The End of Faith, for readers late to the party

johnson1010 · Wed Nov 10, 2010 1:34 pm

without a better suggestion, lets put our thoughts on this book here.

I just started reading the end of faith a little while ago.

I find Harris has a compelling argument for us all to remove the unwarranted bubble of protection given to magical thinking.

People believe whatever they want without regard to the state of reality. Their belief undoubtedly influences their actions, whether it be in relation to climate change, polution, innoculation against dangerous disease, or the usefulness of science.

It is high time we hold faith up to the light of reason.

Interbane · Wed Nov 10, 2010 2:12 pm

Many secular authors make the same demand. Daniel Dennet spends 3 chapters on why we should investigate religion with science and reason in Unweaving the Rainbow.

American politics is dangerously unstable due to religious beliefs. Even the subtle differences matter. People who are familiar with unshakeable conviction apply that same conviction to their political operations, such as making it their goal for the next 2 years to completely shut down any and every attempt Democrats make. It's a zealotous conviction, reeking of religious undertones.

stahrwe · Wed Nov 10, 2010 2:19 pm


	johnson1010 wrote: People believe whatever they want without regard to the state of reality. Their belief undoubtedly influences their actions, whether it be in relation to climate change, polution, innoculation against dangerous disease, or the usefulness of science. It is high time we hold faith up to the light of reason.

The problem with your concluding statement is that faith has already been held up to reason with mixed results. Admittedly there are some who have found 'reason' a reason to reject faith while there are many others who have found faith and reason not only compatible but interrelated. The conclusion is that, as with many things, the result depends on the assumptions one operates under.

As for the initial statement about believing 'whatever they want' that is totally ridiculous even on the surface. You should really be honest and not exaggerate in these discussions.

President Camacho · Wed Nov 10, 2010 4:23 pm

Interbane and Johnson, I think you both are humanitarians.

Doesn't it seem at times that you aren't getting anything accomplished? I wonder if you did would you keep trying. Do some people just like the struggle of debating against walls? I don't mean that in a bad way but I have to wonder at it. Where I would make a short-lived effort at keeping others from walking into on-coming traffic, you two are out there every day with your reflective vests and white mitts trying your best.

Knowledge is compartmentalized. I gain fact, I make it my personal knowledge, and I use it as a building block. I don't question much at all after it becomes my personal knowledge because I'd go mad if I questioned everything all the time. It would be impossible to function. I build on that knowledge and it becomes even more difficult to question.

These religious people have built their lives on the knowledge of fantasy - a game with its own rules and hierarchy. They don't want the change as no one wants to change their thinking because that takes effort and sacrifice. After investing so much.... You ever see the man who cries and beats his head with his keyboard and mouse because his video game got hacked? He is morbidly obese; which is something that can be attributed to his video game addiction. Yet he thinks it's quite normal and quite acceptable to shed tears over the internet because of a video game. He physically punishes himself in a way mourning female relatives of deceased in ancient times were written as performing. He tears his shirt, rips his hair from his head, beats his chest, and hits himself repeatedly with a keyboard and mouse. Tell this man his God means nothing. He is truly dedicated to his god. Tell him world of warcraft means nothing and tell him to forget it - then tell him he can not only have power and money if he continues to play warcraft but that he can have more if he just gets some people to play as well.

Turning science into religion is probably the best way religion has attacked reason. They won't fall for your tricks. They've been taught that you are just like them but 'believe' in something else. They've turned you into another 'false' fantasy.

You're constantly slandered among them.

Maybe it's a problem of response. You're not getting a favorable one. Maybe you need money and station to help you. I'm sure if you offered enough money and power and created enough 'jobs' where the only qualification was that people could not believe without reason, you'd have great success. It would never be 100% but I guarantee you that a large percentage of might makes right christian kooks would follow you as the next messiah. You'd really have to make them slave though - they love to be trampled on and don't feel happy unless they are really used up for a 'higher' purpose - I mean just bled dry. They love that.

Interbane · Wed Nov 10, 2010 9:39 pm


	Quote: Doesn't it seem at times that you aren't getting anything accomplished? I wonder if you did would you keep trying. Do some people just like the struggle of debating against walls? I don't mean that in a bad way but I have to wonder at it. Where I would make a short-lived effort at keeping others from walking into on-coming traffic, you two are out there every day with your reflective vests and white mitts trying your best.

Religion is false, and is dangerous. Only the fence sitters are swayed, so perhaps we can save some before they're caught up in the unbreakable delusion. A wandering soul who happens across this board, for example. The silence of atheists allows viral religions to spread.

It's a catch-22 really. Those who are smart enough to know the attempts are futile are also the ones who could be so effective at changing the zeitgeist. A lone delusional may not be persuaded, but with enough voices, innocent minds could be saved. Kind of like voting. One vote doesn't matter, but if everyone had that mindset, no one would vote.

DWill · Wed Nov 10, 2010 11:06 pm

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?

stahrwe · Thu Nov 11, 2010 8:56 am


	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?

Of course he is ratcheting up the fear and rhetoric. He does it to sell books. The more outlandish statements the more publicity he gets and the more books he sells. He has to do this to get noticed.

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.

johnson1010 · Thu Nov 11, 2010 9:18 am

For the record, it isn't just religion i have a problem with.

Magical thinking has to go, if we are to preserve ourselves in the long run.

MaryF57 · Thu Nov 11, 2010 3:47 pm

"Faith has been held up to reason" since the Renaissance but I don't think either side is winning yet. For me personally, it has to be a balance between the two.

geo · Thu Nov 11, 2010 8:44 pm


	johnson1010 wrote: For the record, it isn't just religion i have a problem with. Magical thinking has to go, if we are to preserve ourselves in the long run.

I just bought the book today and have started reading it.

One thing I've observed over the years is that the messages of Dawkins, Sam Harris, and others probably had to be pretty strong to break through the stupor of religious tolerance that is so firmly entrenched in our culture. We have bent over backwards to accommodate people's beliefs and we've been doing it for a long time. Our country was founded on religious tolerance and I think it is only in our lifetimes that we are starting to question the wisdom of staying this course. It's a paradox that people like Dawkins and Harris are so often vilified for being so vocal because there are clearly many like-minded people, but who aren't comfortable denigrating other people's beliefs. In a sense even many of us atheists are indoctrinated in a culture that tells us to respect people's beliefs at all costs.

Our newspaper here recently ran an Op-Ed criticizing local candidates for the state House of Representatives for refusing to take a position on teaching creationism in schools. Most of the candidates said that both should be taught, meaning Creationism and evolution. These candidates for public office were either too ignorant to know the difference between science and faith or they were simply pandering to voters (who are too ignorant to know the difference between science and faith). And our newspaper was calling them on it!

More later.

Interbane · Thu Nov 11, 2010 11:39 pm


	Quote: 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.

stahrwe · Fri Nov 12, 2010 8:45 am

Interbane wrote:


	Quote: 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.


	Quote: For the past couple thousand years, if the goals of a political system and it's state religion coincided, war was inevitable.

Examples please?

geo · Fri Nov 12, 2010 10:46 am

Interbane wrote:


	Quote: 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:


	Quote: 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.

johnson1010 · Fri Nov 12, 2010 11:28 am

Sam Harris is good peeps.

stahrwe · Fri Nov 12, 2010 11:42 am

geo wrote:

Interbane wrote:


	Quote: 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:


	Quote: 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.

Forum rules

The End of Faith, for readers late to the party Tweet This Topic

Who is online

Chat Room Always Open!