Sam Harris review of The Language of God

[billydkid]

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20060815_sam_harris_language_ignorance/

[l0rca]

Usually when I approach the ideas of Sam Harris I think "sweeping" and "unforgiving". But here I think he's constantly right. "The Language of God," Judging by the quotes used (entire paragraphs) display some very petulant understandings of reasoning. The entire book Harris skews as an emotional appeal of the same arguments we've here been hearing for a good while now, with some glazing done by quoting other scientists out of context. For this, Harris rightfully smashes the arguments.

For great justice, Sam.

[billydkid]

Usually when I approach the ideas of Sam Harris I think "sweeping" and "unforgiving". But here I think he's constantly right. "The Language of God," Judging by the quotes used (entire paragraphs) display some very petulant understandings of reasoning. The entire book Harris skews as an emotional appeal of the same arguments we've here been hearing for a good while now, with some glazing done by quoting other scientists out of context. For this, Harris rightfully smashes the arguments.

For great justice, Sam.

I understand what you mean by sweeping and unforgiving, but,for me, it seems long overdue - someone who stands up to irrationality parading as truth and morality without backing down. Sure, there are many, many great people who are religious, but that doesn't change the reality that believing and conducting your life according to dangerous fairy tales is a good thing.

[l0rca]

I don't think he's wrong about his concepts against faith, but he can be wrong when he talks about moderate faith. He claims that people who are moderate are shielding fundamentalists from criticism. I don't think this is true. Even the moderates attack the fundamentalists and fear them. And while this sort of faith is still irrational and can lead to moral trouble, it's not an immediate threat to society, and it's just not practical to think to remove it from the world.

I think Sam is a good thinker and provoker of conversation, but his hopes are too far out of reach. What I fear most is poking the religious the wrong way. We need more diplomacy with these people. Atheists are starting to develop a reputation that almost immediately removes us from debate. I think we need to map out what we're trying to accomplish more methodically and realistically. Firstly, I think, we should work on taking spiritualism from them.

[Phil]

. . . What I fear most is poking the religious the wrong way. We need more diplomacy with these people. Atheists are starting to develop a reputation that almost immediately removes us from debate. I think we need to map out what we're trying to accomplish more methodically and realistically. Firstly, I think, we should work on taking spiritualism from them.
At one time I agreed with your approach, but I don't think anything as important to the progress of the human race should be curbed for fear anymore, or simply to be courteous.

I think we're on the fringe, in a transition stage if you will. We're moving from an era where religion was so highly revered, it was almost unthinkable to oppose it without prefacing ones remarks with "now I don't want to cause any trouble, but . . ." to a point where we must not allow it any conessions simply because so many people are emotionally tied to it. The stakes are too high now to maintain that attitude.

And I think those who find Harris' and Dawkins' uncompomising style troublesome still harbor some of that old time reverence for the church. They have not transitioned fully into the new arena. (Or perhaps they are just overly sensitive to other peoples' feelings.)

The way I see it, religion has always been unflinching and unapologetic and undiplomatic toward those who oppose it. And as long as non-theist are thoughtful and rational and understand fully the position they are taking, there is no longer any reason for them to pull any punches either.

[drkitten]

I think those who find Harris' and Dawkins' uncompomising style troublesome still harbor some of that old time reverence for the church. They have not transitioned fully into the new arena. (Or perhaps they are just overly sensitive to other peoples' feelings.)

The way I see it, religion has always been unflinching and unapologetic and undiplomatic toward those who oppose it. And as long as non-theist are thoughtful and rational and understand fully the position they are taking, there is no longer any reason for them to pull any punches either.


That's (ahem) part of the problem. I'm sorry, but religion has NOT "unflinching and unapologetic and undiplomatic toward those who oppose it," any more than "government" has. Religions are of course composed of people, and the attitudes of people vary from place to place and time to time. We think, for example, of Islam as being comprised of a bunch of intolerant towel-heads who are ready to blow themselves up at a moment's notice -- well, in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, mainstream Islam was actually much more tolerant and ecumenical than most of the secular institutions of Europe at the time. Times, places, and people change....

