• In total there are 2 users online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 2 guests (based on users active over the past 60 minutes)
    Most users ever online was 789 on Tue Mar 19, 2024 5:08 am

The End of Faith, for readers late to the party

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

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 7203
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 12:59 am
19
Location: Da U.P.
Has thanked: 1105 times
Been thanked: 2166 times
United States of America

Re: The End of Faith, for readers late to the party

Unread post

As I will continue to point out to the Religion is Dangerous crowd, if you are going to cite the bad things done in the name of religion you must also, if you are honest, acknowledge the good that has been done. The one sided claim is sad.
What would acknowledging the good accomplish? If a serial killer was also a generous donor to charity, the fact that he murders people would so far out shadow his charitable giving that it need not be mentioned. We should hold ideologies to the same standards as people. The scale does not balance when both evil and good are done. No evil should be done.

Would the good behavior I show while in my house absolve me from beating my neighbors with a shovel? The in-group benefits and charity are outweighed many times over by the free pass given for murdering heretics and witches. Excluding different categories of people is part and parcel of religions. When married to politics, wars are waged. In many cases, the motive may be political, but the moral atrocities are forgiven by the state religion in the form of Just War, jihad, or Holy War. Such forgiveness, acknowledged beforehand, comes as nothing less than permission to go to war. For the past couple thousand years, if the goals of a political system and it's state religion coincided, war was inevitable.
User avatar
stahrwe

1I - PLATINUM CONTIBUTOR
pets endangered by possible book avalanche
Posts: 4898
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:26 am
14
Location: Florida
Has thanked: 166 times
Been thanked: 315 times

Re: The End of Faith, for readers late to the party

Unread post

Interbane wrote:
As I will continue to point out to the Religion is Dangerous crowd, if you are going to cite the bad things done in the name of religion you must also, if you are honest, acknowledge the good that has been done. The one sided claim is sad.
What would acknowledging the good accomplish? If a serial killer was also a generous donor to charity, the fact that he murders people would so far out shadow his charitable giving that it need not be mentioned. We should hold ideologies to the same standards as people. The scale does not balance when both evil and good are done. No evil should be done.

Would the good behavior I show while in my house absolve me from beating my neighbors with a shovel? The in-group benefits and charity are outweighed many times over by the free pass given for murdering heretics and witches. Excluding different categories of people is part and parcel of religions. When married to politics, wars are waged. In many cases, the motive may be political, but the moral atrocities are forgiven by the state religion in the form of Just War, jihad, or Holy War. Such forgiveness, acknowledged beforehand, comes as nothing less than permission to go to war. For the past couple thousand years, if the goals of a political system and it's state religion coincided, war was inevitable.
Your analogy of the serial killer is a loser for the following reasons:

1) at sentencing extenuating circumstances regarding the serial killer would be considered. If he or she (equal rights you know) had been a generous benefactor of charities that would be brought out so intentional dishonesty is present when religion is cited for its abuses without acknowledging its benefits.
2) from a more abstract perspective, just as personal salvation is not achieved by works but by faith, in like manner we can suppose that a religion is not good or bad due to its works but its faith.
For the past couple thousand years, if the goals of a political system and it's state religion coincided, war was inevitable.
Examples please?
n=Infinity
Sum n = -1/12
n=1

where n are natural numbers.
User avatar
geo

2C - MOD & GOLD
pets endangered by possible book avalanche
Posts: 4779
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2008 4:24 am
15
Location: NC
Has thanked: 2198 times
Been thanked: 2200 times
United States of America

Re: The End of Faith, for readers late to the party

Unread post

Interbane wrote:
As I will continue to point out to the Religion is Dangerous crowd, if you are going to cite the bad things done in the name of religion you must also, if you are honest, acknowledge the good that has been done. The one sided claim is sad.
What would acknowledging the good accomplish? If a serial killer was also a generous donor to charity, the fact that he murders people would so far out shadow his charitable giving that it need not be mentioned. We should hold ideologies to the same standards as people. The scale does not balance when both evil and good are done. No evil should be done.

