The Three Wise Men

When it comes to atheism we have our role models too, but they're very different from those of religious faiths. Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and Daniel C. Dennett have emerged as the leaders of the atheist movement for the 21st century. So I thought that I would take this opportunity to really take a close look at these "Three Wise Men" and see what makes them unique and makes their message a powerful one. They are important figures, and they are people who've received their share of criticism too. In response to their movement Gary Wolf writes, "the irony of [...] New Atheism -- this prophetic attack on prophecy, this extremism in opposition to extremism -- is too much for me". And he's certainly not the only one who's given Dawkins, Harris and Dennett a hard time. Theists from all over are claiming that these guys are Satan-worshipers and to listen to them is to listen to temptation which is a sin. Well if truth is temptation and temptation is a sin - we've got a long way to go until we can "break the spell".

I'll begin by looking at the works of Sam Harris. Harris is what I would call an 'active atheist'. He believes that religious faith is not only uneducated, but more importantly that it's dangerous. He actively attacks religious fundamentalism, as well as religious moderation. I will let him speak now:


You can get the full transcript of Harris' speech at www.cfinyc.org/transcripts_pdf/sam_harris_transcript.pdf

"I am simply worried."

Here is the first of many differences between a religious activist and an atheist activist. Atheists do not attempt to convert, or manipulate, or spread propaganda. They do not have an agenda. A lot of religious people accuse atheists of being immoral, inconsiderate, intolerant, murderous people, but we are just the opposite. We have a problem with poor morals, and intolerance and murder and this worries and terrifies us to no end. We begin to ask ourselves, "where does this disrespect for life come from?" And the answer we often find is - religion.

"We have the marriage of, quiet literally, first century or earlier beliefs—literally Iron Age philosophy—with 21st Century destructive technology. This, on its face, should seem untenable to us."

I believe that this is a tremendously important point. Religion, no matter what our priests keep telling us, is greatly outdated. It simply does not belong in our world. It should have died out ages ago.

"We do not respect people's beliefs. We evaluate their reasons. If my reasons are good enough, you will helplessly believe what I believe. That is what it is to be a rational human being. Reasons are contagious."

This is Harris' response to a lot of religious questions. Questions such as, "Well if God doesn't exist, why don't you prove that?" and "Why can't you just let us believe what we want, what's it to you?". It's not enough to simply believe. No matter how you put it, in a modern society in the 21st century, simple, uneducated and blind belief in the supernatural should be considered a mental illness or just plain stupidity.

"All we need is a standard of intellectual honesty where people who pretend to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about receive some conversational pressure."

Again, note the difference between this statement, and the common response of a religious activist. Thankfully, I am from Canada which is one of the most atheistic countries in the world, and a country of free speech and tolerance of all faiths. But what if I were from a deeply Islamic country where speaking out about religion is punished by death? This is why I strongly advocate the notion of 'intolerance of intolerance'.

"Forty percent of scientists believe in a biblical God. That does not suggest that there are good scientific reasons to believe in a biblical God. That suggests that 60% of scientists are not doing their jobs. There really is an argument to be won here."

This is in response to my previous post about Religion and Science. Harris agrees that religion and science simply cannot live together.

"...there is no place in the books where God says, “When you get the new world and you develop your three branches of government and you have a civil society, you can just jettison all the barbarism I recommended in the first books.” These books really are engines of fundamentalism. They are engines of intolerance."

I often get criticized for criticizing the Bible. People often tell me that I'm way out of my league and that it's absurd to criticize the Bible because the Bible itself does no harm, it's the Church that causes harm. But although there is some truth in that, the Church is a whole separate issue. The book itself is an 'engine of fundamentalism and intolerance' and it must be dealt with.

We have this idea that the fact that we were burning heretics alive for five centuries in Europe, this represented some kind of departure — a civilizational departure into psychopathology. It didn't. It is perfectly reasonable to do this if you believe the books.

And we do believe the books. We still believe the books. And in some places we still burn heretics alive. This is a problem.

You have probably noticed that Harris isn't really a great speaker. He certainly doesn't have the punch and the presence that, say, a preacher would. Keep that in mind as we move on to Daniel C. Dennett:



Daniel Clement Dennett is a prominent American philosopher and atheist advocate. Dennett's research centers on philosophy of mind, philosophy of science and philosophy of biology, particularly as those fields relate to evolutionary biology and cognitive science. He is currently a professor at Tufts University.

"I don't think there is a God so I'm an atheist, but I don't make a deal of it. It's not that I passionately believe there is no God. Of course there isn't a God, so what?"

Daniel C. Dennett has a very different approach from someone like Harris in the sense that he doesn't "make a deal of it". He approaches religion from a very philosophical point of view. He uses reason and thought rather than science and evidence to discredit God and what God does. This, of course, isn't to say that Dennett isn't a man of science and evidence - he is very much so and has written several books about it.

