Friday, 27 April 2007

  • Sam Harris' Stunted Conversation With A Christian Nation

    Sam Harris’ “Conversation”
    with a Christian Nation:
    The Next Step.
    [part 1]

    Intro:

    I must say I’ve watched tons of Sam Harris on Google Video.  I love his talking points.  I’ve heard them a zillion times…and such is a double edged sword.  Nobody is talking back…no one is rising to meet him in conversation where he is…therefore all we are ever going to hear of Sam’s brilliance is the same impeccable conversation starter…that can’t go anywhere because of the it appears as though people just aren't ready and willing for there to even be a next step.  It's a movie with only a first act.


    The following observations of the reaction to Harris were found here at the Washingtonpost.com.  It’s pretty clear to see why the conversation isn’t getting off the ground.  And much like my DVD player that tells me every DVD has a “disk error” and promptly spits it out…I don’t think the problem is with any of Sam’s arguments. 

    In His Bully Pulpit, Sam Harris Devoutly Believes That Religion Is the Root of All Evil

    Is this what Sam Harris really believes?  Is this what he says?  If someone misquoted Jesus…would you look the other way?  Is being honest only about defending Jesus’ words…or everyone’s in their own light?  To its credit…the article goes back and forth making points for and against…putting both parties in good and bad light…  But Sam Harris doesn’t ever say religion is the root of all evil…any more than Paul says that money is the root of all evil.  Sam says dogmatism…even secular dogmatism…the kind that stops asking for evidence…that’s the problem and that religion merely has its fair shareand he points out the obvious consequences…which no one bothers to refute.  It is the widely accepted immorality of the moral man.  Secularism seems to be the only “religion” that strongly encourages the virtue of epistemic accountability.

    When Harris says:  “Religion has an overabundance of dogmatism that is the direct cause of various evils in the world.”  Should the mature moderate response be: “Atheistic dogmatism justifies evils, too!  Look at Hitler, Mao, Stalin, and Pol Pot!” as so often seems to be the case?  To use Sam Harris’ kind of argument, “When we take this kind of argument away from talking about God and put it in a different context…” it becomes perfectly clear how irrational this is.  Instead of reacting like a guilty party…why not admit to due error, and continue the conversation and start talking about ALL forms of dogmatism…and then GIVE THEM ALL UP ACROSS THE BOARD.  What didn’t the so called moderates say?  “You are right.  We shouldn't make our faith in our dogma your problem.  Now...let’s talk about secular dogmatism.”  That would make sense.  That would continue intelligent conversation.  That would be acting like the mature and enlightened demographic of humanity you say you are.  But that isn’t really what’s happening is it? 

    his arguments are far more likely to offend the faithful than they are to coax them out of their faith.

    It is a bit like asking someone to divorce their spouse when they are still entirely in love.  Who wouldn't demand an absolute negative case?

    "There is this multicultural, apologetic machinery that keeps telling us that we can't attack people's religious sensibility," Harris says in an interview. "That is so wrong and so suicidal."

    This is Harris at full throttle, the Evel Knievel of ideas, a daredevil of the mind.

    It’s so sad when having good reasons to believe what you do is so "extreme.” 

    Harris has grossly oversimplified scripture, they say. He has drawn far-reaching conclusions based on the beliefs of radicals. As bad, his stand against organized religion is so unconditional that it's akin to the intolerance he claims he is fighting. If there is such a thing as a secular fundamentalist, they contend, Harris is it. Even some who agree with his conclusions about the dangers of fanaticism find his argument ham-handed.

    Is slavery right?  Is homosexuality wrong?  What does God say about these things?  When does God condone glossing over the clear implications of his divine word?  Who is technically in the right when they take these things seriously as is?  Even if you don't live like the Scripture dictates, you are still carting around a book that unfortunately speaks for itself in ways that too quickly become a civilized society's problem.  Generation after generation is potentially re-infected with questionable morality moderates themselves may not embrace. 

    "I think this country needs a sophisticated attack on religion," says Van Harvey, a retired professor of religious studies at Stanford University. "But pushing moderates into the same camp as fanatics, that seems like a very crude mistake."

    That’s just it…this is the mistake.  He’s not pushing fanatics into the exact same camp.  He’s addressing their one commonality that is important…the immutability of faith when we do in fact have better reasons and better morality available to use instead.

    According to Harvey, not only has Harris picked a fight with those who could be on his side, but his solution -- let's all ditch God -- is laughable given the role that religion plays in so many lives.

    There should be no problem asking adults to be cognizant of the effects of their beliefs and actions on society at large. 

    Outro:

    I can live with the fact that people just aren't ready to give it up, but that doesn't mean everything is okay in the meantime.  Secularism has to put up with religion and religion has to put up with the fact it can't justify itself in adult land. 

