Monday, December 29, 2008

Sam Harris on Myths and Truths about Atheism

HT: Eric Koski.

Sam has managed to outdo Keith Parsons, who only came up with seven misconceptions about atheism.

Let's take them in turn.

1) Atheists believe life is meaningless. Well, it depends which atheist you talk to. Sartre and Camus seemed to look at atheism as the basis for believing in the absurdity of life. It seems to me that atheism, or rather a full-blown naturalism, removes the possibility of finding the correct meaning to life. Whether this is a biggie or not, I suppose, depends on the person. The trouble with meaninglessness of life arguments on the part of theists is that you don't want to be telling someone who finds life meaningful by, say, doing evolutionary biology, that their life only appears meaningful to them but really isn't. Other people, however, might be psychologically disposed to be unable to find meaning in a godless world. It is natural, and not unhealthy, to crave the kind of ultimate meaning that Christianity, for example provides. It may be unfortunate, however, if it turns out that God does not exist. However, I do have trouble seeing the kind of reforming moral energy found in people like Gandhi, King, or Mother Teresa, without religion.

2) Atheism is responsible for the greatest crimes in history. No, atheism doesn't kill people, people kill people. And some of the killiers are atheists. Others are not. It is true that atheists do not believe in the sort of deity who disapproves of these crimes and will hold them accountable if they are not punished for them in this life.

Harris says that these regimes are bad because they are too dogmatic. But religion doesn't have a monopoly on dogmatism. There are dogmatic Christians, not so dogmatic Christians, dogmatic atheists, and not so dogmatic atheists. The desire to employ the power of the state to support either religion on anti-religion is what puts you in danger of abusing that power. That can happen to you if you are a believer or an unbeliever.

3) Atheism is dogmatic. No, it isn't dogmatic. But atheists can be. As I tried to argue on an evolution forum once, I think it's absurd to make the sort of claim that atheists often make, that there is no evidence for theism. There are a lot of things in our world that are more likely given theism than atheism, and therefore there are things that you can set in the scale on the side of theism. Now I can see someone saying, when all the Bayesian calculations are done, that atheism is better confirmed than theism. But to say there is nothing to be said for theism evidentially? That's dogmatic.

We might want to ask Harris the question I once asked Keith Parsons. "Suppose I were God, and I wanted to get you, Keith, to have a justified belief in me. What would I have to do?" Keith, memorably, replied by saying "If the stars in the Virgo cluster were to spell out the words 'Turn or Burn, This Means You Parsons,' I'd turn." If Harris says he wouldn't turn, maybe we have reason to suspect dogmantism.

4) Atheists think everything arose by chance. If by that you mean that this is a world without design, then that is what they do believe. However, is it just chance that your heart is in the right place, meaning that in an atheist universe it could just as easily be in your rear end or just beside your nose? No atheists don't have to believe that.

5) Atheism has no connection to science. Again, it depends on what you mean. If you mean to say that atheism follows necessarily from anything science might have discovered, then the statement is true. If you mean that there are no arguments from science to atheism, of course not. But before we start comparing polls, as Harris does, we've first got to understand if the conception of God in both polls is the same. Also, science groups are just as subject to intellectual peer pressure as anyone else. It's not clear that members of the National Academy of Sciences are more reliable than the rest of us humans when they are operating "off the clock."

6) Atheists are arrogant. They can be. I've met some arrogant ones, and some that aren't nearly so arrogant. They don't recognize the existence of anyone superior to themselves to whom they are accountable. Harris's arguments here assume Russell's maxim that "What science cannot discover, mankind cannot know." Why science provides us with the only way of knowing anything is not at all clear to me. Whether science is, as Sellars said, the measure of all things, or as C. S. Lewis said, a truncated mode of thinking, is the subject of epistemological and metaphysical debate.

7) Atheists are closed to spiritual experience. Given what they believe, they are not inclined to allow that such experience provides genuine evidence for the existence of realities that cannot be discovered using a scientific method circumscribed by methodological naturalism.

