This is the date seven years ago that Sam Harris started writing his book, The End of Faith. At least something good came from that horrible and despicable cowardly act of terrorism.
I didn't process it way consciously at the time, but the events of that day were a kind of catalyst toward facing up to the dark side of religion. Obviously fanatical Islam had become a major menace, but it takes a lot of looking and thinking to see the relationship of acts like the 9/11 attack to the ecosystem of religious faith, even pacificist, non-militant forms.
I remember thinking, at the time, that "Islam has got to go", which is ridiculously improbable and impractical as a tactical response. The problem is much wider, as Harris points out in his book. A shared worldview of credulity and self-indulgence is the ground these kinds of horrors grow out of.
And no, abandoning religious credulity is not about to remove all atrocities from the earth. There are plenty other problems to face beyond this one. But if we are interested in avoiding events like 9/11, we will need to face up to the supporting role religion has overall in the problem, not just in Kabul or Riyadh, but Nashville and Colorado Springs, too.
The tragic events of Sept 11 were not caused by 'religion'. They were caused by a particular subset of people who held fanatical religious beliefs.
To blame 'religion' as a whole is fallacious and irresponsible (and perhaps even dangerous, since many otherwise good religious people are thereby demonized without reason).
There are indeed many forms of religion that would be and are outraged at the kind of actions taken by the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks. But the conviction and commitment to fly a commercial jet full of passengers into a skyscraper like they did, and for why they did, that relies on a fundamental lack of discipline in reasoning and thinking morally.
It's a "worldview" problem, and while a great many theists steer their credulity into imaginative ideas that are much more benign and benevolent that a jihad bent on the slaughter of innocents, BOTH the benign and malevolent rely upon mysticism, credulity, and pronounced lack of rational skepticism to arrive at their different understandings.
Again, this doesn't mean a reasonable worldview is going to bring about utopia -- far from it. But to the extent theists of all stripes the world over lend credibility and social sanction to embracing beliefs that don't obtain -- believe whatever you want, whatever validates you, whatever fits in with your peer group! -- the fertile ground for stuff like we saw on 9/11 is prepared.
In a world where people are oriented around imagination and indulgence at the very lowest levels, your going to get some very nice, positive folk, but you are also get a lot who use their license to become realized demons, driven by murderous, destructive assumptions. Theism begs off repudiation of such worldviews, because they need the same license the bloodthirsty jihadi does to justify their own worldview. You can't put the lie to the 72 virgins meme without cutting your own theological legs off, and destabilizing your own beliefs.
Their worldview is built on the same commitments to faith as the Christian one. Happily, modern Christianity steers in a more positive direction than violent jihadist Islam does. But both depend on similar commitments epistemic commitments, and a Christian who decries 9/11 I accept as genuinely outraged at what happened, but see as internally conflicted at a low level, because his commitment to the skyhook, writ large, validates all the other skyhooks out there, to some degree.
"I remember thinking, at the time, that "Islam has got to go", which is ridiculously improbable and impractical as a tactical response."
Well I'm glad you seem to have stopped thinking that way, because it is bigoted. People have the freedom to live out their religious or spiritual convictions if they are not harming others, whether Muslim, Buddhist, Christian, Hindu, etc.; we don't need religiphobes dictating that whole religions have "got to go".
It's also patently illogical to conclude that a whole religion has "got to go" based on the actions of a minority of people who claim to be adherents of said religion. It simply doesn't follow.
"But if we are interested in avoiding events like 9/11, we will need to face up to the supporting role religion has overall in the problem, not just in Kabul or Riyadh, but Nashville and Colorado Springs, too."
I have faced up to the supporting role that *particular* dangerous and irrational beliefs play in tragedies like 9/11. But the particular beliefs of madmen don't magically equate to religion as a whole. Think!
"...the conviction and commitment to fly a commercial jet full of passengers into a skyscraper like they did, and for why they did -- that relies on a fundamental lack of discipline in reasoning and thinking morally.
Well no shit, sherlock.
The point is, you need to learn to distinguish between particulars and generalities. When you blame 'religion' for the particular beliefs and actions of a minority who practice evil in its name, you are being neither "rational" nor "skeptical". You are being illogical.
"BOTH the benign and malevolent rely upon mysticism, credulity, and pronounced lack of rational skepticism to arrive at their different understandings."
Again, you're simply reiterating the obvious. We already know that many theists have ZERO rational basis for their beliefs. So do many atheists. It doesn't follow that "theism begs off repudiation of such worldviews" nor does it follow that "atheism begs off repudiation of such worldviews".
You have neglected to make careful distinctions precisely where they should be made. That, if anything, exhibits a lack of discipline in reasoning on your part.
"And have you considered the dark side of science?"
Be careful not to make the same mistake as touchstone. Scientists have practiced evil, we're all familiar with examples. But of course it doesn't follow from that that science is dangerous. It also doesn't follow that science provides a "sanctuary" or "justification" for such evil.
Science has no dark side, any more than your golf club has a dark side. Science has uses that are evil, and knowledge gained through science has certainly been used for evil, but science is just a tool for gaining knowledge (in fact, the only reliable tool for gaining knowledge about the natural world), and is morally neutral.
I think you are forgetting, or maybe just ignoring, the fundamental dynamic at work here. No doubt, it's not hard to go find atheists who are atheists for irrational reasons. One I recently talked to is convinced that God doesn't exist simply because he doesn't like the way the world looks with God in it. That's precisely the mistake many theists make, just with a different set of distastes, anguish over the concept of no God or gods impelling them to embrace the belief in God just because it's a *preferable* worldview.
That happens across the board, but it's a red herring here. What I'm getting at is the commitment to take action based on beliefs that hang on "skyhooks" (and lest you think the commitment to the reality of reality is an "atheist skyhook", my regular suggestion to light a cigarette lighter and hold your hand over the flame while you explain how dubious you are about reality).
I mean, triggering the deaths of 3,000 people seems like something one should have some firm epistemic grounding for in assembling the beliefs that drive one to do such a thing. Voting to deny homosexuals equal treatment under the law, to throw out something many Christians are theologically motivated toward, is a similar situation -- large ramifications for lots of people.
When "God says" becomes a justification for anything, it's a justification for everything, since God is "personal", "revealed", and objectively invisible, nonexistent.
We can find bad reasons that atheists and agnostics do bad things, too, and discouraging theistic indulgences doesn't make those bad reasons good. But we can say that here in theism is a whole enterprise that BEGINs with illicit reasoning, an approach that legitimizes and supports "crazy evil".
With a non-theist who's got an irrational set of beliefs, at LEAST you do not have the God delusion thwarting the discussion, and thwarting his ability to adjust and improve the quality of his thinking. On theism, its fundamental commitments prevent reasonable therapy, encouraged from without, realized from within.
An irrational atheist isn't going to resist a reasonable objection based on "God says", in other words. A jihadi looking to slaughter kufr or a Christian looking to make sure homosexuals can't get equal treatment under the law can always appeal to "God says", and "God says" as the high-order bit precludes all other objections.
touchstone, I have thought, and I know it is not original, but if you can debunk Jesus, that is present a good argument that he never existed, then Islam is heavily undermined because Muhammad believed Jesus was a prophet.
You have to make the likes of Craig, Habermas, Bock and Wright begin to crack.
My approach is to suggest that that there was an alternative story to that of Jesus. For me the search began about twenty years ago when a Baptist minister began to preach that one couldn't receive the Holy Spirit unless one first believed in Jesus. Thus one couldn't pray for the Spirit of God to have an effect on an unbeliever. Now that went totally against everything I had ever believed and was taught going way back to 1960. To cut a long story short, I began to ask myself what was the Holy Spirit doing before Pentecost? And that took me into trying to understand what the prophets had been up to. I have come to the conclusion that there was an alternative story, entirely in a Jewish context, and that the NT is mostly developments of prophetic documents. The prophets had not died-out as is generally assumed. In this view, Jesus is a a later fabrication. But there was a prophet among prophets by the name of Judas, denigrated by the later editors. Related is an entirely different view of the so-called Jewish 'revolt' and the apparent Roman history of it, as recorded in the writings attributed to Josephus. There are also the priestly documents of the DSS which I consider as mainstream, originating in Jerusalem. Thus the writers of the DSS were the real messianic troublemakers for the prophets (classed as seekers of smooth things) and the Romans alike.