"I have a feeling that not that many people actually believe in God. Many people believe in belief in God. That is, they think it's a good thing. And they either try to believe in God, they hope they can believe in God, they wish they could believe in God and they say they believe in God. They go through all the motions, they try very hard to be devout and sometimes they succeed. For periods of their life they actually do, in some sense, believe that there's a God and they think they are the better for it. Otherwise they behave like people who probably don't believe in God. Very few people behave as if they really believe in God. A lot of people behave as if they believe they should believe in God.

Dennett tries to reason out God through the individual. He concentrates on the person and the person's belief in God and the person, rather than on the character of God Himself. He avoids, what I call, the "religious bubble". Outside the bubble God doesn't exist and it's all good, but most religious people won't listen to you because they do believe in God. They live in a different world than you. In order for you to be able to communicate with them, you need to step into their little bubble in which their God does exist. This means having to put your atheistic beliefs aside and hypothesize, for the next few minutes, that there is a God, and its their God. Dennett says - nonsense. There is no God, and I know it and most people already know it. They just won't admit it to themselves because they believe that belief in God is necessary. People need a God.

In his book, Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon he tries to break the conviction that religion is off-limits to scientific inquiry. And this is precisely what Sam Harris was talking about and what I'm trying to advocate. For some reason, as soon as you begin to question religion, religious people go wild and take it as some sort of personal attack. I've always liked Dennett because he reminds me of what God looks like in most religious icons and it creates a very pleasant sense of irony. :)

Unfortunately, the video I originally posted for Richard Dawkins (The Root of All Evil?) was removed for some unknown reason. It was previous found here: http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=6169720917221820689. So if per chance it comes back online, I highly recommend it. But for now, instead I'll use this one:



Richard Dawkins asserts that belief in God is irrational and inflicts great harm upon societies. Jeremy Paxman interviews Professor Dawkins as part of the Newsnight book club.

"I'm wound up about the truth. I care passionately about the truth as a scientist and I do regard religious claims about the universe as alternative scientific claims."

Here we have the great atheist and speaker Richard Dawkins. He has lately come up to the forefront of the atheist movement, mostly due to his highly popular best-selling book "The God Delusion". Dawkins is a scientist, and a highly respect one. That's probably why people listen to him.

Of course, the other reason why he's become such a popular figure in the discussion of religion is because he makes wild claims which really get on religious peoples' nerves, such as saying that the feeling of God is probably a simulation in brain. Which to me, another atheist, sounds like a brilliant deduction, but to a religious person might sound like a direct attack because it implies their stupidity and ignorance.

And to finish off this entry I'll let Dawkins read a little bit from his book. Pay attention to the way atheists talk in comparison to evangelicals you usually see on TV. Or even in comparison to preachers at church. I agree with every single thing Dawkins has said, so I'd love to hear your opinions.



Richard Dawkins reads excerpts from "The God Delusion" and anwsers questions at Randolph-Macon Woman's College in Lynchburg, Virginia on October 23, 2006. This Q&A features many questions from Jerry Falwell's Liberty "University" students.

It's a question of faith

When it comes down to the question, "Where does the the world come from," there are a lot of possible answers. None of them are really any more valuable than the other. Honestly, nobody knows. My answers has always been, "does it matter?" Does it really matter where it all came from? I think it's more important to know where we are going. And although I recognize the value in understanding history in order to predict the future, I don't recognize the value in the popular religious answer.

"God created the universe." My problem with that argument is of course, "Well where did God come from?" To that, the only response is that God has always existed. Well how come it's so easily to believe in God existing just like that, and not the universe existing just like that? Why is it okay for God to have no explanation for His own existence, but not for the universe?

Religion answers the question about the existence of the universe, but what about God? I understand that God is supposed to transcend this universe, but if He exists, one must ponder about where He comes from.

Religious people have a problem with the Big Bang theory because they wonder about where the material of the Big Bang came from. They say it came from God or else the theory is wrong or the Earth is a few thousand years old. So my question to you is, if it's okay for God to exist without question, why isn't it okay for matter to exist without question?

Science and Religion

A popular question in the science and religion field is, "Can a person be both a scientist and a person of religious faith?" Recent statistic show that 60% of scientists are non-theists, which at first seems like a small percent. But something interesting happens once you look at the more established scientists of the National Academy of Science. The more accomplished scientist you are, the less theistic you tend to be.

On the latest show at the Freedom From Religion Foundation's Radio show, Nobel Laureate Paul D. Boyer talks about these statistics and how he came to become an agnostic and then an atheist. The show also talks about Intelligent Design and the Creationists that try to combine science and religion.

