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]:
Sam Harris for President!
Intersting…
this is true even of athiests. look at the Eid Mubarak thread. only one person, gazsi, had the balls to be critical and even razib didn’t pipe in. even i was going to say something nice but since i’m not religious i decided to stay quiet. but had there been a holiday for a secular philosphy that i don’t believe in, lets say May Day, you could bet your ass i would use that as an oppourtunity to spew my anti-communist hatred.
But religion gets a pass and we’re seeing the consequnces. it’s like plato’s noble lie, we’re afraid the truth will lead to the savages behaving violent, so we treat them like children. worse still, criticism of religion is increasingly being labled as bigotry, with people being charged with hate crime in england and france, and the religious right here in the US is often encouraging the rhetoric by charging the dems w/ being anti-religious bigots. the dems, naturally, don’t fight back but try to join the chorus. Ship of fools.
Manju, in case I forget, Happy May Day in advance!
Thanks Ennis. I’ll be dressing up like Che in order to seduce Shruti.
I’m wondering why Harris doesn’t provoke a reaction in me since I am not an atheist.
It may be because he comes across as a public intellectual troll, saying things just to get a response.
Or it may be because as a member of a non-Abrahamic religion, he just doesn’t seem to be challenging me directly.
I can’t say I feel perturbed at all, I just thought his exception for Jainism was amusing and worth sharing.
Is Yeti forgotten so easily?
It’s incredible that you chose to post this today, Ennis, as I watched a talk he gave on C-SPAN, just last night. It’s available as a torrent and I would recommend it to everyone.
Atheism is getting a lot of play in the MSM these days and as far as I am concerned, deservedly so.
worse still, criticism of religion is increasingly being labled as bigotry, with people being charged with hate crime in england and france
Are you referring to the laws where they penalize people for promoting nazism or denying the holocaust?
“And a mouse is miracle enough to stagger sextillions of infidels.” – Walt Whitman
Europe needs a first ammendment.
Does he not consider it a religion at all
Buddhism is a state of mind. To view it as a “religion”, in the conventional western-centric way, is going against its whole point I believe.
“It doesn’t help that Harris lacks a marquee academic credential, though he is working on a PhD in neuroscience”
Why does that seem to be a minor comment in the article? I think knowledge of neuro is one of the prime qualifiers for one to be in the position to question religious philosophy.
People will never deal with that. They have to have to have a supreme Being either a Spaghetti monster or a Krishna.
I found arguing with a person who believes in literal translation of any God-book to be pointless. Whenever I questioned the validity of information in the book, people always to it to be personal attack rather than a reasonable argument.
I guess I was always the “Other Yeti”…
I’m of the “evolution selected for religiosity” school 😉
So, I’m willing to credit religion as net beneficial in its effects if not in all its intentions and tenets…. Thus, I’m pretty darn difficult to pin down in a debate 😉
“How we criticize, or fail to criticize, the beliefs of other human beings, at this moment, has more to do with the maintenance of civilization than anything else that is in our power to influence.” That’s from this video by Sam Harris.
It makes a little more sense when it’s spoken. Basically, what he’s saying is that the future of the human race hinges on what we do with the question of religion.
I don’t agree. I think a far more pressing question is that of persecution. Most of us live in persecuting societies. The issue of religion is significant but largely tangential to this. And I say this as an atheist (or, rather, as an apostate).
What we’ve really got to do is figure out this thing in us that wills the suffering of others. Wills it, tolerates it, promotes it. Our inner Guantanamo, if you will. And this thing is indeed in us, whether we subscribe to the God-delusion or to the Science-delusion, or to neither.
Quite frankly, if I’m going to be tortured, I’m indifferent as to whether it’s a Christian, a Jain, a Hindu, a Muslim, or an agnostic or an atheist doing the torturing. If you’re going to drop bombs over my city, I don’t fuss over what precisely you believe about the afterlife.
So, as far as I’m concerned, religion is a red herring. We could all wake up atheists tomorrow and still remain persecuting societies. Or we could all become Senegalese Sufis or Tibetan Buddhists overnight and find that we are rationally wrong, in so far as those traditions are based on fantasies, but ethically restored to something deeper.
The abolishment of the slave trade was a big step towards addressing the persecution problem. But we’ve been stalling on the next move since then. For example, there seems no momentum towards the cessation of armed mass-slaughter by nation states. That’s one example of a dozen expressions of the persecuting instinct.
Long live Jainism and of course “Live and Let Live“
Peace with fellow humans and nature!
Manju, for an atheist, you strike me as having certain things in common with the hyper-religious – including a prosletysing sensibility and an evangelical mission to tell others what they need; even to the extent of supporting bombing countries into the stone age so that they can achieve submission, uh, or the nirvana of their own liberation.
Anyway…..