Charles W. Where have you been to believe that religion doesn't motivate most terrorist attacks. Are you saying because the actions of some fundimentalist muslims don't agree with what you thing of as religion does that mean they aren't religious. I hear this excuse from christians all the time when someone claiming to be a christian commits an act that is consider evil. Oh he or they weren't christians because they don't adhere to the teachings. But i that is the deal then how can you say who is or isn't religious.
I have studied some history of some of the more popular religions and I do believe that touchstone has plenty of reasons to blame religion for 9/11. For the past 2000 years or so most actions of both christianity and islam have been based on violence first then figure out the best way to mae it look like a good thing.
For the past 2000 years or so most actions of both christianity and islam have been based on violence first then figure out the best way to mae it look like a good thing.
That's going a bit far...most actions of Christians and Muslims over the past 2000 years have had nothing to do with violence. There have been far too many that have been violent, but let's not get carried away here with this talk of "most".
No I don't think the word most is wrong. Study history and tell me why most of the known medical and technological knowledge of the Roman Empire disappeared once christianity became the national religion. Oh no that is right couldn't possibly have ben when those good christians burned up anything not a part of their religion. How many died because of all that lost knowledge. When has christianity ever been a peaceful religion? Actually there are elements of it that are but they are a very minor part of it. A good example of how violence oriented most that call themselves christian are just read some of the comments on those news sites that allow comments or discussions. If you need links to some of these comments let me know in a comment and I will get them for you. Show me a good act by a christian group where they didn't force their beliefs on those they are supposedly helping.
Without rendering judgment on any argument for the non-existence of Jesus (I get the gist of what you are saying and have read similar things along those lines), my sense from talking about "Isa" with various muslims over the years is that the idea that Jesus didn't exist *would* be problematic, but not so much as many would think. Muslims are highly dubious about the Jesus story anyway, at least in the straightforward reading. He certain wasn't a "person of the Godhead", for example, in the Muslim view.
If Jesus was discredited -- thoroughly, somehow -- it would be somewhat painful from an apologetics standpoint, but given the license they give themselves already in slicing and dicing the Bible, I think that train would just keep rolling on, even though Christianity would have collapsed.
(And no, I think Christianity would not just say "whoops" and collapse as an enterprise. Even if you showed conclusively that Jesus was an invention, it's "more true than fact" for many people, and thus would carry on in large part; there's too much cultural inertia for it to just give up if debunked at this point.)
Touchstone, I'm chuckling to myself about that. Thinking about my family (mostly SDA), the typical pattern is to create a theology around the now debunked belief.
If it could be shown conclusively beyond doubt that Jesus was a myth, some enterprising theologian would construct a theology around it. They might argue the necessity of God reaching out to us in the myth of the trinity and the need for us to accept it as false and absurd for his own glory and our own salvation. It might be the ultimate Zen koan for example.
Touchstone, one thing for sure is that the likes of Craig and Habermas will not be beaten by philosophy. They will simply cite what they believe to be historical fact and talk past any philosopher. They have to be beaten by someone who has been on the inside.
If you are concerned about Islam, are you also concerned about Catholicism? I see the "blog has been created with the aim of debunking Evangelical Christianity". Should the name of Ratzinger be up there with Craig, Habermas, Bock and Wright? Is Catholic Christianity also a fair target? I would be very interested to hear from any ex-jesuits who are prepared to stick their necks out and provide some inside information on the Jesuit tradition of lying for Papa - a tradition which I believe remains prevalent.
charles - i have never read a commenter who was so accusatory and preachy - "you need to" "you should" - where did you get that style? and i beg to differ - the 'tragc events' WERE caused by nothing other than religion. the young men were carrying out what they beleived to be religious tribute to their god, a favor to god, a duty to god. the whole concept of an entity that is more powerful than us that needs to be worshipped and pleased to save ones eternal soul is a very incredibly dangerous concept to society and to individuals. to please ones god, one can suspend ordinary morals because god supercedes all that. one can beleive silly thngs like that killing a whole bunch of people will save the souls of a whole bunch more, that torturing a person to convert them will save their soul, that killing a person whose religion is different can help keep that person from stealing souls, that killing ones children can get their souls to god faster, that praying for a person instead of medicating them can save their souls, that killiing doctor or a gay person because they displease god is a good thing, and so on. any time one beleives that there is a force more powerful than us AND that that force can be pleased or displeased by our actions, there is great potential for crazy harmful actions. religion, all religion that holds those 2 concepts, is inherently dangerous that way. just having a suburban community spend millions on a new church instead of a thousand other possibilibies like a rec center or green space is a dark side of religion, that men beat their wives because the church says they should submit to them, that people go to revivals and believe they are healed and stop treatments, even the daily decisions of who to spend tax money helping - these things are all influenced by religion - all influenced by a myth of a powerful figure that must be appreased and glorified. that is dangerous. that is harmful to society and to individuals. 9-11 happened solely because of this inherent danger that exists in all religions that possess those two characteristics.
dark side of science? science is about finding out how things work. science is learning and explaining. how can that have a dark side? that science on its own eventually debunks each and every claim religion has ever made might make it feel dark to someone clinging to a religious myth but science has no dark side. technology is the application of science to making things different in our lives and THAT has been used mostly for our good but sometimes accidentally for our harm and even less frequently, on purpose to cause harm. such is the nature of humans using any tool. a hoe can root out weeds to grow a better crop or can be used to beat a wife or child. but investigating and asking questions and learning how things really are, science, has no dark side.
"Where have you been to believe that religion doesn't motivate most terrorist attacks."
Particular irrational religious beliefs motivate terrorism. Religion as a whole does not. Where were you when (literally) thousands of religious people went to ground zero to provide donations and food for the victims?
Are you saying because the actions of some fundimentalist muslims don't agree with what you thing of as religion does that mean they aren't religious.
I think you are approaching this backwards as a means of defense for religion. The claim here is NOT that religion entails murderous acts of terror. Rather, the 9/11 attacks required a religious worldview, a level of credulity and hostility to rational thinking that enabled them to embrace the idea that such an attack was pleasing to Allah.
If the religious worldview is not embraced, it's difficult to justify actions like 9/11, as there's no imagined cosmic imperative for the sacrifice. Such an attack would have to be made on more pragmatic and political grounds.
Please don't insist that we're saying 9/11 is the necessary result of religion. Given enough instances of religious worldviews and enough time, statistically it becomes a very real possibility. But it's not a necessary product of religion. It's just an action that required a religious worldview to take up. If you got rid of the religious worldview of these men who plotted and executed it, and replaced it with a more reasonable one, you would have pre-empted the whole rationale for the attack.
Subsets of scientists who commit evil do not equate to science as a whole.
Subsets of atheists with irrational beliefs do not equate to atheism as a whole.
Subsets of people with irrational religious beliefs do not equate to religion as a whole.
Subsets of people with reasoning that "legitimizes and supports crazy evil" do not equate to theism as a whole.
In a slogan: don't conflate particulars and generalities.
If you took this basic point of logic seriously, you wouldn't have sat in front of your tv and carelessly muttered "Islam has got to go" based on the actions of a subset of people who did something evil in its name.
I do believe your point is as clear as it can be. I also think it's wrong.
How many people watch their children die without treating them because they are too rational?
How many people blow themselves up in the name of reason?
How many people commit mass suicide because they have considered all the options and reasoned it all out and decided to do this without any religious involvement at all?
How many freethinkers tell young, sexually active people to do things that put their health and lives at risk, as many religious people do?
How many groups of atheists mutilate their child's genitalia as a matter of course?
Sorry but these are not just "crazy" people. These are crazy beliefs shared by billions of people.
If large numbers of people play with fire, many will get burned. To blame the ones who've been burned is just irrational. It's better to stop playing with fire.
You said you believe my point is clear, but in your comment above you didn't even address it. Where you think I blamed atheism is a mystery.
Getting back on topic, does it follow from the fact that subsets of religious people hold irrational beliefs, that religion as a whole is irrational? If you really think the answer is 'yes', please state the logical rule of inference by which it follows.
We're not saying that these are people that have irrational beliefs and also have religious beliefs. It is their religious beliefs that are themselves irrational and are held for irrational reasons, and those that can bring themselves to hold such beliefs are more likely to do irrational things, especially when those things are based on the beliefs.
Irrational behavior based on irrational beliefs. Religious beliefs are irrational. Therefore, religious beliefs beget irrational behavior.
