On the list of things you’re not supposed to talk about on a first date, religion sits at number one … and for obvious reasons. Disagreements can get nasty and irrational, and in most cases, nobody is going to say anything original anyway–much of the talk that surrounds the topic is poorly-imitated and poorly-informed recycled arguments.
The same is usually true on blogs and forums simply because it’s often hard to say much of substance in a comment box.
This is probably why I confine my attention to this topic almost exclusively to books. A book allows an author space to develop an argument, consider alternatives and counter-points, provide support, and (in theory) excise emotion-fueled hyperboles and categorical dismissals.
This might be why I’ve avoided posting anything of a religious nature on this blog until just recently (though I am glad to say that the comments running on the Harris/Prager post have been civil so far).
Nevertheless, I’m going to play the fool again (and I think Harris would encourage all of us to do so … keep reading). I received a request to give a response/review of Sam Harris‘ The End of Faith, and I’ll do my best.
I want to start by saying that the book is fairly dense, is very well-written, makes sound arguments and provides extensive support (in the main text, in the 30-page notes at the end of the main text, and in the 30-page bibliography). Nothing I can say here can adequately compare, so if you are interested in this topic, read the book. It is well worth the time, whatever your opinions on the topic may be.
As for my personal overall assessment: I consider it one of the more important books that I’ve read on the subject. This is not because I agree with everything Harris has to say, but because he does his job well (make a clear argument, address implications and objections, provide support, extend the discussion) and because he’s addressing issues that really matter, and matter right now.
So … my attempt to outline his major points (doomed to fail from the start):
Harris’ main contention is that, by making “belief” a topic that is “off limits” to public discussion in terms of reason and accountability, we allow these beliefs to drive us, globally, closer and closer to catastrophe.
I see no reason for us to expect to survive our religious differences indefinitely. (from his talk at Idea City 2005)
I want to be clear: Harris is calling for exactly what the title of his book suggests. He “believes” (and provides some compelling arguments along the way) that many of our religious beliefs are so dangerous that they will eventually lead to our mutual destruction.
He also condemns religious tolerance because it misses an important point: beliefs have actual consequences. The reason we cannot just “let others believe what they want to believe” is that many of these beliefs have political, social, and military consequences. If you literally believe that God has granted you a certain patch of land, for instance, that belief may very well lead to the deaths of children.
Therefore, Harris argues that we should focus on the reasons behind a person’s beliefs. If s/he can provide sound reasons to support a belief, fine. If not, then we should not respect that belief, and we certainly shouldn’t go to war over it.
Though his stance against religious doctrine is harsh, Harris is not discounting a spiritual dimension. In his words:
This is not to say that the deepest concerns of the faithful, whether moderate or extreme, are trivial or even misguided … There is clearly a sacred dimension to our existence, and coming to terms with it could well be the highest purpose of human life. (16)
How we come to terms with this dimension is desperately important, though, and what we come to believe about this dimension should be supported by (or at least not contradicted by) reason and observation.
As long as a person maintains that his beliefs represent an actual state of the world … he must believe that his beliefs are a consequence of the way the world is. This, by definition, leaves him vulnerable to new evidence. Indeed, if there were no conceivable change in the world that could get a person to question his religious beliefs, this would prove that his beliefs were not predicated upon his taking any state of the world into account. He could not claim, therefore, to be representing the world at all. (63)
Beyond this brief sketch, the reasoning behind his major assertions are quite involved and each worthy of further consideration. His chapters deal with the following:
- The nature of belief (one of the most interesting, and a chapter to which I will likely return to explore further … its implications go far beyond religion)
- The history of conflict grounded in religious differences
- A specific examination of Islam
- A specific examination of Judaism and Christianity
- Non-religious reasons for ethical behavior (grounded in “the happiness and suffering of sentient creatures” and in which he repudiates moral relativism and pacifism; another chapter worthy of further discussion)
- A brief consideration of the nature of consciousness (and in which the book takes a surprisingly mystic/Buddhist turn)
As for my personal opinion, I agree with at least this much: ideas and beliefs have consequences, some are more dangerous than others, and we should be vigilant in our consideration of the beliefs and ideas that we hold and that are held by others–they should not be given a free pass from reasonable discourse.
