• In total there are 11 users online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 11 guests (based on users active over the past 60 minutes)
    Most users ever online was 789 on Tue Mar 19, 2024 5:08 am

Ch. 1 - Reason in Exile

#26: April - June 2006 & Nov. - Dec. 2010 (Non-Fiction)
Tobiahsgirl

criticism

Unread post

Well, here goes. I didn't start marking Chapter 1 until I joined this discussion, then I started running out of book darts. P. 20: ". . . we cannot say [fundamentalists] are mistaken in religious terms, because their knowledge of scripture is generally unrivaled." This is patently not true. Though many fundamentalists carry Bibles religiously (sorry) and can repeat quotes their pastors often use, many, many of them only read it selectively at the direction of their pastors. And not even the big cheeses always do well. John Shelby Spong is one of Harris's "religious moderates," I suppose, and is quite vocally critical of fundamentalism and all it stands for, and he overwhelmed Jerry Falwell (I may be a little off on this, sometimes having trouble distinguishing Fundamentalist #1 from Fundamentalist #2) by his deep knowledge of the Bible.So this sort of also blows the sentence on p. 21 that religious moderation is the product of scriptural ignorance. I've yet to read a Biblical scholar who was a fundamentalist; they've all been religious liberals with a thorough understanding that the Bible is not to be taken literally.P. 22: Referring to the fourteenth-century Christian, "he would know more or less everything there is to know about God." As soon as you meet someone who knows everything about God, run as fast as you can. I am an atheist by the standards of fundamentalists, but by Harris's standards I believe in God, God as the creative force that manifests itself throughout the universe (and beyond). There is no way the human mind can even begin to comprehend God, and any god someone knows everything about is a very small god indeed.I shall keep reading and I hope I shall run into fewer shallow statements that the author does not bother to substantiate. It is perhaps not a good idea to write about religion unless you know a lot about it. ?????
JulianTheApostate
Masters
Posts: 450
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2005 12:28 am
18
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Has thanked: 5 times
Been thanked: 41 times

Crusades

Unread post

Mad:The religious justifications for Crusade were necessary to overcome the religious injunction against war... A more significant obstacle to the Crusades was the fact that the Christian nations kept fighting wars against each other. The Middle Ages was a very violent time.
User avatar
Mr. P

1F - BRONZE CONTRIBUTOR
Has Plan to Save Books During Fire
Posts: 3826
Joined: Wed Jun 16, 2004 10:16 am
19
Location: NJ
Has thanked: 7 times
Been thanked: 137 times
Gender:
United States of America

Re: What is God?

Unread post

Not to mention the fact that the 'uniqueness of each tree, rock, cloud...' can also, just as easily, point to random occurence.God is fake, most humans are gullible.Mr. P. The one thing of which I am positive is that there is much of which to be negative - Mr. P.Once you perceive the irrevocable truth, you can no longer justify the irrational denial. - Mr. P.The pain in hell has two sides. The kind you can touch with your hand; the kind you can feel in your heart...Scorsese's "Mean Streets"I came to kick ass and chew Bubble Gum...and I am all out of Bubble Gum - They Live, Roddy PiperEdited by: misterpessimistic  at: 4/14/06 12:58 pm
mal4mac

What is God?

Unread post

Quote:Tobiasgirl: I see, hear, touch, smell God every day as I look at the miraculous world around me: the uniqueness of each tree, each rock, each cloud, the animals, wild and domestic. But my actual experience of God is inexpressible.Someone famous (anyone remember who?) once asked someone with similar views to TobiasGirl: "If you call the Universe God, then why do you need to use the word God?" To me, the word God means "superhuman being worshipped as having power over nature and human fortunes" (OED definition). So by redefining the word God to mean "miraculous world" or "inexpressible" TG is confusing matters.
Tobiahsgirl

Re: fundamentalist atheism

Unread post

Quote:Having read some psychology myself (in College as a major), I am of the opinion that Harris is completely right about Bin Laden. He is certainly not suffering from pscyhological dysfunction. Are his ethics and morals not compatible with modern civilizaed society? Absolutely. The man is responsible for terrible crimes not to be permitted in civil society by our standards. But being responsible for the murder of innocent people does not mark someone as suffering from a psychological dysfunction. Tis' why pleading insanity for charges of murder in the courtroom almost never works (less than 1% of insanity pleas work, iirc). Sane people commit terrible acts all the time not because of sanity issues but rather because their belief system has been ammended to justify their actions. You are confusing legal sanity versus insanity here with psychological dysfunction; the two are not at all the same. Many psychologists (and psychiatrists, I believe) define sanity as the ability to perceive reality, a reality that has some objective basis. For example, believing in the Rapture is definitely a sign of a break from reality, and it doesn't matter how many people believe in it. As social psychologists phrase it, just because lots of people believe an insane premise does not make their belief sane.I do not think Osama bin Laden would pass even the most basic psychological evaluation. He is a narcissistic megalomaniac, among other traits, which means he has a lot in common with most other people in power. I certainly believe that people who are disconnected from reality (and our president is a sterling example) have a very tenuous hold on sanity, at best. But in the courtroom: Would they pass a legal definition of sanity? Probably yes. So would most psychopaths; they do not fit a legalistic definition of insanity. Does that make them sane? I don't think so.And I wouldn't go there with civilization, civilized society, etc. "Civilization" has been responsible for more horrors than any "noncivilized" society. Where shall we begin? The Shoah, another 20-plus million dead in the USSR, slavery, the extermination of American Indians, apartheid, lynchings and other popular pastimes, the Inquisition, the murder of 3(?) million women as witches in medieval Europe, Vietnam, . . .
Tobiahsgirl

Re: What is God?