Here is a brilliant review of Richard Dawkin’s book by the estimable and wonderful Professor Terry Eagleton:
Lunging, Flailing, Mispunching
No fatwas please.
I only trust the religions that I’ve founded.
Yes, we have a lot in common, and i do support the things you mentioned. I didn’t say everything about religion is bad. The death of god does not equal the death of truth, anymore than the collapse of communism equals the collapse of Ideology.
You mean you’ve founded more than one? How do you find the time?!
Ennis: Thanks for posting. I’d read this article before the posting, and it touched a chord in me.
I’ve faced personal problems in the past because of the fact that I am an affirmed atheist, even though I am hardly the proselytizing kind that Harris is, because I believe too strongly in personal freedom. (However, I definitely should be persecuted for my love for run-on sentences). People might be interested in reading the results of a recent study: http://www.mndaily.com/articles/2006/03/24/67686 (of course, soon, maybe it will become mandatory for all of us to wear the symbol of our religion so that we can identify those atheists! Europe, are you listening?).
However, it’s no wonder that Harris likes Jainism with its Digambara sect. To quote Mark Twain, “Clothes maketh the man. Naked people have little or no influence on society.”. So sure, if you want to practice religion, do it naked!
Kobayashi: To your comment #17, I think Steven Weinberg said it best. Paraphrasing: “Good people generally do good things, and bad people generally do bad things. But for good people to do bad things, that takes religion”.
Vinod: To your comment #16, I think the jury is still out (for a long lunch) on whether there is a gene that influences religious disposition. Evolution seems to select for optimism, different levels of impulsiveness etc., all of which are instincts that religion plays into, but that is still not a compelling argument for religion itself.
That Spaghetti monster looks a lot like Lovecraft’s Cthulu . As good or bad a god as any I suppose.
Seriously.
Glory to the Flying Spaghetti Monster…I’ve been touched by his noodly appendage!
A related book that has released recently is Richard Dawkins’ ‘The God Delusion’. This is probably his most vicious attack on God, religion and the harm these have caused to humankind.
In a way, this is refreshing. At least some people are countering the rise of religious fundamentalism pretty much all over the world. More power to them!
This is one of those pithy statements that looks mighty attractive until you realize it’s simply untrue.
I’m good, I do bad things and I’m not religious.
Tell Steve to give that Nobel back.
Sam Harris’ epitaph might read as this one from a Maryland cemetary:
Well one of them requires the use of Peyote and numerous long solo walkabouts while the other one involves multiple wives and domesticity. They were mutually exclusive. When you are evil you can always find the time.
When in doubt, slap a label on it.
I certainly agree that the statement is overreaching, there might be many reasons why “good” people do “bad” things. But, I do believe it has a significant element of truth. Historically, even if self-aggrandisement, personal glory, a search for power etc. have been motivations at the top, religion has been a strong motivation factor to rally the masses (the Holocaust aside, which I wouldn’t classify in the same vein, because it wasn’t people motivated to enforce their racial superiority than their religious superiority, although the enemy was identified religiously).
And, if you asked people to start handing their Nobels back for being wrong, we’d have quite a collection job on our hands. Even Crick, probably one of the greatest scientific minds of the last century, had his eugenics moments. Although, to his credit, he was an atheist!
There is a very good book on the subject by Daniel Dennett called “Breaking the Spell”. He basically looks at the formation of religion from a Darwinian perspective. Fascinating stuff.
“Religion is tyranny” – V.S. Naipaul
As did another Nobel laureate, William Shockley
He is pro-Buddhism. He sees it as spiritual, but not requiring faith. That is, he feels its tenets can be tested. For example, you can try metta meditation, and see if it does make you feel more loving or more peaceful. If you read “The End of Faith”, he has a section where he selects a random passage from the Pali Canon and discusses how much more rational it is than anything one might find in the religions of the book. I understand that he continues to practice Buddhist meditation. He does however suggest dropping irrational (untestable) elements of Buddhism, in which I believe he includes teachings on rebirth.
Yeah, Shockley too, for sure. I didn’t even bother to refer to him because, he was not a nice guy in many respects unlike Crick, and I also think Crick was at a different, more rarefied, level as a scientist. Not everybody can be Einstein in being so sublime in science, ethics, and philosophy, I guess.
had the balls to be critical and even razib didn’t pipe in
dude, there’s a time & place for everything. i’m against superstition, but i’m not against being human.