    Ben

Comments (10)

  • Da__Vinci
  • Derek_Timothy

    You've given words to many of my thoughts over the past months, as I've read and heard "responses" to Sam Harris that are almost always nothing short of astonishing in their idiocy.

    He isn't saying "moderates are fanatics too."  But it's funny that moderates start acting like the fanatics when they are confronted by Sam's reasoning.  :)

    If a so-called "moderate" religious person cannot agree that our discourse should consist of valid reasoning and openness to evidence and critical scrutiny, then they are all but admitting that they are not truly a moderate.  It makes them appear as hypocrites of a particularly disgusting kind, as they on one hand use reason and science to argue against Biblical dogmatism when it comes to misogyny and homophobia, but then turn around and on the other hand embrace complete credulity and steadfast refusal to entertain conflicting evidence, when they meet people like Sam.

  • StrokeofThought

    It's been awhile, but I've watched tons of Sam Harris as well, but on youtube, not goole.  The Beyond Belief convention?  Those are some good ones.

    Your post is rather long and it's kinda hard to identify the points in it when you throw in your own personal jabs at the unreasonableness of faith, so I'll just generally respond here.

    Why isn't the conversation Sam Harris wants to start getting off the ground?  Sam Harris.  His central point and crucial ultimate campaign is that conversations about faith not be tolerated.  His entire polemic is based around social intolerance.  It has been severely criticized for the authoritarian system that such a stance would generate, and most people (columnists and critics) his penchant to call-out people of faith for being dogmatic and unwavering, when he himself seems to not think twice about anything he says either. 

    Also, Sam's idea of religious moderates is a gross misrepresentation, at least if he trying to be "fair."  In his book and speeches he uses the example of a family digging for a diamond in their backyard because it gives them "meaning" and they wouldn't want to live without a diamond in their backyard.  That is his prototype for explaining religious moderates in this country.   Along with this idea of religious moderates only liking religion for the meaning it gives their lives he so profoundly speaks of the 'taboo' around criticizing religion.  One may criticize a person's historical opinions, but not their religious opinions.

    Both of those ideas are, to say the least, completely off-base.  I know about twenty Christians that go to my school, and all of them are always interested in having religious conversation with other people, and not just as evangelistic pulpits to work from.  This may come as a surprise to Sam, but people, even while participating in conversations about faith, actually believe what they believe is true.  God does not work as some metaphysical teddy bear that they can cuddle at night, although I can see how an outsider might come to that view.  Rather, many people are become interested in faith and then through investigating it and searching for answers come to think it true.  This is a far cry from the pull-string dolls who chant the mantra "I love meaning!" that Sam presents as the case. 

    On top of this, the taboo that Sam describes as preventing people from bashing religious opinions is pathetic.  I heard people bashing other people's religion all the time, but that's not even my main point.  The point is, in the scholarly realm there is an intense crossfire between religious faith and secular reasoning.  It's not a reserved conversation, but one where both people think they're right.  Contrary to what someone would think after hearing a Sam Harris lecture, religion is not a group of people mindlessly wandering around thinking, "God exists! I'm so happy!" There is an actualy conversation that goes on that I'm not sure Sam knows about.   His view that everyone should be an eminent philosopher is unfounded and innapropriate.  His call for intolerance of people is misguided because he ignores the sphere of reasoning where people do vigorously defend their views.  Intolerance of the laymen for not having the most superb reasoning is innapropriate because their life goal is obviously not to explicate their faith like scholars and writers do. 

    Conversation about religion exists.  Why can't Sam find it?  Perhaps it is because he comes to the table with an attitude that condescends instead of invites conversation.  He wants to talk out of both sides of his mouth by saying out of one, "Let's talk about it," and then, "Shutup! You're wrong!" out of the other. 

    Besides misrepresenting religious moderation, exaggerating the idea of a taboo around religion, and asking for a conversation he concomitantly refueses to have, Sam has added very little to the scholarly discussion of ideas except exceptional rhetoric in speaking engagements.        

    Sam also makes prominent use of the demand for evidence for faith, which I think Peter S. Williams does a good job with here: http://www.damaris.org/content/content.php?type=5&id=533.  The article mentions Sam briefly.

    Hope we can have a better conversation than last time, ARU.  Lol.  And regardless of how wrong he is, Sam is a very entertaining speaker to watch. 

    And something else interesting to note: I talked to William Lane Craig recently, who interestingly noted that he almost had the chance to converse with Harris on a TV show in Chicago, but Harris declined to attend. 

