Sam Harris, Cut the Crap!
Sam Harris is at it again, in God’s dupes, an op-ed inspired by Pete Stark, the Democrat who amazingly appears to be the first member of the US Congress ever to publicly admit nontheism (that his nontheism is newsworthy shows how far USA has to go; thankfully I don’t live there, but that’s another story). Once again, he’s handing out blame to groups. He gives no reasons for the reader to agree with what he says, though he still acts as if it is an objective, established truth. I could understand his brevity because this is a short piece, but this is far from the only time and so far I haven’t seen any backing of his claims. I haven’t read his books, so it might be that he tries to justify it there, but at least of what I have read, there is no justification whatsoever.
The problem is that wherever one stands on this continuum, one inadvertently shelters those who are more fanatical than oneself from criticism. Ordinary fundamentalist Christians, by maintaining that the Bible is the perfect word of God, inadvertently support the Dominionists — men and women who, by the millions, are quietly working to turn our country into a totalitarian theocracy reminiscent of John Calvin’s Geneva. Christian moderates, by their lingering attachment to the unique divinity of Jesus, protect the faith of fundamentalists from public scorn. Christian liberals — who aren’t sure what they believe but just love the experience of going to church occasionally — deny the moderates a proper collision with scientific rationality. And in this way centuries have come and gone without an honest word being spoken about God in our society.
This is just unbelievably weak. He goes off handing out the blame for the opinions and actions of extremists to people who have never supported extremists, have never done what they do, have never tried to defend it but have rather taken the position that what extremists do is out of a misunderstanding of what their religion stands for. And he does this without even trying to justify it or prove any connection at all. The question of whether the extremists actually are basing their actions on a misunderstanding, an issue Harris has dealt with many times, is irrelevant. He has failed to address the important point, namely that they do take efforts to distance themselves from the extremists. The question is not one of theology. We don’t care what theological interpretations of scripture inspired them to do and opine as they do. In my, and no doubt Harris’ opinion, the Bible is pure mythology and believers are deluded however they interpret it.
The faith of the fundamentalists is a non-issue, really. Sure, we want people to be rational. Sure, we’d like for people to think critically. But the importance of faith wanes in comparison to actions. Sam Harris criticizes theists not only for their blind faith, but more importantly for their actions. Theism, in itself, is not a religion. We can no doubt have interesting conversations about the validity of theistic faith and the state of their evidence, as we have done on this blog and in many other fora. But the theism itself is not what makes people mean, violent, oppressing and elitist. The theism itself is no more important than atheism is for an atheist. As atheists are fond of underlining, atheism is simply the absence of theistic belief and carries no rituals, ethics, philosophy, or anything. We should perhaps be better to underline that theism, too, is devoid of any rituals, ethics, philosophy or anything per se.
So, it is the actions and influence that matter. If moderate faith leads to acceptance or immunity of bad actions provoked by more extreme faith, it can indeed be said to be dangerous. Harris never gives us anything but his gut feeling to go on, and as a champion of critical thinking surely understands, a gut feeling is not good evidence. He attacks fundamentalist believers, fundamentalist meaning those who maintain biblical inerrancy. They, he says, “inadvertently support the Dominionists — men and women who, by the millions, are quietly working to turn our country into a totalitarian theocracy reminiscent of John Calvin’s Geneva.” What?! I think that maintaining biblical inerrancy in this day and age is a stupid, ignorant attitude. However, what the hell does that have to do with turning the US into a totalitarian theocracy? I’m eagerly awaiting a logically valid argument leading from belief in biblical inerrancy to the goal of turning a country into a totalitarian theocracy. Of course, as any sensible reader will know, there is no such line and Harris’ assertion is laughably wrong.
Harris continues his attack, this time descending on religious moderates. Christian moderates, he says, “by their lingering attachment to the unique divinity of Jesus, protect the faith of fundamentalists from public scorn.” This again is stupid. The faith is not the thing that leads to fundamentalism. As Harris, when talking about “moderate” believers — i.e. believers who are not fundamentalists — himself acknowledges, it’s possible to be a believer without being a fundamentalist. This means that theistic faith isn’t the reason fundamentalists are fundamentalists. It means that the faith of fundamentalists is a non-issue. The issue is not the theistic faith, but rather the extreme opinions and actions of some fundamentalists. These are absolutely not protected from public scorn. Moderate theists do take measures to distance themselves from extreme actions and opinions. They defend themselves by saying that the fundamentalists’ faith is wrong. This in itself isn’t a very good defence, but it shows that they have a different faith, one that while possibly no more justified than the fundamentalist faith is nonetheless distinct.
