Evangelical Atheism/Sam Harris

[Lightkeeper]

Sam Harris has brought his brand of evangelical atheism back to the HuffPo with his aggressively named post, "Science Must Destroy Religion." It's filled with the language of intolerance, rife with logical flaws, and it fails to meet the standard of the great atheist Bertrand Russell, who said "I shouldn't wish people dogmatically to believe any philosophy, not even mine." Ralph Waldo Emerson said, "If you want to lift me up you must be on higher ground." Contempt and arrogance have no place on that ground.

Is it harsh to describe Harris's creed as 'intolerance'? Here's what he says in his HuffPo piece: ... most sensible people advocate something called "religious tolerance." While ... better than religious war, tolerance is not without its liabilities. Our fear of provoking religious hatred has rendered us incapable of criticizing ideas that are now patently absurd and increasingly maladaptive. It has also obliged us to lie to ourselves -- repeatedly and at the highest levels -- about the compatibility between religious faith and scientific rationality.

So if you're tolerant of other religious beliefs, you're "incapable of criticizing absurd ideas," and you lie to yourself repeatedly and at the highest levels. He is even harder on tolerance in his piece for Truthdig, Robert Scheer's new (and extremely interesting) new online magazine. "Liberal piety is apt to produce the most unctuous and stupefying nonsense imaginable," he writes.

As an Editor's Note for the piece states, "Sam Harris argues that progressive tolerance of faith-based unreason is as great a menace as religion itself." I agree with that interpretation, and would argue that his thinking is wrong for progressives: ethically, politically, and even logically. Tolerance and moderation are still good for society, and for the individuals within it.

Regarding moderates' "inability to criticize absurd ideas," Harris' argument is flatly wrong. Islamic moderates have issued fatwas condemning terrorism. Christian moderates have been in the forefront of the battle against American fundamentalism. Jimmy Carter is one of our most effective spokesmen against intelligent design. And Harris offers no arguments or evidence to the contrary. He simply moves on to say:

"Although it is easy enough for smart people to criticize religious fundamentalism, something called "religious moderation" still enjoys immense prestige in our society, even in the ivory tower. This is ironic, as fundamentalists tend to make a more principled use of their brains than 'moderates' do."

Clearly, religious moderation is the gravest offense of all in Harris' book.

"It is perfectly absurd for religious moderates to suggest that a rational human being can believe in God simply because this belief makes him happy, relieves his fear of death or gives his life meaning," Harris continues. Why? Harris' explanation takes the form of a flawed metaphor for religious belief - a man who believes there is a buried diamond "the size of a refrigerator" in his backyard.

The metaphor is a clumsy one on a number of levels. First, belief in a Supreme Being usually implies the existence of an overarching Consciousness (the Deity), and often suggests life after death and the existence of a soul. This not only provides comfort, but in most religions dictates a code of behavior as well. Would a giant diamond dictate behavior, or reassure the dying about an afterlife? Would such a man believe that "Diamond is Love"?

Of course not, because it's a poorly chosen analogy. And even if it were not, Harris fails to make the case that permitting "the diamond man" his belief would cause harm to anyone. He labels it - as psychotic behavior - but only after creating an analogy that might appear that way. If one is going to argue for logic over faith, it's a good idea to make your logical arguments a little stronger than this.

But logic isn't Harris' strong suit - proclamations are. "Our fear of provoking religious hatred has rendered us incapable of criticizing ideas that are maladaptive ..." Says who? I and many other commentators comment frequently on maladaptive religious ideas, like Intelligent Design, without rejecting all religion - and without communicating contempt for the beliefs of others.

Here's another proclamation: "The difference between science and religion is the difference between a genuine openness to fruits of human inquiry in the 21st century, and a premature closure to such inquiry as a matter of principle." Says who? Certainly not the National Council of Churches or American Jewish leaders, who actively support scientific inquiry in all fields of endeavor.

Here's another: "Religion is fast growing incompatible with the emergence of a global civil society." It's hard to say whether Harris has a valid point here. Why? For one thing, because for all his vituperation about religion (he leans heavily on words like "destroy," "unctuous," "grotesque," etc.) he never defines the term. Is Buddhism a religion? Most scholars think so, but apparently not Harris.

RJ Eskow: Reject Arguments For Intolerance - Even From Atheists - The Huffington Post
There is a lot to debate here:

1. Must science destroy religion?
2. If one is tolerant is he/she unable to be critical of absurd ideas?
3. Are all religions incompatible with science?
4. Can a rational human being believe in God?
5. Does Sam Harris use critical thinking?

[statrei]

Sam Harris displays his lack of understanding of the history of humanity. Religion is a by-product of science. Calling for its destruction is like the tongue calling for the destruction of the rectum.

