You Guys Need to Communicate! (thoughts from an ex evangelical Christian)

On page 45 of the paperback edition of his bookThe End of Faith, Sam Harris gives the shortest summary I've seen so far of his problem with religious moderates: Sam Harris gives an extended presentation of his views in The View From the End of the World. This is an audio-only copy of a Sam Harris address to The Long Now Foundation of San Francisco in December of 2005. It's the same as the short presentation I referenced earlier, but he has the time to provide more examples and make a few additional relevant digressions.--Percy

quote:

---

What exactly makes for brainwashing do you suppose? What is the criteria for brainwashing? When and how does someone move from listening to personal belief in liturgy to full on brainwashing?

---

Er, how about total immersion in and parental teaching of that lifestyle and faith since one was a toddler?It's easy to brainwash children, which is why nearly all religions make it a very, very important tenet to indoctrinate children from a very young age.It's is very, very difficult, often painful, and can cause terrible rifts in family relationships to reject the religion of one's parents, and that is a big reason people find ways to live with the cognitive dissonance, or become nominal followers of a religion.

That seems like a particularly stupid comment. Just what does he mean by that? Is he implying that because we speak out against the Cults of Ignorance that we are somehow sheltering them? Does he think that the Religious moderates somehow stop others from opposing scriptural literalism and religious violence?Sorry but that is simply a stupid assessment.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This is the same presentation, I think?The point is Percy, that his own beliefs are capable of being a huge part of the conflict in our world. Any belief is. Even if we were to all agree to be religious, or all to be atheist, we would find any reason to contend the beliefs of others. That is how it always will be. No christians can agree on aything, it is foolish to think all atheists wil agree on everything. The focus of the disageement will certainly shift, but in any world where there is no disagreement we cease to be human.Harris is but a preacher amoung preachers. His message is just as likely to be mis-read by an impassioned zealot as any other. for all of the conflict and injury caused by adherence to a religion, there is equal harm and injury caused by those opposed to religion. Take for example the French revolution, Communist China, the Soviet Union. All in all, there is a widespread idea amoung Catholicism that the religion will at some point be forced underground, and the ideas of those such as Harris, while totally black and white and 'above' everything, only further the ardour in those who are expecting this sort of thing. Essentially, he helps to 'prove' God.

Good Lord, I would like an open topic on the ideas of this man. He is supporting his own exclusive view by bashing those who are truly inclusive of other religions. If you are an exclusive fundementalist you are somehow better than a person who tolerates all views, yet someone who tolerates NO view is considered 'enlightened', all the while possessing a view. LOL.

quote:

---

Just what does he mean by that? Is he implying that because we speak out against the Cults of Ignorance that we are somehow sheltering them?

---

Perhaps he means that he thinks that religious moderates so very rarely speak out against religious radicals in their own faiths.Let's face it, jar, among the Christians on this board you are pretty much the only one willing to do that. Edited by nator, : No reason given.

No, they're two different presentations. In the first one I mentioned in Message 18 (Sam Harris at Idea City '05) Harris has about 18 minutes. In the second one I mentioned in Message 31 (The View From the End of the World) he develops the same ideas over about 80 minutes, so he's able to provide more detail and examples.In the longer presentation he provides four objections to religious moderates, and the first is, I think, the most significant. Beginning around the 18:30 point he says: I see that you and Jar both replied to my short summary of Sam Harris's views on religious moderation from his book The End of Faith. I assumed that the earlier characterizations I provided would allow that short excerpt to be interpreted in context, but that appears not to be the case. I think both you in Message 35 and Jar in Message 33 jumped to some conclusions that only follow if you consider that short Harris excerpt I provided in isolation, and I didn't intend that it be considered that way.My interpretation of what Harris is saying about religious moderation is that its respect for other religious views encourages an atmosphere of tolerance that prevents the necessary objective analysis of religious beliefs, religious beliefs that can be characterized as at best loony and at worst a threat to civilization itself. You have only to look at such things as the Jewish belief that God gave Palestine to the Jews for all time to recognize the dangerous geopolitical consequences of treating such views with respect. The modern state of Israel may or may not have a legitimate basis for existence, but whether God really gave it to the Jews should not be a factor in making that determination.Harris's concern is that the influence of religious moderation makes it at best very difficult to challenge the assertion that Israel belongs to the Jews because God gave it to them, because the simple courtesy of respect for other's religious views places them off-limits from criticism. As Schraf noted, Jar is certainly an exception in this regard, and if there's any such thing as a radical moderate than Jar might be it.I haven't yet decided whether I buy into Harris's positions yet, but I think they're worthy of discussion. You're definitely not alone in disagreeing with his views. At the Beyond Belief 2006 conference, Lawrence Krauss took the position that the science/religion problem is at heart one of education. Harris stated his position by asking the question, "How many engineers and architects flying planes into buildings does it take before we realize this is not an issue of education?"--PercyEdited by Percy, : Minor correction.Edited by Percy, : Grammar.