Would the good behavior I show while in my house absolve me from beating my neighbors with a shovel? The in-group benefits and charity are outweighed many times over by the free pass given for murdering heretics and witches. Excluding different categories of people is part and parcel of religions. When married to politics, wars are waged. In many cases, the motive may be political, but the moral atrocities are forgiven by the state religion in the form of Just War, jihad, or Holy War. Such forgiveness, acknowledged beforehand, comes as nothing less than permission to go to war. For the past couple thousand years, if the goals of a political system and it's state religion coincided, war was inevitable.
The notion that religion has done some good over the years is also irrelevant from the standpoint that this is now, not then. It's ridiculous to say we should promote religion because it was useful in the past. In the modern world, religion is increasingly a destabilizing force. All it takes is one religious lunatic to get his hands on a nuclear weapon to illustrate this. As Sam Harris says:
Our past is not sacred for being past, and there is much that is behind us that we are struggling to keep behind us, and to which, it is to be hoped, we could never return with a clear conscience: the divine right of kings, feudalism, the caste system, slavery, political executions, forced castration, vivisection, bearbaiting, honorable duels, chastity belts, trial by ordeal, child labor, human and animal sacrifice, the stoning of heretics, cannibalism, sodomy laws, taboos against contraception, human radiation experiments—the list is nearly endless, and if it were extended indefinitely, the proportion of abuses for which religion could be found directly responsible is likely to remain undiminished. In fact, almost every indignity just mentioned can be attributed to an insufficient taste for evidence, to an uncritical faith in one dogma or another. The idea, therefore, that religious faith is somehow a sacred human convention-distinguished, as it is, both by the extravagance of its claims and by the paucity of its evidence-is really too great a monstrosity to be appreciated in all its glory. Religious faith represents so uncompromising a misuse of the power of our minds that it forms a kind of perverse, cultural singularity-a vanishing point beyond which rational discourse proves impossible.
-Geo
Question everything
User avatar
johnson1010
Tenured Professor
Posts: 3564
Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2009 9:35 pm
15
Location: Michigan
Has thanked: 1280 times
Been thanked: 1128 times

Re: The End of Faith, for readers late to the party

Unread post

Sam Harris is good peeps.
In the absence of God, I found Man.
-Guillermo Del Torro

Are you pushing your own short comings on us and safely hating them from a distance?

Is this the virtue of faith? To never change your mind: especially when you should?

Young Earth Creationists take offense at the idea that we have a common heritage with other animals. Why is being the descendant of a mud golem any better?
User avatar
stahrwe

1I - PLATINUM CONTIBUTOR
pets endangered by possible book avalanche
Posts: 4898
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:26 am
14
Location: Florida
Has thanked: 166 times
Been thanked: 315 times

Re: The End of Faith, for readers late to the party

Unread post

geo wrote:
Interbane wrote:
As I will continue to point out to the Religion is Dangerous crowd, if you are going to cite the bad things done in the name of religion you must also, if you are honest, acknowledge the good that has been done. The one sided claim is sad.
What would acknowledging the good accomplish? If a serial killer was also a generous donor to charity, the fact that he murders people would so far out shadow his charitable giving that it need not be mentioned. We should hold ideologies to the same standards as people. The scale does not balance when both evil and good are done. No evil should be done.

Would the good behavior I show while in my house absolve me from beating my neighbors with a shovel? The in-group benefits and charity are outweighed many times over by the free pass given for murdering heretics and witches. Excluding different categories of people is part and parcel of religions. When married to politics, wars are waged. In many cases, the motive may be political, but the moral atrocities are forgiven by the state religion in the form of Just War, jihad, or Holy War. Such forgiveness, acknowledged beforehand, comes as nothing less than permission to go to war. For the past couple thousand years, if the goals of a political system and it's state religion coincided, war was inevitable.
The notion that religion has done some good over the years is also irrelevant from the standpoint that this is now, not then. It's ridiculous to say we should promote religion because it was useful in the past. In the modern world, religion is increasingly a destabilizing force. All it takes is one religious lunatic to get his hands on a nuclear weapon to illustrate this. As Sam Harris says:
Our past is not sacred for being past, and there is much that is behind us that we are struggling to keep behind us, and to which, it is to be hoped, we could never return with a clear conscience: the divine right of kings, feudalism, the caste system, slavery, political executions, forced castration, vivisection, bearbaiting, honorable duels, chastity belts, trial by ordeal, child labor, human and animal sacrifice, the stoning of heretics, cannibalism, sodomy laws, taboos against contraception, human radiation experiments—the list is nearly endless, and if it were extended indefinitely, the proportion of abuses for which religion could be found directly responsible is likely to remain undiminished. In fact, almost every indignity just mentioned can be attributed to an insufficient taste for evidence, to an uncritical faith in one dogma or another. The idea, therefore, that religious faith is somehow a sacred human convention-distinguished, as it is, both by the extravagance of its claims and by the paucity of its evidence-is really too great a monstrosity to be appreciated in all its glory. Religious faith represents so uncompromising a misuse of the power of our minds that it forms a kind of perverse, cultural singularity-a vanishing point beyond which rational discourse proves impossible.
The current residents of the Cleveland Children's Home might disagree with you.
n=Infinity
Sum n = -1/12
n=1

where n are natural numbers.
User avatar
stahrwe

1I - PLATINUM CONTIBUTOR
pets endangered by possible book avalanche
Posts: 4898
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:26 am
14
Location: Florida
Has thanked: 166 times
Been thanked: 315 times

