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: 2006-10-07 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. ;)