Sam Harris Needs to Make His Point Clearer
Oct. 5th, 2006 10:04 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jamesqCribbed from ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
catalytic.
Sam Harris makes an interesting case for rationalism against religious beliefs.
But he doesn't go far enough.
Here's a synopsis of what he says: Religious moderates allow religious fundamentalists to flourish because they provide a buffer between the fundamentalists and the rationalists who would oppose them. By allowing religious beliefs to be considered different from other beliefs, we've put ourselves in the position of not being able to call them on their irrational beliefs.
Or to be more blunt, if someone said that 2+2=5 you would rightly call BS on them because what they believe flies in the face of mathematics. If they say "God created the universe in six days" we can't call BS because it's a religious belief.
Of course, I routinely call BS when someone says something like that to me. And what often happens is I'm admonished for it from my friends who want to seem inclusive.
So where does Harris go wrong? He doesn't make his point in the conclusion that we have to start calling people on their unsupportable claims, no matter what the subject is. If someone says the bible is the inerrant truth, call them on it. Point out the contradictions. Point out the archaeology. If enough people start to think "Hmm. There's evidence that the bible was actually written by a succession of bronze age tribesmen between 4000 and 2000 years ago" maybe they'll start to think that it isn't really the word of god after all.
It's important not just because moderates are protecting the crazies (whom, as Harris points out, are unapologetically intolerant of others views - that's right they simply don't play by the same rules). It's important because moderates can also be thought of as "undecided" in the battle between the would-be theocrats and the rationalists. These are the people whom we need to educate and win over. As this happens the fundamentalists will be further marginalized and they will dwindle in numbers.
The fundies will fight back. Of course, they're fighting back already. We can lay down and let them win, we can fight to tie (which is more or less what we've decided to do now) keeping the battle going indefinitely, or we can fight to win.
catalytic.Sam Harris makes an interesting case for rationalism against religious beliefs.
But he doesn't go far enough.
Here's a synopsis of what he says: Religious moderates allow religious fundamentalists to flourish because they provide a buffer between the fundamentalists and the rationalists who would oppose them. By allowing religious beliefs to be considered different from other beliefs, we've put ourselves in the position of not being able to call them on their irrational beliefs.
Or to be more blunt, if someone said that 2+2=5 you would rightly call BS on them because what they believe flies in the face of mathematics. If they say "God created the universe in six days" we can't call BS because it's a religious belief.
Of course, I routinely call BS when someone says something like that to me. And what often happens is I'm admonished for it from my friends who want to seem inclusive.
So where does Harris go wrong? He doesn't make his point in the conclusion that we have to start calling people on their unsupportable claims, no matter what the subject is. If someone says the bible is the inerrant truth, call them on it. Point out the contradictions. Point out the archaeology. If enough people start to think "Hmm. There's evidence that the bible was actually written by a succession of bronze age tribesmen between 4000 and 2000 years ago" maybe they'll start to think that it isn't really the word of god after all.
It's important not just because moderates are protecting the crazies (whom, as Harris points out, are unapologetically intolerant of others views - that's right they simply don't play by the same rules). It's important because moderates can also be thought of as "undecided" in the battle between the would-be theocrats and the rationalists. These are the people whom we need to educate and win over. As this happens the fundamentalists will be further marginalized and they will dwindle in numbers.
The fundies will fight back. Of course, they're fighting back already. We can lay down and let them win, we can fight to tie (which is more or less what we've decided to do now) keeping the battle going indefinitely, or we can fight to win.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-10-06 05:44 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-10-06 12:59 pm (UTC)Apply that to a different subject - a non-religious topic. "good grief man, we can't get electricity or telephones into everyone's houses - it would take thousands of kilometers of wire and millions of poles. We'd never be finished."
But here I am, writing this post on my computer and you're reading it on yours. A simple convienience that would not be possible without the work of innumerable individuals over several generations.
Unlike a brick wall, people do change there minds and do learn from there mistakes. Do they all do it? Of course not, but the fact that the jobis difficult doesn't absolve us of trying.
But let me put it to you like this Bob: Do you think that the fundamentalists are right or do you think that they are wrong. If they're wrong, why would not oppose them - especially the ones who want to make decisions for you based on their unprovable beliefs. They certainly have no qualms about opposing you.
no subject
Date: 2006-10-07 03:55 am (UTC)Assuming you're right, however, what good does it do to speak to those who will not listen? You're hoping to reach other ears? A few weeks ago, you called the Columbian Lysistra foolhardy for trying to defy criminals without bullets; now you want to argue from the other side when it comes to the fundamentalists?
Why, yes, I am comparing fundamentalists with criminals. Either they're the same level of threat or they're not. Which group calls for the use of force and which the use of nonviolent defiance? Should there really be a difference?
no subject
Date: 2006-10-06 12:59 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-10-06 01:02 pm (UTC)Second, I'm not talking about using force. I'm talking about not staying quiet.
Belief and Faith
Date: 2006-10-06 02:05 pm (UTC)Example: I believe that the sun will come up tomorrow because it has every other day since time began. I have faith that the sun god will carry it in his chariot.
My belief can be proven or disproven by observing the sky tomorrow. Many years ago, my faith could never be proven or disproven. This makes it faith.
However, with the advances in technology, it now can. We can see the sun with powerful looking glasses and we see no chariot. Therefore, pointing out that my faith is based on a false idea is fine. It is then up to me to blindly scoff at the evidence or re-evaluate my faith.
If my faith cannot be proven or disproven as in "Jesus died for my sins", then your faith that I'm wrong and my faith that I'm right are each equally valid.
Re: Belief and Faith
Date: 2006-10-06 10:20 pm (UTC)Your example is also an example of Russell's Teapot - an example of why negative proof is a logical fallacy.
no subject
Date: 2006-10-06 03:22 pm (UTC)However, if you chose them because you believe them it makes me as uncomfortable as if you were a fundie saying I have to believe in Jesus. As I understand it what you are saying is that you, and those that believe in Science and the scientific principle, are right and anyone who doesn't believe that is wrong. And that it is now up to you to proselytize to the heathens that don't believe even if they're belief system does nothing to hurt you. Further, it's those exact same moderates of another belief system that need the changing the most because their moderation leads to allowing the extremists to exist.
On a completely different tangent: But let's say you do end up changing the minds of the moderates and they embrace Scientific Rationalism. Let's take your example and also imagine that this somehow marginalizes the fundies to the point that they don't exist. You've won. What have you won? Why was this fight so important to you? Will the world be a more peaceful place without religion and faith? Do you believe that your life will be better/happier/more interesting if everyone is a Scientific Rationalist?
no subject
Date: 2006-10-06 04:27 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-10-06 10:49 pm (UTC)I'm not going to whip out a dictionary, I'll simply assert that I mean battle in the sense of "a battle for their hearts and minds" rather then "war". You seem to have this idea that I'm against people believing any damn fool thing. I'm not. If I didn't make the point clearly enough in the original post, I'll do it here. The battle is to do two things:
1) Remove the "free pass" that religion gets. If you make a religious claim others get to call you on it and you don't get to play the "respect my religion" card.
2) Teach people that they need to be able to back up their claims with facts. That is one thing that the scientific method has over other philosophies. When it makes claims they can be proved or disproved. Religions either make unfalsifiable claims, or simply ignore evidence that refutes their beliefs. I hardly think I should be admonished for holding this one aspect of humanity up to the same standards as all the rest.
Want an example? How about the eternal Evolution vs. Creationism debate that is played out in the States. The evolution side always points out that Creationism isn't science (as they should). They make appeals to the sepatation of church and state outlined in their Constitution.
What I've never seen done is someone say "We're not going to teach that because it isn't true". When the inevitable "but it is true" objection occurs the evolutionist should say "Prove it. You say God created all the animals in their present form? Prove it. While you're at it, tell me how your belief in the Book of Genesis is different from a belief in Norse Creation. When you've done all that we'll talk about including your data in a school.
no subject
Date: 2006-10-06 11:04 pm (UTC)Smallpox is gone and this is a better world for it. People still die of many other diseases though. Likewise I think a world without irrational beliefs would be better then one where a majority of people have them.
As for the world being interesting where everyone is a scientific rationist. You bet it would be, because people are not defined by a single characteristic. People would still be just as variable, still just as passionate about an infinite number of things. The arts would still exist. Children would still be children. People would still be born, grow up, fall in love, die, just like they always have.
Of course, religion will always be with us. I've read some interesting articles suggesting that such things are hard-wired into our brains.
no subject
Date: 2006-10-06 02:27 pm (UTC)I, for one, do not want a person with access to thermonuclear weapons to also believe that the Rapture is due any second. I do not want the person who determines whom we can or cannot marry to be someone who believes 10% of our population are abominations simply because some old book that has been editted and rewritten over thousands of years and yet still considered to be the "word of god".
To put a paraphrase on it, your right your religious freedom is the same as your right to swing your fists around wildly: it ends when that freedom negatively impacts me.
The difference between a religious belief and swinging your fists around wildly is that it's generally frowned upon when you start complaining how that person's religious belief is concerning you. If I say "that person wildly swinging their fists around worries me" nobody will make a comment, except perhaps to murmur some agreement. If, on the other hand, I say "that person's religious beliefs, specifically those beliefs that teach that person to be intolerant of others not of their religion, worries me" I get flack for not "respecting" their beliefs.
Well I'm tired of it. People who subscribe to some ancient book to give them the guidelines on who or who isn't "good" or "worthy" are worrying me, and I think it's time I get to say it without the religious moderates shushing me.
no subject
Date: 2006-10-06 03:48 pm (UTC)However if you are talking about how this person's religion makes them believe that they are the catalyst for the rapture then the problem is not the religion, it's the crazy person. And as far as I know the religious don't have the market cornered on crazy.
It's also a case wherin someone's personal beliefs stop being personal and infringe on someone else's rght to live.
You're also assuming there is no other reason for people to be destructive or hate other then religion. Religion is often a handy justification but the hate is usually simply because "they are different, get 'em." or "they have land, and they are different, get 'em". Religion is the facade, hating the unknown or the different (or wanting something the unknown or the different have) is the real reason war/hate/crime exists.
no subject
Date: 2006-10-06 05:03 pm (UTC)I'm not saying religion makes the nuclear arsenal more deadly, just more likely to be used. I'm saying trusting care and execution of said aresenal to someone who subscribes to beliefs that include explicit irrational intolerance of anyone who doesn't share those beliefs is foolhardy at best.
If someone you meet on the street is constantly telling you that aliens are among us and that they must be weeded out, are you going to hand him a gun? Why, then, do we allow equally irational religious zealots to buy weapons? Does calling the irational belief a "religion" somehow make it less dangerous?
However if you are talking about how this person's religion makes them believe that they are the catalyst for the rapture then the problem is not the religion, it's the crazy person. And as far as I know the religious don't have the market cornered on crazy.
No, but religions are the only organized form of insanity that's protected from being judged because we're not supposed to criticize someone's religous beliefs.
And religions may not have cornered the market, but looking at the world situation today I'd say they have a pretty significant majority.
Religion is the facade, hating the unknown or the different (or wanting something the unknown or the different have) is the real reason war/hate/crime exists.
You're also assuming there is no other reason for people to be destructive or hate other then religion.
No, I'm not making that assumption. I know there are other reasons people hate other people. Race is a prime example. But when a person expresses their hatred of someone based on race the rest of us automatically identify that reason as being irrational and, at the very least, lower our opinion of that person. And if we speak out agains that person's racist belief we ARE NOT shushed by others and told to respect their irrational beliefs.
