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

Hrmmm...

[http://users.livejournal.com/-grog-/]

I've got a couple of right-wing pseudo religious trolls echoing on the comments section of my blog.

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...

[jamesq]

The level of persecution that Christians in North America suffer is just heartbreaking. I for one can't wait for the day when as many as 40 Christian men can be elected president in a row.