Militant atheist Sam Harris has been making quite a stir lately with his best-selling polemics against religion and his in-your-face public appearances:
… [while] debating a former priest before a packed auditorium… he condemns the God of the Old Testament for a host of sins, including support for slavery. He drop-kicks the New Testament, likening the story of Jesus to a fairy tale. He savages the Koran, calling it “a manifesto for religious divisiveness…” [Link]
He goes beyond the usual attacks on fundamentalists to attack moderates for being “enablers” and apologists for more extreme actions:
Religious moderates, Harris says in his patient and imperturbable style, have immunized religion from rational discussion by nurturing the idea that faith is so personal and private that it is beyond criticism, even when horrific crimes are committed in its name. [Link]
<
p>He sees all religion as fundamentally dangerous, especially in the post 9/11 world:
… he demonstrates the behavior he believes atheists should adopt when talking with Christians. “Nonbelievers like myself stand beside you,” he writes, addressing his imaginary opponent, “dumbstruck by the Muslim hordes who chant death to whole nations of the living. But we stand dumbstruck by you as well – by your denial of tangible reality, by the suffering you create in service to your religious myths, and by your attachment to an imaginary God…” [Link]The worst part, Harris says, is this: Because Christians and Jews cling to their “delusions,” they are in no position to criticize Muslims for theirs. And, as he italicizes it in his new book for maximum effect, ” most Muslims are utterly deranged by their religious faith. ” [Italics his] [Link]
<
p>Despite his deep and abiding enmity to all religions, he finds one acceptable:
He endorses Jainism, a religion-philosophy from India that finds God in the unchanging traits of the human soul. But everyone who organizes his or her life around an ancient text that purports to convey the words and sentiments of God — Harris would like you to surrender your prayers, history and traditions. You are welcome to check out Jainism, but Harris recommends that you accept his conclusion, which is that we live in a universe without God. Deal with it. [Link]
<
p>Somehow I don’t think that the Jains are going to get an influx of converts. And that’s OK with him:
It is, of course, taboo to criticize a person’s religious beliefs. The problem, however, is that much of what people believe in the name of religion is intrinsically divisive, unreasonable, and incompatible with genuine morality. The truth is that the only rational basis for morality is a concern for the happiness and suffering of other conscious beings. [Link]How exactly the faithful will transition to a godless, Good Book-less cosmology is not exactly clear. Harris isn’t sure it will ever happen. But he is heartened by countries such as Sweden, where he claims 80 percent of the populace do not believe in God. [Link]
My very favorite part of this story? The fact that his (un)faith came to him in a vision of secular humanism:
At age 19, he and a college friend tried MDMA, better known as ecstasy, and the experience altered his view of the role that love could play in the world. (“I realized that it was possible to be a human being who wished others well all the time, reflexively.”) He dropped out of Stanford, where he was an English major, in his sophomore year and started to study Buddhism and meditation. He flew around the country and around the world, to places such as India and Nepal, often for silent retreats that went on for months. [Link]
I’m curious as to why Buddhism doesn’t pass muster with him any more. Does he not consider it a religion at all, or does he have a beef with it to?
More on Jainism: Wikipedia, BBC
Update 1: Sam Harris explains why he thinks religion is bad [long clip]:
You mean that the church/ulema deliberately converted the faith ‘business’ from free-market may-the-cleverest-shaman-win to a bureaucratic setup, where anyone who knew the rules could hold the fort?
to some extent this is part of it, but, i also thing that the ‘services’ that ‘higher religions’ provide are insulated from disconfirmation. e.g., the local shaman or witch gives you a palliative for your illness (demonic possession?) and it doesn’t work right. what do you do? you might get angry. in contrast, the priest intercedes on behalf of god, but, if it doesn’t work perhaps you are a sinner and this is all part of god’s plan? what i’m saying is that religious ideas have evolved to become more and more insulated from disconfirmation through a darwinian process. christian science is a faith which really hasn’t grown in a century, and it might be due to the fact that sometime after 1900 doctors actually started making a different in terms of health and mortality.
The reason why religious consolidation occurred in some parts of the world, and did not occur in others has been a mystery to me. For example, most of the Arab world has accepted Islamic monotheism, except for Egypt where fertility cults still survive and flourish. India is of course another example. Overall I have not discerned any strict preference for monotheism in the laity(for want of a better word), or for a more complex religious experience, though of course this seems to correlate with education.
egyptian islam has its own features, but my understanding is that it’s pretty conventional sunni islam nevertheless. am i missing something?
in any case, i am not making a case for monotheism per se. the tendency to shift from magic i think you will find in all religions as societies modernize and religious choice becomes more normal. i don’t think that the philospophical differences between ‘higher’ religions matter much, i think they are different names given the same general psychological concepts.
