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]:
that was awesome Mr. K!
for those of you in the bay area, richard dawkins is making a free appearance in menlo park TONIGHT to discuss his latest, the god delusion.
5.30pm, Sunday October 29 Kepler’s Books and Magazines 1010 El Camino Real Menlo Park CA, 94025 (650) 324-4321
he’s also appearing at the palace of fine arts tomorrow night, but i think it’s sold out (tix are/were $19).
[i’m a theist, btw, but thought i would pass the info on to all 🙂 ]
thanks! i’m not there, but i have friends who live around there….
I know Razib does not think this is funny, but I do. Maybe it’s because I live in a place where atheism isn’t so strange. I never thought atheists warranted hate, but as a questioner, I’m not threatened by them. I suppose I can see why the hyper-religious in this country might hate them.
Razib, the feeling is mutual, atheists like you don’t concern me. Our respective spheres of theism/atheism do not intrude. From what I have observed, you don’t seek to impose your views on those who leave you be (only your stastics ;-).
Respecting where someone comes from is simply acknowledging that the person standing before you is the product of many many things. Whether its poverty or science or a parent, these things shape our beliefs — it is unkind to dismiss another’s life experiences. Absolutely you should respect superstitous beliefs! In fact, you are constitutionally bound to do so. Unless they seek to repress you. In all instances where this happens, and I awknowledge that it happens a lot, I don’t hesitate to stand up for your right to gay love.
But we’re talking here about inner city kids with (presumably) hard lives. Coach, what I found condescending was that despite knowing the environment your kids grow up in, you engaged them in an extremely obtuse manner.
I’m taking such a strong stance on this thread because, despite who Dawkins targets and who shapes policy, I think most people see things the way I do. We’re sentimental. We remember stories and smells and warmth from when we were children and they resonate deeeeeeeeep into adulthood. We identify this bundle of goodness as culture and a slice of that culture is faith. We find comfort in this collective memory, we want to pass on that comfort to our children. This is how we value our heritage.
But the world focuses on something different. We’d be irresponsible to deny that what has been beautiful in our lives has caused such horror in the lives of countless others. And many of us, shamefully, deny this. As Kobayashi (though I bet he’s not happy I’m using his words) said above, the true culprit is the human tendency to persecute. The justifications are secondary.
Yes, I learned faith as a child. But its important to me still. Thus I refuse to remain quiet while the magic of my childhood is scapegoated.
Maybe if the silent majority were less silent, the crazies of the world wouldn’t have so much pull.
“Maybe if the silent majority were less silent” –> espressa, I think I’m taking your quote out of context but while reading this thread, I have been struck by how silent it seems the theists have been. So here are my two paise.
Personally, I have been just a bit intimidated by this thread and really haven’t been able to see an entry into the discussion. After years of ascribing to what I would consider agnosticism, I have reconciled my questions about god, faith, supersition, and ritual and do now actively label myself a theist. I am reluctant to use the terms “religious” or “Hindu”; the former to me that implies too much ritual or superstition, the latter a completely useless term.
I cannot and will not rationalize my faith in god or the practices I choose to carry out. They do not have any sort of logical basis. But I just feel that they are right (right meaning “a good fit for my life,” not right meaning Da Troof). I had what I suppose could only be described as a moment of religious ecstacy this summer — whether or not it was simply my mind playing tricks on me, or heat exhaustion in South India — the moment transformed my life. Or perhaps it was the vehicle that allowed me to make some very necessary changes in my life. Regardless, it made me finally accept that I do believe in god and that being faithful makes me happy. I just see some of the ritualistic aspects of my religion as an opportunity to focus my mind and remind myself of what’s important to me. And whatever that is, I’m sure it’s different from what’s important to my mom, dad, you, your cousin, etc.
I am fully aware that I’m probably drawn to my faith because it provides me structure, comfort, and the chance to be a part of a community. But are those things so bad? Am I weak or delusional because I want those things and honestly haven’t found them in many other places?
I was born into a “Hindu” family and it is a huge part of my life. I have never felt (again, with the feelings!) the need to reject it, even though I can somewhat understand the atheist perspective. I think religious is often misuses for the cruelest agendas, but why is that religion’s fault?
Even if religion is manmade, an opiate, a bandaid, a sickness, whatever — my time here is temporary. What’s the difference if I try to use it to get through my life with some shred of happiness, while mindful hedonists do the same their way?