Re: The End of Faith, for readers late to the party

Unread post

johnson1010 wrote:Sam Harris is good peeps.
Very glad to hear that. Here is the text of an email I just sent to SH through his website contact form.
The Cleveland Children's home is requesting individuals make contributions so that they can provide Christmas presents to its residents. CCH is a residence for severely abused and neglected children. I was told that Sam Harris is 'Good Peeps' so I thought you might be interested in making a contribution to the CCH. Thank you for your consideration.
I didn't reference Johnson1010, or Booktalk.org or Chris, just an invitation for SH to share some of the money he has made off criticizing Christianity with some deserving kids.
n=Infinity
Sum n = -1/12
n=1

where n are natural numbers.
User avatar
geo

2C - MOD & GOLD
pets endangered by possible book avalanche
Posts: 4779
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2008 4:24 am
15
Location: NC
Has thanked: 2198 times
Been thanked: 2200 times
United States of America

Re: The End of Faith, for readers late to the party

Unread post

DWill wrote:Whoa! Back to Sam Harris' book. I think he gets many things right in that first chapter. I like the way he doesn't just come down upon "religion," but on the fact that so many of the world's people believe that God wrote a book, and unfortunately for us there is more than one book. His argument about the value of religious moderates I'd like to discuss, but I'll first ask if anyone thinks he's ratcheting up the fear a bit. This may sound like a strange question in view of 9/11 and other attacks, and the technological opportunities for greater mayhem. It's not so much that the fears are unjustified, as it is where this kind of rhetoric may take us. Does it lead to preemptive war, major erosion of civil liberties, waterboarding and other torture, all in the name of keeping us safe? Are all the conceivable measures we might put in place to keep us safe worth the price?
I had stated previously that I had read Ch. 1, but that was an exaggeration. I'm still reading it.

Sam Harris is very persuasive and his writing in this first chapter is excellent. He points to how we look through rose-colored glasses with regard to our various holy texts. Or, more likely, most folks are simply not aware of the fragmented, disjointed sources that comprise the Christian Bible.
Sam Harris wrote:The idea that any one of our religions represents the infallible word of the One True God requires an encyclopedic ignorance of history, mythology, and art even to be entertained—as the beliefs, rituals, and iconography of each of our religions attest to centuries of cross-pollination among them.
That is well stated, isn't it? It is amazing how religious beliefs have fallen so far off the map of critical thinking. Harris sets up a couple of thought experiments to illustrate this point. For example, imagine that a well-educated Christian of the fourteenth century was revived.
Sam Harris wrote:The man would prove to be a total ignoramus, except on matters of faith. His beliefs about geography, astronomy, and medicine would embarrass even a child, but he would know more or less everything there is to know about God. Though he would be considered a fool to think that the earth is flat, or that trepanning (drilling holes into the skull) constitutes a wise medical intervention, his religious ideas would still be beyond reproach. There are two explanations for this: either we perfected our religious understanding of the world a millennium ago—while our knowledge on all other fronts was still hopelessly inchoate—or religion, being the mere maintenance of dogma, is one area of discourse that does not admit of progress. We will see that there is much to recommend the latter view.
This kind of goes back to what I was trying to say on another thread. What has theology given the human race except imaginary details about an imaginary God? While science has forged ahead and given us actual knowledge about the world we live in, theology and religion have given us nothing at all, at least in terms of real world data. The man from the fourteenth century would know much of the same religious dogma that we have today which somehow gets passed down from generation to generation without anyone questioning it. That people to this day continue to accept this stuff on faith, I think, is scary for the human race. This is one gaping large blind spot.

So Harris is very convincing, but like Dawkins his criticisms of Christianity and Islam focus on only their most rigid, Fundamentalist forms. I would suggest that in America at least that most people who consider themselves Christians are much more moderate in their beliefs. To maintain extreme Fundamentalist views requires, as Harris says, "an encyclopedic ignorance of history, mythology, and art even to be entertained." I may be wrong, but it seems to me that the religious landscape in America is already changing very rapidly. The new crop of atheist books are a testament to this.