I am having trouble finding links online, and this was a while ago, but I’ve read at a few places that the famous annual moulids over Egypt are essentially continuations of religious festivals from pre-Islamic times. The most famous, the one at Tanta, seems to be focused on a fertility cult, and the patron saint is seen as a symbol of male virility. It seems a lot of these celebrations have been incorporated by Sufi Islam. I read an interesting book by Anthony Sattin, which traced the survival of many ancient rituals to modern times, and the survival of local cults in Egyptian villages. But I might have overestimated the impact of such cults.
i find the continuation plausible. after all the hajj and the kabba are pagan survivals.
i also disagree with the idea that chinese did not \’convert\’ to buddhism per se. if you look at the polemics against buddhists by daoists and especially confucian mandarins you see that it was viewed as an alien intrusion which destabilized life (the withdrawl from the world). When were the chinese asked to say \”there is no concept but nirvana and Gautam reveals the way\”. And frankly to the 65% or what ever %age that actualy is they can be happy with my middle finger salute.
Polemics were part of Asian culture. If buddhism didn’t create polemics, that would have been strange. The idea of conversion is only relevant to the JC traditions where one God rules. Other traditions just have their preferences with perhaps multiple objects of reverence or intellectual commitments. As far as India is concerned, the six vedic schools, the numerous tantric schools, buddhism, jainism and sikhism get their structure precisely because of polemics. It all depends on who can argue best and bring most clarity. This tradition is still alive in parts of India. The debates are based on reason and logic about the nature of the world and ethics and not about who is the true prophet or son of god (which can only be established by the sword).
The idea of conversion is only relevant to the JC traditions where one God rules. Dont see it that way. In case of Islam it is clear that it was essentialy arab imperialism for the most part. The arguement arabs have against it (eg bandar sultan) is that arabs never forced their religion on any ones. All I have to point to that are gujraati muslims or Jaat muslims, they were essentialy results of jaziyaa. Of course you have some like chibba for a very funny examples a lot of them in india have taken brahmin last names eg sharma/kaul because bulk of chibbas became muslims(and indulge in a funny practice of a concocted uzbek/muslim lineage) I do even know of a chibba who argued he was a quaraishi…. Going back to one god arguement i dont see it. Many traditions see hinduism as one god, Some as no god only nature, Sikhs if simplified have one god,
Their arguement is essentialy that you have to give up your current \’pagan\’ Zahilyat…. Which is interesting b/c ancient india, persia, china had IMNHO a more civilized traditions than the middle easterners.
But that is fundamentaly the difference they seek to replace rather than add to a culture.
Sorry about the late response.
I agree, but this movement towards disconfirmation has a flip side. For example, if you have two local shamans, and one promises unconditional efficacy, and the other makes vague promises, who would you go to? Christianity and Islam have often had advantages in terms of having large monopolies, and also that of state support, which renders authority to the local pastor/ulema. So the religious leader need not be a ‘miracle worker’, and in fact it is advantageous for him not to be one, as you argue.
But in the case of an open competition between religions, it is often important that the gods/priests show their power in some concrete way. Buddhism, for example, an extremely abstract religion with no conception of magic/miracles, flourished in India only during the reign of Asoka, when royal approval granted it authority to its leaders. It declined after it lost that power, and people went back to their local priests or village dieties(ishtha devatas), who promised not nirvana but concrete protection to a particular clan/village. A more contemporary example in this regard is that of the Sai Baba, who derives much of his authority from working miracles, and whose popularity far exceeds that of the Shankaracharya, or any recognized head of a recognized hindu institution. In fact, there is a strange dichotomy in India between hinduism as the recognized religious bodies describe it and hinduism as it is practised. The reason, IMHO, is that hinduism never had the kind of monopoly or strong centralized institutions where it could afford to force a more abstract view of religion on the laity.
I’d agree generally, but I think the shift from magic has more to do with the popular acceptance of a religious institution, so that religious leaders can derive their power from something other than personal charisma. For example, in India where such hierarchies are weak, such leaders often depend on astrology, or the power to see the future.
I strongly agree. That may be the reason why so few people feel a need to convert.
ALL GODS SUCK BECAUSE THEIR IS NO SUCH THING AS GOD. HE IS ALL MADE UP AND ONLY AN IDIOT WOULD BELEIVE HE ACTUALLY EXIST. AS THE CAVE PEOPLE MADE IT UP TO EXPLIAN THINGS AROUND THEM. THEIRS NO GOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! GET OVER IT PEOPLE AND STOP THIS LIFE OF INSANITY. BELEIVING IN THAT BULL SJIT JUST SHOWS HOW DUMB YOU ARE.
