Harris - Myth Buster or Myth Maker?, part 5 of 10

This is part five of a ten part essay which seeks to respond to Sam Harris as he attempts to dispel what he considers to be myths about atheism in his article Ten Myths, Truths About Atheism.

This portion deals with the topic of “Atheism has no connection to science”.

Part 1: Introduction and “Atheists believe that life is meaningless”
Part 2: “Atheism is responsible for the greatest crimes in human history”
Part 3: “Atheism is dogmatic”
Part 4: “Atheists think everything in the universe arose by chance”
Part 5: “Atheism has no connection to science”
Part 6: “Atheists are arrogant”
Part 7: “Atheists are closed to spiritual experience”
Part 8: “Atheists believe that there is nothing beyond human life and human understanding”
Part 9: “Atheists ignore the fact that religion is extremely beneficial to society”
Part 10: “Atheism provides no basis for morality”

“5) Atheism has no connection to science”:
Sam Harris is kind enough to state “it is possible to be a scientist and still believe in God — as some scientists seem to manage it.” Yes, “some.” What is “some”? Perhaps he should have stated, “Some of the greatest scientists that the world has ever known. In fact, the very ones who established virtually every field of scientific research/methodology.” Indeed, elsewhere he does state, “Christians invented physics.”[1]
He then quotes statistics stating that “engagement with scientific thinking tends to erode, rather than support, religious faith…93% of the members of the National Academy of Sciences do not [believe in a personal God].”

What we should ask is, “Why is that?” One reason is that some people think that since a system that is meant to investigate material reality makes material observations about material causes and effects this means that there is nothing more.

In this post I noted that a study by the University of Buffalo “that suggested that it was a chicken and egg sort of thing. That people who were already kind of skeptical and secular ended up choosing to go into the sciences rather than the other way around.”

Another possibility may be self-aggrandizement. Please understand that the effect that atheism has on an individual is that it removes any being, any thing, higher than themselves. This removal of a higher being also takes other forms. For instance, this is, in part, why atheistic movements, such as Communism, come about. Since there is no God the highest thing is government—the god of this world, if you will. The government is the opiate of the people who giveth and taketh away.

Professor of philosophy Daniel Dennett argues that Joseph Stalin was not an atheist (even though he was) because Stalin did believe in god and that god was Stalin himself (see post and discussion here).

Elsewhere, Sam Harris himself states, “the foundation of all real science, is the very antithesis of religious faith.”[2] He also wrote an article entitled Science Must Destroy Religion. These are examples of scientific dogmatism by which if the theory conflicts with the evidence one does not change the theory but rather, proclaims that something is wrong with the evidence (for many other examples of this, please see our essay Scientific Cenobites). This brings us to an interesting hypocrisy within atheism’s view of science: first they claim that science does not deal with the supernatural but then they claim that science has disproved the existence of the supernatural.

I have written a few essays on science and atheism which may be of interest:

Omni-Science

Protecting the Science Classroom

PZ Myers Said That Scientific Thinking Has a Corrosive Influence on Religious Belief

[1] Sam Harris, Killing the Buddha
[2] Sam Harris, The Politics of Ignorance

Continue reading Sam Harris - Myth Buster or Myth Maker?, part 5 of 10...