But we’re talking here about inner city kids with (presumably) hard lives. Coach, what I found condescending was that despite knowing the environment your kids grow up in, you engaged them in an extremely obtuse manner.
and yet you can flip this around: they demanded from these kids what they would have demanded any kid. on the one hand the circumstances of one’s life mitigate their choices and views in your eyes, and on the other hand you need to demand the best from all humans no matter the cards dealt them because the possibility is a spark which lay scattered across our species.
Yes, I learned faith as a child. But its important to me still. Thus I refuse to remain quiet while the magic of my childhood is scapegoated.
Maybe if the silent majority were less silent, the crazies of the world wouldn’t have so much pull.
two points. first, this tendency of moderate and liberal religionists taking offense when we irreligious attack evil in the name of god because we rebuke a name is part of the problem. if you say that god is sugar & spice and all things nice, that is your privilege, and yet abomination occurs in his name the world over, and we revile those acts and we revile his name because a name is all it is, a figment in man’s imagination which ‘justifies’ his evil to other men. substantively the faith of non-fundamentalists might differ from those of fundamentalists, and yet still the former often take offense when we assail the latter because of an accident of terminology.
let me give you an explicit example. in the future of religion (stark & bainbridge 1984) the authors document that non-fundamentalist religious folk and secularists tend to cluster together in their folkways and behaviors. they watch the same movies, tend to espouse the same social causes, and can relate to the same cultural touchstones. in contrast, conservative fundamentalists tend to have their own separate and distinct subculture. and the non-fundamentalists and fundamentalists are nominally part of the same religion and partake of the same zeitgeist! i have encountered nominal christians who perceive themselves to be somehow very different from i, an atheist, because they believe and i do not, who perceive themselves more assured in their moral compass than i. in this way nominal christians can sometimes share a conceit with fundamentalists, even if in their day to day lives they are no different from atheists.
what i’m trying to say here is that god is simply a name to me, and religious people seem to place different elements into this container. what you call ‘god’ or ‘allah’ or ‘vishnu’ might not be what some others call ‘god’ or ‘allah’ or ‘vishnu.’ my objection to ‘god’ or ‘allah’ or ‘vishnu’ is not with the idea of ‘god’ or ‘allah’ or ‘vishnu,’ but acts in the name of ‘god’ or ‘allah’ or ‘vishnu.’ those for whom god is something personal, special and positive take offense when i attack the god of the fundamentalists because of a confusion of names. now, is it up to me to make the distinction between these two gods? perhaps. but sometimes it is rather frustrating that you have such separate groups here who adhere to the same name and yet imbue it with such radically different substance.
the second point is that if the moderates and liberals manned the ramparts of the religious wars themselves we atheists would certainly get about our own business. when we heretics are gone certainly the fundamentalists will need another target and the liberals and moderates will have to face up to the fact that their religious brethren who breath fire are now ready to take them in their turn. my attacks and vitriol against religion are in direction proportion to the evil i see done in the name of a given religion. today that means that islam is a worse offender than christianity, which is worse than hinduism, which is worse that buddhism. the rank order might differ depending on your perspective, but the point is that my animus is purely instrumental, dictated by a convergence of principle and pragmatism.
I think religious is often misuses for the cruelest agendas, but why is that religion’s fault?
it is, or isn’t, but if it isn’t religion’s fault why is it religion’s boon when greatness is done in its name? my own perspective is that evil and good are prior to religion, that good and evil done in the name of god would likely have been done anyhow. that being said, the very fact that one attaches to something “god” makes it legitimate in public discourse. if you are going to make something a public matter, instead of a private personal preference, than one expects that it be subject to the analysis and critique that any idea is, and yet religionists object to this. in some countries (e.g., saudi arabia) the very implication of atheism is grounds for persecution and possibly capital punishment.
let me give you an explicit idea: every few years a multi-million dollar project on the efficacy of prayer in medicine is performed. this has been going on my whole adult life. and the results generally turn out negative or are statistically insignificant. there simply isn’t any real evidence for the efficacy of prayer in healing, and yet the reality is that i expect for the rest of my life for various agencies and granting bodies to continue to fund these studies. why? because as a matter of religious principle people believe in the power of prayer. if someone wanted to fund the predictive power of astrology one would be dismissed, rejected and ridiculed, because in the united states astrology is laughed off as superstition and entertainment. not so in india! it is a vedic science. and so you see the problem with religion in the public space, it legitimizes the ludicrous and sanctions the conventionally unsanctionable. here in the united states if you say “my religion demands this!” people listen and take you seriously. if you say, “my principle and my moral compass demand this!” people consult the law and give you a thumbs up or down, your own moral compass be damned.