There is, in fact, not a Christian on this Earth who can be certain that Jesus even wore a beard, much less that he was born of a virgin or rose from the dead. These are just not the sort of claims that spiritual experience can authenticate.

Really? So if you saw what Paul saw on the road to Damascus, you'd just say it was a piece of underdone potato and go on about your business? If you were to experience what you thought was death, and you were to, as philosophers would say, "be appeared to hellishly," you would consider it an illusion? And you're not dogmatic? What would it take to falsify your atheism?

8) Atheists believe that there is nothing beyond human life and human understanding. Of course atheists believe there are some things we don't now understand. But a scientistic epistemology says that we could potentially understand everything if we just did enough science. I'm not so sure.

9) Atheists ignore the fact that religion is extremely beneficial to society. Again, it kind of depends on the atheist. Some recognize the contributions of religion to society, others don't. And many Christians realize that some things can be beneficial to society but at the same time be false. Atheists sometimes argue that religion is entirely harmful (Hitchens says it "poisons everything"), and when atheists talk like that, then they are ignoring or unreasonably downplaying the benefits religion has given to society. But not all atheists are as blinkered as Dawkins and Hitchens.

10) Atheism provides no basis for morality. That's true, but then I wouldn't expect unbelief about God to actually provide the basis for morality. However, atheists do have social needs just like everyone else, and so they are at least going to have to come up with some rules for conduct.

The most you can say about the Bible and slavery is that it doesn't condemn it outright. However, I believe that the idea that the meanest slave has a soul that Christ died to save is the idea that eventually provided the moral foundations for the abolition of slavery. Wilberforce was a secular humanist, right? Douglass? Garrison?

I do think that a logically consistent philosophical naturalism does logically lead to the conclusion that morals are either person-relative or society-relative. If so, then it is not objectively true that slavery is an abomination. To affirm this is to affirm that we can discover moral truths. But, as Russell pointed out, science cannot discover that it is true, or that it is false that slavery is wrong.

So if we mean that atheists can't have moral codes that they follow, yes, atheists can and do have codes of conduct and they do follow them. If we mean that in a fully naturalistic universe, you can have statements like "Slavery is wrong" be literally and unequivocably and non-relatively true, then no, I think J. L. Mackie is right. Such truths are "queer" in an naturalistic universe, in the sense that they "don't fit" in epistemologically or metaphysically.

None of this shows that atheism isn't true, or that we ought not to believe it. But I don't think atheists have a monopoly on good sense, or rationality, or intelligence. Yes, Christians make exaggerated claims about atheists. Atheists make exaggerated claims about theism. Once these claims are set aside, the discussion can continue.

20 comments:

Steven Carr said...

'However, I believe that the idea that the meanest slave has a soul that Christ died to save is the idea that eventually provided the moral foundations for the abolition of slavery.'

Why so?

Jesus did not die to save people from slavery to humans, but from slavery to sin.

What is the objective of leading a moral life?

Is it to glorify God?

Or is to promote the well-being of humanity in general and individuals in particular?

What is the religious view of the objective of doing moral acts rather than immoral ones?

To say we should do moral acts because they are moral is not really an answer.

Steven Carr said...

VICTOR
We might want to ask Harris the question I once asked Keith Parsons. "Suppose I were God, and I wanted to get you, Keith, to have a justified belief in me. What would I have to do?"

CARR
Would you have to get me to cry a lot to get me to have a justified belief in God?

From William Lane Craig's personal testimony

' Finally, one night I just came to the end of my rope and cried out to God. I cried out all the anger and bitterness that had built up inside me, and at the same time I felt this tremendous infusion of joy, like a balloon being blown up and blown up until it was ready to burst! I remember I rushed outdoors—it was a clear, mid-western, summer night, and you could see the Milky Way stretched from horizon to horizon. As I looked up at the stars, I thought, “God! I’ve come to know God!”

That moment changed my whole life.'

Is crying a lot what it would take to get Parsons to have a justified belief in God, to have a moment that changed his whole life?

Victor Reppert said...

Steven: When you discover that you have been wrong about religion, you probably will cry a lot.