But Harris is far from done. “Christian liberals”, he continues,” — who aren’t sure what they believe but just love the experience of going to church occasionally — deny the moderates a proper collision with scientific rationality.” Once again, I feel the need for some extreme outcry (hence the three exclamation marks at the end of the next sentence). What?!!! Does Harris want to force the conflicts between religion and science down the throats of believers? Newsflash: people don’t care. That’s right. The moderates don’t care about the conflicts between religion and science. Most of the time, they want to have both, and most of the time, they stay out of the way. It is their right. If they want to be ignorant of the conflicts between faith and science, then hey, by all means, let them be ignorant! It’s only when they actively oppose science that could be for everyone’s good that their ignorance becomes a problem. And really, how often is it that moderate believers oppose science? And how often, when they oppose science, do they actually do something about it besides mumbling under their breaths? When they do, it is a problem, and only then should we deal with it.
Let’s return to the blame, so to speak. Harris wants to blame moderates for something they have done nothing to support. Does he not realize how incredibly stupid that is?
You might have heard about those pesky militant extreme atheists, the ones who — not by virtue of their atheism, in the same way as believers don’t become fundamentalists by virtue of their theism — harass theists, want religion banned, want parents punished for simply explaining their beliefs to their children, believe that any critique of scientific theories is stupid, and so on. They are, believe it or not, in the minority. Really. But nevertheless, their extreme opinions and actions present a problem, not only for theists, but for atheists who might come to be associated with them. The blame for this immature, stupid behavior should rightfully be handed to the moderate atheists. Simply by standing up for the right not to believe, they support this extremist form of disbelief that is every bit as dogmatic and harmful as extreme theism. Moderate atheists should move to faith immediately! How can we bear the horrible influence their disbelief and pride of it has on extreme atheists?! Of course, by now readers should have realized that this is exactly what Harris is saying about religious moderates, and that Harris is every bit as unfair to religious moderates as I was to atheistic moderates in the last paragraph.
To top it off, Harris questions the honesty of believers. We are to think that “everything of value that people get from religion can be had more honestly, without presuming anything on insufficient evidence.” Atheists are somehow “more honest”. Now, what honesty would that be? Intellectual? People generally tend to avoid the most violent, ugly parts of their scripture, for good reason. For whatever reason, they have decided that those parts are wrong, or irrelevant, or that the god in those passages has somehow transformed. But they truly believe that they should be good because a loving god wants them to. We may think it absurd, but it is an honest mistake.
I’d really, really like to see some scientific evidence for these bombastic claims. As I happen to live in a country where most people are areligious (not necessarily atheistic, but generally indifferent to religious rituals) or moderate in their belief, I witness the effects of moderate theism every day. That is to say, I don’t see anything. There is simply no measurable effect. The few fundamentalists and extremists are, whenever they appear in media or do something horrible, which isn’t very often, attacked from every corner, by atheists and theists alike. During the Muhammad caricature uproar, I can’t remember hearing anyone defending the extreme actions. Sure, many muslims were hurt. The editor of Magazinet, the Christian magazine that was the first to publish the caricatures in Norway, did get harassed. But muslims took care to distance themselves from it.
I’m going to do throw out the gravest insult you can give an atheist. The I-word (acutally, there are three of them). Sam Harris, in his irrational attack on religion, has displayed an extreme ignorance towards reality. In Harris’ little bubble he calls reality, religion is the single cause of evil in the world, and moderates are to blame for extremists. So, Sam Harris, cut the crap! You insult the intelligence of your readers (theists and atheists alike) when you throw out these illogical, irrational and ignorant claims. Back it up! Show some competence in the structure of logical arguments! Show some maturity! I don’t want to be associated with these attacks of yours.
Filed under: atheism, ethics, religion, respect | 35 Comments
-
Recent Comments
angie on Empire State Building, Evoluti… Ereredync on Empire State Building, Evoluti… phil on Empire State Building, Evoluti… Avil on The Blog Is Dead Kevin Trudeu on Starting Your Own Religion: a …
I’m sorry, but while I don’t agree with everything Harris says, I also don’t agree with you here. Quite often, moderates *do* protect fundamentalists. They never say “you don’t speak for Christianity / Islam”. There are never mass protests of Muslims against Muslim terrorists. There were no crowds of them saying that the Muhammad cartoons were OK, and that the fundamentalists were crazy.
They also believe that religious beliefs can never be criticized, that they’re always to be “taboo”.
A moderate can never criticize a fundamentalist using scripture, as scripture is almost always on the side of the fundie. What can a moderate say? “Yes, the word of God tells us to kill homosexuals, but I know better than God”?