[l0rca]

I think we're on the fringe, in a transition stage if you will. We're moving from an era where religion was so highly revered, it was almost unthinkable to oppose it without prefacing ones remarks with "now I don't want to cause any trouble, but . . ." to a point where we must not allow it any conessions simply because so many people are emotionally tied to it. The stakes are too high now to maintain that attitude.


Politics and the war say different. I agree we're in a transitory phase, but I think this phase is also volatile and sensitive. If we are too confronting about faith, we'll either turn violence on ourselves, or be considered too insensitive to be included in on the world's struggles. We need to approach faith empathetically, no matter how intellectually absurd faith is.


The way I see it, religion has always been unflinching and unapologetic and undiplomatic toward those who oppose it.

This is why butting heads is a bad idea. The cause of atheism may find a greater enemy in religion than other religions find in each other.

Harris speaks of some people of faith as having circular, hermetic mentality against arguments and discourse. But this bias the faithful have towards those of differing beliefs plunges people into violence.

Fundamental Islam find us atheists to be more of an infidel than the Christians. Ask the Russians.

[Phil]

That's (ahem) part of the problem. I'm sorry, but religion has NOT "unflinching and unapologetic and undiplomatic toward those who oppose it," any more than "government" has. Religions are of course composed of people, and the attitudes of people vary from place to place and time to time. We think, for example, of Islam as being comprised of a bunch of intolerant towel-heads who are ready to blow themselves up at a moment's notice -- well, in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, mainstream Islam was actually much more tolerant and ecumenical than most of the secular institutions of Europe at the time. Times, places, and people change....
What's (ahem) part of the problem?

Religion has been unflinching when it comes to its most basic tenets.

Harris cites the example of it taking 4 centuries or whatever for the church to "pardon" Galileo. That's a long time. And that is simply a cosmological idea. That's not even one of the basic tenets of divinity.

Yes, times, places, and people do change. But the basic ideas of religion --- despite its periods of perversion or progressivism --- have remained the same. Jesus, Muhamad, Jehova, Allah, and the rest are all still around and all still worshiped as divine. And this after all the contradictions, conflicting philosophies, impossibilities, and ridiculous ideas have been pointed out to the various churches for centuries. What is that if not unflinching?


And for the record, I don't think of Islam as being "comprised of a bunch of intolerant towel-heads who are ready to blow themselves up at a moment's notice", though I understand there are some who call themselves Muslims who would readily do that.

[drkitten]

What's (ahem) part of the problem?

Lies on the part of atheists.

Such as the statement immediately below.


Religion has been unflinching when it comes to its most basic tenets.

... which is simply wrong. At so many levels, it's not even funny.

[l0rca]

I understand there are some who call themselves Muslims who would readily do that.

It's a hell of a lot more than some. Every fundamental Muslim worth their salt is cheering the jihad on.

[Donn]

On the question of why God simply doesn’t provide better evidence for his existence:

"If the case in favor of belief in God were utterly airtight, then the world would be full of confident practitioners of a single faith. But imagine such a world, where the opportunity to make a free choice about belief was taken away by the certainty of the evidence. How interesting would that be?" - Francis Collins (The language of Ignorance)

One is tempted to say that it might be more “interesting” than a world unnecessarily shattered by competing religious orthodoxies and religious war, only to be followed by an eternity in hell for all those who believe the wrong things about God. But, to each his own.

Ooh kick bottom Sam. I Love it :D

[pgwenthold]

On the question of why God simply doesn’t provide better evidence for his existence:

"If the case in favor of belief in God were utterly airtight, then the world would be full of confident practitioners of a single faith. But imagine such a world, where the opportunity to make a free choice about belief was taken away by the certainty of the evidence. How interesting would that be?" - Francis Collins (The language of Ignorance)

One is tempted to say that it might be more “interesting” than a world unnecessarily shattered by competing religious orthodoxies and religious war, only to be followed by an eternity in hell for all those who believe the wrong things about God. But, to each his own.

Aside from that, it's not even clear that the premise holds. Christian tradition, for example, would say it doesn't.

