« Lost's Why Problem | Main | Great and Glorious Games »

Sam Harris and the Prosperity Gospel

26 Mar 2008 10:00 am

You know, I sometimes get the sense that Sam Harris doesn't have a damn clue what he's talking about:

Happily, Obama did a fine job of distancing himself from Reverend Wright's divisive views on racism in America, along with his fatuous "chickens come home to roost" assessment of our war against Islamic terrorism. But he did not (and should not) acknowledge that the worst parts of Reverend Wright's sermons, as with most sermons, are his appeals to the empty hopes and baseless fears of his parishioners--people who could surely find better ways of advancing their interests in this world, if only they could banish the fiction of a world to come.

... The problem of religious fatalism, ignorance, and false hope, while plain to see in most religious contexts, is now especially obvious in the black community. The popularity of "prosperity gospel" is perhaps the most galling example: where unctuous crooks like T.D. Jakes and Creflo Dollar persuade undereducated and underprivileged men and women to pray for wealth, while tithing what little wealth they have to their corrupt and swollen ministries. Men like Jakes and Dollar, whatever occasional good they may do, are unconscionable predators and curators of human ignorance. Is it too soon to say this in American politics? Yes it is.

I suppose it would be too much to ask for Harris to familiarize himself with the literature on the correlations between religious observance and positive personal and financial outcomes, in the nation as a whole but especially in the African-American community; it would apparently be too much, as well, for him to actually read the works of T.D. Jakes before declaring him an "unconscionable predator." There are pure charlatans in the world of the prosperity gospel, but what figures like Jakes (and Joel Osteen, Joyce Meyer, and many many others) represent is something else entirely: They're self-help authors on the one hand and apostles of moralistic therapeutic deism on the other, slapping Christian window dressing on how-to guides for upward mobility and psychological satisfaction. They aren't playing to the follies and fantasies of the poor and desperate; they're responding to the real-world aspirations of the working and the middle classes. They aren't peddling fatalism and false hope; they're offering ambitious Americans advice on how to be prosperous and happy in the workplace and the home, with a little God-talk worked in around the edges.

From the point of view of Christian orthodoxy, obviously, this sort of thing is deeply theologically problematical. From the point of view of a hardened materialist like Sam Harris, though, the sort of religion T.D. Jakes is selling is exactly the kind of religion that he ought to like: A faith that's relentlessly focused on success and happiness in this world, rather than on self-abnegation for the sake of the life to come. But to understand that, he'd have to expand his understanding of religious practice beyond the usual run of atheistic cliches and prejudices. Which would obviously be too much to ask.

Share This

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://rossdouthat.theatlantic.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/20190

Comments (69)

I was going to write a comment about Harris' smearing of T.D. Jakes. I have listened to scores of his sermons and he NEVER has strayed into prosperity gospel territory. In fact, he spends much of his time telling people to stop envying what others have and to be humble because you are weak without God and any success you may have is due to Him and not you.

Ross, you've hit upon something that I've been thinking a lot about recently: the most successful US churches don't have pastors, they have weekly motivational speakers. I grew up in a Conservative Baptist church and now attend a megachurch; I think it's fascinating how sermons used to be about God and now they're about me. Actually, they're about what I should do, which is completely defensible. I'd just as soon that they go back to talking about God, though.

The problem here is that Ross is debating a different argument to the one put forward by Harris. Harris is not objecting per se to the theological content of the books written by Jakes et al. What he dislikes is the way in which those books enrich the author, while doing nothing to change the basic poverty of the audience. That's a separate question from that of the core content of the writings in question.

It might also be pointed out that for many, "upwardly mobile aspirations" often are effectively follies or fantasies, and a dose of cheap self-help and watered-down religion often is complicit in the poor staying right where they are. The American Dream sounds nice - but without connections, education, or inherited wealth, it is much harder to achieve than the politicians want you to believe. Selling people false hope is bad faith, and Harris is consistent in his dislike of it. Ross should think through his arguments before being quite so sanctimonious. De te, lector...

The problem here is that Ross is debating a different argument to the one put forward by Harris. Harris is not objecting per se to the theological content of the books written by Jakes et al. What he dislikes is the way in which those books enrich the author, while doing nothing to change the basic poverty of the audience. That's a separate question from that of the core content of the writings in question.

It might also be pointed out that for many, "upwardly mobile aspirations" often are effectively follies or fantasies, and a dose of cheap self-help and watered-down religion often is complicit in the poor staying right where they are. The American Dream sounds nice - but without connections, education, or inherited wealth, it is much harder to achieve than the politicians want you to believe. Selling people false hope is bad faith, and Harris is consistent in his dislike of it. Ross should think through his arguments before being quite so sanctimonious. De te, lector...

Kass, are you sure that your assumptions are based on facts? You assume that TD Jakes' books enrich him; I agree with you there. But you also assume that his audience is poor and stays poor - an assumption for which you provide no basis and which Ross's post addresses and demolishes.

The American Dream is not a fantasy. My grandparents came to this country penniless and uneducated, and I make a nice buck while leaving comments on blogs in my spare time. The book "The Millionaire Next Door" demonstrates that 80% of American millionaires achieved that status without attending any private schools and without any inheritance. It takes sacrifice - but of course that's what Christianity is all about.

The congregation of Jakes' church has a lot of very well-off people. Also, quite a few white people attend. Not all black churches are full of the downtrodden.