Steven Carr said...

SO the belief comes first and then the crying?

Is that what happened to Craig?

He realised that all the Christians he knew were happier than him, cried a lot and then that changed his whole life?

WHat would convince Parsons to have a justified belief in God?

VICTOR
So if you saw what Paul saw on the road to Damascus, you'd just say it was a piece of underdone potato and go on about your business?

CARR
Should Saul, as was, have concluded that only a God who loved him would have struck him blind?

Steven Carr said...

VICTOR
They don't recognize the existence of anyone superior to themselves to whom they are accountable.

CARR
Really?

We have this thing in Britain where you are put before a jury of your *peers*, not your 'superiors'.

We are accountable to each other.

People don't even have to be 'superior' to me, before I recognise that I am accountable to them.

In 1 Corinthians 6:2, Paul claims that Christians will be judges :-

Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if you are to judge the world, are you not competent to judge trivial cases? Do you not know that we will judge angels?

If even Christians think accountability to each other can work, why do atheists need an imaginary god to be accountable to, especially when that god will find everybody guilty of sin?

Both a Hitler and a Gandhi are sinners in the view of the Bible.

Victor Reppert said...

Whether one cries or not when one encounters God is irrelevant. There are religious experiences of many kinds. What does crying have to do with anything.

Parsons told me what would convince him that God exists. He was a clear as he could be about it.

Steven, what would you have concluded in response to a road-to-Damascus experience. Remember, what Harris said was that certain claims couldn't possibly be supported by any kind of religious experience. I just wondered what he would do if he were face with a road-to-Damascus experience.

Steven Carr said...

VICTOR
Whether one cries or not when one encounters God is irrelevant.

CARR
So why did Craig include it in his testimony?

Vast amounts of crying often leave you feeling good afterwards.

Is having a really good cry and feeling better afterwards the sort of personal experience that Craig puts forward as 'the argument from personal experience', which leads to a 'justified belief' in God?

I'm sure Craig will claim there are other reasons for him to believe in God, but it was Craig himself who said that a bout of crying led to a 'moment that changed his whole life'.

Is that enough or is it not enough?

And what did Paul see when God 'was pleased to reveal his son *in* me'?

Paul never described what he experiences when God was pleased to reveal his son *in* him (NB not *TO* him)

So I cannot answer your question.

Joe said...

Steven Carr

You seem to be having quite a bit of fun with WLC's testimony about crying. I agree, it really has no place in philosophical discourse. However, I would point out that in just about any intellectual pursuit people will from time to time have major realizations. That is things will come together for them it may be like an epiphany or a “Eureka” type event. I think the emotion comes afterward. I mean I wasn't there when Einstein figured out E=mc2 or Newton figured out the various equations he did. But I wouldn't be surprised that they had some sort of emotional reaction afterward.

I don't know if you have ever had a realization experience about anything that lead to an emotional response but if you did I think you would understand. The emotions come after the realization.

But anyway I think this is beside the point of VR's current post. He dedicated a post to WLC's crying episode earlier.

But anyway you say this:

"What is the religious view of the objective of doing moral acts rather than immoral ones? To say we should do moral acts because they are moral is not really an answer."

I'm not sure this is correct. To act morally means to act how we should act. You asking "Why should we act the way we should act?"

If you mean "why is some act moral?" I think that is a question I can better understand. But I'm not sure I understand you otherwise.

Steven Carr said...

JOE
The emotions come after the realization.

CARR
Craig put them the other way around.

The crying came first, and then Craig says 'As I looked up at the stars, I thought, “God! I’ve come to know God!”'

JOE
To act morally means to act how we should act.

CARR
SO it is no more than a tautology?

We should do what we should do, and shouldn't do what we shouldn't do?

I like the analogy with football.

If you want to play football, you shouldn't pick up the ball and run it into your own endzone on every play.

That is bad play, even though there is no law of the game against it. You won't be called for a penalty for calling that play.

It is bad play, because it will not help you acheieve the objective of playing football well.

So what is the objective of acting morally?