Philip put it well. It's the theistic belief that God *exists* that is irrational. This belief is what defines theism (Buddhism, for example, is conventionally classed as a religion, but identifies no God or gods), and the theistic worldview obtains from an irrational starting point -- that God exists.
Not everyone who thinks God exists thinks they are obligated to fly a perfectly good Boeing jet into a skyscraper full of thousands of office workers. Some who irrationally think God exists end up devoting large chunks of their time and energies to feeding hungry, homeless people.
But what unites them all -- theists, to be precise as opposed to just religious, which doesn't necessarily entail a belief in God, is this irrational bedrock commitment.
It's crazy to go do many of the things fanatical jihadis do. But the path to that stuff is cleared by a lower level unjustifiable belief, one that unites all theists.
(1) Irrational beliefs cause irrational behavior. (2)Religious beliefs are irrational. (3) Therefore, religious beliefs cause irrational behavior.
What precisely do you mean by (2)? Do you mean that religious beliefs are always irrational, that is, that they're necessarily irrational? Or do you mean that sometimes they are? Could you clarify that please?
Also, where is your logical support for (2)? Merely asserting it as a premise does not make for a good argument.
I await your clarification and sound logical argumentation for (2). (We're leaving aside (1) for now, even though there are strong reasons to think that's false as well, depending on what you mean by it.)
I know of many theists who are decidedly irrational; but many others I know of seem to have embraced theism by rational means. The same can be said about atheists.
But to think that a belief in God must always be irrational, implying that all theists are thereby irrational? Wow. I must have missed something. Please, clue me in on how you arrived at this knowledge. I'm eager to see your logical arguments and concrete evidence. I trust you'll provide it in your next reply.
As an aside, you really need to try to get your facts straight before you post random stuff about other religions. Buddhism is a complex belief system and many of its adherents believe in God, a God-like being, and/or spiritual beings of various sorts. It depends on the kind of Buddhism being practiced. Definitely not as simple as you make it sound.
That's more ambitious that it needs to be. This is sufficient, I think.
1) irrational actions depend on irrational beliefs 2) theism represents irrational core beliefs 3) Ergo, theism supplies a basis for irrational actions
Note the directionality is the reverse of what you keep advancing, which is the idea that religiosity entails crazy, violent irrational actions. That is not being advanced here. Rather, if you look at the nutjobs who do think flying a plane into a skyscraper or a setting off a bomb in their backpack on a bus full of commuters is a good idea, what is it they DEPEND on to enable their nutjobbery?
A key, foundational belief is the belief in a god with the power and authority to make such an imperative binding on him. Take that foundational belief away, and the violent jihadist actions become non-starters.
As an end note, it's important on (2) above to understand that theistic beliefs are not just mistaken propositions about reality, but mistaken in such a way as thwart the holder's ability to discriminate on the matter further, and to seriously degrade or eliminate the commit to reality as real in the first place. Thus, it's not so benign and irrationally embracing the idea that a fairy lives on your shoulder, telling you funny jokes in your ear once in a while. Instead, the existence of a supreme being, a supreme authority is posited, and it is the plenopotentiary, negating and trumping all other considerations.
(2) doesn't just introduce irrational views into the mix, but provides a "skyhook" on which nearly *any* belief can be hung and successfully defended, no matter how malicious or crazy or destructive it is.
You replied while I composed my last reply to. Now, I must be off to my son's football game. The short version of the answer is this: I was a theist for a long time, and dropped it after a determined search for *any* rational basis for the belief that God or gods exist. Not just the demon that Calvinists worship, but *any* god.
If there were a rational basis I could identify, then if I personally wasn't aware of such a god, I've have to classify myself as more an agnostic than atheist. I know of no such basis, though, save for the possible retort that "My Mama raised me to believe in God, what can I do?". That actually carries some weight in terms of rationality, but that's an artifact of child raising, a rational response to indoctrination of irrational beliefs.
Subsets of people with irrational religious beliefs do not equate to religion as a whole.
Religion IS irrational belief. That is the point. Religion relys on "faith" Faith is belief without evidence. If you can convince someone to BELIEVE without rational evidence then convicing them that their next door neighbor should be burned as a heretic is not far behind. Or flying an airplane into a building.
The only issue you have with this discussion is that you don't believe that religion is irrational faith. Being part of a system of thought precludes you for seeing the system as it is.
A religious belief is a belief in something supernatural, i.e. beyond the natural, rational world. Religious claims are largely based on personal, unverifiable experiences. To hold a position based on emotion or someone else's claim about something supernatural that happened to them is not a position held on rational bases. So religious beliefs are inherently irrational.
I'll await the long version, since the short version, of course, did not contain any logical argumentation or evidence.
Also:
"1) irrational actions depend on irrational beliefs 2) theism represents irrational core beliefs 3) Ergo, theism supplies a basis for irrational actions"
Like I said to Philip, a premise merely asserted without justification does not make for a good argument. You will be hard pressed to come up with an argument for (2) that isn't problematic; you'll see.
To argue that theism is false is one thing. Many atheist philosophers have tried. To argue that it's inherently irrational is an uphill battle. Remember, the truth-value of a proposition, p, is to be distinguished from the means by which one comes to believe in p. Rationality involves the latter. It's possible to irrationally hold true beliefs. It's possible to rationally hold false beliefs.
I also have difficulty taking seriously your suggestion that belief in a god allows the believer to justify nearly any action whatever. Where did you get that from? A moment's reflection should tell you that that depends on the conception of God to which the believer is committed.
Like naturalism, there are many different types of theism with varying degrees of detail. At center they involve a personal God, but the peripheries change. I know many theists for whom (rightly or wrongly) a broad range of actions are not justified, given their conception of God. So I have to confess: given the complexities involved here, it strikes me as intellectually lazy to say that, across the board, any conception of God, just theism as a whole, allows the believer to justify "nearly any" belief, no matter how crazy or dangerous that belief is.
The complexities of these disputes demand care and attention to specifics. As you'll agree, sweeping generalizations are not the product of a mind sincerely conducting rational inquiry.
Charles M. To blame 'religion' as a whole is fallacious and irresponsible (and perhaps even dangerous, since many otherwise good religious people are thereby demonized without reason).
Why do you believe it is irresponsible? I am amazed how you can say that blaming a group in the whole is a problem. Look how some religious leaders came out shortly after 9/11 blaming different groups being the reason that the attack worked. How it was their fault that your god no longer was protecting this country. Some of those leaders did get called on thee comments but the apologies I heard didn't really go far enough. I wonder how many people of these groups were attacked physically over the words o these religious leaders? We will never know for sure since it isn't important enough to some.
I have faced up to the supporting role that *particular* dangerous and irrational beliefs play in tragedies like 9/11. But the particular beliefs of madmen don't magically equate to religion as a whole. Think!
I keep getting hung up oh this statement charles. If I am reading this correctly you are saying because of the actions of the terrorist religion played no part in why they did it. It sounds to me like you are saying if what someone does doesn't fit your personnel view of religion then it isn't based on any religious view they might think they have.
I didn't make it to the bottom...so forgive me if this has already been mentioned - I thought this blog was about debunking Christianity...not Religion. To me, they are two very different things. Being a Christian means I know that Jesus died for my sins and through him I can know God. Religion can be just about anything...
Baconsbud - You asked if any Christian group has done anything for anyone without forcing their beliefs on them. Well, here is an example, the Church I attend had some men get together, the Pastor included, they primed and painted the aging City Hall building in our town. There is no sign on the newly painted building professing who completed the work. It was simply done because there was a need and these Christian men felt the need to fill it. And it looks very nice.
A religion cannot be just anything. A religion is a set of beliefs about the supernatural, and is generally focused around the worship of a supernatural power.
Considering it "a relationship" is not only just an opinion, it is beside the point: Christianity is most certainly a religion.
I'm curious, Heather: does it bother you that, despite your sermonizing and fact-free rhetoric, you've not convinced any non-Christians on here that you're right? What makes you keep coming back to offer your opinions?
Philip - I agree that there are many Christian religions.
I don't come to this site and post my "opinions" with the idea that someone will respond to my post with a cry of "I have been saved". I mean, come on...I am not stupid. (although it would be awesome). For some reason I just feel the need to post and I do it for Jesus. You mention that my posts are fact-free. Well, I think in my last post here it was a fact the building was painted and it is a fact that this site is about debunking christianity, or so I thought. When I talk about Faith, that is Fact. Maybe they are just facts you want to ignore...