People of serious faith often develop the habits of discipline, integrity, and optimism that makes them successful. This is true of people of all classes. While the "prosperity" gospel may be crude, poor people around the world are known to be lifted by it as opposed to pagan fatalism or Sam Harris's post-modern cynicism.

As to class, scions of wealthy families are in danger of developing a certain skepticism and anomie that dissipates wealth in a generation or two. Many ambitious lower middle-class and some poor people who attend supposedly inferior schools and colleges put these scions in the dust. Joe Magarac is right to cite The Millionaire Next Door on this.

I hold no brief for or against Jakes - my point was that Ross is debating a different claim to the one made by Harris, which is less than intellectually honest. Ross doesn't cite any facts or statistics that support his claims, and I find his arguments unconvincing and rather petulant in tone.

Uhmm... I thought it was pretty common knowledge by now that the less religious a family is, the wealthier it tends to be.

http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/relgwlth.htm

Being Jewish seems to have the same effect.

It seems that these "prosperity gospel" types would do well to encourage their followers to put Bertrand Russell (or perhaps the Torah?) on their reading list rather than the preachers' self-help books.

This argument is, of course, a bit dishonest. The real reason Jews and atheists have higher incomes is almost certainly because they place more importance on education, not because of their faith, or lack thereof.

But does that mean that Christianity is actively harmful to education? I think the "Intelligent design" movement might be more poisonous than many more reasonable christians think.

Ross is doing exactly what he accuses Sam Harris of doing. Why would a secularist necessarily prefer the prosperity gospel to other forms of Christianity? If our usual pragmatic criticisms of organized religion focus on it's shaky morality, sure, at least prosperity gospel types aren't spending all of their time trying to stop gay people from having sex with each other or women from having abortions. But Ross forgets that what many secularists actually like and respect about organized religion is its commitment to helping the poor. Indeed, Ross' own religion sets up homeless shelters and health clinics in neighborhoods where secular charities fear to tread.

Given this, is it any wonder that a lot of secularists HATE the prosperity gospel? Instead of teaching that Jesus told us to love the poor (and about camels fitting through the eyes of needles, moneychangers in temples, etc.), they are teaching that Jesus wants us to be fabulously and ostentatiously wealthy. That's horrible and it goes against precisely that portion of the Christian message that secularists respect and admire.

Um. Sam Harris, it might be too soon to say, but it might also be that Obama actually doesn't agree with your understanding of Wright, of religious faith, or of the ministries of T.D. Jakes or Creflo Dollar.

Re: It might also be pointed out that for many, "upwardly mobile aspirations" often are effectively follies or fantasies, and a dose of cheap self-help and watered-down religion often is complicit in the poor staying right where they are.

The Prosperity Gospel is generally not preached to the poor (as Ross notes) but to people who are alread upwardly mobile, generally to quell their moral misgivings about being successful in a world that's full of poverty and failure. Sam Harris would have a better case if he criticized this as religious hypocrisy since it hardly squares with Christ's teachings about the spiritual dangers of wealth-- and really, almost all of us Americans save the very poorest should be hearing a lot more of that message. But instead Harris is unable to come up with anything more cogent than yet aother variation of the old Marxist trope that religion is the opiate of the people.

JonF, Neither Christ nor most of His churches do not criticize wealth in itself; they warn against the danger of making an idol of it.

I wonder if Ross has visited Creflo Dollar's website and checked out the huge amount of dogshit merchandising going on there. He's as revolting a huckster as the Hagees and Dobsons are. But of course Ross will turn a blind eye to this, just as he will to the undeniable fact that a piece of garbage like Pat Robertson (who used to cure hemmorhoids over the airwaves) became a central figure in Repiglican politics under the aegis of Saint Reagan.

It's nice that Ross is so impressed that disciples of these hucksters tend to be well-behaved, but then so do members of the Nation of Islam, and Ross isn't going to be blowing them kisses any time soon. Nor should he - Farrakhan is a fraud and a bigot. But he's probably making less money than Creflo Dollar is.

If anyone wants to check out an even more reprehensible prosperity gospel pimp, google Don Stewart and his utterly retarded green prosperity handkerchiefs. If you pray hard enough, apparently, Jesus will blow his nose in your hankie and you'll get rich. Or something like that.

TheBannedMoeLarryAndJesus

Go careful, son. Sheriff Ross don't like smart boys talkin' 'bout Repiglicans on his site. Best avoid Repiglans douchebag whores as well. Just a word to the wise *s*. Fact is that the Repiglicans are corrupt douchebag whores - but you can't say so openly. It's free speech time in the good ol' USA. Just refer to them as the financial integrity challenged porcine incontinence cultists (FICPIC) and you should be ok.


JonF,

I think you are very correct that Christ and the early Church took a dim view, at best, of wealth, the amassing of property, and the concentration of capital. "One cannot serve God and Mammon." More Americans need to hear this message, every day.

Oddly enough I also agree with Dilan here. The prosperity gospel is something that Christians and secularists alike should be united in condemnation of.


