The Wages of Sin (Chapter Four)
Posted: Sun Nov 28, 2010 11:27 am
While Christianity doesn't present the immediate threat that Islam currently does, religion--which of course means Christianity in the U.S.--has a strongly negative effect on public policy in the country. Much of this effect has to do with empowering government to punish the private acts of its citizens. This is Harris' major topic in the chapter. His argument seems to be essentially libertarian. The government doesn't have the right to tell citizens what they can and cannot do when the behaviors in question harm nobody except possibly the individual engaging in them--and often not even him. This extension of government into private lives is done not to amass power for its own sake but out of regard for what God wants from us. Needless to say, Harris doesn't consider that motive to be any more enlightened. He says that the whole idea of victimless crimes is the notion of sin in different clothing.
Harris makes me think of the enduring paradox that conservatives, who don't want government intrusion into our lives, would still favor it to keep people from acting in ways that God disapproves of. Drug laws are a prime example, as well, of course, as laws about sex and pornography. Drug laws, especially, are responsible for a huge waste of resources that could be put to use combating more serious threats, such as terrorism.
"There are other sources of irrationality, of course, but none of them have been celebrated for their role in shaping public policy. Supreme Court justices are not in the habit of praising our nation for its reliance on astrology, or for its wealth of UFO sightings, or for exemplifying the various reasoning biases that psychologists have have found to be more or less endemic to our species" (164). 'Nuff said, there.
"And yet, religious faith obscures uncertainly where uncertainty manifestly exists" (165). Exactly!
Another main topic for Harris is the political/religious coalition impeding the use of stem cells in medicine (now, happily, largely remedied by the new administration). The public itself is at fault here for not understanding enough of the facts to know that scaremongering is going on. If this research were better understood, the public wouldn't object to it any more than they do to organ donation.
Harris does note that there are secular arguments that can be made for or against issues like stem cells and capital punishment. I think that is important to say.
Harris makes me think of the enduring paradox that conservatives, who don't want government intrusion into our lives, would still favor it to keep people from acting in ways that God disapproves of. Drug laws are a prime example, as well, of course, as laws about sex and pornography. Drug laws, especially, are responsible for a huge waste of resources that could be put to use combating more serious threats, such as terrorism.
"There are other sources of irrationality, of course, but none of them have been celebrated for their role in shaping public policy. Supreme Court justices are not in the habit of praising our nation for its reliance on astrology, or for its wealth of UFO sightings, or for exemplifying the various reasoning biases that psychologists have have found to be more or less endemic to our species" (164). 'Nuff said, there.
"And yet, religious faith obscures uncertainly where uncertainty manifestly exists" (165). Exactly!
Another main topic for Harris is the political/religious coalition impeding the use of stem cells in medicine (now, happily, largely remedied by the new administration). The public itself is at fault here for not understanding enough of the facts to know that scaremongering is going on. If this research were better understood, the public wouldn't object to it any more than they do to organ donation.
Harris does note that there are secular arguments that can be made for or against issues like stem cells and capital punishment. I think that is important to say.