Really?What about truthlover, True Christian, arach, trixie, Ringo (although his belief or non-belief remains a question), cavediver, etc? If so he simply showed even greater stupidity by his choice of words. He cannot be unaware of all of the Episcopal Sites that speak out against such things or of all of the Progressive Christian sites.Does he mean we do not have Televangelists like the 700 Club? Well, true. We are not crooks. We do not just produce infomercials or base our Theology on making a profit off the gullible.Edited by jar, : appalin spallin

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Doesn't it make sense that a moderate will be MORE willing to criticize fanaticism? I think this characterization in general is based on straw men.What is a radical? What is a fundementalist?I do come from a long tradition of speaking out against radicals in my faith. Does that make me a fundementalist? Or a moderate who wants to preserve the intergrity of a belief? What I see as 'radical'; charismatic healing masses, group baptisms into 'the spirit', New Ecumenical masses, etc, may be what someone else calls progressive and tolerant.You speak out against something, you stand to be condemned as conservative and dull. You accept things, you are condemned as irresolute. .I do not think that any of the definitions used stand up to real scrutiny.

With bullets?In the last two centuries we've experienced remarkable, drastic upheavals in our factual understanding of the world. We developed evolution to explain the origins of species. We overturned Newton's singular efforts with the ideas of an even greater mind, Einstein. Quantum mechanics suborned our concept of the universe as a great deterministic clockwork with the knowledge that, at the most basic level, randomness is king.And these aren't esoteric debates occurring in ivory towers and between the dessicated pages of journals nobody reads; the battlefield of these revolutions is our very homes and workplaces, our schools and hospitals, for every one of us has had our lives irrevocably altered by the technologies these revolutions ushered in.And yet, as strident and divisive these scientific revolutions were, and often still are, I can't think of a single instance where a shot was fired or blood drawn in anger. Wittgenstein's poker is the most belligerent example that comes to my mind. Had it been a religious argument, there's no doubt in my mind that Popper would have been empaled.Religion's defenders like to pop up with the old canard that "we'd find other reasons to kill each other", but when I read a story like the Chinese farmer who bought two girls to sell as brides and then realized he could double his price by murdering them in a ditch and selling them as "spirit brides", a traditional local religious practice, I really wonder about that. No, I think religion gives people motivation to kill each other that they simply wouldn't have otherwise.

I might be a bit mixed up between Dawkins and Harris but I think they would both agree on this:The biggest danger of even moderates is that they make a virtue out of taking things on faith. The idea that it is a good thing to believe something is true with no or even contradictory evidence allows for all sorts of stupid and horrific things to be built from there.I think that taking things on faith is not a good thing at all. It is what you do when you don't have time or don't think it is worth investing effort to determine the credibility of an idea. It is a stop gap and not a good thing to be praised at all.

Well let's parse one of his statements (Harris as quoted by Percy) That is simply a falsehood. Moderates do NOT make it taboo to criticize religious faith itself.I have NEVER criticized someone who is an Atheist for being an Atheist, nor have I ever said people should not say things that are critical of any holy book. And I am not unique. There are those like Bishop Spong who has even questioned the whole concept of Virgin Birth so critical analysis of holy books is not limited to those outside Theology. But I am not sure that moderates do make a virtue out of taking things on faith. My experience is that far from a virtue, things believed solely on faith are slightly disturbing. I would agree.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Yes, sorry I was only able to listen briefly to the second one before it started to distract my spouse. I will have to go back to it.Mainly, I think Harris is using way too much generalization. This seems to be his definition of 'moderate'. And it is unclear whether he may be speaking about moderates who are part of a religion, or those outside of religion who nonetheless respect the constitutional rights of others in personal belief. And which tradition is that? The tradtion which we are otherwise so relentlessly trying to pound into people's heads; tolerance of others?There is a big huge difference between respecting the believer and respecting the belief. It is just not possible for any observer, no matter how sympathetic, to cater to the beliefs of the whole world while making influential decisions.What it boils down to, and really I am trying to be objective, is another case of finger-pointing, 'if only everyone would get against religion, the world would be united, things would be sublime'. And yeah for Harris he can make a buck or two re-packaging the same old idealogy of a better society, and using the same old method of intolerance of others, that we were really supposed to be moving beyond.

I pretty much agree with much the Harris quotes you've cited and appreciate that you've posted them. One of the exceptions is that moderates allegedly make it a taboo to criticize Christians, Muslims and Jews. From what I see here at EvC who's majority of theists are moderates to far left liberals, moderates side in with the liberals in continuous criticism of fundamentalist Christians, leaving themselves (moderate & liberal Christians), the Jews and the Muslims pretty much the ones whose faith is beyond criticism. It's obviously open season on fundamentalist Christianity worldwide, with the world body looking the other way from horrendous genocide presently happening in nations like the Sudan. The way (Abe: some) folks act here at EvC one would not be surprised that when the severe persecution begins in America, the Christian fundies will be the victims here as well. It's not an 'if.' It's 'when.' Edited by Buzsaw, : No reason given.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW ---- Jesus said, "When these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads, for your redemption draws near." Luke 21:28

That seems to make sense to me. That was a good passage and I'm willing to bet that it is an accurate description for many people of that era.

---

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis