Sam Harris Needs to Make His Point Clearer

[jamesq]

Cribbed from 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.

Comments

[wackynephews.livejournal.com]

C'mon, James, I know your writing. You pick your words very carefully. You either chose the words battle and win to inflame or because you really believe this is about winning. If you chose them to inflame then we'll just let it drop.

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?

[wackynephews.livejournal.com]

I should add that I bleieve you have every right to confront them about their beliefs and what you think or know is wrong about their beliefs. My problem comes with the thinking that this is some kind of war and yours is the only right side. It's the exact same problem I have with fundies, the war on terror etc.

[jamesq]

I'm not so sure it can be said that I choose my words carefully at 11pm immediately after watching a video that pushed my buttons, but what the hell.

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.

[jamesq]

I thought this merited its own entry:

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?

I do think it would be a better world. Not a perfect world by any means, because scientists are exactly as suseptible to human failings as the other humans.

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.