You can download the podcast version of this broadcast from: http://media.libsyn.com/media/ffrf/FTradio_47_031707.mp3

How do you live a moral life as an atheist? Mr. Boyer, like me, believes that morals really have nothing to do with God or religion.

THE BIBLE: or teach your children to pillage and murder the way God intended it

“The Bible” is the best-selling book of all time (Wikipedia). With some six billion copies of this sacred text spread all over the world I wonder about its affect the children who are using it as a source of morals (All-Time Bestselling Books and Authors). A Google book search reveals that over 170,000 other books relating to the Bible have been published as well, so it looks like people are really involved in the Judaeo-Christian concepts (Google). With numbers like these you would naturally assume that most people would know the stories and messages in the book quite well, but surprisingly, statistics in America show that nearly half of the American people haven't even bothered to read the thing at all, and 80% of these people say that it's too confusing (Whelan). So what about the men, women and children that have actually read the Bible for a moral code? What has the Bible taught them? Are the children any better off having read this book, or does the Bible promote something other than love and compassion? I believe that the Bible is indeed very confusing, but not because of its language or format. The Bible that promotes love, compassion, kindness, and at the same time promotes genocide, slavery, injustice, cruelty, violence, and intolerance. So which parts of the Bible are we teaching our children?

Before we begin to look at the passages of the Bible that cause concern, it's important to note that the Bible was written centuries ago and is a compilation by several different gospels and voices (Ehrman 6). It was not written for the sake of historical reference, but rather as a compilation of the stories and events as described by their proper authors (Ehrman 63). The historical accuracy and inerrancy of the Bible is a highly debated topic that has been the subject of many doctrines and various books (Johnson; Dallas Theological Seminary). This is important because it creates a division among believers: those who believe that the events and stories of the Bible are accurate historical representations of what actually happened, and those who believe that most of the events of the Bible were not actual events but are rather stories with moral or ethical lessons (in this case a person picks and chooses which passages are fact and which are allegories or parables). These two nearly opposing views create a very blurry division among believers and this discrepancy is often used as a 'way-out' for apologetic Bible defenders (Miller; Till, Part 1). For the time being, I'm not going to worry about this too much because in the end, no matter how you look at it, we'll see that you still reach the same conclusion.

Why do people use the Bible for their moral code at all? From our childhood, our parents, teachers and church officials have told us that Christianity is all about love and worship. We were cited the Ten Commandments which said that, “thou shalt not kill” (Exodus, 20:13), that “thou shalt not commit adultery” (Exodus, 20:14), and that "thou shalt not steal" (Exodus 20:15). We were told not to lie (Exodus 23:1). We were taught not to hate (Leviticus 19:17) and to treat all people fairly (Leviticus 19:33-34). We were read from The Children's Illustrated Bible which had entertaining chapters entitled, “The Plagues of Egypt,” “Noah's Ark,” “The Flood,” and “The Resurrection” which were packed with moral lessons (Hastings 276). From a child's perspective these looked like wonderful, heart-warming tales, especially in the way the book was illustrated, with bright colors, majestic figures and smiling people walking to accomplish God's plan (Hastings 18).

Similar illustrations are present on children's websites which were constructed to walk the child through each Bible story. One of these websites caught my attention. The website is called JesusAndKidz.com and is an illustrated Bible guide written by Ellen Kent. In the story “Moses and the 12 Spies,” Moses sends twelve spies into the Canaan territory to investigate the land that God has promised to the people of Israel. When they return they bring back fruits and milk to demonstrate the richness of the land, but ten of the spies say that the area is heavily fortified by other people living there, and there are too many of them there to win the land over. Two other spies, Joshua and Caleb say that they should go there anyways because God has promised the land to them. Kent describes the passage as follows:

Caleb and Joshua, the other two spies said, "The land we saw is a wonderful land. The Lord has promised it to us, and if we have faith in His promise, we shall surely win this land."
But the people were frightened and angry and began to stone Joshua and Caleb.
Then the Lord appeared in the tent of meeting. "How long will these people reject Me and lose faith after all the signs I have shown them? I think I must punish them and reject them as My people." But Moses begged the Lord to forgive them. The Lord said "I have pardoned them as you ask. But as their punishment you will not enter the Promised Land for 40 years, and this generation will never enter, but only their children." (Kent 6-8)