Charlie the reason that many atheists believe religion to be inherently irrational is because of the epistemic claims made by theism.
The specific one that most theists assert is that they can have direct knowledge of the will of God. This is lunacy, plain and simple.
I don't know whether you personally believe that you can have direct knowledge of the will of God or not. I certainly agree that there are forms of God-belief that are not inherently irrational (deism, pantheism, for example), but they are not theism. Theism requires that God interacts with his creation in specific ways and thus makes scientific claims.
Most of the original claims of theism have been examined by experiment and found to be wrong. When theism has made assertions about the way things are (the earth is the center of the universe, heaven is in the sky, mankind is not an animal like other animals, there is evidence of God creating life on earth), it has been wrong every time.
100% of the time.
Every single time.
Wrong.
So why then are the residual, untestable beliefs posited by theism considered rational?
The bulk of the contributors for this site have proven themselves to be fond of writing fact-free and evidence-free posts. Scroll up, for example, to my exchange with touchstone and philip and you will see that both of them rely on dogmatic assertions ("belief in god is irrational!") with no logically sound arguments or evidence to back them up.
To them, this is apparently what it means to "debunk" Christianity or theism.
"I'm curious, Heather: does it bother you that, despite your sermonizing and fact-free rhetoric, you've not convinced any non-Christians on here that you're right?"
This is horrible, considering your posts contain about 10x more fact-free rhetoric and argument-free assertions than Heather's. You couldn't even post a valid, unambiguous argument when I asked you to. Don't be a hypocrite.
Let me suggest you get a copy of Jon's book and read the two chapters on evil and suffering and you will see that the God of Theism is a sick retarded fuck.
You ignored my post on my logic behind my claim that religion is inherently irrational, and you apparently did not read it because you did not respond to it. I've made an argument, you just haven't acknowledged it.
I did my part, so don't accuse me of having no substance when you ignore the substance I provide for you.
Let's not forget that Osama Bin Ladin, at one point, went up to Islam clerics to seek support for his agenda--but was denied. Bin Ladin is anti-Islam just as much as he is anti-Christian. To find evidence of this, look no further than the outcries of influential Muslims against him.
In calling the 9/11 attacks a sign of the "danger" of Islam, we not only dishonor Muslims but our own capacity to reason.
The following links won't back up all the above claims, but they will give you a sense of where mainstream (and fundamentalist) Islam stands in relation to Bin Laden: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/14/AR2005071401030.html
What seems to be missed is that Harris HIMSELF is a piece of work.
Between him and Hitchens, you couldn't kill Muslims fast enough to keep them happy. He makes rationaizations in his book for pre-emptive nuclear war (p. 129) and rationaized torture as a form of "interrogation".
Outrageously, he says on page 52 of his book that "Some propositions are so dangerous that it may be ethical to kill people for believing them."
To KILL people for BELIEFS! And he will decide which beliefs are dangeous enough.
If fools like him ever get political power, and pass of his bigotry as "reason" we are truly doomed.
Between him and Hitchens, you couldn't kill Muslims fast enough to keep them happy.
While such generalizations might fool others, I don't think you'll find anyone here persuaded by such appeals.
He makes rationaizations in his book for pre-emptive nuclear war (p. 129) and rationaized torture as a form of "interrogation".
More hand waving?
If you've actually read Harris' book you'd realize he points out how a cold war, as we had with the Soviet Union, would likely be impossible with fundamental Islamic states as their own destruction is irrelevant. In fact, some may view their destruction, as part of an attack on the US and our allies, as Martyrdom, which is rewarded by Allah. This is why it's so critical to prevent fundamental Islamic nations, such as Iran, from gaining nuclear capabilities.
Harris is pointing out that If, and only if, this occurs, we might find ourselves faced with the choice of massive global casualties from a two sided nuclear exchange or a preemptive nuclear attack.
Obviously, this way lies madness, which is precisely Harris' point. He writes..
Needless to say, this would be an unthinkable crime - as it would kill tens of millions of innocent civilians in a single day - but it may be the only course of action available to us, given what Islamists believe.
Of course, some Christians might think global destruction would be God's will. Armageddon. After all, the Bible says that any global peace that occurs before Jesus returns is a false peace and the work of the anti-christ. So, Christianity, by it's very doctrine, appears to hold world peace as something false and based on underlying evil. How can we survive as species with this sort of mentality?
FYI: Harris isn't currently pushing for a preemptive strike, however Christians United for Israel is. And their motivation isn't something rational, such as preventing a two sided nuclear exchange, but to prevent Iran from "interfering" with the second coming as Christ.
Adamh wrote: Outrageously, he says on page 52 of his book that "Some propositions are so dangerous that it may be ethical to kill people for believing them."
Have we not killed terrorists because they believe that if they die defending Islam that they will be rewarded in heaven with 72 virgins?
When one person with these beliefs is planing to kill thousands of people, would you not preemptively kill that one person to save them? When they clearly state they will take such action at the first opportunity they get, then state they are actively working to bring such opportunities to fruition?
Sure, education and diplomacy is an important tool, but there are some people for which such efforts will fall on deaf ears. Rational discussion is irrelevant. Their belief system has evolved to the point where it's too late for any other method short of physiological deprogramming. However, you can't even get close enough to them without them killing themselves, and possibly dozens of others, first.
So, while I can't speak directly for Harris, it appears that he's pointing specifically at these cases.
This does not mean we should not work to educate people and work for peaceful solutions, but there are times when it's just not an option. And in many cases, it's because they believe that God has taken all the other options off the table.
To argue that theism is false is one thing. Many atheist philosophers have tried. To argue that it's inherently irrational is an uphill battle. Remember, the truth-value of a proposition, p, is to be distinguished from the means by which one comes to believe in p. Rationality involves the latter. It's possible to irrationally hold true beliefs. It's possible to rationally hold false beliefs
If we're going to discuss if theism is rational, we should clarify what it means. My dictionary says...
Belief in the existence of a god or gods, esp. belief in one god as creator of the universe, intervening in it and sustaining a personal relation to his creatures.
Wikipedia says..
Theism is defined as a philosophical system which interprets man's worthiness in terms of one God [1]. Thus it is the belief in the existence of one or more divinities or deities. The term itself is interchangeable with monotheism.
A more narrow view is...
..the belief that at least one divinity is immanent in the world, yet transcends it, along with the idea that this divinity (perhaps among others) is omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent
Of course, there are many different shades levels in between. Which version might you subscribe to?
"Let me suggest you get a copy of Jon's book and read the two chapters on evil and suffering and you will see that the God of Theism is a sick retarded fuck."
Don't believe everything you read. It's a bad habit. When you're ready to present logical arguments rather than pseudo-skeptical atheist dogma, let me know.
You obviously haven't read Harris's book. It is a fact that Sam Harris defends the use of torture and believes it may be ethically necessary in some cases. It is also a fact that he's in favor of murdering people for their beliefs. Everybody who has read Harris carefully -- apparently that leaves you out -- has been aware of these facts about Harris for some time now. In your desperation to deny these facts, you mischaracterize Harris's view as follows:
Harris is pointing out that If, and only if, this occurs, we might find ourselves faced with the choice of massive global casualties from a two sided nuclear exchange or a preemptive nuclear attack."