Unread post

Quote:Someone famous (anyone remember who?) once asked someone with similar views to TobiasGirl: "If you call the Universe God, then why do you need to use the word God?" To me, the word God means "superhuman being worshipped as having power over nature and human fortunes" (OED definition). So by redefining the word God to mean "miraculous world" or "inexpressible" TG is confusing matters. I use the word God because there are many people who know what I mean when I use the word. It doesn't matter what word I use; the word is irrelevant. For you the word God means its first definition in the OED; I, too, do not believe in God as a supernatural or superhuman being. What I don't understand here is that you cannot seem to comprehend that someone has different experiences, different perceptions from yourself. I certainly understand that others do not experience what I do when I sit amongst the trees or look into my dog's eyes or watch the frost come out of the ground. Until we understand that OUR experience of the world is not EVERYONE's experience of the world, we are stuck somewhere in adolescence.And, of course, each rock is different through random chance. The conception of "God" as the ultimate CEO nauseates me; only human beings could come up with such shrunken, puny concepts. It occurs to me that atheists should be the first people to realize that the universe is NOT human-centered; this is definitely a religious concept, and one of the worst sort.
User avatar
riverc0il
Senior
Posts: 373
Joined: Mon Dec 05, 2005 10:08 pm
18
Location: Ashland, NH

Re: What is God?

Unread post

Tobiahsgirl, I am not taking about a legal definition, I am taking about the DSM-IV-TR. Any one got a copy on hand so we can break this out and take a closer analysis? Not that someone without having interviewed Bin Ladin could accurately assess his sanity... but I think he is more than sane based on DSM-IV-TR standards. Also, to suggest someone is insane just because they believe something that is insane is not accurate, IMO. By your example, President Bush would be insane because he is a Fundamentalist Christian which would seem to indicate a belief in rapture. By those standards, any one who believes in religion could be judged insane, IMO. See what type of slippery slope that type of judgement entails? Guilt and Insanity are too completely different things, you can do horrible and terrible acts but not be insane. A terrible person for sure, but insanity indicates something in the mental wiring is off. Is Bin Ladin any more insane than the leaders of various countries that have gone to war? Leaders that have reigned down death and destruction, often times on innocents without a legitiment reasons? Posturing on the brink of nuclear war for defense of what? The same things Bin Ladin thinks he is defending, most likely.
Tobiahsgirl

Re: What is God?

Unread post

I guess my only question is: Do you believe we live in a sane world? A sane society?Erich Fromm: "But to speak of our realism is almost like a paranoid distortion. What realists, who are playing with weapons which may lead to the destruction of all modern civilizations, if not of our earth itself! If an individual were found doing just that, he would be locked up immediately, and if he prided himself on his realism, the psychiatrists would consider this an additional and rather serious symptom of a diseased mind."DSM-IV-TR was developed, from what I know, for just the sort of legalistic purposes I mentioned. For example, to get my former foster daughter into a "special needs" school, she would have to qualify through quantification using DSM-IV. I know it is used for insurance purposes, for trying to get therapy for children who are wards of the state, and this sort of thing, but for me it doesn't really say much about the human condition. And the people who use it every day can be appallingly ignorant of basic human dysfunction, just as substance abuse.Anyhow, all these discussions seem to be going nowhere. You can argue that Osama bin Laden is a sterling model of human sanity, and I will not agree. By the way, things "rain" down on us, not "reign," and I don't think there is such a word as "legitiment."
User avatar
riverc0il
Senior
Posts: 373
Joined: Mon Dec 05, 2005 10:08 pm
18
Location: Ashland, NH

Re: What is God?

Unread post

Quote:I guess my only question is: Do you believe we live in a sane world? A sane society?Sanity of society apply humanistic characteristics that do not apply to the world and society at large. Sanity is a definition of an individual human's state of mind. As my arguements follow, sane people do extremely bad things. I do not believe you can measure a sanity of a society. Quote:DSM-IV-TR was developed, from what I know, for just the sort of legalistic purposes I mentioned.Not really. The DSM is most heavily used by psychologists and other mental health professionals of all kinds from counellors to social workers to licensed psychologists to diagnos a mental illness (very much like a doctor might reference a text on physical illness for a list of criteria to diagnos a physical illness). Other aspects of our society might seek validation of certain claims from professionals utilizing the DSM, but its actual creation was for diagnosing mental disorder by the mental health professional.Quote:Anyhow, all these discussions seem to be going nowhere.If that means you wish to agree to disagree, I agree. We just see things from different perspectives. But that is the reason Discussion Boards exist, to exchange different perspectives.
Tobiahsgirl

a sane society

Unread post

This is exactly why I suggested that Sam Harris needs to read some social psychology. Individuals do not exist in vacuums, they exist within families, schools, churches, society. The notion that the individual is insane while everyone around him is sane was pretty thoroughly put to rest in the 1950s and 1960s, but it is a stubborn conceit that serves an insane society very well. We can then all pretend that we function well, reasonably and sanely, while THAT person needs to be medicated, hospitalized, marginalized.Sanity is not simply a definition of an individual's state of mind. What do you call the state of mind of Germans during the Shoah? Yes, most were paralyzed with fear, but what about the ordinary people who committed unspeakable acts, let alone the madmen at the top? What is the state of mind of people who picnic at a lynching, bringing their children to see the black man hanging from a tree, taking pictures and making them into postcards?This is where I cannot subscribe to fundamentalist atheism. M. Scott Peck defines mysticism as seeing the connection between all life, and not falling into the illusion that we are each separate and discrete (and, yes, that is spelled correctly). I respect the notion of individual rights and liberties (and responsibilities), but individualism is a limited way of viewing the universe and a limited way of functioning in this world.
Post Reply

Return to “The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason - by Sam Harris”