i acknowledge that religoin is, and will be, important. i acknowledge that a double standard will probably exist for my lifetime with regards to the plausibility of religious ideas. but, life is also about struggle and disputation, about discourse and debate, and those of us who dissent from the accepted superstitions of our age feel that we must always bear witness so that when men and women look back to the ages past they see that no everyone was swayed.
razib, i’m confused by some of your ideas but i’ll have to ponder them for much longer before i can ask for any clarification.
your last statement interests me, though. i can say in all honesty that i do not know one single person in my circle of friend and acquaintances who will openly admit that they believe in god, let alone adhere to some particular faith or practice. as a theist, i feel largely outnumbered and i feel like i must bear witness so that when men and women look back to the ages past they see that not everyone was swayed by godlessness. 🙂
your last statement interests me, though. i can say in all honesty that i do not know one single person in my circle of friend and acquaintances who will openly admit that they believe in god, let alone adhere to some particular faith or practice. as a theist, i feel largely outnumbered and i feel like i must bear witness so that when men and women look back to the ages past they see that not everyone was swayed by godlessness. 🙂
in the united states fewer than 5% of individuals are atheists or agnostics. among national academy of sciences members 90% are. it depends on your circle!
I objected to his method, not his message.
i KNOW!!!!!!!
Perhaps my efforts towards attaining your recognition and respect are to forge an alliance to destroy he who would destroy me…?
I’d argue it wasn’t an accident of terminology but a willfull distortion. I’m begging you (all) to not subscribe to it. Eventhough it’s easy.
Milli — thanks for sharing. You are fully within context. I have mini moments every now and then. They’re fun.
some statistics.
Hope I am not overdoing it, but you reminded me of another TDS clip.
While there may be some superstition, I wouldn’t say all religion is superstition. I’d also say that rationalism is not the same thing as science, and science serves rationalism, not the other way around. Finally, I think there are two at least critiques of religion that I’d find objection to. One is that religion asks people to believe in phenomena not empirically proven, and the other that religious belief causes harm. On the second, I think sociological-historical analysis of this idea would be massively interesting. But this I think is an open question. And the first topic to me is mind-blowing, literally. To think about that which is not currently know-able in the field of astronomy, biology, physics, those things literally blow your mind. However, even in this field, science and metaphysics seem to blend. As ideas become empirically proven, they enter the field of science, until then, they are in the field of metaphysics. For example, the idea that matter is conserved is actually a mind-blowing disovery that is profound in any context. One could very well wax “religious” about this idea. But since this was empirically proven, its a “scientific” idea and thus is taken to disprove “religion”. I would beg to differ, and still consider the idea that matter is conserved to be a “religious idea” as well as a scientific idea. Or, what is happiness, on a biochemical level? Thats a profound phenomena, and once and if the explanation for it is empirically and fully provided, it would still be interesting from a “religious” point of view.
I think razib what you and others are objecting to may be nothing but the fact that human beings are at times cruel and unthinking, or duplicitous and hypocritical. To the extent this is a problem of religion, I think is not proven in the current discussion of the thread.
I think razib what you and others are objecting to may be nothing but the fact that human beings are at times cruel and unthinking, or duplicitous and hypocritical. To the extent this is a problem of religion, I think is not proven in the current discussion of the thread.
cruelty and hypocrisy exist without religion. but religious identification does two things
a) i separates people into rival groups. shia and sunni arabs kill each other in iraq because they are two diffentiable gangs
b) it justifies and sanctifies particular flavors of cruelty. e.g., death penalty or imprisonment for apostates in muslim countries.
would say, “don’t criticize the muslim religion when muslims imprison people because they’ve converted to christianity! the problem is with human cruelty, not the religion!” cruelty rises easily out of man, but often it takes the the yeast of godliness to make it bloom in full.
a) what separated these gangs was political
b) they’re crazy
yeast of godliness also bakes great brownies, in both instances, you need a baker.
razib, what are your thoughts of these guys ?
wait… theres no yeast in brownies. oopsi.
i think i’ll be treading on thin ice here, but i think, at times, some religions can be blamed for the atrocities of man. but others do not promote what is largely considered “evil” or “bad” behavior, and i think it would be unfair to criticize all religions using that criteria alone. proselytizing relgions seem to be the worst in that regard.
by the way, man does a lot of shitty things in the name of ___________ (science, love, whatever). if you object to evil and manipulation in the name of god, do you also object to the same in the name of science?