"How far will your mad lusts take you, ye rich people, till you dwell alone on the earth? Why do you at once turn nature out of doors, and claim the possession of her for your own selves? The land was made for all; why do you rich men claim it as your private property?" --St. Ambrose

"It is not for lack of miracles that the church is stagnant; it is because we have forsaken the angelic life of Pentecost, and fallen back on private property. If we lived as they did, with all things common, we should soon convert the whole world without any need of miracles at all. For 'mine' and 'thine' -- those chilly words which introduce innumerable wars into the world -- should be eliminated from that holy Church . . .The poor would not envy the rich because there would be no rich. Neither would the poor be despised by the rich, for there would be no poor. All things would be in common." --St. John Chrysostom.

"While we try to amass wealth, make piles of money, get hold of the land as our real property, overtop one another in riches, we have palpably cast off justice, and lost the common good. I should like to know how any man can be just, who is deliberately aiming to get out of someone else what he wants for himself." --St. Basil.

They're self-help authors on the one hand and apostles of moralistic therapeutic deism on the other, slapping Christian window dressing on how-to guides for upward mobility and psychological satisfaction.
A successful self-help business with limited tax liability, thanks to "Christian window dressing?"

Um, no.

Who was it that said it was easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than a rich man to get into heaven? It's just on the tip of my tongue. Started with a J.... What was it?

Joel Osteen? No, wait.

What was I thinking? It was Jesus!

What do you think ole Jesus would think of the disingenuous Dr. Phil's claiming to be disciples? Anyone with a personal relationship with Christ care to ask him?

Surely no one thinks that Sam Harris is interested in finding elements of religious belief and practice that he *could* praise, right? I think Ross has it mostly right on the prosperity gospel folks - except perhaps that it's worth noting that their "ministries" do enrich them greatly - but I have no doubt that Harris would have no patience with a "deny oneself" gospel either. It's just another opportunity for the village atheist to stir folks up again, nothing more.

Michael Simpson writes: "It's just another opportunity for the village atheist to stir folks up again, nothing more."

And what's Ross doing by pointing it out? He's just stirring up his fellow Buybull-thumping wingnuts. All part of a day's work for a confirmed member of the Right-Wing Fake Outrage Machine.

I'm gonna ask that fella Jeezus to whip me up a shoebox fulla Krugerrands. Ross says it's okay.

Ah yes, Moe, Larry, and Jim Keane , the alleged Ivy league grad, is on scene with his moderate and sensible style of argument.

A "hardened materialist"? Sam Harris? Have you even read The End of Faith? Harris is a big supporter of "self-abnegation", believing that through meditation it is possible to eliminate the sense of self.

ZZedar: Ross is using the term "materialist" in the philosophical rather than the popular sense. A materialist believes that only matter (hence the word) exists. Here's a wikipedia link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism

ZZedar: Ross is using the term "materialist" in the philosophical rather than the popular sense. A materialist believes that only matter (hence the word) exists. Here's a wikipedia link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism

ZZedar: Ross is using the term "materialist" in the philosophical rather than the popular sense. A materialist believes that only matter (hence the word) exists. Here's a wikipedia link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism

Since when is Petey Leavitt, avid supporter of torture and alleged Christian, concerned with being moderate? He's as far to the right as Dick Cheney is, and just as unconcerned about the number 4000 and the lives it represents.

ZZedar: Ross is using the term "materialist" in the philosophical rather than the popular sense. A materialist believes that only matter (hence the word) exists. Here's a wikipedia link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism

Given this, is it any wonder that a lot of secularists HATE the prosperity gospel?

Um, Dilan, read the post again. Ross' whole freakin point is that TD Jakes and the like are NOT preaching the prosperity gospel (i.e., God will make you rich if you send me money). Instead, they are mostly motivational speakers -- here's how you can be a good parent, a happy and fulfilled person, a thoughtful friend, etc., etc. THAT is the sort of thing that secularists should find unobjectionable.

Kass - your basic point (and Sam Harris's appeared to be that those who preach the prosperity gospel get richer, but those who follow those preachers do not. But is this really true? Ross cites studies to suggest that it isn't; and a quick glance at the congregation at a TD Jakes or Joel Osteen talk will suggest the same. You don't offer any evidence to support your contention that prosperity gospel hearers stay poor or get poorer.

That said, the prosperity gospel is garbage and out to be condemned by orthodox Christians and by the IRS. As to the former, Hector offers some good quotes but misses my favorite, also from St. Ambrose:

"Wealth should be seen less for its own qualities than for the human misery it stands for. The large rooms of which you are so proud are in fact your shame. They are big enough to hold parties, and also big enough to shut out the voice of the poor. The poor man cries before your house, and you pay no attention. There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there in a dilemma over a choice of carpets."

I don't know T.D. Jakes from Adam, but I do know that Ross should expand his understanding of secular humanism beyond the usual run of conservative Christian cliches and prejudices before lobbing stones at Sam Harris. You know, pot, kettle, etc.

It's plausible that Jakes belongs to the same respectable school of vaguely-Christian self-help organizations as Alcoholics Anonymous. But the most odious examples of the Greed is Godly movement, such as "The Prayer of Jabez", offend me even as a lapsed Christian. One may venerate Jesus as the Messiah or respect him for his commitment to social justice. If you're promoting Jesus the Personal Financial Advisor who wants you to be rich and popular, however, you're probably just a greedy asshole who's looking to cash in on the Greatest Brand Ever Sold.