One of Harris' main arguments in this chapter is that moderates, by their very staunch defense of freedom of belief, are allowing the religious craziness to continue. I'm not sure about this. I still think a positive, pro-science approach will always work better than mocking or condemning people's beliefs. Considering our religious heritage which still very much permeates through our culture, and to accept that our sense in something mystical might be genetically based, what more can we do? Yes, we absolutely must draw the line at preventing religious dogma from entering our educational and political systems, but a certain degree of patience is called for as well. There are many foundational aspects of Christianity that we rely on without really thinking about.

Something Harris said once I think does a very good job at getting people to stop for a minute and actually think about their beliefs. He said that everyone is an atheist with regards to other people's gods. For example, Christians are atheists with regards to the Greek deities or to Yahweh of the Hebrew Bible. And Harris says he is just an atheist to one more degree. This really illustrates what "atheist" means in a way that really defuses the word's negative connotations.

More later. This is a long chapter.
-Geo
Question everything
User avatar
stahrwe

1I - PLATINUM CONTIBUTOR
pets endangered by possible book avalanche
Posts: 4898
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:26 am
14
Location: Florida
Has thanked: 166 times
Been thanked: 315 times

Re: The End of Faith, for readers late to the party

Unread post

geo wrote:
DWill wrote:Whoa! Back to Sam Harris' book. I think he gets many things right in that first chapter. I like the way he doesn't just come down upon "religion," but on the fact that so many of the world's people believe that God wrote a book, and unfortunately for us there is more than one book. His argument about the value of religious moderates I'd like to discuss, but I'll first ask if anyone thinks he's ratcheting up the fear a bit. This may sound like a strange question in view of 9/11 and other attacks, and the technological opportunities for greater mayhem. It's not so much that the fears are unjustified, as it is where this kind of rhetoric may take us. Does it lead to preemptive war, major erosion of civil liberties, waterboarding and other torture, all in the name of keeping us safe? Are all the conceivable measures we might put in place to keep us safe worth the price?
I had stated previously that I had read Ch. 1, but that was an exaggeration. I'm still reading it.

Instead of re-reading SH, why don't you take a trip off the reservation and read: What if Jesus had Never Been Born, by James Kennedy.

As for your last paragraph, you really lost it there.

Sam Harris is very persuasive and his writing in this first chapter is excellent. He points to how we look through rose-colored glasses with regard to our various holy texts. Or, more likely, most folks are simply not aware of the fragmented, disjointed sources that comprise the Christian Bible.
Sam Harris wrote:The idea that any one of our religions represents the infallible word of the One True God requires an encyclopedic ignorance of history, mythology, and art even to be entertained—as the beliefs, rituals, and iconography of each of our religions attest to centuries of cross-pollination among them.
That is well stated, isn't it? It is amazing how religious beliefs have fallen so far off the map of critical thinking. Harris sets up a couple of thought experiments to illustrate this point. For example, imagine that a well-educated Christian of the fourteenth century was revived.
Sam Harris wrote:The man would prove to be a total ignoramus, except on matters of faith. His beliefs about geography, astronomy, and medicine would embarrass even a child, but he would know more or less everything there is to know about God. Though he would be considered a fool to think that the earth is flat, or that trepanning (drilling holes into the skull) constitutes a wise medical intervention, his religious ideas would still be beyond reproach. There are two explanations for this: either we perfected our religious understanding of the world a millennium ago—while our knowledge on all other fronts was still hopelessly inchoate—or religion, being the mere maintenance of dogma, is one area of discourse that does not admit of progress. We will see that there is much to recommend the latter view.
This kind of goes back to what I was trying to say on another thread. What has theology given the human race except imaginary details about an imaginary God? While science has forged ahead and given us actual knowledge about the world we live in, theology and religion have given us nothing at all, at least in terms of real world data. The man from the fourteenth century would know much of the same religious dogma that we have today which somehow gets passed down from generation to generation without anyone questioning it. That people to this day continue to accept this stuff on faith, I think, is scary for the human race. This is one gaping large blind spot.

So Harris is very convincing, but like Dawkins his criticisms of Christianity and Islam focus on only their most rigid, Fundamentalist forms. I would suggest that in America at least that most people who consider themselves Christians are much more moderate in their beliefs. To maintain extreme Fundamentalist views requires, as Harris says, "an encyclopedic ignorance of history, mythology, and art even to be entertained." I may be wrong, but it seems to me that the religious landscape in America is already changing very rapidly. The new crop of atheist books are a testament to this.