Harris may be irrational in other aspects (his new age “spirituality”, for instance, and his implication that the Christian fundies are the only thing protecting the west from the Muslim fundies), but I don’t think that is the case here.
Some do. Others at least say “you don’t speak for my understanding of Christianity/Islam.”
Perhaps there should be. However, I think part of the reason is that many muslims feel that the extremists are justified in their attitude if not in their actions. They didn’t feel that the cartoons were OK. I disagree, but I won’t blame all those who silently disagreed or wrote angry newspaper pieces or let themselves be interviewed on tv for those who decide to burn down embasseys, attack shops, and so on. I may disagree with their opinions, but as long as they don’t act on them, I can’t blame them.
Some do, some don’t. It’s easy to lump everyone together under a term, such as “moderates”, but they don’t all share this opinion. It’s extremely unfair to judge everyone by some.
They believe that some parts of scripture are a work of the people of their time, not God. When you open for errors, it’s easy to get away from this. This view might not be easy to defend rationally, but then again I’ve never found a faith that is. Moderates use many lines of attack towards the fundamentalists. Some point out that inerrancy is absurd. Some feel that their moral sense has been given to them by God, and so they do sometimes know better than the writers of the Bible. Some say that a loving God would never allow for such evil things. Some have other reasons. The substance of their attack is not the issue here, because it is, at least in my view, a dispute over two equally irrational positions. The importance is on the actual attack. The fact that the moderates don’t agree with the faith and practice of fundamentalists is reason enough not to blame them. How can you blame someone for the actions of others, especially when they have done nothing to support it and often are actively against it? As I said, I’d really like some real scientific evidence on this one.
It’s absurd to blame a group for what another group has said and done. To maintain a faith and protect that right cannot and should not be equated with defending anything that might be said or done in the name of faith.
I suggest you read his books (I’ve only read his last one); they address all of your arguments pretty soundly. You overlook the fact that fundamentally what Harris is arguing against is intellectual dishonesty. i.e. in every other aspect of our discourse we don’t let people makes claims based on insufficient evidence. Why, in the context of religion, do we all of a sudden suspend critical thinking? This is the 21st century for christ’s sake; have we learned nothing?? There’s absolutely no good reason to believe in a personal god. That’s it. Case closed.
Again – you should read his work in its entirety (it’s only two books!) if you’re going to go to such lengths to critique it.
I have to weigh in here and say that Harris is not “blaming” moderates. He is saying they create a climate where the absurd claims of theism in general are considered off-limits to evaluation and criticism, even by moderates. His main complaint is not that they are accepted, but that they are put off-limits to intellectual inquiry.
There are many examples of dangerous lines of thought, such as:
1) “It’s too late to stop global warming anyway, so let’s just keep going as we were and hope things don’t get too bad while we’re alive. The whole thing will be a problem for future generations, and it doesn’t affect me.”
2) “People’s beliefs are their own business, we shouldn’t go around trying to change them. Everyone has beliefs, leave people alone.”
I use this example to show how certain modes of thought can be downright destructive, even if people don’t do anything about them. In example 1, a mode of thinking stops action. In example 2, a mode of thinking stops serious intellectual inquiry into matters which make a huge difference in our society–i.e. god-belief.
Harris is really good and his books are worth a read. While he may seem extreme upon first consideration (re: moderates), you gotta admit he has a point.
Maroonblazer, I plan to read his books, but I have no intention to suspend any critiques I might have until I due. Harris often talks in public, and this post is based in its entirety on that. He has had lots of chances to clarify, and he has seized none of them.
If Harris’ main point was that this is intellectual dishonesty, he should come right out and say it, and not concern himself further with who protects who. That’s not what he does. He goes on about dishonesty, never clarifying what kind of dishonesty he’s talking about, and he also attacks many people for something they have never done. That’s downright dishonest.
BlackSun, you said:
This is exactly what Harris does. He blames the moderates for creating “a climate where the absurd claims of theism in general are considered off-limits to evaluation and criticism”. He blames them for the opinions and actions of fundamentalists. In other words, by protecting faith they are protecting every perverse application of it, is that it? Now, I agree that theistic claims shouldn’t be off-limits, but I don’t see how anyone can seriously think that just because someone wants to protect their absurd claims, they must also protect the absurd claims of others. It may be intellectually dishonest, but that doesn’t mean they are to blame.
In example 1, the line of thought can be considered destructive if someone doesn’t act on it. Example 2, on the other hand, is only destructive when someone acts on them, e.g. actively opposes serious inquiry into god-belief or criticism of extremists. Many moderates never do anything actively. You don’t often see moderates rushing in to protect the extremists, the ones who are really hurting society. I certainly can’t remember the last time a moderate said something like “we got to respect faith, therefore you shouldn’t critizice extremes.” Can you? The fact that they’re overprotective with regard to their strange beliefs in no way qualifies as an excuse for other people’s strange beliefs.