Consider the story of Lucifer, the angel who rebelled against God. Now, presumably, spending all that time gave Lucifer ample reason to believe in God, and everyone in heaven believed it, too. Yet, despite having absolute knowledge of God's existence, Lucifer rebelled.

So if angels in heaven are capable of rebelling, on what grounds can Francis Collins claim that free choice would be lost? We have absolute knowledge that gravity exists. That doesn't appear to prevent certain clowns thinking they can float in the air while meditating. Moreover, no one claims that we have limited free choice because we have absolute knowledge that gravity exists.

Collins's claim is crap.

[Phil]

Lies on the part of atheists.

Such as the statement immediately below.



... which is simply wrong. At so many levels, it's not even funny.
Perhaps instead of just telling me it's wrong, you can give me some example where any of the worlds major religions has changed its stand on any of its basic beliefs.

[drkitten]

Perhaps instead of just telling me it's wrong, you can give me some example where any of the worlds major religions has changed it's stand on any of it's basic beliefs.

How many non-Trinitarian branches of Christianity are there?

For that matter, the entire Protestant Reformation. If what Luther did wasn't "changing some of Catholicism's basic beliefs," what was it?

[Phil]

How many non-Trinitarian branches of Christianity are there?

For that matter, the entire Protestant Reformation. If what Luther did wasn't "changing some of Catholicism's basic beliefs," what was it?
Okay, well it seems you and I have a different conception of what the word "basic" means.

I'm talking about an overall view of the way the universe works, and you're talking about some socially and politically-driven changes in the doctrines of various sects.

[l0rca]

I'm talking about an overall view of the way the universe works, and you're talking about some socially and politically-driven changes in the doctrines of various sects.

You don't think Creationists and Catholics who consider Genesis to be metaphorical differ on the way the universe works?

[drkitten]

You don't think Creationists and Catholics who consider Genesis to be metaphorical differ on the way the universe works?


Or whether salvation is possible by works or by faith?

Or whether the intercession by saints is possible and effective?

Or whether Jesus Christ is in fact the son of God or not?

Let me remind Phil of his own writings. Jesus, [is] still around and all still worshiped as divine.

The non-Trinitarians disagree. Jesus is not divine, nor is He worshiped as such. By his own example, he's been pwned.

[TheAntiLuddite]

Lies on the part of atheists.

Such as the statement immediately below.

... which is simply wrong. At so many levels, it's not even funny.

I've seen a number of arguments between theists and atheists take a similar tack, to wit:

Atheist: Religion is responsible for the deaths of millions of people. Just look at the Crusades, the Inquisitions, the witch-trials, deity-condoned genocide in the Bible, etc.

Theist: Get off the crack. It's the secular and atheistic regimes of Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, etc. that have killed millions.

The key ingredient in murderous ideologies, both religious and political, is a failure or unwillingness to embrace reason. Groups like the Catholic Church or the Communist Party of the old U.S.S.R. have a vested interest (mainly power over and control of the fate of millions) in the denial of reason, especially when such reason leads to evidence contrary to the Party line. This makes them both highly resistant to change. Attempting to pick either religious or faith-based political ideologies as the most irrational is a monumental waste of effort.

[RandFan]

At one time I agreed with your approach, but I don't think anything as important to the progress of the human race should be curbed for fear anymore, or simply to be courteous.

I think we're on the fringe, in a transition stage if you will. We're moving from an era where religion was so highly revered, it was almost unthinkable to oppose it without prefacing ones remarks with "now I don't want to cause any trouble, but . . ." to a point where we must not allow it any conessions simply because so many people are emotionally tied to it. The stakes are too high now to maintain that attitude.

And I think those who find Harris' and Dawkins' uncompomising style troublesome still harbor some of that old time reverence for the church. They have not transitioned fully into the new arena. (Or perhaps they are just overly sensitive to other peoples' feelings.)