One of Harris' main arguments in this chapter is that moderates, by their very staunch defense of freedom of belief, are allowing the religious craziness to continue. I'm not sure about this. I still think a positive, pro-science approach will always work better than mocking or condemning people's beliefs. Considering our religious heritage which still very much permeates through our culture, and to accept that our sense in something mystical might be genetically based, what more can we do? Yes, we absolutely must draw the line at preventing religious dogma from entering our educational and political systems, but a certain degree of patience is called for as well.

Something Harris said once I think does a very good job at getting people to stop for a minute and actually think about their beliefs. He said that everyone is an atheist with regards to other people's gods. For example, Christians are atheists with regards to the Greek deities or to Yahweh of the Hebrew Bible. And Harris says he is just an atheist to one more degree. This really illustrates what "atheist" means in a way that really defuses the word's negative connotations.

More later. This is a long chapter.
The reason you think SH is so wonderful is that he feeds your prejudice. The statements your report about religous people appearing backward is unsupported. Your response to it is like being at a pep rally. As for what theology has given the world, if we are talking about Christianity, I have listed many of the benefits before:

All of the sciences benefitted from church sponsored individuals.
Many of the early scientists made their discoveries in a desire to obtain a greater appreciation for the creation of God.
Music
Art
Architecture
Hospitals
Care for widows, orphans and the handicapped
Education, in the United States alone, Harvard, Princeton, Yale, among others were founded to foster the education of preachers.

You can continue to tow the Atheist Myth line that religion is bad, but I will continue to challenge it and point out that it is wrong.
n=Infinity
Sum n = -1/12
n=1

where n are natural numbers.
User avatar
johnson1010
Tenured Professor
Posts: 3564
Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2009 9:35 pm
15
Location: Michigan
Has thanked: 1280 times
Been thanked: 1128 times

Re: The End of Faith, for readers late to the party

Unread post

I do agree with Harris in his critique of moderate religion. They are the enablers who let the crazy get away with being crazy.

At the same time, moderates, by virtue of not really thinking about their religion are the best candidates to shrug off this superstition through actually studying what their religion says with a critical eye.

Just like alcoholics, though, the religious need to want to change themselves. You can't make anyone change their mind about it. You have to provide information, some interesting questions, and show the flaws of magical thinking, but that won't chnage their minds. That is the beauty of faith. It makes people impervious to rational discourse about those things they have faith in.

I know of three people who were fence sitters. They finally jumped ship and decided to look at religion critically. It seemed like right before they made those decisions is when they wanted to hear what i have to say about religion the least. Perhaps fearing that final push over the edge, hoping to delay what must have become the inevitable at that point.

I know of two other people who are acting like that now. They don't want to hear about religion, because if they thought about it, they know that they would be unable to hold that belief, and they don't want to deal with that change right now.
In the absence of God, I found Man.
-Guillermo Del Torro

Are you pushing your own short comings on us and safely hating them from a distance?

Is this the virtue of faith? To never change your mind: especially when you should?

Young Earth Creationists take offense at the idea that we have a common heritage with other animals. Why is being the descendant of a mud golem any better?
User avatar
geo

2C - MOD & GOLD
pets endangered by possible book avalanche
Posts: 4779
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2008 4:24 am
15
Location: NC
Has thanked: 2198 times
Been thanked: 2200 times
United States of America

Re: The End of Faith, for readers late to the party

Unread post

stahrwe wrote:You can continue to tow the Atheist Myth line that religion is bad, but I will continue to challenge it and point out that it is wrong.
Stahrwe, you really are a one-trick pony. I have never said that Christianity is all bad. I have noted many times on these forums that good things have come from religion. But since we are talking about Sam Harris' book, The End of Faith, the negative aspects of religion naturally come up. For those who have an open mind, it is readily apparent that that what is bad about religion is pretty bad. You are a good example of this, a man in the year 2010 who thinks the earth is 6,000 years old. As Sam Harris points out, people are dying all around the world due to this very kind of mindless devotion to ancient ideology. It is dangerous and cannot go unchallenged.

These "Christian" traditions of helping others can continue without anyone having to buy into the magical thinking that goes with it. In fact, arguably this is already happening in America on a grand scale. People are helping others with barely a nod to the religious myths that helped start them.

Your vitriol of Sam Harris is obviously not based on honest or thoughtful reflection of his arguments, but merely mindless rationalization of your religious beliefs. You aren't even reading his book, so why are you here?
-Geo
Question everything
Post Reply

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