This is more of a cultural thing. As I said, I live in a country were practically everyone is a moderate (or atheist). Still, we don’t see the kind of fundamentalism, and when we do, moderates always distance themselves from it. The problem, such as it is, has nothing to do with the presence of moderates.
If Sam Harris is prepared to blame moderates for their creating a climate in which fundamentalism can thrive, he should accept the blame for creating a climate in which extreme anti-religionists can thrive. It’s absurd, really, that you should be blamed for creating a climate in which people you actively oppose can thrive.
As evidences by the existence of moderates, theistic faith per se isn’t the cause of fundamentalism. While it is unfortunate that some views are seen as immune to criticism, it is a totally separate issue from fundamentalism and the two shouldn’t be conflated.
Simen said: “I plan to read his books, but I have no intention to suspend any critiques I might have until I due. Harris often talks in public, and this post is based in its entirety on that. He has had lots of chances to clarify, and he has seized none of them.”
That’s incorrect. He has seized them, in his latest book in particular.
Simen said: “If Harris’ main point was that this is intellectual dishonesty, he should come right out and say it…That’s not what he does. He goes on about dishonesty, never clarifying what kind of dishonesty he’s talking about, and he also attacks many people for something they have never done. That’s downright dishonest.”
Again, if you’re not going to bother to read his published work or at least listen to a few of the lectures available online then your criticism just sounds uninformed.
Re “intellecutal dishonesty”, for starters take a look/listen to: http://youtube.com/watch?v=yyPdQ-VRjA0
then: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s8dv7OUKjeE
and then the last two minutes of: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I2RlmiF_zy4
This is just scratching the surface but it/he addresses the issues you purport he’s not addressing.
“In other words, by protecting faith they are protecting every perverse application of it, is that it?”
It’s narrower than that. He’s not saying that moderate believers “in general” are providing cover for all fundamentalists, but rather than moderate Protestants are providing cover for fundamentalist Christians, moderate Muslims are providing cover for fundamentalist Muslims, etc. A person only provides cover for someone on the same continuum of the same ideology, not for someone in some other ideological system.
Moreover, he specifically says that one shelters more extreme brethren “from criticism.” Thus the perverse applications of faith are being “sheltered” from being criticized as much as they might otherwise be – and thus allowed to continue or expand more than they otherwise would.
“I certainly can’t remember the last time a moderate said something like “we got to respect faith, therefore you shouldn’t critizice extremes.” Can you?”
No, but I can remember that Harris used the word “inadvertent,” whereas what you describe is a deliberate act of providing cover. From beginning to end, you misrepresent Harris – I’ve only touched on a couple of examples. It’s atrocious, frankly.
Maroonblazer said:
Harris is a public speaker. He often writes and speaks publicly. I can’t believe he’s too stupid to understand that he can’t rely on his audience having heard and read everything he’s said and written. I have read and heard some of what he’s said. I’m not going to run off looking at every single thing he has ever said or written in the hope that there might be some rationale.
Joe,
What? So faith isn’t the problem? What, then, is the problem? Because moderates don’t agree with the opinions and actions of fundamentalists, and they never give that impression either. If the artificial respect faith has acquired isn’t what provides this climate for fundamentalists to thrive in, what is? What else, besides their faith in Jesus or Allah is it they share? And how the hell does this lead to fundamentalism?
Extremes always attract criticism. The moderates don’t like it any more than we do. Exactly what is the connection here? The only thing that unifies the moderates and the fundamentalists is their faith. Their views and actions differ.
Harris really needs to back up his claims. Northern Europe is evidence that it’s quite possible to have a community of religious moderates and almost no fundamentalism. There is no shelter from criticism here. I haven’t seen any scientific evidence that there is a real connection here. If the US and the Middle East are good climates for fundamentalism, the problem lies not with the moderates but other, cultural reasons.
It’s absurd to blame people for the actions of others. That is essentially what Harris does. He says the moderates influence society such that fundamentalists can thrive. I see no evidence for that. This is blame. I wonder when Harris is going to admit that he inadvertedly shelters the extreme displays of anti-religion by criticizing religion. Otherwise, he’s applying unfair double standards.
“So faith isn’t the problem?”
No, Harris does describe faith as a problem – it’s just not the specific problem here. The problem here is with holding beliefs that the extremists rely upon, and then preventing extensive critique of those beliefs – thus preventing a more productive critique of extremism.