This is precisely wrong. Harris does not just say we might "face the choice of whether" to torture somebody, he doesn't just say that we might "face the choice of whether" to kill somebody for their beliefs. He believes we may have to. Do you believe that you may have to murder religious people for their believes someday, Scott? Is that rational? In his bloodlust, Harris also thinks we should consider preemptively nuking millions of Muslims. And I quote:
"It should be of particular concern to us that the beliefs of Muslims pose a special problem for nuclear deterrence. There is little possibility of our having a cold war with an Islamist regime armed with long-range nuclear weapons. A cold war requires that the parties be mutually deterred by the threat of death. Notions of martyrdom and jihad run roughshod over the logic that allowed the United States and the Soviet Union to pass half a century perched, more or less stably, on the brink of Armageddon. What will we do if an Islamist regime, which grows dewy-eyed at the mere mention of paradise, ever acquires long-range nuclear weaponry? If history is any guide, we will not be sure about where the offending warheads are or what their state of readiness is, and so we will be unable to rely on targeted, conventional weapons to destroy them. In such a situation, the only thing likely to ensure our survival may be a nuclear first strike of our own. Needless to say, this would be an unthinkable crime—as it would kill tens of millions of innocent civilians in a single day—but it may be the only course of action available to us, given what Islamists believe. How would such an unconscionable act of self-defense be perceived by the rest of the Muslim world? It would likely be seen as the first incursion of a genocidal crusade. The horrible irony here is that seeing could make it so: this very perception could plunge us into a state of hot war with any Muslim state that had the capacity to pose a nuclear threat of its own. All of this is perfectly insane, of course: I have just described a plausible scenario in which much of the world’s population could be annihilated on account of religious ideas that belong on the same shelf with Batman, the philosopher’s stone, and unicorns. That it would be a horrible absurdity for so many of us to die for the sake of myth does not mean, however, that it could not happen. Indeed, given the immunity to all reasonable intrusions that faith enjoys in our discourse, a catastrophe of this sort seems increasingly likely. We must come to terms with the possibility that men who are every bit as zealous to die as the nineteen hijackers may one day get their hands on long-range nuclear weaponry. The Muslim world in particular must anticipate this possibility and find some way to prevent it. Given the steady proliferation of technology, it is safe to say that time is not on our side." The End of Faith, pp.128-9
For future reference, Scott, you may want to actually read Harris's bloodthirsty, irrational, and bigoted books before you think about defending him publicly.
Actually, I have read his book, which is precisely why I posted my previous comment. I've grown tired of people confusing Harris' position with the kind of abuse we see in the Bush administration.
To clarify, Harris is not talking about the kind of abuse that we see in the current administration. He's talking about a "ticking-bomb" situation in which clear and credible evidence that someone was withholding information that could save directly the lives of many people. These are statistically highly unlikely situations in which such drastic action is necessary.
Perhaps you're suggesting that we could never really know if said person really had information that could make such a difference or even having this option on the books would open it to abuse? Harris addresses these issues as well in his response.
Charlie wrote Harris does not just say we might "face the choice of whether" to torture somebody, he doesn't just say that we might "face the choice of whether" to kill somebody for their beliefs. He believes we may have to.
Harris is trying to make a point here. We are being presented with an insane proposition. Under these circumstances, our choices would indeed be one that is essentially insane as well. But the result of our inaction would be even more insidious.
Again, I think you're mistaking Harris as somehow being in approval of the Bush administration's actions, which I too see as being a blatant abuse of power.
Returning to the original subject of the post, the very idea that someone can possibly know the will of God - and God is a being that transcends human knowledge and understanding - and that the accuracy of such assumptions cannot be verified empirically provides the very foundation for such actions to be held above human social and moral condemnation. The fact that God is depicted committing genocide in the Bible (the flood, the destruction of the Canaanite by the sword, etc.) clearly doesn't help matters much.
Of course, if one believes there is an afterlife, then the death of thousands or millions could be perceived as merely accelerating one's journey to paradise or possibly a key part of God's plan. And what has God historically done when people interfere with his plan? He orders humans to kill them instead of doing his own dirty work.
For future reference, Charile, you may want to take the time to actually comprehend Harris's point instead of echoing mischaracterizations printed in the media.
I, too, think you are taking Harris' comments seriously out of context. He did present the hypothesis that if nothing is done and Islamic terrorists do acquire nuclear weapons, that our only response may be to be respond preemptively. However, to say that he condoned or endorsed this type of preemptive strike is to IGNORE most of what Harris wrote. How do you justify your comments when Harris calls a preemptive nuclear strike:
an unthinkable crime
an unconscionable act
perfectly insane
The Muslim world in particular must anticipate this possibility and find some way to prevent it.
In this case Charlie, it seems it is though it is you who are not carefully reading. Are your biases preventing you from seeing that he did not advocate what you claim?
Secondly, his advocation of killing individuals for their beliefs was well qualified. He specifically stated that it "may be" necessary to kill people if their beliefs are inspiring them to commit acts of extraordinary violence against others.
He even further clarified his belief by stating,
This is what the United States attempted in Afghanistan...
In the US, if some one threatens to kill another, the behavior is illegal and they can be prosecuted. When Jihadist members make threats to kill Americans, how can we respond. Ideally, they would be prosecuted for terroristic threats. Since there is no law against threatening death to infidels, how do you purpose that we respond. It is not as though they don't regularly act on their beliefs.
Charlie, if you are honestly criticizing Harris, rather than just attempting to smear him, how do you deal with his statements describing as a preemptive nuclear as being a crime, an unconscionable act, and insane?
Secondly, how do you respond to his clarification of killing people for their that IMMEDIATELY proceeds that statement which fully explains that he thinks this MAY BE necessary only when those beliefs are causing members of their own cohort to commit horrible acts of terrorism?
After reading your last post, I am convinced that either (a) you have never laid so much as your pinky finger on Harris's book or (b) you tried to read the book but understood next to nothing of what Harris was saying.
The link you just now provided is the same one I already gave you in my last reply. Wake up, will you? In his "response to controversey" Harris merely re-affirms his views. Read it! This has been known for some time now. Harris firmly believes that it is sometimes OK to wage pre-emptive nuclear strikes against Muslim populations, that it is sometimes OK to murder people for their beliefs, and that it is sometimes OK to torture people.
The "ticking time bomb" scenario has been around for years now and has been widely discredited as a failure by moral philosophers, long before Harris dug it out of the trashbin for mass consumption. You cannot argue from vanishingly unlikely hypotheticals to reality. Think.
You see, Scott, this is why civilized, progressive nations have agreed to include torture's prohibition -- no exceptions -- as part of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. You and your friend Sam, by definition, disagree with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Perhaps you two should take up a condo in the ghettos of Afghanistan; I'm sure you'll find more like-minded company there.
If you believe it is ever OK to torture or murder somebody for their beliefs, there is something fundamentally wrong with you. Period.
If you believe it is ever OK to torture or murder somebody for their beliefs, there is something fundamentally wrong with you. Period.
I, too, disagree with Harris' conclusion. However, he did provide better qualifications for his thinking than you are willing to admit to. I still believe you are distorting his words to make him sound much more treacherous than he actually is. In the end, Harris is wrong, but attack him for what he actually said. Harris seems to think it would only be okay to torture someone if it will save lives. As a parent, I can understand this to some extent. If my own child's life were in danger by a terrorist, and if torturing the terrorist meant my child would live, I would probably violate my own ethical code. Fortunately, this sick hypothetical scenario will never happen. AND were I a law maker, I would affirm the no torture rule for any reason ever.
This was one of the main reasons I left the Christian faith. I could not reconcile the stories in the old and new testaments about God killing millions of people, condoning torture, slavery, and other horrible acts of evil.
First off, I applaud your strong position on torture. I think a strong and clear position is necessary in light of what we've seen in our own administration and the long standing actions we've seen from other countries.
It's likely that we would all agree (Including Harris) that torture should be illegal and that labels such as "OK" should never be associated it such actions. To quote Harris...
In light of this concern, the best strategy I have heard comes from Mark Bowden in his Atlantic Monthly article, “The Dark Art of Interrogation.” Bowden recommends that we keep torture illegal, and maintain a policy of not torturing anybody for any reason.
However, Harris' doesn't stop here. He publicly discusses the problems with such a black and white position in light of the world we live in. Specifically, the impact of collateral damage and the existence of belief systems in which killing your enemy at the expense of your own life is advocated and rewarded by supernatural beings.
For example, imagine a scenario where a terrorist smuggles nuclear warheads in to one or more major metropolitan cites with the intention of killing millions of people. This terrorist knows the locations of these warheads, how and when they will be detonated. etc. It's clear that gaining access to this information could allow the disarmament and removal of these weapons from enemy hands, saving millions of lives. Assuming that, by some stroke of luck, we capture said terrorist alive, what if he refused to divulge this information?
Clearly, there is a conflict with the - no exceptions - prohibition of torture based on human rights. This is because, in this particular scenario, we must also consider the millions of other humans whose rights would be infringed on if the warhead was detonated.
Perhaps you'd rather pretend that such a scenario could never exist or that even discussing it publicly is taboo. Perhaps you object to Harris associating such scenarios with religion. Or perhaps you disagree that a the very foundation of most religions - the unverifiable belief that humans can somehow know the mind and will of a transcendent God - can strongly contribute to such scenarios. This is your right.