[metis]

Originally Posted by Lightkeeper

1. Must science destroy religion?

No, but it has changed religious ideas in the eyes of many.

2. If one is tolerant is he/she unable to be critical of absurd ideas?

One can be critical without necessarily trashing an entire idea.

3. Are all religions incompatible with science?

Buddhism, as Einstein noted, is probably the most open to science. Others can be at least somewhat open if they don't take their scriptures as being inerrant.

4. Can a rational human being believe in God?

I believe one may.

5. Does Sam Harris use critical thinking?

Since I read his last two books, I can say that he does. However, like Dawkins, he sometimes goes overboard with his statements.

[metis]

Religion is a by-product of science.

It actually can trace its roots back to the Greek Age of Reason, which challenged religious concepts, especially those that had a deity being involved in everything we see and do. Much later, the Renaissance, which was sort of a quasi-religious movement of sorts, helped to push forth a greater emphasis on reason.

[Astreja]

Religion is not necessarily incompatible with science. Problems do arise when a literalist faith tries to deny something that science has discovered because the discovery conflicts with their scriptures.

In such an environment, science eventually tends to win because it can re-discover suppressed knowledge in a more favourable time.

As for tolerance, I think we're increasingly intolerant of perceived absurdity in proportion to the intensity of our feelings on the subject.

Science and fundamentalist religion are in an adversarial relationship because both are trying to answer the same questions, and the answers of one are seen as undermining the foundations of the other. I don't see the same problems with personal spirituality, nor with metaphorical religion.

[angeleyes]

If divisiveness and judgementalism is what we're after, Harris is doing as good a job as anyone.

[Asimov]

Irrational ideas dont' need to be destroyed, they need to be treated like what they are, childish nonsense.

[evangelicalhumanist]

1. Must science destroy religion?

We need to work on our terminology a bit here, because we’re bandying words about as if their definitions didn’t really matter. Sam Harris is as guilty as everyone else of this, by the way. For the most part, when Harris rails against “religion,” he is talking about those dogmatic beliefs that are based in literal (or even semi-metaphorical) understandings of scripture. “Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live!” If that leads someone to think they have God’s justification to go out and kill Wiccans, that’s what Harris cares about. If scripture says homosexuals or adulteresses should be stoned to death at the wall of the town, and people do it, that’s what he’s talking about. If scripture says apostates from the Muslim faith should be killed, that’s what he’s talking about.

Harris is (or should be) aware that we cannot survive at all without any number of beliefs which we cannot prove. As a doctoral student in neuroscience, he should by now have some understanding of how the brain works, and how it develops heuristics that give plausible means of dealing with a thousand situations a day, none of which is based on science.

He is also aware that there are what are usually called “religious” experiences of which he approves. Things like Eastern meditation, the search for some sort of transcendence.

So it is my opinion that what he is talking about are those formal creeds that demand a certain set of core beliefs, bits of which are fine, most of which should by now be seen as nonsense.

And by the way, it is just this that Bishop John Shelby Spong is turning towards, as well. He is saying that it’s no longer a wise thing to believe in a literal Christ born of a literal virgin who literally turned water into wine and multiplied loaves and fishes and walked on water -- and who will be bringing an apocalyptic end-time a week Tuesday. Those are things for a more credulous, less advanced age.

Harris wants to kill the literalist, fundamentalist mind-traps, not the expression of religious feeling.

2. If one is tolerant is he/she unable to be critical of absurd ideas?

This is a difficult subject, because we are far too infrequently able to criticize some comments by those seeking high office, when the comments, though patently ludicrous, are of a religious nature. We spend inordinate amounts of energy trying to dance around people’s religious beliefs, even though it is those very religious beliefs which have the potential to be damaging to people’s lives.

Let me give you an example. When same-sex marriage was being debated in the Parliament of Canada, church leaders made threats of possible excommunication against members of Parliament. In fact, some churches removed MPs in their congregations from duties which they loved.

But if “the Bible says...,” then it is considered very wrong to say “then the Bible is wrong!” We don’t do it. It would be an affront to people’s religious beliefs, of which we are supposed to be tolerant. That makes the argument very difficult to fight, though, doesn’t it?

And it is exactly for that reason that we managed to change the law in Canada, and in Britain, the Netherlands, Denmark, Spain. Those countries are all much more comfortable with a less literal view of religious dogma. In the United States, it’s going to take a lot longer, and the reason it is going to take a lot longer (and therefore some good people will be denied the right to marry those they love and wish to protect) is because “the bible says...” and this message is being spit from the pulpits to draw the religious right to the polling booths to get exactly that sort of nonsense added to referendum questions on the ballot.

So, is it any wonder that we think sometimes that religious tolerance makes it more difficult to openly criticize absurdities?