The way I see it, religion has always been unflinching and unapologetic and undiplomatic toward those who oppose it. And as long as non-theist are thoughtful and rational and understand fully the position they are taking, there is no longer any reason for them to pull any punches either.Hey Phil,

I relate. I used to defend religion far more than I do now. I think we need to take some significant steps to change people. Being nice and keeping your mouth shut has only ensured that Atheists can't get elected and are some of the most despised of individuals in our society. This is wrong. Will we piss people off? Yes and there will likely be a backlash but in the end we will be better off. I'm convinced about that.

[l0rca]

Hitler was a Christian. He derived much of his hate against the Jewish from the Gospel. He also had faith that the White race is the divine, superior race.

[l0rca]

Yes and there will likely be a backlash but in the end we will be better off. I'm convinced about that.

Why are you convinced?

Being nice and keeping your mouth shut has only ensured that Atheists can't get elected and are some of the most despised of individuals in our society.

I'm sort of curious if being nice is related to being hated, even in this case. I think we're rather just generally hated.

[RandFan]

Why are you convinced? Good question. I'm convinced because of the result of the civil rights movement. It seemed for awhile that there would be no positive resolution. The backlash was so swift and strong that it seemed to drown out the voices calling for change. In the end reason won out.

Humans are by and large decent people and when they are forced to consciously consider a proposition like whether Atheists are good and decent people then the truth wins out. Atheists ARE demonstrably no worse than any other group of people and there is arguably some evidence that they are better than average. That last point isn't necessary to the argument but it demonstrates that it there is no basis for atheists to be reviled or despised as they (we) are now. If you force people to confront the facts most will eventually accept those facts.

I'm sort of curious if being nice is related to being hated, even in this case. I think we're rather just generally hated.My point is that being quite and avoiding controversy has not helped us at all. So let's try something else.

[l0rca]

Humans are by and large decent people and when they are forced to consciously consider a proposition like whether Atheists are good and decent people then the truth wins out. Atheists ARE demonstrably no worse than any other group of people and there is arguably some evidence that they are better than average. That last point isn't necessary to the argument but it demonstrates that it there is no basis for atheists to be reviled or despised as they (we) are now. If you force people to confront the facts most will eventually accept those facts.

Are you talking about respect for Atheists?

I thought we were trying to talk about changing people's mind about their own faith.

[kellyb]

My point is that being quite and avoiding controversy has not helped us at all. So let's try something else.
I agree with you, but we should also be careful to not come off like deranged Stalinists.
To the "reasonable" religious, I believe we should return the courtesy.
I guess we should unapologetically state whatever we believe, but at the same time not go out of our way to be overly offensive.

[Darth Rotor]

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20060815_sam_harris_language_ignorance/
After reading that review, I came to the conclusion that Sam Harris wishes to play the role of "tails" to Jonathan Sarfati's "heads." Good for him, neither of their two cents worth is worth a nickel. (For those who haven't read "Refuting Compromise," be glad.) I'll drop that two sided coin in the wishing well, and vigorously wish them both a jointly inhabited padded room. These two are millionaires in the currency of invective.

"You are a doody head."

"No you are."

"No, you are."

However, since I read Sarfati's whole bloody book, I suppose I ought to read an entire book that Harris wrote to provide equal time.

Which one is better, for those of you who have read him: Letter to a Christian Nation, or The End of Faith?

Such a pity that one of my favorite editorial writers these days, Chris Hedges, is also a contributor to that page.

DR

[l0rca]

After reading that review, I came to the conclusion that Sam Harris wishes to play the role of "tails" to Jonathan Sarfati's "heads." Good for him, neither of their two cents worth is worth a nickel. (For those who haven't read "Refuting Compromise," be glad.) I'll drop that two sided coin in the wishing well, and vigorously wish them both a jointly inhabited padded room. These two are millionaires in the currency of invective.

"You are a doody head."

"No you are."

"No, you are."

However, since I read Sarfati's whole bloody book, I suppose I ought to read an entire book that Harris wrote to provide equal time.

Which one is better, for those of you who have read him: Letter to a Christian Nation, or The End of Faith?

Such a pity that one of my favorite editorial writers these days, Chris Hedges, is also a contributor to that page.

DR

I don't understand your metaphor; I never read the book.