Buddhism is a state of mind. To view it as a “religion”, in the conventional western-centric way, is going against its whole point I believe.
ironic. in theological correctness by d. jason slone he argues that the promotion of therevada buddhism as ‘philosophy’ as opposed to a religion was a reaction during the 19th century by the bhikkus to western critiques of their ‘superstitious’ beliefs. so the buddhist intelligensia repackaged their religion in a more upfront non-theistic manner to emphasize a contrast with supernatural christianity. but, the reality is that everyday buddhists are operational theists.
fundamentally i do think it is silly that intelligent people espouse primitive superstitions with reverence. but, the reality that intelligent people espouse primitive superstitions with sincerity should clue us in to the fact that they’re here to stay. banishment is not viable, only control and taming. it would perhaps be the best move for the non-religious to simply move into the clerical professions so that they could cynically control the sheep, but i don’t think most of us have the will for it.
Buddhism? So cliche… everybody’s doing it now, no fun anymore. And you, Ennis, are also a fool to stagnate in that SEEKism of yours. It’s time to move on, find something Eastern that’s new, ok?
…Somebody needs to tell this guy about Jains’ involvement in the diamond industry. Their Jainism in that sense has nothing to do with the “persecution instinct”, but it does serve as an opiate.
On the best of days, I’m (in theory, not in practice) squarely with Dawkins. The continuing popularity of the God-delusion is, indeed, troubling.
But here’s a further thought on those who self-identify as “religious”: listening, yesterday, to Siddhartha’s radio interview with Amjad Ali Khan, I only had to hear the maestro speak for a minute to know, without a shadow of a doubt, that the person speaking was a wise man. Much wiser than I am. A minute is all it took.
That he self-identifies as a Muslim tells me what, exactly? And what of the many wise men I know who are lapsed Catholics? What of the many wise women who are atheists?
This world is, after all, full of delusion. Some of it is factual delusion, some of it is emotional: why swap one poison for the another? That’s why I can go with Dawkins in theory where I cannot go with him in practice.
I mustn’t ever forget that there is water deeper than water, and that I’m still at the beginning of almost not knowing nothing.
I look forward to seeing the maestro play on Saturday. I just might learn something.
everyone has silly and unfounded beliefs. but if you tell me that my silly and unfounded beliefs are absurd i won’t take offense, that’s your opinion. the problem with religious delusion is that it is a delusion suffused with ontological important and passionate personal conviction. i don’t personally harbor ill will toward fundamentalist christians for thinking i’m going to hell, it’s their fantasy, not mine, but if i assert that their god doesn’t exist they take great offense.
delusions are fine, so long as you don’t kill in the name of them (this might apply of course the proletarian utopia too, not just the god delusion).
You’d seduce me only if you came looking like Gael GarcÃa Bernal, not the actual Che. I ain’t no Pinko, mayne.
And this whole thing is really messed up, because I started out engaged to Beige Siege, but he spent his whole time on a thread flirting with some BadIndianGirl. I was supposed to go to the beach for greasy moongphali with Manju, but then Yeti started moving in on him. AND, if I remember correctly, Yeti is supposed to be dating BidiSmoker. Why don’t I just leave you boys to your own purple triange… or square or whatever.
Word to Jainism for getting big ups from Sam Harris. I wonder what he would have to say about these guys, especially considering not all Jains believe women can obtain moksha.
I did a very cursory search and found nothing, care to elaborate?
A lover’s heart is God’s abode. – Bulle Shah
Do you mean the belief in miracles or that in a deity? The former is an empirical matter, whereas the latter need not be.
Do you mean the belief in miracles or that in a deity? The former is an empirical matter, whereas the latter need not be.
more of the former than the latter, though most intelligent people who are believers do have a pretty primitive supernatural agent in mind as well, at least in the united states.
Yo, did you dump me?
Pun unintended, Ennis?
More to the point though, there is a brilliant Slate interview of professional atheist Richard Dawkins by Jim Holt. I don’t agree with all of Dawkins’ views, mostly because it is just as hard to prove that God does not exist, as it is to prove that he does, and so from a logical standpoint (his, not mine) it does not make much sense.
On an entirely tangential note, ‘hello Shruti’.
Thanks for this, Mr. K. Wise words.
I have to agree with Razib on this one. However, Razib, are you saying in
that people of religious conviction will always take great offense if you disagree with them? If so, I don’t think that’s the case.
I don’t agree with all of Dawkins’ views, mostly because it is just as hard to prove that God does not exist, as it is to prove that he does, and so from a logical standpoint (his, not mine) it does not make much sense.
this depends on how you define god.
that people of religious conviction will always take great offense if you disagree with them? If so, I don’t think that’s the case.
not always. you know what i mean, surely you’ve “offended” sunni muslims by terming yourself a muslim? (i don’t mean that to be snarky btw, i’ve been rebuked for terming ahmadis muslim by family members even though i don’t particular care either way).
or, consider the silly debates about whether sikhs are hindu or not. what’s in a name? quite a bit in fact… (yes, yes, i know there’s historical baggage, but you get my drift from the perspective of an unbeliever).