Don’t you think that religion, in as much as it is an ideology, is a way to organize society and marshall resources and effort? So then we can point the finger at this thing called “ideology” as the true culprit, no?
Its been a long time since I read Jonathan Swift, but I remember he wrote about a long war that centered on an absurd difference between the two parties (I’m embarrased by how vague that description is, but would appreciate finding out more about it). So, if not “religion” in order to be war-like would we as humans not have to come up with some way to marshall resources for various ignorant endevours?
What evil has been done in the name of science? Scientific knowledge in the form of engineering/technology can be used as an instrument for evil, but science itself is value neutral. Scientists don’t say: ‘lets kill them. they don’t believe in gravity’.
razib, what are your thoughts of these guys ?
ineffectual. a little over the top.
and i think it would be unfair to criticize all religions using that criteria alone. proselytizing relgions seem to be the worst in that regard.
1) i don’t criticize all religions. and even harris does not (as the title here and the discussion has shown).
2) proselytizing religions do great evil…and great good. islam preaches equality of man before god, and christians like wilberforce were behind the push to ban the slave trade (just as other christians justified the bondage of africans as their lot for their ancestor ham’s transgressions!).
. if you object to evil and manipulation in the name of god, do you also object to the same in the name of science?
1) of course
2) scientism is a lot less popular than religion. can you imagine people doing suicide bombings in the name of the big bang theory or the theory of evolution?
Don’t you think that religion, in as much as it is an ideology, is a way to organize society and marshall resources and effort? So then we can point the finger at this thing called “ideology” as the true culprit, no?
to some extent yes, but, the problem with religious ideology is that it tends to cloak itself in sacrality so that it is beyond criticism. if you say you are a republican or a liberal or a socialist wouldn’t you find it ludicrous to be affronted when someone criticizes the validity of your politics? politics is politics, and debate and critique are part of the game. the problem with religion is that when it becomes hooked to a particular ideology that ideology removes itself from the game of critique because god confers upon it a divine legitimacy. the marxist-leninist ideologies were somewhat similar with their materialist eschatologies.
Can it be proven that “religion” especially predisposes to this kind of negation of critique (for lack of a better phrase)?
One could say that some of the experiments in eugenics were “evil” in some way. But interestingly, you use the definition of science that scientist use. (By the way, I agree and myself love science).
“Science itself is value neutral.”
Science is performed by humans who in no way are neutral, not the garage scientist tinkering around with chemicals, not the corporate scientist funded by god-knows-who (pun intended).
And, to the extent that science is equated with progress in the US, and progress is rabidly valued, I’d say plenty has been done in the name of science.
“Scientists don’t say: ‘lets kill them. they don’t believe in gravity’.”
You don’t know the scientists I do!!! (half-joking)
Wackjobs of any persuasion are the ones who say “let’s kill them: they don’t/they aren’t …” You don’t have to be religious to be a murderer.
“2) scientism is a lot less popular than religion. can you imagine people doing suicide bombings in the name of the big bang theory or the theory of evolution?”
religiously motivated violence may take on a more visible form; abuse of knowledge acquired through scientific methods is often much more insidious.
btw, it occurred to me that my point about not all religion being equally criticizable (erm … is there a word for that?) was ridiculous given the thread title; however, i’m not sure i agree that the ensuing discussion does point fingers with unequal blame.
Can it be proven that “religion” especially predisposes to this kind of negation of critique (for lack of a better phrase)?
uh, how do you think centralized government arose? the pharoh was god-king, the ensis of sumer were stewards of the city-god. the christian kings of europe imbued the essence of divine charisma (from which arose the ‘divine right’), the emperor of rome was a god and later the christian emperors were the vice-reagens of god, and the chinese emperors were the sons of heaven who are the axis mundi between the realm above the world below. organized religion has long been the handmaid of power because it allows those in power to parade themselves about as if they act in the name of a higher power. if you live in the united states you see this with the current regime, there are evangelical christians who will attack fellow believers for ‘going against christianity’ if they criticize the current presidential dispensation. do you know what velayat faqih is?