Would you mind more clearly and simply reasoning out what you find troubling, wrong, dumb, or whatever?

[Darth Rotor]

I don't understand your metaphor; I never read the book.

Would you mind more clearly and simply reasoning out what you find troubling, wrong, dumb, or whatever?
Yes, I mind, but here is a drive by: Sarfati's book is aimed at Christians who approach the fusion of science and Faith in a manner similar to Collins: they try to reconcile Religion and Science, rather than demand a cage match, 24/7. He is most certainly a Young Earth Creationist, and demands that Christians sign up for Creationism, his brand, or they aren't True Christians. There is more, but I flushed most of it from long term memory.

DR

[Phil]

You don't think Creationists and Catholics who consider Genesis to be metaphorical differ on the way the universe works?

Not on a basic level. They both believe there is an all powerful omnicient being that runs the show. And as Christians they believe a man named Jesus was actually a divine being who died so a lot of other people could go spend enternity with that that all powerful omnicient guy.

Perhaps you and I also have a different conception of what the word "basic" means.

Or whether salvation is possible by works or by faith?

Or whether the intercession by saints is possible and effective?

Or whether Jesus Christ is in fact the son of God or not?

Let me remind Phil of his own writings. Jesus, [is] still around and all still worshiped as divine.

The non-Trinitarians disagree. Jesus is not divine, nor is He worshiped as such. By his own example, he's been pwned.
Thank you for reminding me of my own writings. That's very kind of you. Unfortunately, I haven't forgotten what I wrote as much as you've ignored the meaning.

Whether or not salvation is possible by works or by faith is simply another example of the many quibble points in the doctrines of various sects that are all based on the same fundamental beliefs; those beliefs being that there is a supreme, all powerful magic man pulling the puppet strings, and his son, or part of him, or whatever, is also a magic man and he died to save the puppets that will worship him.

And whether the intercession by saints is possible and effective or not is yet another example. It's not a basic belief upon which a religion is built.

As far as the non-Tritarians are concerned: I hadn't reralized that they had become a major religion in the world. But if they are now a dominant religion, and they've rejected the basic beliefs of the other theist religions, I stand corrected when I say religion has been unflinching. Though I doubt that if they have rejected all the basic ideas upon which the other major theistic groups of the world are based, anyone with a brain would consider them a religion in the first place.

Perhaps I'm wrong, but the review cited in the opening post is a high level, philosophical rebuttal of a book that claims a relationship between the natural universe and a mythical supernatural being. It pits rational thought and science against the emotionally driven, far-fetched, and blindly accepted ideas of a theistic philosophy. There is no concern over priestial celebacy. There's no discussion of angels, or the correct procedure for exorcising demons, or how many women were at the tomb, or what meat is okay to eat on Friday. The review simply says the claim of the supernatural is not necessary, and it gives reasons why. It also makes the point that a scientist of Collins's stature has done a disservice to criticl thinking, and possibly added fuel to the irrational fire.

And because the review was the impetus for this thread, and because we've done so for far too long, I maintain that we cannot let fear or the concern for hurting peoples' feelings dissuade us from championing the side of rationality when discussing the merits of the basic ideas of a theistic worldview.

[drkitten]

Whether or not salvation is possible by works or by faith is simply another example of the many quibble points in the doctrines of various sects that are all based on the same fundamental beliefs

When you eliminate what you consider to be the "quibble points" -- i.e., the points over which the religious demonstrably have changed their beliefs, there is literally NOTHING left.


those beliefs being that there is a supreme, all powerful magic man

Or several. Possibly supreme, possibly not, possibly all-powerful, possibly not. And, for that matter, possibly literally "a man," possibly beyond anything we could consider to be gender.

pulling the puppet strings,

or not.

and his son, or part of him, or whatever, is also a magic man

Or not. Or perhaps is "magic" but not a man, or perhaps is a man but not magic, or perhaps is both magic and a man, but so are we all (and therefore he's no different in kind from the rest of us people).

and he died to save the puppets that will worship him.

Or not.

None of what you have expressed above is actually "fundamental" in the sense that you've described it.

