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.
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.