So why is religion given a free pass on this? When someone expresses hatred for some group based on their religious beliefs why are we not allowed to call them on it? Why are we told "you must respect their religious beliefs" when those beliefs are being used as a rationalle for hatred?
Religion is the facade, hating the unknown or the different (or wanting something the unknown or the different have) is the real reason war/hate/crime exists.
You're right, but unlike other facades religion is a Protected Facade that we're not allowed to spaek out against. Why is that?
no subject
Date: 2006-10-06 05:44 pm (UTC)I think we agree on this point. Bigotry and intolerance should never be tolerated under the guise of anything. As I said earlier, I have no problems with anyone calling bullshit on religion or people hiding intolerance and bigotry behind religion. Go to town, hell, I'l join you.
I do have problems with this idea that religion needs to be beaten as if it's a disease. It also bothers me that someone would suggest that moderates are the cause of, or at least enabling, fundamentalists. It's the equivalent of saying every scientist enabled Oppenheimer to create the bomb because they defended his methods or his right to be a scientist.
I also take issue with the belief that if somehow religion were to disappear the world would suddenly become a more tolerant and less chaotic
place.
no subject
Date: 2006-10-06 10:35 pm (UTC)Well I certainly believe there would be fewer organizations actively promoting archaic principles based on ancient books that explicitly endorse violence and intolerance so, yeah, essentially I feel there would be less intolerance and chaos if religions dissappeared.
Religions are more than just an excuse or facade for hatred, they are also a SOURCE for it. When the magic book you live your life by tells you that anyone who doesn't believe your magic book is a "heathen" or "infidel" and must be killed then, yeah, that's a pretty explicit source of hatred.
Please note, however, that I make a distinction between "religion" and "spirituality". While I actively hope for the eventual dissolution of "religion" (but certainly don't expect it in my lifetime, or for several lifetimes) I'm all for the continual exploration of "spirituality".
The difference?
From my perspective "spirituality" involves the contemplation and study of the world around us in a constantly challenged and changing perspective. Conversely, "religion" involves the blind adherence to principles invented and written by people who had little to no rational grasp of the real world. As Sam Harris puts it: "Because most religions offer no valid mechanism by which their core beliefs can be tested and revised, each new generation of believers is condemned to inherit the supersititions and tribal hatreds of its predecessors."
Unfortunately it is extremely unlikely that we'll ever get to see what the world would be like without religions as their adherents are quite obviously willing to kill and die in defense of them. But, yeah, I do theorize that without these massive sources of intolerance and hatred we'd wind up with a more tolerant, less chaotic world.
no subject
Date: 2006-10-06 11:08 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-10-07 03:46 am (UTC)I call bullshit. I back up that call with Dogma, Priest, The Last Temptation of Christ, The Mission. Heck, even the fact that The Passion could be made suggests that you've made a false claim.
And religions may not have cornered the market, but looking at the world situation today I'd say they have a pretty significant majority.
Yeah, but how well has it gone in the nations that actively tried to stamp it out? Forget religion: what have you got against ideology? Economics defeated the Soviets, but China appears to have worked around that one.
And if we speak out agains that person's racist belief we ARE NOT shushed by others and told to respect their irrational beliefs.
Now this is either more bullshit or you've been sheltered. The button-mashing inclusion of the word "irrational", but I think that's giving your choice of words too much credit.
I have been told to shut up for standing up against misogyny and racism, both in private and in public. I have been allowed to question a religious declaration in both places. Based on conversations with others, I know my experiences aren't exclusive to me by any stretch of the imagination.
no subject
Date: 2006-10-07 03:48 am (UTC)Sorry for the confusion.
no subject
Date: 2006-10-07 02:32 pm (UTC)Exceptions rather than the general rule. Those films were, in fact, criticised because they do what I feel the whole rational community should be doing: calling the religious people on their irrational behavior. The fact that religious people were opposed to The Passion even though it would have supported their religion only serves to demonstrate how incredibly irrational their behavior is. They'll protest against a move many of them hadn't even seen just because it *might* not mesh perfectly with their beliefs.
