stahrwe wrote: Wright had a chance to 'catch a break' by answering my question. Since he chose to ignore it; no break.

Au contraire, he answered your question just as directly as required.

As far as Scriptural Determinism goes, quoting from RW, TEoG: "Some people, in the sway of scriptural determinism, have a very dark view of the future. They note that the scriptures of all three monotheistic faiths embrace the slaughter of infidels. If these scriptures have the final say in a world of nuclear and biological weapons, we’ll see carnage that makes the Crusades look tame."

In my experience, when an author says, "some people" they mean themselves. If they meant some other group they would identify them by name. Once again this is an example of RW's lack of knowledge of the Bible. The Bible, including the OT does not advocate slaughter of infidels. The OT primarily deals with the nation of Israel. People who opposed Israel were destroyed, people who supported Israel propered. In the NT, a period of grace began operation during which time the Kingdom of Heaven was opened to everyone through Christ.

Oh my, stahwre, you're reminding me of Walter Mondale's reaction to Ronald Reagan: "It isn't what he doesn't know that worries me. It what he knows for sure that just ain't so."
We only have to go as far with this as your "theory" that Wright is veiling his own view with "some people." If you had followed his drift at all, there is no way that you could have concluded this. This is something you're making up.

You're splitting a fine hair indeed if you wish to maintain that you can advocate for 'scriptural determinism' without understanding the underlying scriptures. I would love to explore that with you but suggest a new thread for it. I'm sure the discussion will be arcane and tedious, exactly the way I like it.

Your perception that I am "advocating" for scriptural determinism only indicates the futility of further discussion.

I am really enjoying this book and glad that someone has put these thoughts together so well. I realized these things to be true at about age 11 and can't understand why others don't see the hypocrisy of organized religion. Oh well.

I started reading the book, and I'm impressed with Harris's writing as well -- he has some devastating critiques of religious belief.

I find his arguments about the motivation of suicide bombers to be persuasive for the most part, but I think you also have to consider the mindset of the soldier who is willing to die for his country as an example. If they have convinced themselves it is a just cause, then it doesn't require religious beliefs to be willing to kill and die and to become desensitized to what most of us would consider horrific violence.

So then it could be that Muslims are motivated in a similar way, believing they are at war with the U.S. and take great offense to wars, interventions and stationing of troops in Muslim countries. (Of course, despite being a critic of U.S. foreign policy, I am not justifying this in any way.)

See note 10 on p. 230, I don't find those arguments to be persuasive at all. (Edit: Where Harris is saying Muslims shouldn't be upset about foreign interventions, in fact they should be grateful, in order to argue it is solely a religious motivation.)

Dexter wrote:I started reading the book, and I'm impressed with Harris's writing as well -- he has some devastating critiques of religious belief.

I find his arguments about the motivation of suicide bombers to be persuasive for the most part, but I think you also have to consider the mindset of the soldier who is willing to die for his country as an example. If they have convinced themselves it is a just cause, then it doesn't require religious beliefs to be willing to kill and die and to become desensitized to what most of us would consider horrific violence.

So then it could be that Muslims are motivated in a similar way, believing they are at war with the U.S. and take great offense to wars, interventions and stationing of troops in Muslim countries. (Of course, despite being a critic of U.S. foreign policy, I am not justifying this in any way.)

See note 10 on p. 230, I don't find those arguments to be persuasive at all.

Why don't you agree with this argument? It seems likely that Muslims don't want other countries meddling in their business.

lindad_amato wrote:
Why don't you agree with this argument? It seems likely that Muslims don't want other countries meddling in their business.

Yes, I agree. But in that note, Harris is saying Muslims shouldn't be upset about foreign interventions, in fact they should be grateful, in order to argue it is solely a religious motivation.

I see what you're saying. However, because the Muslim countries' politics and government are based on their religion, isn't it fair to say that they disapprove of the intervention "on behalf of the Muslim populations". The US and other countries intervene to foster Democracy (which includes freedom of religion) or for economic reasons, not to help continue the Muslim beliefs.