(Oh, and for the record, thank goodness I'm not an American. I could never possibly vote for a man who can believe that Joseph Smith read God's revelation in "reformed Egyptian" out of a hat, translated by "seer stones." To even be able to entertain such a belief indicates a lack of some fundamental level of critical thinking that just might be needed by someone holding the most powerful elected office in the world.)

3. Are all religions incompatible with science?

When religions demand belief in those things which science has shown cannot be true in the world in which we exist, then to that extent the religion is incompatible with science. Miracles are magic, not science.

Also, when religions demand belief in a hypothesis without investigation and testing, they are incompatible with science. Science is, after all, the business of developing explanations for observed phenomena, and then testing those explanations to see if they hold true, and to see if they can make predictions that advance our understanding and control of the physical world. Religion demands belief and it demands it explicitly without testing it. So to that extent, it is antithetical to science.

You see, the point here is that it is perfectly reasonable for someone to propose a belief in anything. I may suggest that tall people are more intelligent than short people, but until I actually go to the trouble of looking for a correlation between height and intelligence, and then testing to see if that correlation holds true in all circumstances, I have not done science.

That is not to say that I’m wrong. It’s entirely possible that I am correct, but that would be by accident, not science.

4. Can a rational human being believe in God?

Many rational people believe in God. But I put it to you that not many truly rational people believe in the God of the fundamentalists. They are much more likely to be deist-like in their thinking. No rational person can believe fully in the traditional Abrahamic God that I presented some time ago in another thread, because such a god is filled with logical contradictions. To hold contradictory statements to be simultaneously true is contrary to reason, thus such a person would not be rational on that subject.

5. Does Sam Harris use critical thinking?

Of course he does. He is also, like every other human being, emotional. I think you need to know that “critical thinking” is a method, and not guaranteed to get to the “correct answer.”

Let me show you an example from the piece that was cited to open this thread. The author claims that Harris uses a "clumsy metaphor." That may well be true, and here is the passage:

"It is perfectly absurd for religious moderates to suggest that a rational human being can believe in God simply because this belief makes him happy, relieves his fear of death or gives his life meaning," Harris continues. Why? Harris' explanation takes the form of a flawed metaphor for religious belief - a man who believes there is a buried diamond "the size of a refrigerator" in his backyard.

The metaphor is a clumsy one on a number of levels. First, belief in a Supreme Being usually implies the existence of an overarching Consciousness (the Deity), and often suggests life after death and the existence of a soul. This not only provides comfort, but in most religions dictates a code of behavior as well. Would a giant diamond dictate behavior, or reassure the dying about an afterlife? Would such a man believe that "Diamond is Love"?

But notice, after claiming that the metaphore is poor, the author merely adds to the problem by claiming that the belief does more than Harris claims for it (it dictates a code of behavior as well). But does that in any way add credance to the belief? No, not at all. So it is just as much a "proclamation" as any that Harris makes.

The author claims, "If one is going to argue for logic over faith, it's a good idea to make your logical arguments a little stronger than this." Clearly, though, if one is going to argue for faith over logic, it appears that one doesn't need any arguments at all.

[metis]

Originally Posted by angeleyes

If divisiveness and judgementalism is what we're after, Harris is doing as good a job as anyone.

I agree. I don't have to much of a problem with the main thrust of Harris' and Dawkins' arguments, but I do have a problem with their overstatements and demeanor.

[evangelicalhumanist]

Originally Posted by metis

I agree. I don't have to much of a problem with the main thrust of Harris' and Dawkins' arguments, but I do have a problem with their overstatements and demeanor.

I think a lot of their anger is because they don't seem to recognize that many religious people are looking for meaning, and their science-focus isn't providing answers.

Now, it may well be true that there are no answers -- that everything that feels like an answer from a religious/spiritual point of view is merely made-up -- but for many (probably most) people, those answers are going to be more satisfying than none at all.

But to be fair, you must still try to see their point of view a little as well. For example, James Dobson fights tooth and nail against gay people having any rights at all. Dobson, and his Focus on the Family, have the direct ear of some very important people -- including the current President of the United States. Dobson's looney ideas, then, get a hearing at the very highest levels. Harris and Dawkins, Hitchens and Dennett are dismissed by these same people as "cranks," because they don't Praise the Lord every third sentence.

And from their point of view, the same holds true for the extreme Islamists, who get easy hearing in the highest offices of Islamic nations.

Now, pay attention, because what I'm about to say is very, very important. The fact that religion very often, and in many places, commands higher respect than do human diversity and rights has led, and leads still today, to some very great injustices. And these injustices are not supported by anything rational, only by religious dogma.

It is that, and that alone, that so gets under the collars of these gentlemen.