… the only thing that permits human beings to collaborate with one another in a truly open-ended way is their willingness to have their beliefs modified by new facts. (48)
If you’re looking for a quick glimpse into some of Harris’ thinking, this video is helpful. It’s not a replacement for his book, but it’s a start. Also see the resources at the end of the post.
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3YOIImOoYM&rel=1]
Resources:
- Sam Harris website
- Sam Harris blog on Washingtonpost.com / Newsweek
- The End of Faith
- Letter to a Christian Nation
- His talk at Idea City 2005
- His talk on C-Span2’s Book TV: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4
- Interview on TruthDig
February 20th, 2007 at 9:21 pm
Eric,
I hope I’m not misinterpreting anything that he’s trying to say…
Thanks for the post. I was able to visit some of the websites and watched the video, so I think now I know where Harris is coming from a little better…He has many good points…I should probably just leave it at that, and shut up and go read his book, but me being me, I have to say some things…
-To me, from what I’ve read in some other articles he wrote, it seems like he has problems with the concept of “organized religion” more than anything else, and he lump sums religious people into two categories: the fundamentalists, and the “moderates”. But he himself calls these fundamentalist people lunatics. Something is apparently wrong with the way these people see “religion”. I don’t think any religion in it’s intended form was created to cause hatred among people. Historically, these religions always were created at times of great chaos, to bring some “peace” about and put some rules on the table. Of course, in time, these ideas and doctrines get old and need reform, and unfortunately lunatics always do exist to take everything out of context.
-I have to quote this from your blog: “He also condemns religious tolerance because it misses an important point: beliefs have actual consequences. The reason we cannot just “let others believe what they want to believe” is that many of these beliefs have political,social, and military consequences.”…I beg to differ here…I think it’s the other way around…Bad politics, greed for land etc. cause religion to be taken out of context. People with bad intentions use (and have used for ages) religion as a tool to brainwash people, promise them eternal salvation or land to do horrible things. No organized religious institution (say the church or whatever the Muslims have) wants to lose it’s political power. Power equals money and wealth. There are bigger political “games” behind all that is happening, it doesn’t begin or end with belief in religion. Religion is only a tool…And people are good at finding tools…So if it weren’t this, it’d be something else. It is just so open to be abused when you can scare people with eternal damnation…
-I don’t want to get too hung up on semantics, but I have to comment on his usage of the term “secular”…He says “secularism” and practicing religious tolerance is not the way…OK, I agree with his comment on tolerance now that I know where he is coming from, we definitely should not “tolerate” lunatics who act “unreasonably”. I still believe I can tolerate different “reasonable” (more on that later) religious points of view as long as it is reciprocated, and that’s what democracy calls for, but that’s a whole different topic. But back to secularism…Uhmmm I don’t get it…Secular does not mean “religious tolerance at all costs”. In fact, secular means “not religious” just the kind of thing he’s trying to talk about.
sec·u·lar
–adjective
1. of or pertaining to worldly things or to things that are not regarded as religious, spiritual, or sacred; temporal: secular interests.
2. not pertaining to or connected with religion (opposed to sacred): secular music.
3. (of education, a school, etc.) concerned with nonreligious subjects.
He certainly lost me there. And if a government is truly secular, then I don’t think religion can take part in politics and lead to wars, etc. I think that’s why the “lunacy” he’s referring to seems to be a problem of mostly the Middle East, and The US.
-He talks about hoping to see religion as some other sciences, like math and biology, and I think since religion is not a “positive science” this is impossible. Neither is philosophy. Therefore, these are always open to interpretation, good or bad…
-I came across him saying this in one of the sites (wish I had made a note of the site) that he believes in Buddhist principles but wishes it weren’t called a religion. OOOOOOOK, and then there’s that whole thing about his “spiritual” side. Then he talks about science and reason…Does he believe in karma and reincarnation? I am confused, but I am hoping not.