John Doe:

You are missing my point. The central tenet of the prosperity gospel is that God wants you to be rich. Many of us secularists (myself included) think that the great, overwhelming positive contribution of organized religion to society is that so many of its organizations and adherents are moved to do such great work to help the poor, including in places where secular charities can't or don't go. And that injunction-- that pursuing personal wealth is sinful and that helping the least-off among us is virtuous-- comes right out of the New Testament and is fundamental Christian doctrine.

You are assuming that the prosperity gospel is just about bilking people out of their money, but there's a broader point here. The preachers who go before their congregations and tell them how God wants them to be rich and drive luxury cars and live in 5 bedroom houses are perverting something that really is right and good about the Christian faith, and something that many of us secularists, despite our differences with organized religion on so many matters, fundamentally agree with and admire Christianity for preaching.

James: Using that definition, Ross's last paragraph makes no sense, since it assumes that a materialist must be "relentlessly focused on success and happiness in this world", which Harris clearly is not.


Ooooo. Statistics. Fancy. First link:

===
His solution [for endogenity] draws on the fact that individuals are more likely to attend religious services if they live near others of their religion (that is, where there is a "higher density of co-religionists" in Gruber's terms). Catholics who live in more heavily Catholic areas attend church more than those who live in less Catholic areas. Further, living near others of one's religion can be predicted by living near others in certain ethnic groups that share the religious preferences of your ethnic group. For Italian Catholics, for example, living near persons of Polish extraction will mean being more likely to be near other Catholics than, say, living near persons of Swedish extraction. Yet living near persons of Polish rather than Swedish extraction should not affect any other aspect of the Italians' life, so that any effects of living near such "complementary" ethnic groups should reflect religious attendance only.
===

Huh. That is a HUGE jump in logic.

For at least one reason materialists like Sam Harris (and me) should like T.D. Jakes: he makes claims that are to some extent falsifiable by observation---easily, were we to find figures very similar to Jakes (promoting "good" values) but wouldn't mention God or His putative word.

Even if the answer were to come out "against" our point-of-view, it would be a public exercise instructive in the ways to best evaluate truth-claims.

"a materialist must be "relentlessly focused on success and happiness in this world", which Harris clearly is not."

Actually, in the last chapter of "The End of Faith," Harris makes it clear that this *is* his focus. He just thinks that religion isn't the way to go about it - instead, we should combine neuroscience and meditation.

I have to smile when I see debaters going round after round proclaiming "Self Help!" vs "Jesus!"

As a recovering fundamentalist evangelical, even *I* know Jesus wasn't teaching how to do more for yourself.

That said, I think the world would be a better place if we all found a way to be more prosperous and emotionally healthy instead of blaming Satan or demons or original sin for every bad decision and mistake.

The implication that being a "hardened materialist" whatever that is, should involve appreciation of swindling money from the ignorant is an excellent example of a disingenious argument. Great job.

Sam Harris is objecting specifically to this aspect of the prosperity gospel movement. And he is hardly alone, many preachers involved in this new con job are currently under Congressional investigation, by an all Christian team of Congresspersons, being asked hard questions about why they need gold-plated private jets and solid diamond toilets. But I supose these christian congresspersons too "have to expand [their] understanding of religious practice beyond the usual run of atheistic cliches and prejudices".

If your snarky critisizm of Sam's position sounds stupid when placed in this context, it's because it is stupid.

Patrick's got it exactly right.

Hey, Ross: Bring back Reverend Ike!

Every time I'm drawn over here by some overheated link, I'm impressed at what a bunch of jackassedness is going on. Hasta luego.

You truly are a simpleton.

Why in the world would you imagine that Harris' dislike of primitive superstitions and magic thinking (a.k.a. religion) necessarily means that he embraces the worst aspects of consumer culture. There is just nothing there to make that connection.

zzdear: Actually the philosophical use of the term materialist (energy/matter is all that exists) does make sense of Ross' last paragraph. A materialist, by definition, does not believe in a "life to come." From a materialist's perspective, one should focus on happiness in this life, since, again, there is no life after death. Re-read the following sentence by Ross with a focus on the last 13 words:
"From the point of view of a hardened materialist like Sam Harris, though, the sort of religion T.D. Jakes is selling is exactly the kind of religion that he ought to like: A faith that's relentlessly focused on success and happiness in this world, rather than on self-abnegation for the sake of the life to come."

Christianity is predicated on the truth of the Gospel; any modification of the original text is a challenge to divine omniscience. The question any Christian has to ask himself is on what authority can he ignore the sadistic injunctions proposed by the old and the new testament? There is no room for moderation here: either every word in the bible is true or Christianity is false. To imply that religion can be metamorphosed into "moralistic therapeutic deism" is to admit that the bible is false and god does not exist. You cannot appeal to things like reason and evidence if you believe in the concept of "faith" and "divine truth." Christianity requires that no improvement can be made on the original text.

Basing one's financial choices on divine intervention is simply the worst idea ever. How could untruth yield prosperity? If what you say is true then this success must have some secular foundation that does not require any sort of piety. Regardless of their intentions, the fact remains that these pastors are promoting untruths that appeal to the desperation of poor people. This would not be moral or commendable behavior even if it was economically beneficial.

"The question any Christian has to ask himself is on what authority can he ignore the sadistic injunctions proposed by the old and the new testament?"

Your belief that you know Christianity better than Christians is interesting, but it's not exactly going to be persuasive to anyone not insode your own head. You should leave religion to people who actually understand what it is. Because statements like yours, besides providing amusement in a "point and laugh" way, are not very useful or meaningful in the real world.