“And how the hell does this lead to fundamentalism?”
He doesn’t say that moderate religion “leads to fundamentalism.” Can’t you read?
“Northern Europe is evidence that it’s quite possible to have a community of religious moderates and almost no fundamentalism.”
Harris doesn’t claim that moderate religious belief necessarily leads to fundamentalism. Stop trying to attack Harris for things he hasn’t said.
“There is no shelter from criticism here.”
And maybe that’s one reason why you don’t have as much of a problem with fundamentalism?
“It’s absurd to blame people for the actions of others.”
It’s dishonest and stupid to put words in others’ mouths. Harris doesn’t blame moderates for the actions of others. Saying that people inadvertently create conditions that allow others, whom they dislike, to exist is not “blame.”
Try writing a new blog post where you actually address what Harris really says, instead of the words you prefer to put in his mouth. Or is that too hard for you? Maybe if you stuck with his words (not that you’ve troubled yourself to read many of them), you wouldn’t have as much to complain about?
But those beliefs have nothing to do with extremism! There is a correlation between some of the beliefs moderates hold and those extremists hold. That’s it. However much you criticize the moderates, the extremists won’t listen. They’re already far beyond help (note: this doesn’t mean I’m saying we shouldn’t criticize them). Their belief isn’t going to change anytime soon. And the beliefs they share with moderates are irrelevant to their extremism. Moderates are often the first to criticize them. That they don’t allow for criticism of their own beliefs is a problem when it happens, but it’s a different problem.
Am I to believe that whenever I hold a belief that some kind of extremists rely upon, I’m preventing critique of the extremists? Sorry, I just don’t buy it. All of us probably hold some beliefs that extremists of one kind or another rely upon. Some of us, irrational as we are, try to protect those beliefs from constructive criticism. Are we then indirectly responsible for the existence of extremists, because we create a climate in which extremism can thrive? It is a problem, but it’s a different problem. There are many moderates who allow for criticism of their religion, so long as it’s not rude, and there are many more who take no active measures to prevent it. There are those who do, but they protect only their views, not the extreme ones.
Moderates are entirely right to say that one shouldn’t criticize them for extremists. They’re entirely right to say that extremism is a display of some other, perverted version of their faith. They may be intellectually dishonest or not, depending on their reasons for rejecting fundamentalism, but it is nonetheless true that it is not their faith that’s in question.
There are two kinds of animal rights activists. There are the peaceful ones, and then there are those who break the law trying to reach their goals, such as illegally setting free animals from farms etc. Now, should the peaceful activists be attacked for the existence of violent ones? After all, some of them are pretty protective wrt. their beliefs. It’s the same thing. You can argue that the peaceful ones, holding the views that the violent ones depend on and protecting them, are responsible for creating an environment in which the violent ones can exist and thrive. Similarly, Harris himself, holding some (peaceful, I presume) anti-religion thoughts (such as that religion of any flavor hurts society) can the held indirectly responsible for more extreme forms of anti-religion. It makes absolutely no sense at all.
He says that, by unwittingly sheltering the more extreme forms of faith when they protect theirs, moderates create an environment where extremism can grow and become more common than it otherwise would. In other words, he blames them indirectly for the existence and prominence of extremism he observes in society. So, by trying to protect their beliefs, they cause more extremism. The cause-effect chain is simple. Protecting their faith leads to less criticism of their faith, parts of which the extremists share. Less criticism of extremists leads to more extremism.
I’m pointing out that the faith they share with the moderates has nothing to do with why extemists become extremists. There’s no cause and effect chain here. Just like their opinion on a random movie is irrelevant to their extremism, so is their theistic faith. We don’t go about attacking those who share movie taste with the extremists because it’s totally irrelevant. Similarly, belief in Jesus or Buddha or Allah or Tor or Zeus has nothing to do with belief in extreme doctrines or jihad. We need to make a distinction here.
It seems that moderates, simply by existing, provide an added danger of the occurrence of extremism. The only way Harris is gonna let them go is if they all become atheists. We both know that’s not gonna happen, and it’s not necessary either. We need to weed out the negative effects that extremism cause, but that doesn’t mean we need to throw out the baby with the bath water. Not all religion leads to extreme religion.
Why do you think that is? It’s a cultural thing. Nothing to do with moderates or the lack of them.
Isn’t it? Is it not Harris’ opinion that by creating conditions where extremism can flourish, moderates indirectly cause there to be more extremists? I call it blame. Whatever you call it is irrelevant.