-He uses the words “reality” and “reasonable” a lot, and I am surprised he’s actually a philosopher. Reasonable according to who? Reality according to what? Reality is what we perceive the world to be, and as such, my reality of this world is a lot different than anyone else’s probably. Reality according to principles grounded in positive science maybe? But then even spirituality becomes unreasonable.
But like I said he does have good points, and his intentions are good. Yes we should be able to confront people about their religious beliefs, and it shouldn’t be a taboo. But I don’t think telling people to abandon their religious beliefs is the way to go (as much as I would like that, too). I don’t think our religious differences will destroy us in the end, people have been at each other’s throats because of religion for thousands of years, it’s nothing new. I think most of this is a reaction to what is going on in the world right now, and religion seems to be the culprit…But I blame bad politics and greedy politicians…Those people are what we should be getting rid of…
February 21st, 2007 at 7:58 pm
Thanks, Pi, for a thoughtful response. I assume you’d want some reaction, so I’ve given some below in response to a few of your quotes.
“I don’t think any religion in its intended form was created to cause hatred among people.”
At least for Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, peace and acceptance is definitely not the message. The God of Judaism is undeniably veangeful and jealous and spends much of the Old Testament destroying or threatening to destroy whole nations. Jesus seems better when dressed in typical Sunday clothes, but he is also quoted as saying things like “I come not to bring peace, but a sword” and “unless you hate your mother and your father you cannot follow me” and “because you are luke-warm, I will spit you out of my mouth.” And the Koran is filled with anger at the unbelieving infidel, the destruction of whom is evidence of devotion to Allah. (And all of those sentiments would still stand in their original context.)
“Bad politics, greed for land, etc. cause religion to be taken out of context.”
This is actually an issue Harris addresses specifically. According to him, politics, poor education, poverty, etc. are not the main causes of many of the destructive behaviors we see many religions generating. The example he cites is the vast number of highly educated and wealthy Muslim suicide bombers.
“People with bad intentions use religion as a tool to brainwash people…”
Yes, this can happen. I agree with you, and suspect Harris would, too. However, much of this happens becuase the religion itself allows for this through the fear generated by belief in the given religious systems.
(You lost me on the “secular” thing. What video/document are you referring to there?)
I also agree that the weakest part of Harris’ argument is where he attempts to deal with how we should approach spirituality. I think his critiques of past and current approaches are much more powerful than anything he has to say in terms of spiritual development.
“…people have been at each other’s throats because of religion for thousands of years, it’s nothing new.”
Yes, but people didn’t have nuclear bombs at their easy disposal. Very soon, we will. This terrifies me, actually. And while I don’t deny politics and politicians can be hugely problematic, you have to have a belief system in place, held by a good number of people, before anyone will actually listen or follow. That’s the danger, I think.
February 22nd, 2007 at 12:12 am
Heya again
I’m glad you replied back. The secular thing is in the video you posted on your blog from YouTube…He says “that’s why secularism and religious toleration is not the way” or something like that…anyways, I’m sure he’s referring to secularism being used as an excuse for tolerating these kinds of idiots.
I want to say that I’m not really trying to defend religion and certainly not fundamentalist freaks…Clearly, something doesn’t appeal to me personally about it so I don’t practice one. However, I’ve seen many people make dramatic changes in their lives because of it, and always for the better. In that sense, I think religion serves a great purpose for those who need a “way”…Not everyone who believes in a sky-god is a fundamentalist freak, and not everyone who believes tolerates them. And I am very certain that no amount of “spirituality” could have saved these people from themselves, they needed something bigger than their own “higher selves”, “consciousness” or what have you to put their faith in and have hope. Whereas I would question the role of religion as an organized institution, practiced behind closed doors, or even in churches, mosques, synagogues, privately, w/o political interference, praying to god, etc, can have no harm for anyone. And I am sure you would agree with that…You’ve studied these things far more than I have. I don’t want people to have to be politically correct, no believer should challenge an atheist or try to save him, but really, why should an atheist, if not provoked, go and meddle with somebody else’s faith, if he’s not harming anyone (not harming being the key thing in that sentence)? Yes tolerance of freaks causes bad things, but we both agree on that, and I think we’re past that.