There is a grave problem with the way Ellen Kent has interpreted this story for young children and an even graver problem with the story itself. Let's make a list of things that this story is teaching children: God has made promises to the people of Israel; the people of Israel shall receive land and items belonging to others (meaning the original land-owners will lose everything they own and either get killed or thrown out of their houses (Deuteronomy 12:10)); when faced with problems all you need to do is have faith in God and He will solve them for you; you can go to war with others because of what God has told you or promised you; your God is always right and you must not argue or question Him; you can stone or violently attack people who do not agree with you or God; God is not forgiving and even if He pardons you He will still punish you when you don't do as He asks. Now I'm not sure about the general reader, but to me these don't seem like morally just lessons. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that these lessons are vulgar, sadistic and completely inappropriate for any human being, much less for young children who do not have the mature reasoning skills necessary to determine what is truly right and wrong. More than that, these lessons seem to be contradictory to the previous lessons, mentioned above, about not hating and killing others and being fair and kind to everyone. With such messages of intolerance, having the website decorated in bright colors, rainbows and smiling stars while talking about murder makes something inside of me twist in disgust. What is really going on here? What is the lesson that Kent is trying to teach children?

If we begin looking inside the Bible itself we begin to see various examples of this violent, and unjust nature of God: “Moses murders an Egyptian after making sure that no one is looking” (Exodus 2:11-12 ); “God explains to Moses that he intends to smite all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both man and beast“ (Exodus 12:12 ); “After hardening Pharaoh's heart a few more times, God drowns Pharaoh's army in the sea“ (Exodus 14:4-28 ); “After a woman gives birth, a priest must kill a lamb, pigeon, or dove as a sin offering. This is because having children is sinful and God likes it when things are killed for him” (Leviticus 12:6-8); “God hardened the heart of the king of Heshbon and so that he could have him and all of his people killed” (Deuteronomy 2:30). The list of cruelties under the hand of God is incredibly lengthy and tremendously disturbing in the way some of the acts of terror are committed (Cruelty and Violence in the Bible). The Skeptic's Annotated Bible is an entire Internet community that goes into detail finding and analyzing all the injustices, and the cruelty in the Bible, the Koran and the Book of Mormon. Their findings are absolutely terrifying, and yet Biblical apologists continue to try and find excuses (Brucker). But what about the young children? They have no way of being able to defend their beliefs and to judge what is truly right and wrong? Christianity is teaching children that murder should be a form of punishment. This must stop.

It seems evident to me that we cannot be teaching from this book to our young children. It seems evident that we cannot be teaching from this book to any rational person at all. The latest news shows the religious agenda forcing its way into our education system where it infiltrates our scientific centers and brainwashes our students (Wallis). Some people, who refer to themselves as “evangelical scientists” (which is an oxymoron if I ever heard one), have even taken their religious movement to refute the idea of evolution with their "Intelligent Design" movement. This sparked a popular satire about the religious right refuting the idea of gravity, calling the it “flawed” and introducing a theory of “Intelligent Falling” (Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New 'Intelligent Falling' Theory). These are the same kinds people that are trying to teach us what's morally right and wrong? Religion cannot be the source of moral codes. The latest evidence suggests that moral codes are deeply rooted in our genes and get passed down from generation to generation (Hauser xix). It is a process of nature and has nothing to do with religion or reading things in a book or even our parents. It doesn't matter if the Bible is telling us what really happened or simply providing us with parables, it's still teaching us the wrong things. At what point do we say, “enough is enough” and begin educating our children using proper codes that pertain to our modern time?

Works Cited

“All-Time Bestselling Books and Authors.” The Internet Public Library. The Regents of the University of Michigan. February 19, 2007.

Brucker. Annotated Skeptic's Annotated Bible: A lay Christian's honest response to perceived flaws in the Bible. February 22, 2007.

“Cruelty and Violence in the Bible.” The Skeptic's Annotated Bible. February 20, 2007.

Dallas Theological Seminary. Doctrinal Statement. February 20, 2007.

Ehrman, Bart D. Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 2005.

Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New 'Intelligent Falling' Theory. The Onion. August 17, 2005: Issue 41-33.

Google: Book Search. Bible. February 20, 2007.

Hastings, Selina. Children's Illustrated Bible. New York: Dorling Kinders Publishers Ltd., 2005.

Hauser, Marc D. Moral Minds. New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 2006.

Johnson, C. “Inerrancy and Infallibility of the Bible.” BELIEVE: Religious Information Source. February 20, 2007.

Kent, Ellen. Moses and the Twelve Spies. JesusandKidz.com. February 18, 2007.

Miller, Glenn. Good Question... How could a God of Love order the massacre/annihilation of the Canaanites? A Christian Thinktank. October 2000.

Till, Farrell. “A Good Question But Not A Good Answer.“ The Skeptical Review Online. September 21, 2005. Canton, IL, U.S.A.

Wallis, Claudia. “The Evolution Wars.” Time Magazine. August 15, 2005: 9-15.

Whelan, Dr. Jamie. QUOTES and NOTES. McNeese State University. February 20, 2007.

Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia. List of Best-Selling Books. February 20, 2007.