However, this does not entitle you to misquote or ignore clear conditions Harris puts forth in his position.
Harris goes on to say..
But our interrogators should know that there are certain circumstances in which it will be ethical to break the law. Indeed, there are circumstances in which you would have to be a monster not to break the law. If an interrogator finds himself in such a circumstance, and he breaks the law, there will not be much of a will to prosecute him (and interrogators will know this). If he breaks the law Abu Ghraib-style, he will go to jail for a very long time (and interrogators will know this too). At the moment, this seems like the most reasonable policy to me, given the realities of our world.
Here, Harris makes it clear that any instance of torture would be a violation of law. Such an interrogator would indeed be guilty of breaking such law. Only under a case by case judicial review could someone avoid punishment. Harris references an article by Mark Bowden, which presents this concept in more detail.
"...The state's obligation is then to put me on trial, for breaking the law. Then I come and say these are the facts that I had at my disposal. This is what I believed at the time. This is what I thought necessary to do. I can evoke the defense of necessity, and then the court decides whether or not it's reasonable that I broke the law in order to avert this catastrophe. But it has to be that I broke the law. It can't be that there's some prior license for me to abuse people."
However, I disagree with the author of the referenced article when he suggests that such matters should not be discussed with anyone. If such an act truly is justified, based on collateral damage, then such actions should be fit for public consumption. If they are not, this brings them into question. Nor do I agree that the Bush administration has adapted the right posture on the matter.
To address other issues you have raised...
Harris firmly believes that it is sometimes OK to wage pre-emptive nuclear strikes against Muslim populations, that it is sometimes OK to murder people for their beliefs,
This appears to be another example of willfully ignoring qualifications set forth in Harris' position.
Calling such a preemptive strike, perfectly insane, a horrible absurdity and a an unthinkable crime doesn't qualify as "OK" in my book. Nor is your generalization of "Muslim population" accurate. Instead, Harris specifically indicates a Islamist regime consisting of men who are every bit as zealous to die as the nineteen hijackers with long-range nuclear weapons.
Would it be accurate to assume that, given the horrific choice between a two sided nuclear exchange or a preemptive nuclear strike, you'd choose the option to maximize casualties?
An example would be a fundamental Islamic state, such as Iran, whom was in position of long-range nuclear weapons. However, it's unlikely that the US would actually allow Iran to build up such an arsenal without stating some kind of conventional preemptive attack. Iran would need to acquire weapons capable of reaching the US through some immediate means, such as purchase from some other nuclear power, or even a former Soviet state, India or Pakistan.
On further examination, you're protest seems to be based on a common fallacy that theists exhibit regarding the presentation of factual information.
For example, Dawkins is often falsely criticized for advocating a society that is based on survival of the fittest. However, just because Dawkins thinks it's factually true that such a path brought us to our current level of development doesn't mean that he thinks we should continue on such a path in the future. Instead, he want's us to be aware of how we got here, so we can create a society that is the quite the opposite. More importantly Dawkins doesn't think that pretending that evolution didn't happen because we don't like the implications isn't a rational corse of action.
The same can be said for Harris. In bringing up factual statements about possible worse case scenarios, you've jumped to the conclusion that he approves or actively want's to bring about the occurrence of such situations. Harris writes...
In The End of Faith, I argue that competing religious doctrines have divided our world into separate moral communities and that these divisions have become a continuous source of human violence. My purpose in writing the book was to offer a way of thinking about our world that would render certain forms of conflict, quite literally, unthinkable
Again, as much as you might not like the facts he presented or agree with their accuracy, it does not entitle you to misrepresent Harris's position.
Great post, Scott! I have read both Harris's book and his further clarifications which Charlie linked to, and I have to say that it's pretty obvious that Charlie is reading Harris like Satan reads the Bible (is that a common saying also in English speaking countries?). Charlie keeps whining about that you and other commenters here have not read Harris's book very carefully (or at all), which is downright bizarre. Think, Charlie, think.
Cole, you obviously do believe everything you read. I know you keep John's infallible book wrapped in a thick, leather zip-up cover and you read it every night before you go to bed to assure yourself that your worldview is perfect. Whatever floats your boat man. Just remember: some of us are more skeptical than you. OK? Deal with it.
The 9/11 attacks may have been despicable, but they certainly were not cowardly. Those Mohammedans were willing to kill themselves to strike back at ZOG. I only wish they had chosen better targets, like the US Capitol, CIA headquarters and the White House.
63 comments:
I didn't process it way consciously at the time, but the events of that day were a kind of catalyst toward facing up to the dark side of religion. Obviously fanatical Islam had become a major menace, but it takes a lot of looking and thinking to see the relationship of acts like the 9/11 attack to the ecosystem of religious faith, even pacificist, non-militant forms.
I remember thinking, at the time, that "Islam has got to go", which is ridiculously improbable and impractical as a tactical response. The problem is much wider, as Harris points out in his book. A shared worldview of credulity and self-indulgence is the ground these kinds of horrors grow out of.
And no, abandoning religious credulity is not about to remove all atrocities from the earth. There are plenty other problems to face beyond this one. But if we are interested in avoiding events like 9/11, we will need to face up to the supporting role religion has overall in the problem, not just in Kabul or Riyadh, but Nashville and Colorado Springs, too.
And have you considered the dark side of science?
Or do you even realize their is a dark side, or do you rationalize ti away?
The tragic events of Sept 11 were not caused by 'religion'. They were caused by a particular subset of people who held fanatical religious beliefs.
To blame 'religion' as a whole is fallacious and irresponsible (and perhaps even dangerous, since many otherwise good religious people are thereby demonized without reason).
Charles W,
There are indeed many forms of religion that would be and are outraged at the kind of actions taken by the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks. But the conviction and commitment to fly a commercial jet full of passengers into a skyscraper like they did, and for why they did, that relies on a fundamental lack of discipline in reasoning and thinking morally.
It's a "worldview" problem, and while a great many theists steer their credulity into imaginative ideas that are much more benign and benevolent that a jihad bent on the slaughter of innocents, BOTH the benign and malevolent rely upon mysticism, credulity, and pronounced lack of rational skepticism to arrive at their different understandings.
Again, this doesn't mean a reasonable worldview is going to bring about utopia -- far from it. But to the extent theists of all stripes the world over lend credibility and social sanction to embracing beliefs that don't obtain -- believe whatever you want, whatever validates you, whatever fits in with your peer group! -- the fertile ground for stuff like we saw on 9/11 is prepared.
In a world where people are oriented around imagination and indulgence at the very lowest levels, your going to get some very nice, positive folk, but you are also get a lot who use their license to become realized demons, driven by murderous, destructive assumptions. Theism begs off repudiation of such worldviews, because they need the same license the bloodthirsty jihadi does to justify their own worldview. You can't put the lie to the 72 virgins meme without cutting your own theological legs off, and destabilizing your own beliefs.
Their worldview is built on the same commitments to faith as the Christian one. Happily, modern Christianity steers in a more positive direction than violent jihadist Islam does. But both depend on similar commitments epistemic commitments, and a Christian who decries 9/11 I accept as genuinely outraged at what happened, but see as internally conflicted at a low level, because his commitment to the skyhook, writ large, validates all the other skyhooks out there, to some degree.
Touchstone,
"I remember thinking, at the time, that "Islam has got to go", which is ridiculously improbable and impractical as a tactical response."
Well I'm glad you seem to have stopped thinking that way, because it is bigoted. People have the freedom to live out their religious or spiritual convictions if they are not harming others, whether Muslim, Buddhist, Christian, Hindu, etc.; we don't need religiphobes dictating that whole religions have "got to go".
It's also patently illogical to conclude that a whole religion has "got to go" based on the actions of a minority of people who claim to be adherents of said religion. It simply doesn't follow.
"But if we are interested in avoiding events like 9/11, we will need to face up to the supporting role religion has overall in the problem, not just in Kabul or Riyadh, but Nashville and Colorado Springs, too."
I have faced up to the supporting role that *particular* dangerous and irrational beliefs play in tragedies like 9/11. But the particular beliefs of madmen don't magically equate to religion as a whole. Think!
"...the conviction and commitment to fly a commercial jet full of passengers into a skyscraper like they did, and for why they did -- that relies on a fundamental lack of discipline in reasoning and thinking morally.
Well no shit, sherlock.