Then we can see what is 'good play' and what is 'bad play',although we may not find a 'rule of the game' which directly penalises 'bad play'.


Is the objective of acting morally to get to Heaven, to glorify God, help other people?

Joe said...

CARR
"Craig put them the other way around. The crying came first, and then Craig says 'As I looked up at the stars, I thought, “God! I’ve come to know God!”'"

I haven't read what WLC wrote closely. (I'm not really interested in that particular argument, or in trying to ridicule WLC.) Nevertheless I think what you quote is ambiguous on what came first.

Might God have acted in WLC's life somehow to help his mind click and reveal himself at that time? I can't rule it out. But the argument from personal experience isn't an argument based on objective data. It’s what WLC felt and to the extent it might persuade others it is based on his testimony of what he felt.

"CARR
SO it is no more than a tautology? We should do what we should do, and shouldn't do what we shouldn't do?"

Yes I think what you wrote is a tautology - or at least pretty close. And yes I look at "Acting morally" to be the same as "acting as we should." That’s part of the problem I’m having with what your saying.

There are different senses of the word "should." Descriptive,(If I shoot this gun just so the bullet "should" go through the babies heart.) normative (I "should" refrain from shooting babies) and utilitarian.(If I want to avoid eating prison food, I "should" refrain from shooting babies) I think you are saying there must be a utilitarian purpose for our normative morality. I tend to agree. But I'm not sure on that – I need to think about it more.

Carr
"Is the objective of acting morally to get to Heaven, to glorify God, help other people?"

Maybe it is to do all those things. Maybe it is to do all those things and more - infinitely more. Maybe another reason we are here to act morally or immorally is to reveal who we are, so that all mouths will be shut at the time of judgment. We can be properly placed with those we belong with. I'm not exactly sure of all the objectives.

What do you think the objective(s) to acting morally is?

Doctor Logic said...

Victor,

There are a lot of things in our world that are more likely given theism than atheism, and therefore there are things that you can set in the scale on the side of theism.

I would like to see some examples.

There's an analogy between naturalism and theism:

Naturalism ~ Theism

Physical theory ~ particular thoughts in the mind of god.


Here's another analogy:

"The Theory of Everything (ToE) explains X, because that is what a ToE does, by definition. By definition, the ToE achieves everything it implies. If we knew the formulas of the ToE, we could have predicted X beforehand."

~

"God explains X, because that is what God does, by definition. By definition, God does everything he wants. If we knew the thoughts and rationales of God, we could have predicted X beforehand."


Obviously, no one is going to accept the (as-yet-undiscovered) theory of everything as an explanation for anything. You can't explain a thing with a mere placeholder for the explanation you would like to have.

So why is God an explanation for anything when you don't know the mind or rationales of God?

If you are saying that "the thoughts of God dictate X, X happens, therefore X explains God," then everything is trivially explained by God or equally by an undiscovered ToE.

So what things are more likely under theism that don't also fall prey to the placeholder fallacy?

Steven Carr said...

Joe doesn't seem to want to listen to Craig describing himself as crying in bitterness and anger and then claiming to know God.

Apparently, Craig first got to know God and this caused him to cry in bitterness and anger.

Yeah, that must have been it, musn't it?

Emotions come afterwards, don't they? Joe says so.

I am not trying to ridicule Craig, but to understand him.

He had an emotional experience. Human beings are emotional, and it is silly to ridicule emotions and call emotional responses 'an argument from outrage' or whatever.

Craig claims the argument from religious experience is very powerful.

So I expected more than that somebody had a really good cry and felt better afterwards.

There is no doubt at all that a really good cry makes people feel better.

But I don't think such emotional releases justify somebody saying 'I have come to know God'

JOE doesn't seem to know what the objective of acting morally is.

CARR
In which case, he is going to struggle to say what is moral and what is not.

The objective of acting morally is to improve the well-being of humanity in general and individuals in particular.

Some people might say the way to improve the well-being etc is to get as many people as possible into Heaven.

Fair enough, if you can find evidence of a Heaven.

Ilíon said...