[l0rca]

Not on a basic level. They both believe there is an all powerful omnicient being that runs the show. And as Christians they believe a man named Jesus was actually a divine being who died so a lot of other people could go spend enternity with that that all powerful omnicient guy.

Perhaps you and I also have a different conception of what the word "basic" means.

Wow? You said, "I'm talking about an overall view of the way the universe works"

Perhaps you and I have a different conception of how the words "overall view of the way the universe works" relates to "basic" conclusions of one's faith.

Different forms of Christianity have different views on the way the world works. Some are even entirely transcendental, and have no stake in anything empirical.

If you're going to change what you mean by the word "basic" here, note that it's just not enough to note the significant in changes different sects of Christianity in world view. Sure, they "basically all believe in Jesus," but this doesn't logically lead to any argument against the fact that different forms of Christianity have different impacts, ideas, and effects.

Your idea of basic is obvious and everybody here already understands it. If your point all along in this statement...

Religion has been unflinching when it comes to its most basic tenets.

...is that they still believe "their god is their god," I don't see why you're bothering. Honestly, I think you didn't have a firm grasp on what you were saying. That they still believe in Jesus doesn't count the huge revisions it has made in their basic understanding of the creation of the universe, their ideas regarding slavery, etc. Some Christian theologies are quite peaceful, while others demand war.

[Phil]

. . .None of what you have expressed above is actually "fundamental" in the sense that you've described it.
So the foundations upon which something is built is not fundamental? The elements that, were they completely removed, would undo the construct completely, or if it did survive would no longer be the same type of construct, is not fundamental?

Okay, are you just a contrarian or are you really this dense?

The examples you gave were Christian-centric, so I spoke of a god and a messiah. Of course, I understand that what is believed to be divine is different for the many religions. But those basic beliefs of divinity are what make the various religions religions. If they don't have those, they are simply . . . I dunno . . . a fraternity, a role playing group, or something similar to an Elks Lodge or a Bridge club.

[drkitten]

So the foundations upon which something is built is not fundamental?

Er, yes? I had some foundation repairs done to my house just the other year -- there had been some ground shifting, and a few wall cracks were starting to appear. So we had to go in and essentially pour some new concrete and place a few new support columns.

Same house, new foundation. No problem.


The elements that, were they completely removed, would undo the construct completely, or if it did survive would no longer be the same type of construct, is not fundamental?

Er, yes. Would you like photographs of the construction?


Okay, are you just a contrarian or are you really this dense?


I 'd like to re-pose that same question back to you.

Yes, foundations can be -- more or less routinely -- rebuilt almost at will. It takes some care; you often need to construct some temporary scaffolding to preserve the important higher-level structure while you rip everything out and rebuilt, but it's a temporary hassle. And this applies to intellectual structures as well as to physical ones; mathematics, for example, seems to go through a crisis of "foundations" every century or so when someone discovers an unpleasant consequence of what they thought they knew already. (See, for example, Russell's paradox and the Godel-Turing incompleteness theorems.)

In the case of religion, it's even easier to rip out the foundations while leaving the practices intact (because the foundations don't have physical consequences) and often -- I'd dare say routinely -- done for simple personal/political reasons. The number of people who have founded offshoot variations on Christianity based on the idea that Jesus wasn't the Messiah, they were -- or that they were an additional Messiah beyond Jesus and therefore empowered to reverse or set aside His teachings -- probably numbers in the thousands. If you don't want to go that far, just declare yourself to be the spiritual head of the Church, as Henry VIII did, and then eliminate any of the pesky rules you don't like. Or for that matter, look at the early history of the Christian Church and figure out how many of the pracctices were stolen directly from competing pagan religions, while completely losing the underlying (pagan) theology.

There is no statement that you can make about Christianity that is "necessary" for one to believe and still call themselves a Christian.


But those basic beliefs of divinity are what make the various religions religions. If they don't have those, they are simply . . . I dunno . . . a fraternity, a role playing group, or something similar to an Elks Lodge or a Bridge club.

... or possibly the Unitarians.