And, to the extent that science is equated with progress in the US, and progress is rabidly valued, I’d say plenty has been done in the name of science.
yes, you do have to make that equivalence else the force of your argument dissipates.
the only scientific regimes were the marxists, as marx conceived of his system as scientific. but, the basal values which drove marxism were pre-scientific. science is value neutral, the nazis used science to de-humanize, but they drove before them tens of thousands of jewish scientists and banished ‘jewish science’ from the halls.
in any case, i’ll take science anyday. i don’t see you giving up your computer or antibiotics anytime in the near future 🙂 but you won’t see me in a church or temple.
I agree that religion is more prone to distortion than almost anything else. Mainly because, to the faithful, it is un-disprovable and roots in the deepest soil of the soul. Religion is potentially much more dangerous than any other ideological category.
Have any of you seen the trailers for Perfume: The Story of a Murderer ? A scientist… killing women in search for the perfect scent…… haunting.
Not until I went to the link.
One on hand, all those historical facts are religious, but on the other they’re occuring in such diverse settings that I wonder on what basis they are grouped. Is it an after-the-fact designation, that because an ideology came into being that faciliated social organization around an elite, that is then termed, in your passage and generally, religion? I wouldn’t disagree that what is termed “religion” is used, as an ideology, to marshal societies. But what about “religion” causes this inherently? And that which causes this marshaling, is that essential to the definition of religion? Can one be “relgious” and not accept that factor which allows one to be part of such endevours as bowing before the god-King of ancient Egypt?
btw milli, your assertion (which is a common one) that evil has been done in the name of science strikes me as plausible as evil being done in the name of language. yes, language is value neutral, but the people who use it can communicate many evil things and foment diabolical plans via the meants of language! or the written word, ah, how the printing press has unleashed hatred upon the world!
Maybe we can pare religion down to a function that is similiarly neutral, if not value-neutral?
i don’t see you giving up your computer or antibiotics anytime in the near future
actually, i greatly miss pre-computer days but i think i have an internet problem!!! embarassed emoticon goes here
and philosophically, i despise antibiotics and the majority of medical treatments intended to cure disease/prolong life/hide pain etc. talk to me again when my parents are dying.
i still disagree that science is value neutral. how can it be?
science is as value neutral as a knife.
Can one be “relgious” and not accept that factor which allows one to be part of such endevours as bowing before the god-King of ancient Egypt?
yes, i think so. religion is many different things with many layers. there is, i think
a) the psychological layer, the basic tendency to see supernatural agents in the universe b) there is the social layer, the tendency to group with those who share your tribal gods c) there is the philosophical layer, the tendency to systematically define the creeds and theologies which define your religion d) there is the ritual/praxy layer, the tendency to imbue everyday acts (washing, eating, etc.) with religious significance and a proscribed manner e) there is the political layer, the way in which religion seeps into all aspects of social organization and is used as an elite management tool for mass psychology
you can read more of my ideas re: religion here.
Maybe we can pare religion down to a function that is similiarly neutral, if not value-neutral?
as long as people have passions i doubt it. we can only struggle to contain and channel its force and power toward our own preferences. e.g., many liberal despise conservative evangelical christianity and its connection to the republican party, but they tend to be positive about the influence of the black church and its role in the civil rights movement.
In that sense nothing whatever is value neutral. I think we all have to live with that much of value bias.
Yes, but you are free to criticize that progress(people do that all the time), or even secede from that progress(that doesn’t happen so often-christians who carp about stem cell research won’t mind taking the same medicines if they ever materialize), and no one gripes that you are hurting their feelings.
But it seems to help.
Hinduism is not entirely free of blame either. But yes, I’d agree, some religions are causing more harm than others.
maybe you’re confounding science and the scientist? i’d agree that a thing in itself has little value until an actor enters the picture, but religion (in any way a human can know it) doesn’t exist separate from our interaction with it so that places science, which is man’s interaction with the physical world, at least one level more ‘neutral’ than religion.
This might be why some atheists don’t mind Buddhism
The Naturalness of Religion and the Unnaturalness of Science.
I think religion in a way supposes an interaction. Science, in as much as it deals with inanimate objects, or in as much as it is a function of a thought-experiment, is not supposing a similiar kind of interaction. So religion can not be neutral in that way?