  • StrokeofThought
    Oh, and a favor: could you show me where your post on theistic standards are? Thanks.
  • wild__at__heart

    There is so much truth in this post. I wish more Christians and non-Christians alike could intitively listen to the words here and understand how sitting on the fence is just as useless and being far removed from the faith. What agnostics try to understand is a set of rules that we make and try to follow in order to be rewarded a heavenly crown, or a number of them. Yo man, we are fallen creatures, all of us sin some more than others, but the blood of Jesus has redeemed us from the firey pit of hell! Amen! We have no reason to be defensive about our faith if we are in relationship with God because we know our place in the world and would be content in serving others rather than to be the ultimate correct voice in the crowd.

    If you have questions feel free to ask away and I will be glad to lead you to passages in the Bible. Please feel free to stop by my site and although I do not use as lofty of rhetoric nor am as punctually correct enjoy thinking about things a lot. I would enjoy some dialogue from your views to understand agnosticism better.

  • WAR_ON_ERROR
    Strokeofthought,

    SOT: It's been awhile, but I've watched tons of Sam Harris as well, but on youtube, not goole. The Beyond Belief convention? Those are some good ones.

    I’ve watched those as well. I was horrified that one of the key conversations I wanted to see duked out got cut short…the one between Harris and the guy that apparently negotiates with terrorists. That would have been a wonderful bridge from philosophy into practicality…and it didn’t happen.

    SOT: Your post is rather long and it's kinda hard to identify the points in it when you throw in your own personal jabs at the unreasonableness of faith, so I'll just generally respond here.

    Lol, actually it’s fairly short given that I cut it into thirds…but I understand. My points are about what a proper response to Harris is instead of what he is getting. I’ll highlight in green my basic contention about the moderates’ inadequate response. In red of course…are the so called personal jabs…but which I would call the boot that fits until further notice.

    SOT: Why isn't the conversation Sam Harris wants to start getting off the ground? Sam Harris. His central point and crucial ultimate campaign is that conversations about faith not be tolerated. His entire polemic is based around social intolerance. It has been severely criticized for the authoritarian system that such a stance would generate, and most people (columnists and critics) his penchant to call-out people of faith for being dogmatic and unwavering, when he himself seems to not think twice about anything he says either.

    Which would generate? You mean the “authoritarianess” of objectivity? In mere conversation? Merely raising awareness? Making cultural headway? He’s only trying to make it respectable by EARNING it the hard way…by talking about it intelligently. Does it not bother you that such criticism of his position fails to perceive any difference between being dogmatic about what you do know, vs. being dogmatic about what you do not know? We should be entirely dogmatic about what 1+1 equals. Though we should never even have to call this “dogma.” We should be patently less dogmatic about matters that are admittedly “established” on personal faith and wager…especially when it comes to all the line items Harris mentions that are the cost.

    Claiming that Harris does not think before he speaks…is an extraordinary claim. Both points completely backfire…as you have to be dogmatic…to not be dogmatic…about being dogmatic…it’s still an “authoritarian dogmatism”…the kind that is trying to silence the voices like Sam Harris… And if that’s not what you are doing…if you are “just talking”…then why don’t you apply the same latitude to Harris? Thus as a result it also becomes clear that moderates are not thinking before they speak…while Harris is on firm ground because he doesn’t split such hairs.

    SOT: Both of those ideas are, to say the least, completely off-base. I know about twenty Christians that go to my school, and all of them are always interested in having religious conversation with other people, and not just as evangelistic pulpits to work from.

    Well despite your personal sphere there is a thick seam of “epistemic relativism” that permeates pop-culture…a bubble he is trying to pop. If it is true that there are plenty of Christians out there willing to talk…then how is that against Harris? Isn’t that for him? Is the answer, “We aren’t going to talk to you because we are so willing to talk?” It’s a perfect forum for Christians to show him up. Why not just accept the invitation? That proves him wrong twice. And if the invitations have been accepted…obviously there are those that debate him publicly…then great. Things are moving along. Regardless...obviously it still exists…still has an influence…and it can be reduced.

    SOT: This may come as a surprise to Sam, but people, even while participating in conversations about faith, actually believe what they believe is true.

    That’s interesting since that is one of his main talking points…that liberals and moderates don’t realize how much fundamentalists really believe in what they say they do.

    SOT: God does not work as some metaphysical teddy bear that they can cuddle at night, although I can see how an outsider might come to that view. Rather, many people are become interested in faith and then through investigating it and searching for answers come to think it true. This is a far cry from the pull-string dolls who chant the mantra "I love meaning!" that Sam presents as the case.