I’ve pointed out that Harris himself holds some beliefs that extremists rely upon, and he does protect them, but you seem to think he’s not inadvertedly creating conditions where others, whom we dislike (violent anti-religionists, for instance), can exist. I’ve pointed out that if moderates by protecting their faith create a cradle for extremists to grow in, we should expect to see it in all societies where there are moderates. As I’ve shown, that’s not the case at all. Whatever conditions lead to the outbreak of extremism, they are not simply protecting moderate belief.
I haven’t written a single word about those writings by Harris I have not read. You seem to think he’s supporting his views better elsewhere. Perhaps you’d like to point out where, and what he says that differs from “moderate believers inadvertently create conditions that allow extremists to exist”.
Moderates do at least one thing which promotes theocracy: They turn out in large numbers to vote for religious-minded candidates. That alone is enough for me to want to oppose moderate religion.
Until you stop the core of belief itself, you will never stop the drive for theocracy. A moderate may contribute only 20% of their energy to religious politics, while a fanatic contributes 100%. But both are promoting false and baseless beliefs–projected into our political system, held on insufficient evidence, and which lead to illogical and destructive actions for society as a whole.
This is Harris’ main point. He supports this view very well in “The End of Faith.”
BlackSun, attack them for that, not for their moderate religion. Not all moderates do, and those who do don’t just because they’re religious, but because they have other opinions as well.
My perspective is that religion is true, because it is experienced. But if you have not experienced something it does not mean it is not true for others.
I have ways of speaking to refer to things that I can perceive and you can too, but you may not have learned how. This is as anything a skill, to translate what we can feel into words that describe them, the job of a poet or a scientist. The proof is in the testability, the series of steps which if followed yield a result reliably similar to that which has been described.
Religion is true if it describes the story that brought people to understand how they exist in the world and with one another, and how to sustain civilization. This is a story that of necessity goes on over generations and hundreds and thousands of years and even longer, it is the story of our ancestors and their ancestors before them. It is how we survive as a species.
Do you want a practical knowledge? Make bread. Do it without adding yeast, but find one from the environment. Learn how the Hebrew people searched for Manna in the desert, and you will be doing the same thing.
Our modern consciousness was formed (the story began) about 6,000 years ago. I speak only for my own culture, there may be others older or younger, but the Judeo-Christian story also dates from that time of creation. It is the creation of the intellect, the experience of God, and language. A thousand years is a day of creation. It’s metaphor and true, because we make it true by enacting it like players would do a Shakespearean script.
If you know how the story is to unfold, and you know where you are in the script, you have a very good idea what to expect, and that very useful knowledge to have.
If you can figure out your own part in the script, you can do magic. But it’s nothing you cannot understand and explain scientifically, once you realize that when A is saying X, B is doing Y, and neither A nor B have to have ever met or corresponded in any way, yet X and Y both happen at the same time and it appears a miracle. It is. I’m just telling you how it can be done when you have a few thousand years to run the pattern. None of us know how it was done, but some of us are able to see a little bit of it.
Is this something you want to hear about Simen?
Whg, I’m not really following. I don’t see what you mean by “religion is true”. Religion’s truth claims in the land of science certainly are not true in any sense of the word. Redefining truth to fit religion is obviously possible, but it’s also stupid, because you’re no longer comparing apples to apples.
The issue at hand, as it were, is not the truth value of any particular or all religion, but rather its effect on society.
Well, the effect on society is much as the effect on a computer of a program written in a language that it knows how to interpret and perform.
I’m saying you can write scripts that people act out, and these scripts have been written and are being acted out. So they are made true, in the same way as if I say, “I will have an apple for lunch,” and believe it decisively to be true, it becomes true because I will indeed then have an apple for lunch.
The thing is, you know your own mind and there is nothing mysterious about the example of planning your own lunch. But if the plan for your lunch Today was written before you were born, and you may or may not even know that, and other people are also planning to be bringing things and doing things at the same time, and none of you necessarily know what the others are doing, but somehow it happens all at once and causes something that looks like a miracle.
Now in this moment the person with the script shows the next act.
Religion is self-fulfilling.
It is also purposeful, and with a very important educational objective that you will see when science and religion meet and combine intelligently.
I can understand the self-fulfillment part. Not to mention all the prophecies that didn’t come true at all.
Prophecy is in the mind of the interpreter.
Simen:
I’m sorry I missed this post when it was fresh. I’ve been in Vancouver for the past four days. (And now you’re away from a computer, so you won’t likely see my comment for a few days.)
I’ve been following the debate over theism between Sam Harris and Andrew Sullivan with interest. For the most part, I think Harris has gotten the better of the argument; Sullivan hasn’t been very strategic in choosing his positions.