Yeah, but how well has it gone in the nations that actively tried to stamp it out? Forget religion: what have you got against ideology? Economics defeated the Soviets, but China appears to have worked around that one.
I'm not saying we should force people to stop practicing religion. I'm saying we should be allowed to insist they back their claims up with proof. They'll believe whatever they want and there's no amount of force that could be applied that would convince them otherwise. In fact the application of force would only serve to galvinize their beliefs, give them reason to cling to them all the more. What I *am* saying, which you seem to be completely ignoring, is that we should be allowed to demand proof without first having to face the social stigma of daring to challenge someone's "beliefs". I'm not saying "stamp religion out", I'm saying let's erase the social taboo against challenging it.
And that goes for ideologies as well. If you can't back them up with proof then you should be prepared to have them intellectually challenged.
I have been told to shut up for standing up against misogyny and racism, both in private and in public. I have been allowed to question a religious declaration in both places. Based on conversations with others, I know my experiences aren't exclusive to me by any stretch of the imagination.
Well they are exclusive to you from my perspective. I haven't been told to shut up when I've spoken against misogyny or racism, neither in private nor in public. When did this happen to you?
I *have*, however, been told I should "respect other people's beliefs" when I've spoken up against religion. Hell, it's happening right now, here in this discussion.
I propose that religion is irrational and should be challenged and people have literally leapt to it's defense. Do you think that would happen if I started challenging someone because they believed skin color was a valid basis for judging someone? Not likely. People would be rallying on my side instead and calling the person racist for thier irrational beliefs.
no subject
Date: 2006-10-07 05:45 pm (UTC)What's wrong with criticizing such projects. anyway? The publicity didn't hurt any of the films in question financially. It even got them talked about. If I can't say, "I object to what you have to say about my faith," we still have the same problem you abhor.
What's this about demanding proof anyway? You don't want proof. If you did, you'd have visited any of several hundred houses of worship in this city and requested a meeting with someone for that purpose. Don't pretend you've done that. Don't pretend anyone's prevented you from doing that. I've had my converations with the proselytizers in bus stations and street corners, and no one ever told me to knock it off when I disagreed, sometimes vehemently, with what was being said.
Besides, what's the religious nut in the next cubicle supposed to say if you can point out how offensive the things he's saying would be to Bishop Motorcade, with whom you had a lovely chat yesterday? He's got to respect other people's religions too, after all. You want to shush him? Then learn to use the tools you think he's using against you. This is the only one you need. Besides, it will put your money where your mouth is.
I propose that religion is irrational and should be challenged and people have literally leapt to it's defense.
GOOD! Good grief, man, if you're going to talk about rational behaviour, think rationally. No one's told you to shut up, but now you're implying that it's intolerable to stand up to your position? Two people object to some of what you're written and you claim we're oppressing you?
The only one restricting you is you. Go out and challenge priests and rabbis and missionaries to your heart's content. A lot more than you realize would welcome the dialogue.
Tell you what: any time you want to have a conversation with one of the nutbar leaders, call me and I'll join you for the meeting. That way, if it all goes to hell, you can at least throw me to the lions on your way out the door.
Don't forget to shout, "Told you so!" on the way out either, because I'm going to need a good laugh right about then. ;)
no subject
Date: 2006-10-07 03:58 am (UTC)Well I certainly believe there would be fewer organizations actively promoting archaic principles based on ancient books that explicitly endorse violence and intolerance so, yeah, essentially I feel there would be less intolerance and chaos if religions dissappeared.
It never occured to you that they'd promote such things based on new books and idealogies instead? How old is The Protocols of the Elders of Zion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_protocols_of_the_elders_of_zion)? When a Middle Eastern nation wants to promote anti-semitism, it can't turn to the Koran for ammunition, so it turns to a book barely 150 years old. Maybe we'd have been better off if they'd turned to The Communist Manifesto instead? Religious text? Rather academic to the millions of Ukrainians who died in service to its ideology.
no subject
Date: 2006-10-07 02:42 pm (UTC)But you're not allowed to debate the merits of religion versus rationalization. When we try we're told we're being inconsiderate of other people's beliefs.