    If you are accusing him of using selective evidence…you are guilty of the same thing by merely pointing to other kinds of people of faith. And if what you say is true…it should be no trouble to demonstrate that at the level of his conversation. Again, it is hypocrisy to say you got the goods…that Harris doesn’t…and not bother to show it at the appropriate level. Perhaps Harris is wrong...but how would we know? And I just haven’t seen that in any of the videos I’ve watched of him or any of the debates I’ve read thus far…though I’m looking into the three books that have been written in response to “Letter to a Christian Nation.” Though it seems these people are only serving to prove his point…but we’ll see what the macro-analysis yields.

    SOT: The point is, in the scholarly realm there is an intense crossfire between religious faith and secular reasoning.

    Well then to your main point…the scholarly realm is not the pop-cultural social realm that matters. There aren’t enough scholars in the US to vote laws in and out of business.

    SOT: It's not a reserved conversation, but one where both people think they're right. Contrary to what someone would think after hearing a Sam Harris lecture, religion is not a group of people mindlessly wandering around thinking, "God exists! I'm so happy!" There is an actually conversation that goes on that I'm not sure Sam knows about.

    That’s great…perhaps these are exceptions to the rule? I don’t know exactly what the stats are, but it seems evident there is still a lingering taboo…not to mention even criticism of religion that is quite unintelligent. One might see Harris as working against both causes…to whatever degree they happen to prosper.

    SOT: His view that everyone should be an eminent philosopher is unfounded and innapropriate.

    And as you concede, I see. Perhaps you will understand when I think it is unfounded and inappropriate for God to demand everyone be a historian and a scholar in order to properly understand his message to the world…or be able to know that he is objectively part of reality.

    SOT: His call for intolerance of people is misguided because he ignores the sphere of reasoning where people do vigorously defend their views. Intolerance of the laymen for not having the most superb reasoning is innapropriate because their life goal is obviously not to explicate their faith like scholars and writers do.

    I understand what you are saying. It’s like talking to kids when he should be asking his parents, right? But there’s a problem. It’s the kids who do the voting…the kids who influence politicians. It’s public opinion that needs to be informed. There are plenty of secular thinkers who are confronting the evangelical thinkers in that realm…but now its time to have a good talk in front of everyone and Harris facilitates that…and I’m very glad to have such a strong secular voice on the mediascape. And note…there are references to conservative excuses against his points when he discusses the Bible and other issues. The problem of course isn’t that he doesn’t know they exist…its that they are bad.

    SOT: Conversation about religion exists. Why can't Sam find it? Perhaps it is because he comes to the table with an attitude that condescends instead of invites conversation. He wants to talk out of both sides of his mouth by saying out of one, "Let's talk about it," and then, "Shutup! You're wrong!" out of the other.

    So, “Let’s talk about it…but I’m not going to tolerate bad reasons for your position…” comes off as saying, “Shut up, you’re wrong?” Is this anything less than an admission that you need bad reasons?

    SOT: Besides misrepresenting religious moderation, exaggerating the idea of a taboo around religion, and asking for a conversation he concomitantly refuses to have, Sam has added very little to the scholarly discussion of ideas except exceptional rhetoric in speaking engagements.

    He isn’t saying anything new about religion. I agree. If good criticism of ancient religion could only be stumbled upon yesterday...I'd say by default its probably not legit. But it’s not like the “conversations in evangelical scholarship” have actually gotten over the issues he brings up objectively.

    SOT: Sam also makes prominent use of the demand for evidence for faith,

    I think he’s demanding evidence…*instead* of faith. IMHO, faith should be a mere by-product of sufficient evidence to begin with.

    SOT: Hope we can have a better conversation than last time, ARU. Lol.

    I do as well.

    SOT: And regardless of how wrong he is, Sam is a very entertaining speaker to watch.

    That he is.

    SOT: And something else interesting to note: I talked to William Lane Craig recently, who interestingly noted that he almost had the chance to converse with Harris on a TV show in Chicago, but Harris declined to attend.

    You talked to Craig personally? Interesting. That’s a shame it didn’t happen. I’d have enjoyed watching the exchange.

    ARU
  • audreywannabe

    I am reading Sam Harris - The End of Faith and though I am already agnostic I note that I am/was a moderate thinking that if others wanted/needed their religion, well the best they could do was not force it on me but no one is making them accountable for their incredable beliefs they claim. and some one should and it should be us the normal regular folks who have to live with them and all their imaginary friends. Go You!! Support given.

  • anonymous

    Audreywannabe,

    What do you mean hold the "religious moderates" accountable for their actions? 

  • anonymous
    i'm sorry I mean their beliefs
  • kenedwards5
    Thanks for visiting my site. I've tried to answer your points briefly. By the way, can you tell me why you go to such lengths on this site to explain you believe in nothing? And why is it considered intellectual to do so?

    regards

    Ken
  • Sign in to Comment

  • Give eProps (?)

Who recommended?

Who gave the eProps?