I’d like to see Sullivan challenge Harris on precisely the point that you object to. Harris seriously maintains that moderate Christianity is just as objectionable as fundamentalist Christianity. I think that’s bullshit. You might just as well argue that anyone who voted for President Bush in 2000 is personally responsible for all the atrocities of the Iraq war.
Some of the commenters, above, have disagreed with your interpretation of Harris’s position. To clarify, here’s a quote from a pertinent post by Harris:
While religious moderates don’t fly planes into buildings, or organize their lives around apocalyptic prophecy, they refuse to deeply question the preposterous ideas of those who do. Moderates neither submit to the real demands of scripture nor draw fully honest inferences from the growing testimony of science. In attempting to find a middle ground between religious dogmatism and intellectual honesty, it seems to me that religious moderates betray faith and reason equally.
Part of the quote speaks to Maroonblazer’s point, that all theism is based on insufficient evidence. (A debatable point, but it’s certainly one of Harris’s core arguments.) But what about the first sentence, which asserts that moderates refuse to deeply question the preposterous ideas of those who commit atrocities like 9/11?
I am a religious moderate, and I consistently fight a battle on two fronts: against atheists, who argue that all forms of theism are equally intellectually bankrupt; and against fundamentalists, who argue that the Bible (or the Qur’an) is inerrant and society must be forcibly conformed to its dictates. (For example, see my critique Left Behind Games.)
Let me point out that Jesus advocated non-violence. Gandhi was not a Christian but he learned his tactics of non-violent resistance from Jesus and Tolstoy. Similarly, St. Paul says that judgement is God’s prerogative, and forbids us to arrogate that role to ourselves. (Here Paul is alluding to both an Old Testament passage in Proverbs and to Jesus’ message in the sermon on the mount.) When I point out such things, I am indeed deeply questioning the preposterous ideas of those who justify violence in the name of religion.
This isn’t sufficient for Harris’s tastes, because he wants moderates to repudiate religion altogether. But Harris denies the plain fact that “moderate” Christians can and do repudiate the fundamentalist worldview.
Here’s the thing: you live in Norway, and I live in Canada. The USA is a very different society. Religion is so politicized, and politics are so religion-ized, that I sympathize with Americans like Harris who want to dump all theists into the same trash bin.
Nonetheless, in the final analysis, Harris is wrong. Whether I believe on insufficient evidence is a point over which reasonable people can reasonably disagree. But it is absurd to maintain that religious moderates fail to subject fundamentalism to a robust critique.
An afterthought —
I think it’s fair to summarize Harris’s position as, Moderates are enablers of fundamentalism.
Stephen, I’m having a last look around the ‘net before I go, so I have read your comment
I understand that, and this is partly why I disagree with Harris. I live in a society where pretty much everyone is a moderate or liberal, and there are pretty much no fundamentalists. Further, there’s very much the same “religion must be respected” attitude. Recently there was some fuzz about a gay priest being denied a job he’d already gotten because of his sexual orientation. Even many homosexuals, while disagreeing with the gay haters, still thought that this opinion should be respected simply for being religious. What I’m getting at here is that if these were the reasons why fundamentalism seems to be so popular in the USA and elsewhere in the world, we would expect it to happen everywhere this kind of attitude is common. But that’s not what I’m seeing.
This reminds me of that old Einstein quote, “The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do evil, but because of those who look on and do nothing.” Sam Harris and his supporters clearly believe that moderates and liberals are such people who look on and do nothing. He doesn’t say what he wants them to do, besides giving up their faith. While I strongly disagree that there is a good basis for believing in Jesus as messiah and such things, I can’t see moderates giving up their faith anytime soon. We’ve got to be realistic here. Atheists and moderate believers should be allies when fighting against the extreme forms of faith that harm society. I don’t see this as a good way of offering a hand and saying “let’s cooperate.”
Your summary, Moderates are enablers of fundamentalism, is basically what I got worked up about. I call this blame. Other commenters took issue with this word. Whatever you call it, I think it’s unfair.
I’ll no doubt get back to this topic at a later time. Until then, I’ll think about what you and other commenters have said. While I still think that my interpretation of what Harris said was pretty accurate, others seem to agree. I can’t see significant differences between blaming moderates for the existence of fundamentalists and criticizing them for “holding beliefs that the extremists rely upon, and then preventing extensive critique of those beliefs – thus preventing a more productive critique of extremism” as per Joe’s comment (#10) above.
Until then, thanks to everyone who voiced their opinion!
Thanks for the lively debate! It seems that it stuck going around the issue of “Moderates are enablers of fundamentalism” without really defining “enablers.” To me the core problem here is the point made earlier about intellectual honesty — it’s underutilized by dogmatic theists and atheists alike. I think that Harris’ arguments are fair but a bit too strongly worded; probably due to having to overcome the 90%+ of Americans who don’t even realize that this is a problem — a BIG problem.