Sam Harris is intellectually dishonest (*) -- and that does seem to be an occupational hazard of being an 'atheist' (**).

And you -- because you refuse to acknowledge this truth about him, much less state anything which points toward this truth -- end up pulling your punches in your critique. And, you even incorrectly concede some points to him that rightly belong to you.

Is your committment to some false "even-handedness" or is it to truth?


(*) The man isn't stupid, so that isn't the explanation for why he makes "ignorant" assertions about the nature of reality.

The man's "ignorance" is either:
1) the result of stupidity -- but it is almost impossible to believe that he really is stupid. And, if he *is* stupid, then he is to pitied -- and ignored -- rather than refuted, for if this were the case then he really cannot help himself and he really cannot correct his error, for he is too stupid to do so.
2) self-imposed (which is to say, it is intellectual dishonesty).


(*) Anthony Flew spent 50 years being intellectually dishonest (and he may still be not entirely out of the woods) -- the arguments for God that he spent 50 years dismissing, and now admits are not so bad, after all, have not changed a whit. Moreover, some of his arguments against God and/or design-in-the-cosmos (cf. the "Invisible Gardner," still quite popular with 'atheists') are really quite question-beggingly illogical; for a man of his training to offer such *is* intellectual dishonestly.

What has changed is not God or arguments for God's existence, but rather what Anthony Flew is willing to admit.

Ilíon said...

Why should we be moral? (Why should we do what we should do?)

Because we should.


Why does "1+1=2?"

Because it does. In case Gentle Reader doesn't yet get the point, the symbol "2" is merely the symbol used to represent the equation "1+1" To say "1+1=2" is merely to say that "1+1=1+1"

BUT, *why* does "1+1=1+1?"

Because it does. There is no other answer.



Not all things can be reduced to something else. Somethings are themselves, period.

Steven Carr said...

Ilion seems to have nothing more to say than that we should do what is moral, because we should do it.

Even Jesus managed to at least attempt an explanation of why you should do moral acts.

Matthew 3
But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.

Even Jesus could work out why you should do certain things.

So that you would get a reward from God.

If Jesus could work out that there was an objective in doing moral things, then perhaps Ilion can explain why we should do certain things and should not do other things.

Ilíon said...

Steven Carr: "Ilion seems to have nothing more to say than that we should do what is moral, because we should do it."

I know Steven Carr isn't stupid (in case anyone in still in doubt, what I know about him is that he's intellectually dishonest), so I'm always mystified that he so frequently acts stupid.

The fact is, Ilíon quite clearly stated that he wasn't offering a "reason" that we should do what we should so, other than that we should. Ilíon quite clearly stated that "Not all things can be reduced to something else. Somethings are themselves, period."

Ilíon is not speaking to persons who accept the God is, and is the "source" of morality, but rather to persons who imagine that morality -- if they even acknowledge that it is real and binding upon us -- just "floats" in the aether or hangs from a shy-hook. The only answer it's possible to give such persons to the question of why we should behave morally is precisely: "We should so what we should do because we should do what we should do."

And, as it turns out, that's not necessarily a bad or deficient answer -- and, ultimately, that is the best possible direct answer we can give. Even to others who do acknowledge the God is and is the "source" of morality.


Oh, by the way, Mr Carr is misrepresenting what Christ told the people as being a 'quid pro quo.' I wonder, does Mr Carr imagine that telling someone that "If you jump off a cliff you shall get smashed" is a 'quid pro quo?'

Joe said...

Carr:

“JOE doesn't seem to know what the objective of acting morally is.

CARR
In which case, he is going to struggle to say what is moral and what is not.

The objective of acting morally is to improve the well-being of humanity in general and individuals in particular.”

Is that were the buck stops? I mean is it moral in the normative sense to “improve the well-being of humanity in general and individuals in particular.”

Lets call the quoted part “P”

If so we should do “P” in order to do “P”? Is the “objective” of morals and moral itself at the same time? But if it’s the normative then we would need to know the objective of doing this or (like Joe) we will struggle being sure it’s really moral to “improve the well-being of humanity in general and individuals in particular” So what is the objective of doing P that helps you determine P is moral?