Jain Man wrote:
Not necessarily. Please read Ahimsa, Anekanta, and Jainism by Tara Sethia. Jains agree with Hindus when we say that a soldier who kills enemies in battle is performing a legitimate duty. Therefore, Bhagavad-Gita-style “just war” is not explicitly ruled out. Historically, Jain communities have not hesitated to use military power as a form of self-defense. There have been Jain soldiers, Jain military commanders, and Jain kings.
Looking at the news column on the right we see that a Jain, Anshu Jain, is the biggest star with the biggest salary (millions of euros more than the current CEO) of Deitsche Bank (translation: German Bank) the biggest bank of Europe’s biggest economy. We also know that the brightest star of the most successful investment firm in the world’s biggest economy, Berkshire Hathaway of the USA, is also a Jain: Ajit Jain. Anshu is in line to become the next head of Deutsche Bank and Ajit has long been touted as Warren Buffet’s successor at Berkshire. Whether either of them become CEOs remains to be seen.
What is it about jains that makes them the most economically successful religious community of India? Parsis are also very successful but their numbers are so smal: substantially less than 100,000.
Jains number in the millions in India (upto 5 million), and in the USA there are upto 200,000 jains. They constitute a little over 0.4% of the Indian population yet pay almost a quarter of all taxes collected by the government!
It is worth pointing out here that Jainism, like Buddhism, is a sharamanic not a vedic religion. Both these desi religions rejected the Vedas, casteism, vedic animal sacrifices etc. Both have heavily influenced and transformed hinduism to the point that it looks nothing like vedic hinduism, with their shramanic concepts of karma and reincarnation, yoga and meditation, ahimsa and vegetarianism…
Spelling error: shramanic not sharamanic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shramanism
Several śramaṇa movements are known to have existed before the 6th century BCE dating back to Indus valley civilization[citation needed]. Samkhya and Yoga are two early and very important philosophies that follow the Sramana philosophy and which had their origins in the Indus Valley period of about 3000-2000 BCE. Yoga is probably the most important Sramana practice to date, which follows the Samkhya philosophy of liberating oneself from the grip of Prakriti (nature) through individual effort. Elaborate processes are outlined in Yoga to achieve individual liberation through breathing techniques (Pranayama), physical postures (Asanas) and meditations (Dhyana).
The movement later received a boost during the times of Mahavira and Buddha when Vedic ritualism had become the dominant tradition in certain parts of India. Åšramaṇas adopted a path alternate to the Vedic rituals to achieve liberation, while renouncing household life. They typically engage in three types of activities: austerities, meditation, and associated theories (or views). As spiritual authorities, at times Å›ramaṇa were at variance with traditional Brahmin authority, and they often recruited members from Brahmin communities themselves, such as CÄnakya and ÅšÄriputra[3].
Indian philosophy is a confluence of Śramaṇic (self-reliant) traditions, Bhakti traditions with idol worship and Vedic ritualistic nature worship. These co-exist and influence each other.[2] Śramaṇas held a view of samsara as full of suffering (or dukkha). They practiced Ahimsa and rigorous ascetism. They believed in Karma and Moksa and viewed re-birth as undesirable.[3] Vedics, on the contrary believe in the efficacy of rituals and sacrifices, performed by a privileged group of people, who could improve their life by pleasing certain Gods.
Beliefs and concepts of Śramaṇa philosophies:- Denial of creator and omnipotent Gods Rejection of the Vedas as revealed texts Affirmation of Karma and rebirth, Samsara and transmigration of Soul, Later, these practices were accepted into Vedism. Affirmation of the attainment of moksa through Ahimsa, renunciation and austerities Denial of the efficacy of sacrifices and rituals for purification. Rejection of the caste system
Ultimately, the sramana philosophical concepts like ahimsa, karma, re-incarnation, renunciation, samsara and moksa were accepted and incorporated by the brahmins in their beliefs and practices, eg. by abandoning the sacrifice of animals.[5] According to Gavin Flood, concepts like karmas and reincarnation entered mainstream brahaminical thought from the sramana or the renounciant traditions.[6]
By the way if, as is claimed, there are upto 200,000 jains, 500,000 sikhs, and 600,000 christians out of a total of less than 3 million indian-americans, then these indian minorities are VERY heavily over-represented here considering that jains are less than 0.5%, sikhs less than 2% and christians less than 2.5% of India’s population.
“Historically, Jain communities have not hesitated to use military power as a form of self-defense. There have been Jain soldiers, Jain military commanders, and Jain kings.”
I think you are correct, as least as far as the medieval period goes. Not so true of the ancient phase, 500 BCE to 700 ACE. And at no time were there armies of Jains propagating Jainism, waging war in the name of Jainism, or defending Jainism against a reputed attack. Many of those kings and military commanders may have been relatively recent converts from Hinduism, again in the medieval period.