Forums IMPORTANT: PLEASE READ Beyond Human Why Religion Must End: Interview with Sam Harris

Dear Friends,

I came across this provocative interview with Sam Harris, the author of
"The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason."
It's definitely not for the sensitive fundamentalists
out there, but Mr. Harris does make some very good points, and he has caused
me to wonder whether my current "accept-all-opinions" attitude when it
comes to matters of faith is really the most helpful to our evolution as a
civilization. I hope you find it as stimulating ... Best, HF

=============================================================
Why Religion Must End:
Interview with Sam Harris

A leading atheist says people must embrace rationalism, not faith--or they
will never overcome their differences.

Interview by Laura Sheahen.

Sam Harris is not your grandfather's atheist. The award-winning writer
practices Zen meditation and believes in the value of mystical
experiences. But he's adamant in his belief that religion does more harm
than good in the world, and has sparked controversy by suggesting that
when it comes to faith-based violence, religious moderates are part of the
problem, not the solution. Beliefnet editor Laura Sheahen spoke with him
about his provocative book "The End of Faith" and his comments at the
World Congress of Secular Humanism, where this interview was conducted.

Full interview at:

www.beliefnet.org/story/191/story_19107_1.html

==============================================================

Hi hartreefoch -
Fantastic article. Very insightful as far as I can see - definitely want to get a hold of this guy's book...
I particularly like what he is saying about society being held hostage by a 2,000 yr-old concept of morality vs. us actually trying to take responsibility for morality now and attempting to define its parameters in the present. Oh, but that would be too scary now wouldn't it? It would be too grown-up. The interviewer really hit the nail on the head with the question about people preferring self-deception to despair and chaos - of course people want to be told what to do. We're all sheep! (why do fascists always get as far as they do each time around?) And if one thing gets good persuasive PR for a long enough time (the guilt and fear-inducing type always seems to work best though), it suddenly becomes Unquestionable Truth. (no matter whether it's supposedly dictated to us by a God or a "Fuehrer")

For me it is summed up when he says "People have morally identified with a subset of humanity rather than with humanity as a whole". Don't individual religions get it that all they're doing is setting themselves up for a (distinctively human and unevolved) fight with other religions about whose fairy-tale is better?
To be honest, it's the pinch of salt stuff that really pisses me off though - possibly due to the fact that it represents the greatest inconsistency. I can almost relate more to someone who will absolutely take this or that religious text for absolute truth, word for word, than some (nonethess self-righteous) god-fearer who has decided to, as the interviewee neatly terms it, "cherry-pick" the bits of say, the Bible, that suit him and/or his particular church grouping's particular sensitivities best. It's incredible that such a cherry-picker can still, with no conceivable conscience or sense of irony, go on to condemn others (whether Christian or otherwise) who don't conform to his particular religious viewpoint . Particularly given that the main argument he uses is that the religious "word" he preaches has come directly from God - ie untainted by human corruption. Now, was that before or after you decided which bits of the Bible you liked and which you didn't, Mr Cherry-Picker?

The mixing of religion with politics that is also touched on in the interview is equally unnerving. John Ashcroft is a fantastic case in point, by the way - cats are the instrument of the devil? Let's put that man in charge! (thankfully this guy is no longer one of Bush's cronies. But this man was actually in a position of power - in the 21st century - how safe does that make everyone feel? Don't know about you but, give me secular "chaos" any day.)

It would of course be great if leaders of countries could just stick to serving the interests of humanity, rather than to serving the various dogma of institutions who have succeeded in putting centuries of bloodshed behind them in the name of false Gods. (and the economic gods always seem to get top billing in most cases - whether those wolves are shrouded in religious sheep's clothing or not).

Or maybe I'm being too harsh. If a political leader receives a higher calling, who am I, other than a lowly, ignorant, heathen blasphemer, of course, to call any of it into question? How can I be so arrogant as to say that those voices in his head aren't the words of God?

What was that I was saying about secular "chaos"?!

best wishes
Ingrid

Dear Ingrid,

Glad you liked the article. I admire Mr. Harris' boldness to state what
many of us believe is right, but who are too courteous to reveal. I was
always taught to agree to disagree when it comes to matters of faith.
And I've been on both sides of the fence: in my adolescent years, a
missionary-minded evangelical; and in my adulthood, a happy-go-lucky
rationalist. My family, though, is still very fundamentalist Christian,
and both my folks are pastors of a Bible-preaching chapel. So, you can
imagine the interesting discussions we have about religion and truth over
the years. Oh, yes, they do certainly believe we are in the end times and
that Jesus is coming back soon for the ultimate judgment day. In my
darker moments, I've seriously wondered whether I was actually adopted,
because, gee, how could I share the same genes with those who so firmly
believe what I regard as utter nonsense? At the same time, both my
parents are quite intelligent, well-educated (my pop holds two earned
doctorates), and many in their church are also quite distinguished and
respected in their fields of endeavor, which include science, technology,
medicine, and business. So, there's no question in my mind that a person
can be quite sane, intelligent, and rational, yet firmly hold on to
matters of faith.