The point is, you need to learn to distinguish between particulars and generalities. When you blame 'religion' for the particular beliefs and actions of a minority who practice evil in its name, you are being neither "rational" nor "skeptical". You are being illogical.
"BOTH the benign and malevolent rely upon mysticism, credulity, and pronounced lack of rational skepticism to arrive at their different understandings."
Again, you're simply reiterating the obvious. We already know that many theists have ZERO rational basis for their beliefs. So do many atheists. It doesn't follow that "theism begs off repudiation of such worldviews" nor does it follow that "atheism begs off repudiation of such worldviews".
You have neglected to make careful distinctions precisely where they should be made. That, if anything, exhibits a lack of discipline in reasoning on your part.
Andrew,
"And have you considered the dark side of science?"
Be careful not to make the same mistake as touchstone. Scientists have practiced evil, we're all familiar with examples. But of course it doesn't follow from that that science is dangerous. It also doesn't follow that science provides a "sanctuary" or "justification" for such evil.
Science has no dark side, any more than your golf club has a dark side. Science has uses that are evil, and knowledge gained through science has certainly been used for evil, but science is just a tool for gaining knowledge (in fact, the only reliable tool for gaining knowledge about the natural world), and is morally neutral.
Charles W,
I think you are forgetting, or maybe just ignoring, the fundamental dynamic at work here. No doubt, it's not hard to go find atheists who are atheists for irrational reasons. One I recently talked to is convinced that God doesn't exist simply because he doesn't like the way the world looks with God in it. That's precisely the mistake many theists make, just with a different set of distastes, anguish over the concept of no God or gods impelling them to embrace the belief in God just because it's a *preferable* worldview.
That happens across the board, but it's a red herring here. What I'm getting at is the commitment to take action based on beliefs that hang on "skyhooks" (and lest you think the commitment to the reality of reality is an "atheist skyhook", my regular suggestion to light a cigarette lighter and hold your hand over the flame while you explain how dubious you are about reality).
I mean, triggering the deaths of 3,000 people seems like something one should have some firm epistemic grounding for in assembling the beliefs that drive one to do such a thing. Voting to deny homosexuals equal treatment under the law, to throw out something many Christians are theologically motivated toward, is a similar situation -- large ramifications for lots of people.
When "God says" becomes a justification for anything, it's a justification for everything, since God is "personal", "revealed", and objectively invisible, nonexistent.
We can find bad reasons that atheists and agnostics do bad things, too, and discouraging theistic indulgences doesn't make those bad reasons good. But we can say that here in theism is a whole enterprise that BEGINs with illicit reasoning, an approach that legitimizes and supports "crazy evil".
With a non-theist who's got an irrational set of beliefs, at LEAST you do not have the God delusion thwarting the discussion, and thwarting his ability to adjust and improve the quality of his thinking. On theism, its fundamental commitments prevent reasonable therapy, encouraged from without, realized from within.
An irrational atheist isn't going to resist a reasonable objection based on "God says", in other words. A jihadi looking to slaughter kufr or a Christian looking to make sure homosexuals can't get equal treatment under the law can always appeal to "God says", and "God says" as the high-order bit precludes all other objections.
touchstone, I have thought, and I know it is not original, but if you can debunk Jesus, that is present a good argument that he never existed, then Islam is heavily undermined because Muhammad believed Jesus was a prophet.
You have to make the likes of Craig, Habermas, Bock and Wright begin to crack.
My approach is to suggest that that there was an alternative story to that of Jesus. For me the search began about twenty years ago when a Baptist minister began to preach that one couldn't receive the Holy Spirit unless one first believed in Jesus. Thus one couldn't pray for the Spirit of God to have an effect on an unbeliever. Now that went totally against everything I had ever believed and was taught going way back to 1960. To cut a long story short, I began to ask myself what was the Holy Spirit doing before Pentecost? And that took me into trying to understand what the prophets had been up to. I have come to the conclusion that there was an alternative story, entirely in a Jewish context, and that the NT is mostly developments of prophetic documents. The prophets had not died-out as is generally assumed. In this view, Jesus is a a later fabrication. But there was a prophet among prophets by the name of Judas, denigrated by the later editors. Related is an entirely different view of the so-called Jewish 'revolt' and the apparent Roman history of it, as recorded in the writings attributed to Josephus. There are also the priestly documents of the DSS which I consider as mainstream, originating in Jerusalem. Thus the writers of the DSS were the real messianic troublemakers for the prophets (classed as seekers of smooth things) and the Romans alike.
Charles W.
Where have you been to believe that religion doesn't motivate most terrorist attacks. Are you saying because the actions of some fundimentalist muslims don't agree with what you thing of as religion does that mean they aren't religious. I hear this excuse from christians all the time when someone claiming to be a christian commits an act that is consider evil. Oh he or they weren't christians because they don't adhere to the teachings. But i that is the deal then how can you say who is or isn't religious.
I have studied some history of some of the more popular religions and I do believe that touchstone has plenty of reasons to blame religion for 9/11. For the past 2000 years or so most actions of both christianity and islam have been based on violence first then figure out the best way to mae it look like a good thing.
For the past 2000 years or so most actions of both christianity and islam have been based on violence first then figure out the best way to mae it look like a good thing.
That's going a bit far...most actions of Christians and Muslims over the past 2000 years have had nothing to do with violence. There have been far too many that have been violent, but let's not get carried away here with this talk of "most".
No I don't think the word most is wrong. Study history and tell me why most of the known medical and technological knowledge of the Roman Empire disappeared once christianity became the national religion. Oh no that is right couldn't possibly have ben when those good christians burned up anything not a part of their religion. How many died because of all that lost knowledge.
When has christianity ever been a peaceful religion? Actually there are elements of it that are but they are a very minor part of it. A good example of how violence oriented most that call themselves christian are just read some of the comments on those news sites that allow comments or discussions. If you need links to some of these comments let me know in a comment and I will get them for you.
Show me a good act by a christian group where they didn't force their beliefs on those they are supposedly helping.
Geoff,
Without rendering judgment on any argument for the non-existence of Jesus (I get the gist of what you are saying and have read similar things along those lines), my sense from talking about "Isa" with various muslims over the years is that the idea that Jesus didn't exist *would* be problematic, but not so much as many would think. Muslims are highly dubious about the Jesus story anyway, at least in the straightforward reading. He certain wasn't a "person of the Godhead", for example, in the Muslim view.
If Jesus was discredited -- thoroughly, somehow -- it would be somewhat painful from an apologetics standpoint, but given the license they give themselves already in slicing and dicing the Bible, I think that train would just keep rolling on, even though Christianity would have collapsed.
(And no, I think Christianity would not just say "whoops" and collapse as an enterprise. Even if you showed conclusively that Jesus was an invention, it's "more true than fact" for many people, and thus would carry on in large part; there's too much cultural inertia for it to just give up if debunked at this point.)
Touchstone, I'm chuckling to myself about that. Thinking about my family (mostly SDA), the typical pattern is to create a theology around the now debunked belief.
If it could be shown conclusively beyond doubt that Jesus was a myth, some enterprising theologian would construct a theology around it. They might argue the necessity of God reaching out to us in the myth of the trinity and the need for us to accept it as false and absurd for his own glory and our own salvation. It might be the ultimate Zen koan for example.
Touchstone, one thing for sure is that the likes of Craig and Habermas will not be beaten by philosophy. They will simply cite what they believe to be historical fact and talk past any philosopher. They have to be beaten by someone who has been on the inside.