In the US, there seems to be far too many intellectually lazy folks that shouldn’t even be allowed to vote (probably elsewhere too). These people are then manipulated by the Religious Right who may be the single strongest influence on American politics, possibly second only to the AARP. Since there is no strong voice opposing the Religious Right it makes us wonder where are all the moderates out there. While they may be just trying to get by like the rest of us, it certainly *appears* like fundamentalists are not being critiqued — in fact, they get unprecendented access to GW, arguably the most powerful man on the planet. This should make everyone more than a little nervous, even if you’re in Canada or Norway.
As Stephen Colbert puts it, they “think from their gut” and don’t really care about the facts. Well, that sounds like most of the religious folks you see and hear although I doubt that it represents any actual majority. I think that we need to turn this around and strongly focus on intellectual honesty. The problem is that most religious moderates don’t want to reflect much on how factually unsupported their faith is so through their natural human weakness, they deflect criticism at faith in general not realizing that this provides protection for the fundamentalists.
A good friend of mine is a Mormon who regularly tries to use reason to explain issues that are important to other Mormons, including their own doctrines. You would be surprised how quickly he is shunned from any conversations due to the fear from their unexamined belief. If more folks were like him, or apparently like the intelligent folks contributing to this thread, I’d be less concerned.
If moderates aren’t willing to give up their faith or religion — not that I think they should (as much as I might like it) — then what *can* we ask of them to help shine the light of rationality upon the fundamentalists to hopefully drive them back into the shadows? Can’t we ask them to be more honest about the likelihood of angels, devils, virgins, hell and the like? Can’t we ask them to acknowledge that they are making incredible leaps of faith to believe in things upon insufficient evidence? Things that, taken as truths about this world only increase human suffering?
How is it that Catholics allow abstinence only education in Africa denying condoms for people at high risk for AIDS? Isn’t this an example of misplaced morality that someone like Jesus would be against? How do we start a dialog about common morality that is not based upon scripture?
How do we reach out to followers of Islam and help them?
How do we start to undo all of the damage currently being done in the name of religion or sheltered by religious thought?
I’d like to hear your comments.
There’s every reason to be concerned about the influence that the religious right movement has in the US. I don’t think I’ve ever implied otherwise. So long as USA is the most powerful country in the world, and so long as its foreign policy is so aggressive, everyone has every reason to be concerned about what groups have influence on its policies. That’s not the issue here.
I also agree that intellectual honesty is valuable. We have every right to demand it from others the second their illogical beliefs start to influence society, which is to say all the time. We have every right to demand that Catholics and other religious groups stop with their illogical, dangerous practices or give a decent justification, where “decent justification” is taken to be something more than “my book says so”.
All this I agree with.
What I disagree with is that this kind of thinking alone is enabling fundamentalism. This kind of thinking is common in just about all societies. If this kind of intellectual dishonesty was enabling fundamentalism, we’d expect to see a lot more fundamentalism outside the US. This kind of intellectual dishonesty is common in Europe too, but in Europe in general and Northern Europe in particular, fundamentalism is very rare. This indicates that whatever it is that’s causing fundamentalism to have influence, it’s got to be something else primarily.
I have a problem with Harris’ baseless speculation. He speculates without providing any evidence or justification. I have provided some justification for my view, but people ignore it.
“2) “People’s beliefs are their own business, we shouldn’t go around trying to change them. Everyone has beliefs, leave people alone.”
I use this example to show how certain modes of thought can be downright destructive, even if people don’t do anything about them. In example 1, a mode of thinking stops action. In example 2, a mode of thinking stops serious intellectual inquiry into matters which make a huge difference in our society–i.e. god-belief.”
So basically, if you don’t like someone’s beliefs, even if they are not hurting anyone, it’s okay to harass them and get into their business. Because you “know better”. Joseph Stalin said the same thing. Would you want a religous doing that to an athiest? No. So drop the double standard. You can’t have it both ways. You can’t force people to believe what you want-this is a free country.
How do we reach out to followers of Islam and help them?
How do we start to undo all of the damage currently being done in the name of religion or sheltered by religious thought?
I’d like to hear your comments.
I agree with a lot of what you said. To answer your question, you can start by not acting like all believers are mentally deficient, and not lump us all into one category (I don’t mean you in particular, I mean people like Harris). There are many liberal catholics who are trying to change the church’s position on birth control. You could start by engaging them and focusing on what you have in common
Just wanted to say Simen you make very good, rational, and open minded arguments. Thank you