Back to my thing about politics. Alright, yes, religion is there, so it can be used/abused. That’s why I called it a “tool”…But honestly, let’s think for a minute here…Say we got rid of religion (and partially my reaction to this is because it’s unrealistic and utopic…)…There will be no war??? Should we also ban all kinds of ideologies that cause war, like socialism and democracy and capitalism because they don’t agree with each other? And maybe, we also should get rid of ethnical differences, too…A lot of countries are at war with each other for other reasons than religion, and yes, when available, they will use those nuclear bombs and bio-weapons also. Terrifies me, too. Terrorism is a very real thing, and a very scary one. We’re even more scared of it now more than ever, one for the reason you mentioned (the consequences can be horrifying), but also because it’s hit so close home. Terrorism is not a new world problem, it’s just new in the US and certainly not a problem only created by fundamentalist lunatics. It looks like I am changing topics, but bear with me.
Consider this more like me thinking out loud…
I am not convinced enough yet to change my stance on politics and religion to say it happens the other way around. Dig a little deeper and you will always find a political reason (examples in next paragraph), and certainly, when the actual reason is political, if there’s no religion to abuse, it will be something else people use as an excuse, skin color, different ideologies, different ethnicities…Humans in nature are very greedy and territorial (we are animals after all). We also have a sentimental side, and can attach special (sometimes absurd) meaning to land (sometimes b/c of religion but most of the time not) or resources. Also referring to one of my previous posts, where I mentioned there are a lot more “worldly” problems we have such as poverty, hunger etc…The moment we eradicate these, number of people who commit themselves to terrorism will decline dramatically…There are huge volumes of books and vast amount of research on this topic. I have to mention that we have a very big problem of “media hype” (there are a lot of good books on this) which causes unreasonable fear on a lot of topics, but never touch the real issues that I mentioned above, which underlie what is visible to the eye. Terrorism (yes I am scared, too, and we should be!), whether we want to accept it or not, is only what is visible to the eye. Yes the guys who hit the twin towers were educated. I wonder who payed for their education? Do we know they came from wealthy families? Do you know how terrorists are raised and educated by their leaders so that they can be “perfectly well equipped” when the time comes? Terrorists are not born overnight, they go through extensive training, and most of the time they join, because they get brainwashed into it, because they don’t know better. They are hungry, poor, angry and UNEDUCATED (ok so this is a relevant topic to your blog;)..This is why you or me or most people who have OK lives don’t become terrorists most of the time. Surely, there must be some educated psychopaths who choose that way, and not all poor, hungry ppl become terrorists, but if you look at the statistics, it proves the point. And I would bet my money that most fundamentalist terrorists fit right in with those stats. Not to mention the reason that freak named Osama was angry with the US was not because of religion. I suspect it was some kid of deal gone wrong, back from the days of the cold war. But that’s another blog topic.
So, you may agree or not, that terrorism comes from poverty etc., but this is what I believe. Not to mention I come from a country where terrorism is an everyday battle (not the religious kind though), and have been exposed to it far too much to know how it works. So religion, yes, is used by fundamentalists to create chaos of the worst kind, we should be scared, it is very real, but getting rid of religion, to me, does not get rid of the root cause.
