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]

[i]You're right, but unlike other facades religion is a Protected Facade that we're not allowed to spaek out against. Why is that?[/i]

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.

[catalytic.livejournal.com]

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.

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.

[jamesq]

Thank you Joel, for making clear a point that was in my head, but I utter failed to get onto the screen: The difference between Religion and Spirituality (as you've defined them).

[ersatz-marduk.livejournal.com]

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.

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.

[ersatz-marduk.livejournal.com]

"The button-mashing inclusion of the word 'irrational', but I think that's giving your choice of words too much credit," should be read as, "The button-mashing inclusion of the word 'irrational' suggests the former, but I think that's giving your choice of words too much credit."

Sorry for the confusion.

[catalytic.livejournal.com]

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.

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.

[ersatz-marduk.livejournal.com]

Exceptions? No, I don't think so. We see this happen all the time, though you might argue that we don't see it all that much because -- and I write thumb in hand here -- who goes to plays or reads books?

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. ;)

[ersatz-marduk.livejournal.com]

One more observation:

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.

[catalytic.livejournal.com]

Certainly people have brought new reasons in to cause intolerance and chaos. The difference is we're allowed to challenge those reasons. You're allowed to intellectually debate the merits of communism versus capitalism versus socialism.

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?

[ersatz-marduk.livejournal.com]

Because beyond a certain point, the result is the Dead Parrot Sketch, and that gets old fast.

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.