Morality isn't about making everyone else do the right thing, it's about doing it yourself. Most of the time we figure that people doing stuff that we aren't is what's terribly horrendous, and excusable, or deserving of more understanding and compassion when it's stuff we are. I propose the opposite of all that.

Though I hope you understand that I can't just tell you something and then you'll understand, it isn't like that. Everyone knows that religion doesn't work that way, right?

BECAUSE!

Why do I need religion to know what to do?

Can you give an example of a terrible thing that Sam does?

Because you need to have a personal relationship with God, through living an ethical life. It's the most important and valuable thing that there is, and he is presenting an obstacle to it.

That's just like, your opinion, man....

I promise you that it isn't.

But how can you be sure?

Did god tell you?

Would that be silly, would that be insane? Should I be ashamed of that? What if God were talking to you right now, but for all of those reasons, and maybe a few more, you won't hear it? Wouldn't want to be ridiculous... you're too well trained.

I'm inclined to believe that the voices you hear are not god's. Perhaps my training to think critically limits me, or perhaps it frees me from the bull shit of others.

Who can say?

Religious faith, on the other hand, erodes compassion. — flight747

This claim can be measured.

Catholic Charities is the second leading provider of services to the needy in the United States, topped only by the federal government. This might be compared to the impact of charities led by Sam Harris and other atheist ideologues.

Because something may be irrational; this does not make us rational for not engaging in this imagined irrationality. In the end we are all irrational creatures. — Blue Lux

Bravo, applause from here.

I find that atheists also need to find a positive channel for their expression of atheism. Atheism should not be about antagonism to religious beliefs. — BrianW

Yes, agreed. Atheists might change their label to "Reasonists", a positive approach which can have value irregardless of one's relationship with religion. They would have a more compelling message, and be more interesting, if they focused on what they are for instead of what they are against.

The only reason for being an atheist is because you don't believe in any gods. That's it. There's no merit or value. It just is. One might feel good about being intellectually honest, or not having to go to Church, Temple, etc. But really it's just lacking belief for whatever reason.

I also disagree with Hariss's quote, though for a different reason than your challenge to premise one. While I agree with your assertion that "many would argue having a religious faith actually boosts their compassion," I think the primary issue in Harris's argument has more to do with his understanding of the meaning of compassion. I don't see how believing that a traumatic incident could be a part of God's plan lacks compassion. Sure, it might not be the wisest comment to make to someone in pain, but I don't think that worldview leads to eroded compassion.

Instead, I would argue that the link between theism and those seemingly "callous" responses is due to theists' need to explain the problem of evil and their personal understanding of theodicy. (Certainly atheists do not have this problem, as they do not have a need to reconcile their belief system with the existence of evil.) Whether this explanation is kept in one's head or impolitely expressed to a person in the midst of struggle seems to have less to do with religiosity and more to do with having appropriate knowledge of how to communicate compassion. (As previously stated, I agree that religious faith can, in fact, increase one's compassion.)

My revised argument attempts to explain the comments Harriss finds worrisome without placing the blame on religious faith for eroding compassion. I propose the following changes to Harriss's argument as you outlined:

1. If you have a religious faith, then you need to explain how your belief system answers the problem of evil.
2. In view of tragedies, your religious faith spurs you to say, “this might be all part of God’s plan”, “there are no accidents in life,” or “everyone on some level gets what he or she deserves” (Which are not only stupid but extraordinarily callous).
3. Thus, your religious faith leads you to explain how your belief system answers the problem of evil. (1, 2 MP)

I look forward to reading your thoughts.

1. If you have a religious faith, then you need to explain how your belief system answers the problem of evil. — reasonablewave

Skeptical theists address the argument from evil - with the concept of compensating goods.

For something to be a compensating good:
1. It has to be significantly good , so good that anyone would say it was a good worth the evil
2. The good could not be possible without the evil.

In the cases of evil caused by the choices of men - the compensating good is free will.

In the cases where evil is not caused by choices of men - such as natural disasters - skeptical theists use a the concept of cognitive distance. The atheist will say I have looked around, and i don't see any compensating good for this natural disaster - therefore there is no compensating good. The skeptical theist response is what makes us think we have the ability to be aware of every compensating good, or recognize it as such even if we saw it.

The atheist argument is a no-seeum argument - and the skeptical theist response is we may well not posses the tools needed to understand such a thing as God.

It is important to note, that the AFE is an atheist argument against the existence of God, the theist only need provide a reasonable case where a 3 O God and evil can co-exist. There is no obligation on the part of the theist to prove the compensating good argument - their only obligation is to present a reasonable case for compensating goods - if the atheist want to continue to make the AFE case to change the mind of the theist - it is his obligation to prove that compensating goods are unreasonable.

if this is topic you have a real interest in - and a willingness to see and understand the other side of the argument - this is worth the 50 something minutes.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mJbgnyFlW5M