SC: Let me again ask you to consider the 3 different meaning of “should” that I pointed out to you. If you “should” do something in the utilitarian sense – trying to accomplish an objective - that does not necessarily mean you “should” do that in a normative/moral sense of the word.

BTW
I happen to think that voice in my head (aka the holy spirit) tells me what is right and wrong.

Steven Carr said...

JOE
I mean is it moral in the normative sense to “improve the well-being of humanity in general and individuals in particular.”

CARR
You are welcome to substitute other objectives of acting morally.

I will listen to them and see if I agree they are a better objective than the one I gave.



To use my football analogy.

Should you or should you not (is it normative in your terms) to snap every play and then run the ball back into your own end-zone?

Surely you cannot say what is normative until you have a clue what it is you are supposed to be acheiving?

Once you know what you are supposed to be acheiving, then you can work out what you should or should not do to achieve that goal.

There is no point in saying you should do something because it is normative.

Other people will simply say that other things are normative, and you will not be able to say they are wrong.

They will simply say you should run every play back into your own end-zone.

And how can you say they are wrong?

All you can do is say that it is normative to try to advance the ball and they will say it is normative to run the ball back into your own end-zone.

They will ask you why it is normative to try to advance the ball and unless you tell them the objective of the game, all you can do is repeat that it is normative to try to advance the ball.

Joe said...

"CARR
You are welcome to substitute other objectives of acting morally.

I will listen to them and see if I agree they are a better objective than the one I gave."

I still don't think you understand the distinctions I'm drawing. The football example is primarilly an example of should in the utilitarian sense. That is if you want to accomplish the objective of winning a football game you shoudln't run in the wrong direction. Its not really "immoral" in the normative sense to run in the wrong direction except to the extent you are betraying others on the team or something like that. Its not immoral to lose a football game or even make a bad play.

Its not immoral to eat prison food. That was an example of a utilitarian should.

How about this for an objective "promote the good and prevent evil" similar to Aristotle’s "do good and avoid evil" GE Moore explained that these sorts of platitudes we give for objectives (yours and mine) are not really helpfull. In other words its hard to really explain what "the good" is without driting from what we really are after on the one hand or just restating it on the other. "Goodness" sort of a "properly basic" concept. Yes its true there is disagreement on whether he is right on this but I think hes either right or pretty close to right.


But again my question to you is different. You say:

"Surely you cannot say what is normative until you have a clue what it is you are supposed to be achieving?"

I’m asking you what objective does “improv[ing] the well-being of humanity in general and individuals in particular” serve? If it doesn't serve any objective then how do you know its moral to do this?

What I am suggesting to you is that perhaps we don't need this extra step of saying moral acts must accomplish something else. We can just say some action is good/moral in and of itself and leave it at that. Adding some new conditions just creates a chicken or egg problem and really doesn’t help our understanding. It also just seems to divert the question from “what is good” to “what is in humanities well being in general or particular.” I mean if you think this sheds more light on the question of what is moral then that’s fine but I think its does very little helpful and perhaps harm.

Eric Koski said...

1. “Atheists believe life is meaningless.” You evidently agree with Harris that this is a myth.
Atheists can’t believe that a certain moral order is part of the design of the universe, if they don’t believe that the universe was designed at all. It doesn’t follow at all that I couldn’t have a correct moral theory (or perhaps something broader, since I’m not sure that all value is moral value) telling me what would be the best sort of life for me to live. There’s much more to think about here, and I don’t claim to have a worked-out metaethical perspective.

“I do have trouble seeing the kind of reforming moral energy found in people like Gandhi, King, or Mother Teresa, without religion.” Since, in our own culture as in much of the rest of the world, atheists face ostracism or worse, you’re unlikely to be aware of many atheist exemplars of the “reforming moral energy” of which you speak. Harris and Hitchens might indeed be such exemplars, but I’m sure they’re not among your favorite people.
(See http://www.conservapedia.com/Causes_of_Atheism for examples of common viewpoints toward atheists. Oddly, the link provided as a source for “It is important to distinguish ‘state-mandated churches’ (such as Saudi Arabia) with much lower atheism rates because publicly admitted atheism is punishable by death.” doesn’t seem to document the assertion.)