Why do we believe the things we do? And why are we so sensitive regarding
our beliefs? For example, I've been holding an interesting discussion in
the adjacent Feng Shui (FS) forum, trying to understand the basis of a
practitioner's beliefs in it. I've learned a lot from the discussion, and
I've noticed an interesting progression in the discussion:

1. First, they refer to scientific "proof" that FS works, appealing to the
notions of energy/Qi, using the example of electricity, offering evidence
in demonstrations of EEG tests and applied kinesiology (arm strength
test), invoking celestial influences such as the lunar effect.

2. Then, I try to correct and clarify each of their misuses and
misunderstandings of what science really says on these matters one by one.
(Actually, the bulk of the discussion is me defending the scientific
method!)

3. Next, the nature of their arguments become anti-science: well, the more
you try to prove something, the more you can't; you can't trust
researchers because they make the data say anything they want it to say;
modern science has not yet caught up to FS; FS simply works, and we should
stop wasting our time and energy trying to convince you, because you are
an energy vampire enslaved to science and all you want to do is
antagonize, not learn.

Sigh ...

The best point they have raised is that FS is a faith-based system which
requires no burden of proof to doubters. From the outset, that is exactly
what I proposed: FS's power arises from the belief of the practitioner, nothing
else.

Such sensitivity exists in matters as benign as FS! Dare I start
challenging someone (respectfully, of course) on matters of more eternal
consequence: Heaven, hell, salvation, morality, meaning and purpose in
life?

Why do we believe the things we do? And what is our responsibility as
rational people living in a supposedly enlightened age regarding irrational
belief systems which have no objective basis? There is clearly a very
real power in such beliefs, whether "right" or "wrong," and even
physicians routinely employ the placebo effect to facilitate genuine
healing.

Yes, I look forward to reading Mr. Harris' book and to our continued
discussion about the issues he raises.

HF

I read the article by Mr. Harris last week and I have been thinking about it every since. The thing that I continue to mull over is his statement that moderates legitimize a religion, there-by (quietly) condoning action by extremists. This is of course, me paraphrasing. I think the argument might go, if there were no moderates in a particular religion, it would not exist and the extremists would then just be criminals. And then (hopefully) the criminal justice system would handle the problem.

Coyote

Dear Coyote,

The criminal justice system BETTER handle the problem of extremism,
regardless of whether moderates exist or not!

I also wonder whether a society can even in principle be based on the kind
of rationalism which Mr. Harris advocates, because if nothing else, humans
are irrational. Of course, being irrational may or may not be "bad,"
depending on your value system. But look at our history and the stuff we
cling on to as a race ... 99.999% irrational with 0.001% rationality
sprinkled in. I mean, we don't have to go very far at all to find great
examples of total irrationality ... many wonderful examples just a few
clicks away, if you catch my drift. Sometimes it really bothers me,
because it hinders our growth as a civilization. Yet, what can we do?

In my experience, whenever I try to open up a rational discussion with
people "of faith," it soon turns very, very irrational. Oh, but they
don't see it as irrational at all, but rather that I'm the one being
closed-minded. And, they are the ones who turn around and walk away,
declaring I'm not worth their time and energy. This happens over and over
again in every possible context without fail. It makes me wonder whether
belief in something is actually associated with a physical sub-organ in
the brain, because I must not have that sub-organ, which explains why I'm
so blind and dull as to not to be able to understand where they're coming
from.

At times like these, it's difficult to regard the human race with unity.
It seems like we have to adopt an attitude of blanket acceptance of all
ideologies, regardless of their basis in objective truth. But then, that
indirectly fosters the craziness of extremists, which includes those
insatiable and irresponsible marketers who would prey upon the weaknesses
of the human condition. We have a LONG way to go as a people!

HF

Coyote, I think what Mr Harris is trying to say in the interview about moderates legitimizing extremists is meant very much the way hartreefoch has put it. A moderate believer "indirectly fosters the craziness of extremists".

Put it this way, the main point being made here is that the premise of religious affiliation is irrational belief - a belief without evidence, without essential substantiation (and usually fuelled by a hefty amount of childhood indoctrination). OK, so a moderate may well promote a nice, palatable, socially acceptable belief system, but fundamentally the act of the moderate believer and that of an extremist believer is actually the same - ie: irrational belief. In a way, the extremist is merely taking this irrationalism, and bringing it to its logical conclusion (which is why I often feel that they are at least being more concise and in a way consistent (might I even say honest?) in their irrationality!).

I can't remember what post I recently mentioned this on, but the whole being scared of going to hell thing is a perfect case in point. An extremist will go around preaching how you better believe what he/she says or the devil will get you and make you suffer as you are essentially sinful and now that you know you are sinful and that Jesus is your only redemption etc. then you really have no more excuses etc. etc.
A moderate will preach how Jesus is love and all the wonderful things Jesus has done for you. But believe you me, if you peel away at the moderate you will uncover the fire and brimstone anyway. Just because it's not on the front cover of the moderates' PR manual, does not mean that it's not in the book.