And yes that sounds harsh, but the alternative would be a long explanation of what religion actually is and I don't think either of us have the time. So basically go look in your microscope or telescope and leave the questions of human existence or meaning to people who can handle them. Okay darling?

Hmm that was too harsh. Still you should consider that you may not have the answers of what Christianity is to every denomination or school of theology. I'm also wondering cruelty you mean in the New Testament. The existence of Hell? The death of that one couple in the Acts of the Apostles?

Admittedly an eternity of fire and death for embezzlement does seem harsh. However "Hell" is widely misunderstood in many circles. The idea that the unbaptized burn in Hell is held by only a few Fundamentalist groups. Many Christians don't see Hell as a place of literal Fire at all, but as just a dark place for people who don't want the light of God in their lives. I'm not entirely sure how that works, but the point even of my snarkiness is this.

You are not in a position to declare what Christianity is or is not or can or can not do. Likewise I'm not in a position to say what injunctions are binding on Zoroastrians or Jains. Your claiming you have such authority is essentially obnoxious and therefore invites a negative response.

Re: The question any Christian has to ask himself is on what authority can he ignore the sadistic injunctions proposed by the old and the new testament?

The authority of the Christian Church itself, which antedates the New Testament, and has full authority to interpret and define Scripture. Until the Protestant Reformation no one (well, no Christian) ever doubted this. The general interpretation of the Old Testament is that its legal strictures applied only to the Jews (something the Jews themselves agree on), and that it should be read as a prophecy pointing to Christ, and for the value in its histories and its verse of praise for God.

@ThomasR 4:50
"However "Hell" is widely misunderstood in many circles. The idea that the unbaptized burn in Hell is held by only a few Fundamentalist groups. Many Christians..."

Exactly how is Hell misunderstood? Either there is a Hell and it has actual properties like brimstone, eternal suffering, pitchforks, or perhaps just darkness and lonlieness. Or there isn't a hell and the concept can be a repository for the believers to fear, the pastors to exploit, and religious "scholars" to debate. And just why is the fact that only a "few Fundamentalists" (and the majority of Americans; 69%!! in Harris 2003 poll) believe in the devil make it more or less likely?

"Exactly how is Hell misunderstood?"

TR: Well for starters "Either there is a Hell and it has actual properties like brimstone, eternal suffering, pitchforks, or perhaps just darkness and lonlieness. Or there isn't a hell" is wrong. There are several other options I've heard.

Hell is basically another name for oblivion. (Jehovah's Witnesses and a few others, not a view I share)

Hell is simply separation from God and other believers.

Hell is not a place, but a creation from the believers own mind or spiritual outlook at or after death. (Some of the more New Age forms of Christianity)

Hell exists, but its properties are unknown and unknowable except to those there.

What we call Hell sort-of exists, but it will someday cease to exist. (Not common, but not unheard of)

Anyway many of the atheists I've seen think that Christians believe all non-believers burn in Hell and that if we don't we're not real Christians. (Atheists of late have gotten more strict on defining who is or is not a real Christian than many of my Baptist relatives so I was responding a bit on that) However the only people I'm aware being described as "burning in Hell" in the Gospels are self-centered people who treated others badly. At one point Jesus tells his Apostles to leave a man alone who is doing things in his name, but is not with them, as "whoever is not against us is for us." Elsewhere traditional Christianity sometimes believed the Holy Spirit, and/or John the Baptist with some Orthodox, appears to virtuous non-Christians near death to allow them a place in Heaven. Even in the view that the unbaptized goes to Hell many felt they would be in a special compartment where they would not experience any pain or sadness. (Limbo, essentially)

Well, I believe in Hell, and in the devil. I believe in Hell on the basis of logic, on the basis of the New Testament, and on the basis of the many Christian mystics and visionaries who claim to have seen visions of it. Jesus talked quite a bit about Hell, as did the Apostles and the early church. You can't have a Heaven without a corresponding Hell.

I also believe in a devil, actually in an almost heretically powerful one. I don't see how you can look at Hitler, or Ted Bundy, or Milton Blahyi, and not believe in a Devil. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joshua_Blahyi

I wouldn't say that I think non-Christians are automatically sent there though. It's possible to deny Jesus Christ out of malice, or to deny Him out of ignorance, and I think only the former group will be held responsible for it in the hereafter. I think God makes provision for those people who haven't been blessed with the gift of faith. "In my Father's house are many mansions." After all, the Old Testament tells us that Cyrus the Great was the (unknowing) servant of God the Father, even though he belonged to a different religion.

to be more specific, I think only people who persist in unrepentantly rejecting God, go to hell, and I think God will save anyone who really, truly, wants to be saved. like C.S. Lewis said, 'the doors of hell are locked from the inside.'

Anyway, the argument that either the Christian Scriptures are all true, or else none of it is true, doesn't hold up to a minute's logical scrutiny. Suppose that Isaac Newton had written the 'Principia Mathematica' and then appended it to the end of one of his treatise on alchemy. would that make the Principia any less true, just because the alchemy was false? or conversely suppose you had a perfectly accurate history of Alexander the Great, written by a contemporary, and then Antiochus Epiphanes had a chapter appeneded to the end of it in which he talks about his divine descent. would the preceding chapters be suddenly rendered less true just because Antiochus wasn't really a god? You're presuming that 'The Bible' is a unitary work which stands or falls as a whole. But in fact that's rather assuming a questionable premise.