And yes people will always find reasons to hate one another. All I'm saying is it's not right that we're not allowed to judge people for their hatred simply because it's based on a religion. We're allowed to judge them for their hatred when it's based on skin color, geography, or politics, but when it's based on their "magic books" we're told to respect their beliefs. Why?
no subject
Date: 2006-10-07 06:14 pm (UTC)Or things get violent. Yes, that is not acceptable and it's usually the religious people that get violent (supporting your claim that religion is a system of irrational beliefs) in a religious discussion. Nevertheless, how many times do you get to kick the hornet's nest before you no longer get to blame the hornets for what results?
I can't recall whether the term we used in Anger Management was hornet or wasp, the people looking to push buttons. It was interesting how many members of that class (but not just that one, we're told) were there because they lost their temper to someone who'd been picking a fight with them, then ran to the police when the other person didn't back away.
Now you've got a better cause than most hornets, and you can certainly flatten most people stupid enough to take a swing at you, but is it enough? How far are you allowed to push before you've gone too far?
I've noticed that a lot of board moderators these days tell people to take certain conversations to PMs or e-mail. It works surprisingly well at times. It also works in an office or public environment.
"God created the world in seven days!"
"See, I don't believe that, based on my own readings. Shall we exchange literature and meet to discuss it privately afterward?"
"I don't need your--"
"Not here. When you're ready to discuss it, we can meet over by the park, but not here. This isn't the place for it. You believe what you want to, but you can't go around preaching it here. The others might view that as an attack on their religious beliefs."
Maybe more people in the office ought to have a problem with that guy, but they don't. Are they wrong to have a problem with you making a problem with that guy that affects them? According to what they taught me in class, yeah. Find a better way, and you might be surprised at the amount of support you'll get.
Hrmmm...
Date: 2006-10-06 04:42 pm (UTC)It's fascinating to see how quickly they adopt the mantle of the "persecuted christian" once you show their position to not be religiously based at all. {as is often the case when you are talking about "religious freedom" - it's often a code phrase for propagating invalid assertions}
Re: Hrmmm...
Date: 2006-10-06 11:10 pm (UTC)Lobbyists and shortcuts.
Date: 2006-10-09 02:13 am (UTC)In this case it is not yourself at fault for the term, it is the media and popular culture. The fact that the group in question is using the media and political groups (not, perhaps, as a unit, but significant parts of that could be considered to be part of the group in question have a certain amount of political clout)
The media uses the term 'Fundamentalists" in a very far reaching manner. Shortening it to the slang "Fundies" makes them look less menacing than they are and in turn can give them more reasons to try to strengthen their positions. Yet you cannot really focus on the group without starting to limit them to specific populations and possibly individuals.
Likewise, giving them a far-reaching goal and views may be giving them too much credit. In many cases the goals of one person (or multiple persons) who gain a certain amount of political power is to strengthen their own beliefs with whatever tools they have at hand.
If you want to erode their capabilities, it will have to be in a way that the media gives you credit. (I am using the term media to encompass all those things that will give you access to the masses. Newspapers, magazines, newscasts, blogs, etc)
Your ultimate goal (or 'our' ultimate goal) may not be met by just discrediting their beliefs or faiths. It may be by making sure people are aware of the limits they should have should be applied to them. If they have made a law stating one of their beliefs should be considered more important than yours, attack the law. (Thinking of the creationist debate, the Lords Prayer in school, and various other items which seem to take precedense for what I would consider good old common sense in politics)
Don't give groups more political clout by making them appear to be larger than they are by implying they are something they are not. ('Fundamentalists' always makes me think they are an organized force with an agenda, and most of the tiem they are just as disorganized as we are)