Dexter wrote: I find his arguments about the motivation of suicide bombers to be persuasive for the most part, but I think you also have to consider the mindset of the soldier who is willing to die for his country as an example. If they have convinced themselves it is a just cause, then it doesn't require religious beliefs to be willing to kill and die and to become desensitized to what most of us would consider horrific violence.

Sure, and you can't discount the power that becoming a hero has for a young man without prospects, either. Also the financial reward coming to his family. Not to mention that, from the little that I've read about suicide bombers, they are carefully indoctrinated by handlers. I think it could be an exaggeration to say that they step forward having this great desire to die, begging to strap on a bomb, and all because of the 72 virgins thing. It takes an awful lot to get most people to disregard self-preservation.

I found it surprising that Harris put in that bit about data attesting to the reality of psychic phenomena being ignored by mainstream science (p. 41). That makes me (slightly) curious about some of his sources. But while it's true that the universe is stranger than we might think, I suspect I'd be more skeptical than he is. If there really are anomalous results, surely some respectable scientists are interested in replicating the studies. See some comments on the recent story about evidence for pre-cognition. I think the basic idea is that statistical significance alone doesn't tell you much.

DWill wrote:

Dexter wrote: I find his arguments about the motivation of suicide bombers to be persuasive for the most part, but I think you also have to consider the mindset of the soldier who is willing to die for his country as an example. If they have convinced themselves it is a just cause, then it doesn't require religious beliefs to be willing to kill and die and to become desensitized to what most of us would consider horrific violence.

Sure, and you can't discount the power that becoming a hero has for a young man without prospects, either. Also the financial reward coming to his family. Not to mention that, from the little that I've read about suicide bombers, they are carefully indoctrinated by handlers. I think it could be an exaggeration to say that they step forward having this great desire to die, begging to strap on a bomb, and all because of the 72 virgins thing. It takes an awful lot to get most people to disregard self-preservation.

Later in the book Harris has some interesting things to say about the financial and educational level of many suicide bombers. He discusses this to prove his point that Muslims are motivated by religious beliefs and not money, education,or lack there of.
Perhaps the underlying question is which comes first in Muslim countries the religion or the soldier?

I'm dipping in here rather late in the discussion, but hopefully not all ears have moved on... This is the first I've read of Sam Harris (apart from quotes on other threads) and I have to say I'm appalled at all the attention his writing gets, particularly on a forum that prides itself in citing 'evidence' and valuing 'critical thinking'. OK but since we're hear to talk about it, here are my initial thoughts.
Sam Harris' word choice alone is inflammatory and his broad sweeping generalizations have all the charisma of a religious fanatic. Many of his truth claims are given with no evidence. He has a novel idea--let's do away with all religion and faith. Interesting idea, not original though. Who does he propose will mandate such a thing? If indeed he's opposed to 'every human being [being] free to believe whatever he wants about God' (14,15) how is this an answer to violence and bloodshed? There have been/are communist states trying to enforce such things. Has he not read history? It doesn't appear that he has tallied the results and compared them to those resulting from 'religious' causes. The numbers would tell a different story than the sensational picture he is painting.
OK specific quotes that I would call inflammatory rhetoric without validity....

p16 "There is no more evidence to justify a belief in the literal existence of Yahweh... than.. Zeus."

re: the Bible

"...showing neither unity of style nor internal consistency"

Has he studied the Bible? or even read it?

p19 We know more than we did 2,000 years ago "and much of this knowledge is incompatible with Scripture."

p45

"It is time we admitted there is no evidence that any of our books was authored by the Creator of the universe."

My personal undocumented hunch is that SH has a 'beef' against religion and this is his 'big chance' to get the whole world on board to hate it too, in the name of saving us all from 'the abyss'... no need to agree with me, just my hunch.

Anyway, but a critique should always have something good to say. And I do too, but am going to submit this post first then on to the good stuff ( : Thanks for bearing with my gripes!