Where's the difference at the end of the day?
If you consider an earlier post I wrote about setting up a belief system which holds that large teapots floating in the sky are in fact what is controlling what is happening on earth (I may not be able to prove this, but you can't disprove it either, so there!). Isn't the very belief in the teapot extreme enough on the cloud-cuckoo-land richter scale? Does it really matter if some of the teapot believers who have joined me run around being more vehement in their belief than others? Surely the belief in the teapot itself is scary enough as it is?

Thanks again hartreefoch - what a great topic starter!
best wishes
Ingrid

PS: hartreefoch, this whole irrationalism thing - maybe it's because we all tend to be motivated by reactive emotions at the end of the day - and unfortunately Fear ends up being team coach most of the time!

Christ did not like the religious extremists of His day, he condemned them.

Christ perfected obedience to the law by being perfectly loving.

Christ disobeyed the religious law of the Sabbath when he helped someone on the Sabbath, He was only being loving, that was all He had to give.

Religion does however offer signposts to spirituality. Spirituality is perfect love. Once a higher level of spirituality is achieved , the signposts are needed less.

Love is the only law Christ claimed as necessary to obey. Love is the ultimate freedom.

The above mentioned points are some of the signposts I am using, but I am battling like everyone else to succeed at them.

Dear Ingrid,

Yes, I loved your teapot-in-the-sky analogy. (Earl Grey, anyone?)
I also liked the diamond-in-the-yard example given by Mr. Harris.

Yes, fear is definitely a strong motivating factor. In one of my
discussions with my pop, I asked him, Why are you afraid that your beliefs
might be wrong? He did not answer, the first silent moment in our long
discussion. But he need not have answered, because we both knew why:
Religious traditions which are based on authority are glued together by
blocks of faith, and casting doubt on any basic tenant in that structure
can potentially bring the entire stack of cards crashing down. Centuries
and centuries of thought and tradition are at stake, way too much to risk.

After all, given a preference, I would love to forever stay within my
mother's warm, cushioned womb, all comfy and nurtured and having
everything fed directly into my belly button. The alternative? The cold,
harsh, rawness of reality, the brave new world, having to eat broccoli ...
ewww! How many of us wish we could crawl back into mother's womb where
everything is predigested and insulated?

Perhaps we are at a stage in human civilization when the birthing process
has begun and is in progress, when we are being thrust into a new way of
thinking, acting, and reacting. Some (most?) of us hang on to the old
ways; some of us are guilty of luring others back to the old ways; and
some of us are discovering that, hey, life outside the womb is not so bad
after all. Yeah, we may have to endure broccoli, but there's also
strawberries and cherries and peaches and cream.

So, another round of ale to all ... cheers!

HF

Dear Jeanne,

I think that the FS train-of-thought is quite appropriate for this
discussion, too, because it is a timely object lesson in my life regarding
adherence to belief systems.

Oh, and I don't think FS is junk at all. I made an effort in that thread
to clearly state 5 core truths about FS which I truly appreciate, which
the respondents have helped me accept as worthy about the system. What I
do regard as junk, however, is all the extraneous rules and regulations
which have grown up around marketed systems of FS, things which ultimately
boil down to superstitions, which do not serve us well at all. Just
glance through the kinds of postings in that forum and tell me honestly
whether FS is helping to liberate or to bind people.

Here - I just came up with Feng Shui Principle #1 for Plumbers: To
achieve harmony with Mother Earth, all drainage pipes must flow DOWN.

Yes, I, too would love to see a fair, honest, double-blind study of FS,
something which I think can easily be done in an objective manner,
although we would fist have to decide which of dozens of FS systems to
test; there are so many!! But you know, even though SO many other ideas
and practices have been debunked by thorough, objective studies (e.g.
astrology, applied kinesiology, geomancy, numerology,
cloud-busting/rain-making, aural phenomenon, necromancy, to list just a
few), I doubt the results of research would do anything whatsoever to
someone who wants to believe in FS. I sense this strongly from the
interactions with those who responded to my thread: FS works for them,
and if science can't explain why, then science hasn't caught up to FS yet;
and, researchers can't be trusted, because they make the data say whatever
they want it to say. There's an old saying: "For those who have faith,
no evidence is needed; for those who do not have faith, no evidence is
sufficient."

The stage magicians, Penn and Teller have already recently conducted quite
a revealing examination of FS systems, which in hindsight is quite
beautiful in its simplicity: Hire three expert FS consultants and allow
them to individually arrange the furniture in a house. The result? All
three arranged the furniture differently! (You can get a copy of this
Showtime episode of their series which examines our popular beliefs;
Google: Penn, Teller, Feng Shui.) Contrast this with the solid
determinism which science offers: Hire three (or three thousand)
scientists (for a LOT less than what FS consultants charge, I might add),
and all of them will tell you exactly the same thing regarding how
electricity behaves and how to harness it for the benefit of mankind.

Regarding religion: You're absolutely right about the baby and the
bath-water, which is what Mr. Harris' central point is from the start:
Let's get rid of all the irrational stuff (the bath-water) which
constitutes the bulk of religion and continue the moral conversation using
21st century language, basing our beliefs and actions on what is rational
(the baby).

Best to you,

HF