Alright, before I make you and your readers cross-eyed once again with my lengthy post, I just want to give one single example of a war Harris claims was fought because of religion that I think was not…Religion again, was the “visible” culprit (maybe not even that, I’d never thought it had anything to do with religion until he mentioned it in one article). He refers to the Kosovo War in 1999 between Bosnian “Muslims” and Serbian “Christians”. At this point, I would expect anyone who knows a little about this war to raise their eyebrows and say “that had nothing to do with religion” but Harris claims it had. It was totally political, had to do with oppression and the downfall of Yugoslavia (Milosevic was a communist freak), and a struggle for power over some “unclaimed” territory/people, trying to control them, which lead to a lot of rage amongst people, which in turn lead to a horrible ethnic cleansing. It wasn’t religious, it was ethnic…But maybe Harris would want us to get rid of that, too…While we’re at it, maybe we should get rid of everything cultural, so we can’t find anything to start war about.
It also strikes me as weird that Christians and Muslims seem to take the brunt of Harris’ rage. Is he trying to be “politically correct” by not touching Jews, ’cause they’ve been through a lot already? But anyways, I don’t really car about that.
So that is why I don’t think religion and politics affect each other in the order Harris suggests. But I don’t deny terrorism is a problem, or that there are freaky people out there who will stop at nothing to announce war in the name of god. But getting rid of religion will not be the end of it, not to mention that is as utopic as the picture perfect communism.
February 22nd, 2007 at 12:45 am
Ai! Sorry, I forgot to add this to my previous post…I meant to reply to your response…This one:
“At least for Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, peace and acceptance is definitely not the message. The God of Judaism is undeniably veangeful and jealous and spends much of the Old Testament destroying or threatening to destroy whole nations. Jesus seems better when dressed in typical Sunday clothes, but he is also quoted as saying things like “I come not to bring peace, but a sword” and “unless you hate your mother and your father you cannot follow me” and “because you are luke-warm, I will spit you out of my mouth.” And the Koran is filled with anger at the unbelieving infidel, the destruction of whom is evidence of devotion to Allah. (And all of those sentiments would still stand in their original context.)”
I am nodding my head, yes when you read it now, it certainly looks like some of the messages are truly hateful and intolerant (but hey Harris himself says we shouldn’t tolerate…haha…just kidding!). It’s interesting, because when I was reading the books, some things made me question this same thing, but not so often, because some of those, within the story or the context they were used, made sense, because the message was usually against a reaction towards something. But anyways, yes, they sound quite intolerant. I am looking into this one thing you said though”…and the Koran is filled with anger at the unbelieving infidel, the destruction of whom is evidence of devotion to Allah…”. because I do not remember this (the destruction part) was in the Koran I read (interpretations and translations can differ but that much?), but hey, it could be anywhere hidden…I will post you the exact chapter and verse when I find it. So yes, we have evidence these books encourage violence…If people try to practice them as they are, today…
These books were written thousands years ago, to apply to the lifestyles of that time, and as such, they offered much better alternatives to what was there. So in that regard, we should read them within that context. I think I mentioned religious reform somewhere previously. Maybe they could be modernized, I don’t know…We sure don’t live as nomadic barbarian tribes anymore, and don’t need books that were written to control such people. And yes that sounds utopic, too…
I LOVE these debates…They compel me to think, and also I learn some stuff in the proces, too…Thanks!
February 22nd, 2007 at 4:22 pm
I don’t know if you have to be a registered member to read the following article, but I highly recommend it…
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=2459
Foreign Policy is a very credible and scholarly magazine, and it has some very good articles on world politics, terrorism, etc. for those who’re interested…One that I’ve been following for some time now…
I had to post this, because I think it clearly says what I can’t put into words, and how politics, terrorism, religion, poverty, etc. are interconnected…The system is complex, much more complex than “religion breeds terrorism”…It’s all political in the end, and poverty plays a big role.
For those who wish to continue this discussion, I will be posting some stuff on pinarsrambling.blogspot.com soon, check it out. I have an introductory blog there, so feel free to leave comments there about this topic if you wish. I think I’ve hogged Eric’s space up enough. I also feel at this point that I have to go do some reading, because I feel I’m not well equipped to continue this conversation further, I’d have to be an expert on world history, world politics, American foreign policy, history of religion, etc., and I am far from it…
Thanks Eric for a very stimulating topic and letting me abuse your page.