@Thomas R 8:42

But when you say "Hell is misunderstood", it impies that there is a correct way of understanding it, or heaven for that matter.

Why isn't the belief; "all non-believers burn in Hell" just as valid as any other belief? If I was going to invent hell, I'd make it the ultimate endless torture. And I'd make it so horrible that my unrequited hatred of others could be slaked. And I'd make it so horrible that I could use it as a warning of doom for those I wish to influence.

I know some think that "simply separation from God and other believers" is enough of a bummer. I am aware of the many interpretations of Hell. I didn't mean to limit the options. Because hell is imaginary and unreasonable I am sure there are as many understandings as there are believers. I prefer Dante's infernal vision, circles and gradations of torture. Good stuff.

@Hector 9:36
"and then Antiochus Epiphanes had a chapter appeneded to the end of it in which he talks about his divine descent."

or suppose you had a book of dietary laws and ancient battles and geneology and the some guy named Mark appended a story of the divine descent of a Palestinian roaming mystic. That wouldn't make eating pig meat less disgusting.

"But when you say "Hell is misunderstood", it implies that there is a correct way of understanding it, or heaven for that matter."

I see your point. What I should've said is "The beliefs Christians have about Hell are misunderstood."

Although there of course is a correct way of understanding Hell or Heaven. I just don't possess it. Probably few to no one alive does. Few to no human alive has a correct way of knowing what it's like to live as an amoeba or in the oceans of some planet 3 billion light years away.

Which leads to something else. If there is no heaven, or alternately God, then Truth and most of the Universe will always be unknown to us. If I'm figuring it right it would take us a billion years, traveling at light-speed, to explore just one percent of the Universe. And science can only create increasingly accurate mental maps through trial-and-error, it doesn't find "The Truth" whatever that might be. So in a real sense I tend to think Purgatory or Heaven are either total fabrications or True in a more real way than any human-discovered physics theory can ever manage.

Until you prove the existence of god (not to mention the Christian god) your argument is without foundation. Skepticism is the default position here; the burden of proof is on you. See Russel's teapot: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot

The truth of science is evident by the predictions it yields. Faith can make no such claim.

It is true that there is some moral wisdom in the bible (golden rule etc) but this has to be compared with the stories of genocide, slavery, murder, etc. To remain pious this has to be taken as a whole; you cannot cherry pick the moral stuff on the basis of your own ethical intuitions. As a secular document, it is amendable to our reason and understanding; as a divine one however, it is not. The bible is no different from the Iliad or the Odyssey; it's just a story that we can only appreciate after we no longer believe it.

It is likely that you are correct regarding the complete understanding of the universe; this is an enormous undertaking. Compare however the advances that have been made since the spawn of religion; compare string theory with the burning bush. The scientific community is no longer awed by hurricanes, earthquakes etc; these phenomena are now well understood and there is no need to attribute agency to them. The idea that because we don't understand it, god must exist is a non sequiter. If we can't fully understand the universe, then that's just too bad. We are not owed an explanation.

If there is no heaven, or alternately God, then Truth and most of the Universe will always be unknown to us. If I'm figuring it right it would take us a billion years, traveling at light-speed, to explore just one percent of the Universe.

"Ah, but a man's reach should exceed his grasp, or what's a heaven for?"

Kyle most of my online history is on science fiction forums. You think I'm unaware of these arguments?

On Russell's teapot the comparison of it to God is understandable if you're completely ignorant of the topic. For starters such a teapot could eventually be detected by gravitational or other methods someday. Still even if it couldn't be detected it's not remotely analogous. There are not millennia of humans claiming to have experienced this teapot, including former doubters of the teapot.

http://www.pulpless.com/jneil/libertarianprophet.html

The teapot plays no role in our understanding of the Universe or ourselves. No one built universities, observatories, and great works of art for the teapot.

And that leads to something else. To you religion is just witchburning and superstition. But who started the Sorbonne, University of St Andrews, Harvard, Dartmouth, Princeton, Swarthmore College, Georgetown, etc? The deists? The Epicureans? Secular humanists? Who did the first writings in opposition to the slave trade? Or discouraged infanticide of girl babies? When the tsunami hit who was saving the most lives? Do you think it was the Humanists? Are you sure of that?

I'd forgotten something. Unless you're an atheist who accepts a non-theistic supernatural force what you're saying is in a historical sense the grander claim.

One has to believe that all human societies before 1700 were wrong at core. That testimonies throughout history are all false. In addition to that one has to believe the majority of the world's people remain wrong, including a high majority of American's who went to graduate school. Then after accepting no faith in human perception, as that'd be fallacious arguments from popular appeal, you have to turn around and say human perception is the only source of understanding. I mean science isn't done for us by cetaceans or space aliens.

Thomas R.,

Indeed. It seems to me that atheists are essentially saying that human intelligence is the highest intelligence in the cosmos- which strike me as rather a grandiose claim.

I wasn't familiar with Russel's teapot so I just looked it up. It reminds me of Gaunilon's reply to St. Anselm's ontological proof- the thing about a 'perfect island'. The refutation is the same as Anselm's. We do not _naturally_ have in our minds the concept of a floating teapot or a perfect island. Whereas we do _naturally_ have the conception of God, and that demands explanation.