What make various religions religions is just that they call themselves religions, and (often) that they share a common tradition with other things that call themselves religions, even if they've explicitly rejected all of the intellectual aspects of that tradition.

[drkitten]

...is that they still believe "their god is their god," I don't see why you're bothering. Honestly, I think you didn't have a firm grasp on what you were saying. That they still believe in Jesus doesn't count the huge revisions it has made in their basic understanding of the creation of the universe, their ideas regarding slavery, etc. Some Christian theologies are quite peaceful, while others demand war.

and not all self-described "Christians" believe in Jesus.

[Phil]

Wow? You said, "I'm talking about an overall view of the way the universe works"

Perhaps you and I have a different conception of how the words "overall view of the way the universe works" relates to "basic" conclusions of one's faith. . . .
Well, you're playing with my words a little bit, but okay . . .

Not really a different concept at all.

If one's overall view of the way the universe works is by natural process, there need not be any further regression. The natural process is the base.

If on the otherhand, one believes that god is in control of everything, the overall view of the universe must regress all the way to that faith. To them there is a basic element that supercedes the natural processes, even if they adhere to the naturalistic ideas.

. . . Different forms of Christianity have different views on the way the world works. Some are even entirely transcendental, and have no stake in anything empirical.

If you're going to change what you mean by the word "basic" here, note that it's just not enough to note the significant in changes different sects of Christianity in world view. Sure, they "basically all believe in Jesus," but this doesn't logically lead to any argument against the fact that different forms of Christianity have different impacts, ideas, and effects. . . .
I never said the different sects and branches didn't have different impacts and ideas. They obviously do.

All I've been saying all along is, the basic beliefs of religion have remained over the centuries, and in rational discourse, the far-fetched notions of the basic building blocks of any religion (divinity, divine creation, heaven, hell, whatever) should be rebutted thoroughly, and without apology, without fear, and without concern for anyone's feelings; just as Harris does; just as Dawkins does. Rational thinkers have cowered to the reverence for religion far too long.

[Phil]

Er, yes? I had some foundation repairs done to my house just the other year -- there had been some ground shifting, and a few wall cracks were starting to appear. So we had to go in and essentially pour some new concrete and place a few new support columns.

Same house, new foundation. No problem. .

Right, but you couldn't remove that foundation entirely, could you? You couldn't replace it with some crazy straws and some rice pudding and still have the same construct, could you?

[l0rca]

If on the otherhand, one believes that god is in control of everything, the overall view of the universe must regress all the way to that faith. To them there is a basic element that supercedes the natural processes, even if they adhere to the naturalistic ideas.


Well at least I don't feel like I'm being dodged anymore.


All I've been saying all along is, the basic beliefs of religion have remained over the centuries, and in rational discourse, the far-fetched notions of the basic building blocks of any religion (divinity, divine creation, heaven, hell, whatever) should be rebutted thoroughly, and without apology, without fear, and without concern for anyone's feelings; just as Harris does; just as Dawkins does. Rational thinkers have cowered to the reverence for religion far too long.

Yes, but my original feelings about this still stand.

I agree we're in a transitory phase, but I think this phase is also volatile and sensitive. If we are too confronting about faith, we'll either turn violence on ourselves, or be considered too insensitive to be included in on the world's struggles. We need to approach faith empathetically, no matter how intellectually absurd faith is.

[Phil]

Well at least I don't feel like I'm being dodged anymore.



Yes, but my original feelings about this still stand.
Sorry about that. I'm trying to work and respond to you and drkitten all at the same time, so I'm sure I confused everyone and some point, including myself.

And I understand your feelings, even if I don't fully agree with them.

[l0rca]

Well, there's no way to prove I'm right or wrong.

But I do get the feeling that if this thing takes off, some of us are going to be killed.

[pgwenthold]

When you eliminate what you consider to be the "quibble points" -- i.e., the points over which the religious demonstrably have changed their beliefs, there is literally NOTHING left.


Well, most christians certainly don't believe that.