Atheism is, however, no longer illegal in the UK: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy_law_in_the_United_Kingdom. I guess 2008 was a pretty good year.

2. “Atheism is responsible for the greatest crimes in history.” Again, you agree with Harris that this is a myth. Harris does claim that religions are inherently dogmatic, and I’m a bit uncomfortable with some of the further inferences he makes from this. I think you would describe yourself as supported in your Christian belief by a preponderance of the evidence available to you. The fact that you consider a weighing of evidence to be even relevant seems to make you an unusual case.

3. “Atheism is dogmatic.” You agree with Harris that this is a myth. Nothing in what Harris writes here suggests any sort of dogmatism.

4. “Atheists think everything arose by chance.” You agree with Harris that this is a myth. (This is starting to get boring.)

5. “Atheism has no connection to science.” Here, it’s not all that clear what you’re saying. First, you put up a straw man and tear it down. Do you deny that, as Harris states, “…an engagement with scientific thinking tends to erode, rather than support, religious faith.”? Before there can be peer pressure, there has to be a majority viewpoint among one’s peers. Do you really think quibbling over the definition of “a personal God” will eliminate the disproportion?

6. “Atheists are arrogant.” You agree with Harris that this is a myth: atheists as a group are not arrogant. I was also going to write, “and atheism is not inherently an arrogant viewpoint,” but maybe you wouldn’t agree with this (which I would consider unfortunate). You write, “They don't recognize the existence of anyone superior to themselves to whom they are accountable.” Most of the atheists I know hold themselves accountable to standards of behavior arising from outside of themselves. The fact that they don’t believe these to have been installed by some universal legislator doesn’t not make them the slightest bit arrogant.
Do you deny that people of faith frequently “praise themselves for their humility, while claiming to know facts about cosmology, chemistry and biology that no scientist knows.”? Do you consider this a reasonable thing for them to do?

7. “Atheists are closed to spiritual experience.” You seem to concede that this is a myth, without bothering to address it directly.

You seem to think there could be a scientific method not, as you say, “circumscribed by methodological naturalism”. Am I being dogmatic in considering this problematical?

I don’t know what Paul saw on the road to Damascus. I have never been “appeared to hellishly”. Have you? If this did happen to you, and you were in a condition conducive to rational thought, would you consider explanations other than supernatural ones?

8. “Atheists believe that there is nothing beyond human life and human understanding.” Do you concede the point in your first sentence?

“But a scientistic epistemology says that we could potentially understand everything if we just did enough science.” Perhaps your scientific epistemology says this. I don’t see that Harris – or anyone else I can think of – is committed to it. Myself, I suspect that there are facts about the universe that human beings will not discover due to their own cognitive limitations. It’s a deeper question than can be done justice here.

9. “Atheists ignore the fact that religion is extremely beneficial to society.” You agree with Harris that this is a myth.

10. “Atheism provides no basis for morality.” As you hint, Harris might have been more precise by saying, “Atheism allows no basis for morality,” and you seem to deny this (agreeing with Harris).

You draw the inference,

1. Wilberforce, Douglass, and Garrison were Christians.
2. Therefore “… the idea that the meanest slave has a soul that Christ died to save is the idea that eventually provided the moral foundations for the abolition of slavery.”

You know better than to do that.

What is the source of morality in a universe without God? That’s a deeper question than I can address at the moment, and, as I’ve said, I don’t have a fully worked-out metaethical standpoint. The need to support my family kept me from embarking on the deep study of Brink, Sturgeon, Darwall, Gibbard, Blackburn, and others that I might otherwise have done.

To score the engagement: I get six cases of outright agreement (1, 2, 3, 4, 6, and 9); two cases where I’m pretty sure of tacit or implicit agreement (7 and 10), and two cases where I simply can’t be sure (5 and 8). Perhaps we should be calling you “The Fifth Horseman” ;)