You've got to be kidding.

Millions of people claiming to have experienced miracles does not constitute good evidence for the divine truth of Christian scripture. If it was, virgins could conceive, people could walk on water, raise from the dead, turn water into wine... The point of Russel's teapot is that any proposition unsupported by evidence can be dismissed without evidence. You (or anyone else for that matter) have yet to provide any.

Concerning your second point, religion can hardly take credit for any advancement in understanding. Quite the contrary in fact. It wasn't until after the holocaust came to light that the catholic church officially removed antisemitism from its doctrine--obviously not a divinely inspired revelation, but rather a surrender to common sense. Who finally put a stop to human sacrifice, slavery etc? Someone who was finally able to see through the fog of "faith."

Concerning you third point (whatever it may be), I am disputing the idea that the bible is a divinely inspired document. Nothing in the bible couldn't be written by someone living at that time. The fact that the majority of people in this country suffer under the delusion that it is something more than a work of literature does not increase its validity. Social proof is not scientific proof.

Unless you can provide something more substantial I see no further use in responding to you.

"Unless you can provide something more substantial I see no further use in responding to you."

I tend to agree in reverse. Your understanding of history or reality is so childish as to be laughable.

Isaac Asimov once said that when he was 8 or 9 he realized Santa Claus was hooey so it must all be hooey. Christopher Hitchens said that at 8 "he knew there was no God." And I think that about it sums it up for many atheists. They're perpetually eight-year-olds. Where an eight-year-old will try to make a five-year-old cry about "no Santa", they try to do the same to Creationists or Fundamentally.

Unfortunately they seem unaware or uninterested in the fact that there are "kids" older than them who've also moved passed their eight-year-old state. When you hit emotional maturity we can talk until then enjoy the wonders of being eight-years-old and reading your new zoo books.

Thomas R writes: "Isaac Asimov once said that when he was 8 or 9 he realized Santa Claus was hooey so it must all be hooey. Christopher Hitchens said that at 8 "he knew there was no God." And I think that about it sums it up for many atheists. They're perpetually eight-year-olds. Where an eight-year-old will try to make a five-year-old cry about "no Santa", they try to do the same to Creationists or Fundamentally.

Unfortunately they seem unaware or uninterested in the fact that there are "kids" older than them who've also moved passed their eight-year-old state. When you hit emotional maturity we can talk until then enjoy the wonders of being eight-years-old and reading your new zoo books. "

Of course most kids believe in god long before they reach 8, and I've found that few theists can offer better arguments for the existence of god when they're 40 than they could when they were 4.

Then again for arguments to be convincing they generally require facts, and there are simply no facts which are dispositive about the existence of any god - let alone such laughable constructs as the Christian god and his little dog, Satan.

Now let's all reflect on the gross stupidity of believing something as fucking stupid as the Noah's Ark fable as an adult - and Thomas R can polish the staff of his so-called "emotional maturity."

One has to believe that all human societies before 1700 were wrong at core.

I don't see how this is a good argument for religious belief. Indeed, human societies before 1700 were totally ignorant about almost everything! They had ridiculously erroneous beliefs about cosmology, astrology, astronomy, the elements, the causes of disease, chemistry, the divine right of kings, the role of women, slavery, and all sorts of other things. And they did not have 1/1000th the knowledge that we have now in the sciences.

And yet we are supposed to hold THOSE idiots out as the experts on this subject while disregarding the voices of our own learned scientists, the vast majority of whom have no place for religion in their lives!

Prosperity-gospel or not ... making a "good living" -- or making a living period -- by preaching a bunch of wishful myths to a room full of people is simply deplorable.

As for statistics that show that these fantasies-preached-as-truth once integrated into you life have a positive impact on people... well, I can think of a lot more effective belief systems that don't involve all the adherence to iron-age dogma and sectarianism.

Besides, isn't the entire msg of the new testament essentially not to "worry yourself with ANYTHING in this world, but look for the world to come?" Weren't christ's followers admonished to not worry about even owning two cloaks and to give not out of excess but out of compassion?

All of these charlatans make me sick: both in that they don't even follow the myth -- and in that they preach it as some kind of transcendental truth.

As usual, when Ross writes about atheists, I get nothing informative out of it other than confirm that, yes, Ross detests atheist authors, but doesn't read or understand them.

It's all just intellectually dishonest swipes like, well to pick an example, Hector:

"Indeed. It seems to me that atheists are essentially saying that human intelligence is the highest intelligence in the cosmos- which strike me as rather a grandiose claim."

Sincerity is not your strong point, Hector, particularly when doing hostile interpretations.

Non-believers don't think humans are most intelligent beings we know out of arrogance, as you imply. We just don't happen see any evidence of higher intelligence in the cosmos at present. This is just a reality, not bragging rights, and intelligence is hardly synonymous with superiority in any case. No one thinks that human intelligence is perfect, or even necessarily all good things to all good people. If an alien race or divine creature with intelligence far exceeding our own appeared, THAT would be reality. But we wouldn't be any more likely to swear fealty to Ming the Merciless based on apparent superior intelligence than we obsess about humans being so great either.

"Whereas we do _naturally_ have the conception of God, and that demands explanation."