I think religion in a way supposes an interaction. Science, in as much as it deals with inanimate objects, or in as much as it is a function of a thought-experiment, is not supposing a similiar kind of interaction. So religion can not be neutral in that way?
only insofar as you turn everyone into a philosopher. so, no.
in any case, science is a cultural and social endevour. but it is very peculiar and special with its culture of idealized self-critique. the reality is a lot less pretty than that.
“science” is knowledge derived through the scientific method, which i believe has to actually be carried out by a scientist. to claim that science is not “supposing” an interaction between science and scientist sounds to me like the argument that “pure” science exists, that it is merely the revelation or understanding of some Truth. i suppose it would be much easier for an atheist to make that claim. hypothesis, data collection, analysis, publication — all done by the scientist. given that modern scientists actually get paid for what they do, i think there is plenty of bias to consider in the realm of science. bell curve, anyone?
well, anyway, i’m out of my league here. i’m going to go get a taco and re-evaluate for the millionth time why it is that i’m a science teacher.
😀 . I’d have to agree with that. The American defense industry employs more scientists/engineers than probably any other. Most people I know who work in these areas are somewhat uncomfortable with the job they do. But a man’s gotta eat, no?
Mili,
I don’t think you are out of your league.
Anyway, I am tired and need to sleep.
Thanks all.
“science” is knowledge derived through the scientific method
GGGOOOODDDD NNNNOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!
man, but this is the biggest problem that scientists have when communicating with the public, why perpetuate this idea??? the idea that science is knowledge, a body of facts. there are many ways to get facts, science is just one method. “science” is a cultural and method, a system embedded in a human social enterprise. it isn’t a set of facts, it is a way of deriving facts!
in the 19th century a group of scientists, anthropologists, generated the conception of polygenism which asserted that human races had disparate origins. their “facts” were derived from their science, and their facts buttressed secular racists in their ideas. but science is self-correcting, it is not the body of facts which are simply epiphenomenal and subject to change. facts change, but the method remains fundamentally the same.
razib,
as detailed as your understanding is about islam and its history, and maybe even about christianity – i am asking out of curiosity – how much research have you done on other ‘religions’ or philosophical traditions, in particular eastern religions? your lines of reasoning are cogent within your viewpoint, but they may appear narrow considering the fact that there is more than christianity and islam in the world. this may be partly why some people are having a tough time understanding your views.
i do understand that islam and christianity dominate the world population and overwhelm current religious ‘beliefs’. therefore ‘fundamentalists’ belonging to these groups and their influence on national/international policies has had a negative influence in the world today. but when you make strong statements about religious fundamentalists (shias vs sunnis for e.g.) without clarifying that you are refering to fundamental views, your comments seem presumptuous to believers who adhere to religion but not fundamentalism (not all shias want to kill sunnis).
furthermore, acceptance of other religions and alternative practices differ everywhere in the world. your references, from what you have written, are of mainstream views in the US and the middle east (saudi)… both can be argued to be fundamentalists as per mainstream views. to me personally, focusing on these constantly to elucidate your points seems incomplete and one-sided. your views on what religion means to people also seem to be primarily based on fundamental christianity and islam, imo. i have studied christian practices in some parts of mexico for example, which are far more ‘spiritual’ and more in line with eastern philosophies that with the fundamental beliefs of some sects in the US. there are also unitarian/unviversalist church denominations that are much more accepting and broad-minded. like you have said, acceptance largely depends on one’s social circle. well, there is much more out there than the US and the republican religious propaganda…
i get what u are trying to explain and it is totally understandable (and totally your business) to base your life/beliefs based on your personal experiences. i just wanted to throw out the fact that there is sooo much more out there in terms of belief systems and practices. it is also not as simple as to classify these with chosen terms. classifying someone as atheist is also not always black and white. i have a handful of friends who call themselves atheists, but they do not think the same way nor have the same belief/non-belief systems. anyway, i think these might be reasons why some people are uncomfortable with over-generalizations or classifications… as you would be too if they applied to you perhaps. i apologize if i have been presumptuous myself.