The example that comes to my mind is the issue of displaying the ten commandments. Although almost every version of the ten commandments that has been displayed is the protestant version, that doesn't stop Catholics from routinely supporting their display. Despite having different beliefs about what the Ten Commandments actually say, they are still in agreement that they should be displayed. Quibble points aside, they are in fundamental agreement.

[Phil]

Well, there's no way to prove I'm right or wrong.

But I do get the feeling that if this thing takes off, some of us are going to be killed.
I hope not, but it could happen.

And understand that I'm not in favor of inciting war or violence. I would hope that taking a firm stand, if it doesn't change minds, would result in nothing more than a stalemate. I may vehemently disagree with someone, but I don't want to hurt anyone and I don't want see anyone get hurt.

But I do think the proliferation of religion into governments and the perversion of otherwise benign teachings by extremists is important enough to make a strong altruistic stand if necessary.

[CapelDodger]

I think we're on the fringe, in a transition stage if you will. We're moving from an era where religion was so highly revered, it was almost unthinkable to oppose it without prefacing ones remarks with "now I don't want to cause any trouble, but . . ." to a point where we must not allow it any conessions simply because so many people are emotionally tied to it. The stakes are too high now to maintain that attitude.
Please don't feel you have to respond to this, I am in the broadest agreement with you. I have never bought into respect for people's beliefs simply because they're beliefs. Bollocks, say I. If people believe laughable things laugh at them, if they believe vile things vilify them.

I don't think we're at a transition stage. It's a common mistake to think that our days are crucial. What bothers me is the current trend from the rational to the irrational. That wasn't the trend in the 40's, 50's, 60's - the trend then was from superstition and towards science. It changed in the 70's. Since then woo has come surging back and science, while making staggering progress in its own terms, has fallen back in society's opinion.

60's predictions of the 21stCE involved jetpacks, moonbases and undersea cities, not wars of religion - which is what we've actually got. Hats off to Frank Herbert, one of the very few Sci-Fi writers to factor religion into the future. The post-war boom ran into the sands of the 70's. People have turned to woo for comfort, and there's never a shortage of dealers in that market.

Woodrow Wilson in 1926 wondered why anybody still questioned organic evolution. Bush Minor in 2007 thinks the jury is still out. Somewhere in-between we missed the transition, and will have to come around again :). The main thing is to stay in the air long enough while the woo-pedlars are trying to shoot us down. If that means being brutal so be it. Can I help it if I love it?

And I think those who find Harris' and Dawkins' uncompomising style troublesome still harbor some of that old time reverence for the church.
Agreed. Respect for beliefs is a priestly fall-back strategem - "I can't have you killed for disbelief these days, I clearly can't persuade you, but consider how important belief is to the little people ... would you rob them of what little they have?" Yes I would.

[CapelDodger]

After reading that review, I came to the conclusion that Sam Harris wishes to play the role of "tails" to Jonathan Sarfati's "heads." Good for him, neither of their two cents worth is worth a nickel. (For those who haven't read "Refuting Compromise," be glad.) I'll drop that two sided coin in the wishing well, and vigorously wish them both a jointly inhabited padded room. These two are millionaires in the currency of invective.
Is invective all you see in that review? Nothing substantial at all? Just a particularly refined version of carpet-biting?

I loved it, I wish I could excoriate with such restraint and efficiency.

[Antiquehunter]

I'm with Harris, Dawkins, and other thinkers that the time has come for atheists and like-minded thinkers to take a stronger stance against the irrationality of religion.

And - I cautiously agree that moderates are part of the problem. When Bush said in 1987 'No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.' Where were the religious moderates rising to the defence of atheists?

When religious personages attack another group of people, how many moderates rise to the challenge, and how many simply say 'Well, Pat Robertson is a @(#$#(@*&^ nutbar, but I'm a moderate - so I'll just dismiss him and carry on in my moderation.'

I'm sorry - Sam Harris is right - moderates DO allow whackjobs to perpetrate their evil on the world - through apathy and through an overall reluctance to question their personal faith position.

If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.

(And - I have loads of theistic friends, and I certainly hope that any theists coming to TAM won't chuck slot tokens at my head for my position.)

-AH.