First of all, this claim is questionable to begin with, given how vague and diverse things that all get called "God" is. Given that not even the theologians seem to bother defining God's characteristics in any sort of conceptually intelligible way, it's not even clear that the concepts we do have amount to anything more than another imagined personality that modern human beings associate with all of abstract existence, instead of just with the clouds, volcanoes, and stars of earlier cultures.

And given that we relentlessly and almost bizarrely personalize everything (including inanimate objects) in our lives as part of our makeup as social beings, it's not even clear that the origin of this concept is really as astonishingly inexplicable as implied.

Re: Indeed, human societies before 1700 were totally ignorant about almost everything! They had ridiculously erroneous beliefs about cosmology, astrology, astronomy, the elements, the causes of disease, chemistry, the divine right of kings, the role of women, slavery, and all sorts of other things. And they did not have 1/1000th the knowledge that we have now in the sciences.

This is indeed true. However unlike the scientific revolution which replaced inadequete or incorrect knowledge with better (through not necessarily perfect) knowledge, atheism does not increase or better our knowledge at all. It simply junks theology wholesale and replaces it with...nothing. That would be like Galileo and Newton arguing that Matter does not exist instead of investigating the properties and behavior of matter in ways that led to better knwoledge of the subject.

Someone really, really needs to publish a book collecting and debunking the popular myths believers and atheists believe about each other...

These arguments would be a lot more fun to follow if each side didn't spend half the time either parading long-since refuted arguments against the other party or refuting outdated arguments from the other side.

This is indeed true. However unlike the scientific revolution which replaced inadequete or incorrect knowledge with better (through not necessarily perfect) knowledge, atheism does not increase or better our knowledge at all. It simply junks theology wholesale and replaces it with...nothing. That would be like Galileo and Newton arguing that Matter does not exist instead of investigating the properties and behavior of matter in ways that led to better knwoledge of the subject.

That may be a valid indictment of atheism, i.e., definitive denial of a supreme being, but it seems to me that it is a completely irrelevant critique of agnosticism, i.e., the position that humans have no evidence of that a supreme being exists but also have no ground to deny that one exists.

Further, indicting atheism in this way isn't the same thing as establishing any evidence for organized religion, or specifically any of the faiths invented by people several thousands of years ago.

Re: That may be a valid indictment of atheism, i.e., definitive denial of a supreme being, but it seems to me that it is a completely irrelevant critique of agnosticism

The corrolary to agnostism would be "Why do we even care about these complicated issues of Natural Philosophy which nobody has ever been able to agree on since time immemorial? There's more immediate things to worry about in life than a lot of abstract, probably meaningless philosophical puzzles."

Jonf:

Agnosticism is about admitting we don't know. It has nothing to do with how much one cares about the question.

Indeed, agnosticism is about intellectual honesty-- because no believer actually knows the answer to these questions either. Believers are simply able to convince themselves that they know something they really don't. (And yes, hardcore atheists who flatly deny a supreme being are doing the same thing.)

In any event, even if agnosticism did mean "not caring" instead of "not knowing", there really is a difference between not caring about something that has no impact on our lives (i.e., whether or not billions of years ago, the big bang was caused by some sort of creator) and not caring about things that have an impact on our lives (such as philosphical questions about ethics or knowledge). You can make fun of agnosticism all you want, but the truth is that believers are obsessed with something that is, at most, an interesting academic question.

Re: You can make fun of agnosticism all you want, but the truth is that believers are obsessed with something that is, at most, an interesting academic question.

I can see why you are an agnostic if you think that. You really have very little clue what religion is all about for those who believe. They are not (with very rare exceptions) preoccupied with questions of abstract theology that have little immediate relevance to personal life. In fact, it isn't an intellectual venture at all. Even for people like me who have the aptitude and the curiosity for that stuff, it's secondary and more a hobby than a passion.
No, religion is about relationship for belivers: it's about their "marriage" to God (for lack of a better word). Even a neurochemist doesn't obsess about the biology of love and sex when he's in bed with his wife-- or quarreling with her. So too for believers. Religion has an immediacy for life that is like nothing else except, in fact, a marriage.

JonF:

I don't doubt that believers are ALSO married to the social, communal, ritual, and other aspects of religion. I am not claiming that it's all an obsession about who created the universe.

But it is, at bottom that, because, after all, there are social, communal, and ritualistic organizations that DON'T obsess about who created the universe, and the fervent religious believer definitely wants the metaphysics as part of the package.

The point is, in the end, the issue of who or what created the universe is an almost totally academic question, except for someone who falsely believes in the ignorant beliefs made up by idiots who lived thousands of years ago. For those people, it is so crucial that they build social, communal, ritualistic organizations around it.

Dilan,
Why do you call people "idiots" simply because they lived centuries ago and did not have the benefit of our current information? Was the entire humann population before our current generation incurably stupid? Will our distant descendants, presumably gifted with even more knowledge, have the right to name us as "idiots"? Your attitude bespeaks of a distressing hubris.

Also, your comment is a partial strawman. Yes, there are people whose faith is bound up wit ha literal reading of Gensis. But most Christians are not Biblical literalists or Young Earth Creationists. Your comment does not address them at all.

Post a comment

By using this service you agree not to post material that is obscene, harassing, defamatory, or otherwise objectionable. Although The Atlantic does not monitor comments posted to this site (and has no obligation to), it reserves the right to delete, edit, or move any material that it deems to be in violation of this rule.