Excellent point. Science is simply the most conservative method to discover facts. Scientists tend to be parsimonious about what they believe in and that probably explains the antipathy to religion.
i am asking out of curiosity – how much research have you done on other ‘religions’ or philosophical traditions, in particular eastern religions?
less than christianity or islam. i had some attraction to confucianism, especially the form propogated by the sage zunxi. i tend to find daoism inscrutable, and its ‘scientific’ tradition dangerous (the quest for immortality via exilers = poisoning of self). some forms of therevada buddhism are appealing to me, though i reject the metaphysics. i have read several scholarly monographs on hinduism & caste, though books on philosophical hinduism are hard going for me. i have an interest in ‘pagan’ religions, especially norse religion and its modern derivation in asatru. i have read a great deal of greek mythology and have attempted to scry its origin in bronze age aegean culture. i have long had an interest in the islamicization of javanese culture and the relationship to indigenous mystical traditions preserved among the priyayi nobility alongside introduced ideas from hinduism, buddhism and islam.
now, a question for you, did you read my long post where i offered my opinions in detail on these topics?
to me personally, focusing on these constantly to elucidate your points seems incomplete and one-sided. your views on what religion means to people also seem to be primarily based on fundamental christianity and islam, imo. i have studied christian practices in some parts of mexico for example, which are far more ‘spiritual’ and more in line with eastern philosophies that with the fundamental beliefs of some sects in the US. there are also unitarian/unviversalist church denominations that are much more accepting and broad-minded. like you have said, acceptance largely depends on one’s social circle. well, there is much more out there than the US and the republican religious propaganda…
i have studied quite a bit on the ‘cognitive’ level of religion, and am aware of the range of religious belief. but spiritualism in mexico, or unitarian-universalist spirituality is pretty irrelevant to me since they aren’t going to be forcing their beliefs down my throat (i speak as someone who has been a sporadic attendent at UU congregations).
i get what u are trying to explain and it is totally understandable (and totally your business) to base your life/beliefs based on your personal experiences.
they based on more than personal experiences. i’ve read a fair amount on religion from its historical, psychological and philosophical angles. i’ve read the koran, the hebrew bible, the new testament, the analects, the tao te ching as well as the vedas (or at least the ones included my my translation on my bedside). of course i don’t know everything, but i think i know more than most. just because on this thread i’m focusing on fundamentalists doesn’t mean that they i think that is the totality of religion, but, it is the aspect of religion which is relevant to me. personal religion which is quietist and inward is totally irrelevant to me just as anyone’s hobby is, it isn’t my business.
classifying someone as atheist is also not always black and white. i have a handful of friends who call themselves atheists, but they do not think the same way nor have the same belief/non-belief systems. anyway, i think these might be reasons why some people are uncomfortable with over-generalizations or classifications… as you would be too if they applied to you perhaps.
the only thing that unites atheists is that they don’t believe in god. i haven’t generalized in any way about atheists aside from that. i’m a registered republican and generally conservative. that doesn’t fit the pattern of most american atheists, but there isn’t an atheist catechism. there are some religious systems which are ostensibly atheist, and about 40% of american unitarian-universalists are non-theists (humanists who are operational atheists).
Scientists tend to be parsimonious about what they believe in and that probably explains the antipathy to religion.
i don’t necessarily know about this, the connection between science and irreligiosity is pretty new. remember that galileo and newton were convential believers. of the scientists before 1800 edmund halley is the only prominent one who was out and out irreligious that i can think of (around 1800 many individuals like laplace show up and men like gauss, maxwell or eddington, conventially religious, start to cede ground).
there are many ways to get facts, science is just one method. “science” is a cultural and method, a system embedded in a human social enterprise. it isn’t a set of facts, it is a way of deriving facts!
even if, or especially if, science is a method, then even more reason that you cannot separate scientist from science, nor the bias that comes along with the scientist.
how can you say that science is a “system embedded in a human social enterprise” but then earlier write that science is “value neutral?”
you’re right — science is NOT knowledge — i should have written my own definition rather than going with the textbook version (which really makes you wonder why scientists write books that contain such an inane definition).
by the way, what exactly is a fact and how does one “discover” a fact? razib has given a wonderful example of how facts change, and how science is extremely fallible. if science is self-correcting, that means there has to be some ultimate Correctness. what exactly are these other methods, perhaps less conservative, that reveal fact?
thanks for the reply razib,
this was not always apparent in ur posts, to me at least… that’s all i was trying to get at… it makes me read your posts in a different light, and maybe others… although that may be ‘irrelevant’ to you -(pun)
this is what gets me actually… your consideration of issues in your arguments seems one-sided, i.e. you mention what is ‘relevant’ to you only. it sometimes leaves the big picture incomplete for the reader…
i will read that very long post of yours with more time on hand, maybe it will give me a more complete picture…