If you are concerned about Islam, are you also concerned about Catholicism? I see the "blog has been created with the aim of debunking Evangelical Christianity". Should the name of Ratzinger be up there with Craig, Habermas, Bock and Wright? Is Catholic Christianity also a fair target? I would be very interested to hear from any ex-jesuits who are prepared to stick their necks out and provide some inside information on the Jesuit tradition of lying for Papa - a tradition which I believe remains prevalent.
charles - i have never read a commenter who was so accusatory and preachy - "you need to" "you should" - where did you get that style?
and i beg to differ - the 'tragc events' WERE caused by nothing other than religion. the young men were carrying out what they beleived to be religious tribute to their god, a favor to god, a duty to god. the whole concept of an entity that is more powerful than us that needs to be worshipped and pleased to save ones eternal soul is a very incredibly dangerous concept to society and to individuals. to please ones god, one can suspend ordinary morals because god supercedes all that. one can beleive silly thngs like that killing a whole bunch of people will save the souls of a whole bunch more, that torturing a person to convert them will save their soul, that killing a person whose religion is different can help keep that person from stealing souls, that killing ones children can get their souls to god faster, that praying for a person instead of medicating them can save their souls, that killiing doctor or a gay person because they displease god is a good thing, and so on. any time one beleives that there is a force more powerful than us AND that that force can be pleased or displeased by our actions, there is great potential for crazy harmful actions. religion, all religion that holds those 2 concepts, is inherently dangerous that way. just having a suburban community spend millions on a new church instead of a thousand other possibilibies like a rec center or green space is a dark side of religion, that men beat their wives because the church says they should submit to them, that people go to revivals and believe they are healed and stop treatments, even the daily decisions of who to spend tax money helping - these things are all influenced by religion - all influenced by a myth of a powerful figure that must be appreased and glorified. that is dangerous. that is harmful to society and to individuals. 9-11 happened solely because of this inherent danger that exists in all religions that possess those two characteristics.
dark side of science? science is about finding out how things work. science is learning and explaining. how can that have a dark side? that science on its own eventually debunks each and every claim religion has ever made might make it feel dark to someone clinging to a religious myth but science has no dark side. technology is the application of science to making things different in our lives and THAT has been used mostly for our good but sometimes accidentally for our harm and even less frequently, on purpose to cause harm. such is the nature of humans using any tool. a hoe can root out weeds to grow a better crop or can be used to beat a wife or child. but investigating and asking questions and learning how things really are, science, has no dark side.
goprarie,
Try being a bit more concise, will you? Here's what seems to be the main point of your comment:
"the 'tragc events' WERE caused by nothing other than religion."
But your support for this claim is patently fallacious:
"the young men were carrying out what they beleived to be religious tribute to their god, a favor to god, a duty to god."
The beliefs of individual madmen do not magically equate to religion as a whole. Stop lazily conflating the two.
Baconsbud,
"Where have you been to believe that religion doesn't motivate most terrorist attacks."
Particular irrational religious beliefs motivate terrorism. Religion as a whole does not. Where were you when (literally) thousands of religious people went to ground zero to provide donations and food for the victims?
Are you saying because the actions of some fundimentalist muslims don't agree with what you thing of as religion does that mean they aren't religious.
No. Please read my comments above.
[snipped your oversimplifications of history.]
Charlie,
I think you are approaching this backwards as a means of defense for religion. The claim here is NOT that religion entails murderous acts of terror. Rather, the 9/11 attacks required a religious worldview, a level of credulity and hostility to rational thinking that enabled them to embrace the idea that such an attack was pleasing to Allah.
If the religious worldview is not embraced, it's difficult to justify actions like 9/11, as there's no imagined cosmic imperative for the sacrifice. Such an attack would have to be made on more pragmatic and political grounds.
Please don't insist that we're saying 9/11 is the necessary result of religion. Given enough instances of religious worldviews and enough time, statistically it becomes a very real possibility. But it's not a necessary product of religion. It's just an action that required a religious worldview to take up. If you got rid of the religious worldview of these men who plotted and executed it, and replaced it with a more reasonable one, you would have pre-empted the whole rationale for the attack.
Touchstone,
I've made my point as clear as I can:
Subsets of scientists who commit evil do not equate to science as a whole.
Subsets of atheists with irrational beliefs do not equate to atheism as a whole.
Subsets of people with irrational religious beliefs do not equate to religion as a whole.
Subsets of people with reasoning that "legitimizes and supports crazy evil" do not equate to theism as a whole.
In a slogan: don't conflate particulars and generalities.
If you took this basic point of logic seriously, you wouldn't have sat in front of your tv and carelessly muttered "Islam has got to go" based on the actions of a subset of people who did something evil in its name.
Charlie,
I do believe your point is as clear as it can be. I also think it's wrong.
How many people watch their children die without treating them because they are too rational?
How many people blow themselves up in the name of reason?
How many people commit mass suicide because they have considered all the options and reasoned it all out and decided to do this without any religious involvement at all?
How many freethinkers tell young, sexually active people to do things that put their health and lives at risk, as many religious people do?
How many groups of atheists mutilate their child's genitalia as a matter of course?
Sorry but these are not just "crazy" people. These are crazy beliefs shared by billions of people.
If large numbers of people play with fire, many will get burned. To blame the ones who've been burned is just irrational. It's better to stop playing with fire.
Evan,
You said you believe my point is clear, but in your comment above you didn't even address it. Where you think I blamed atheism is a mystery.
Getting back on topic, does it follow from the fact that subsets of religious people hold irrational beliefs, that religion as a whole is irrational? If you really think the answer is 'yes', please state the logical rule of inference by which it follows.
Charlie,
We're not saying that these are people that have irrational beliefs and also have religious beliefs. It is their religious beliefs that are themselves irrational and are held for irrational reasons, and those that can bring themselves to hold such beliefs are more likely to do irrational things, especially when those things are based on the beliefs.
Irrational behavior based on irrational beliefs. Religious beliefs are irrational. Therefore, religious beliefs beget irrational behavior.
That is how it ties together logically.
Charlie,
Philip put it well. It's the theistic belief that God *exists* that is irrational. This belief is what defines theism (Buddhism, for example, is conventionally classed as a religion, but identifies no God or gods), and the theistic worldview obtains from an irrational starting point -- that God exists.
Not everyone who thinks God exists thinks they are obligated to fly a perfectly good Boeing jet into a skyscraper full of thousands of office workers. Some who irrationally think God exists end up devoting large chunks of their time and energies to feeding hungry, homeless people.
But what unites them all -- theists, to be precise as opposed to just religious, which doesn't necessarily entail a belief in God, is this irrational bedrock commitment.
It's crazy to go do many of the things fanatical jihadis do. But the path to that stuff is cleared by a lower level unjustifiable belief, one that unites all theists.
Philip,
This is probably what you meant to say:
(1) Irrational beliefs cause irrational behavior.
(2)Religious beliefs are irrational.
(3) Therefore, religious beliefs cause irrational behavior.
What precisely do you mean by (2)? Do you mean that religious beliefs are always irrational, that is, that they're necessarily irrational? Or do you mean that sometimes they are? Could you clarify that please?
Also, where is your logical support for (2)? Merely asserting it as a premise does not make for a good argument.
I await your clarification and sound logical argumentation for (2). (We're leaving aside (1) for now, even though there are strong reasons to think that's false as well, depending on what you mean by it.)
Touchstone,
I know of many theists who are decidedly irrational; but many others I know of seem to have embraced theism by rational means. The same can be said about atheists.
But to think that a belief in God must always be irrational, implying that all theists are thereby irrational? Wow. I must have missed something. Please, clue me in on how you arrived at this knowledge. I'm eager to see your logical arguments and concrete evidence. I trust you'll provide it in your next reply.
As an aside, you really need to try to get your facts straight before you post random stuff about other religions. Buddhism is a complex belief system and many of its adherents believe in God, a God-like being, and/or spiritual beings of various sorts. It depends on the kind of Buddhism being practiced. Definitely not as simple as you make it sound.
Charlie,
That's more ambitious that it needs to be. This is sufficient, I think.
1) irrational actions depend on irrational beliefs
2) theism represents irrational core beliefs
3) Ergo, theism supplies a basis for irrational actions
Note the directionality is the reverse of what you keep advancing, which is the idea that religiosity entails crazy, violent irrational actions. That is not being advanced here. Rather, if you look at the nutjobs who do think flying a plane into a skyscraper or a setting off a bomb in their backpack on a bus full of commuters is a good idea, what is it they DEPEND on to enable their nutjobbery?
A key, foundational belief is the belief in a god with the power and authority to make such an imperative binding on him. Take that foundational belief away, and the violent jihadist actions become non-starters.
As an end note, it's important on (2) above to understand that theistic beliefs are not just mistaken propositions about reality, but mistaken in such a way as thwart the holder's ability to discriminate on the matter further, and to seriously degrade or eliminate the commit to reality as real in the first place. Thus, it's not so benign and irrationally embracing the idea that a fairy lives on your shoulder, telling you funny jokes in your ear once in a while. Instead, the existence of a supreme being, a supreme authority is posited, and it is the plenopotentiary, negating and trumping all other considerations.
(2) doesn't just introduce irrational views into the mix, but provides a "skyhook" on which nearly *any* belief can be hung and successfully defended, no matter how malicious or crazy or destructive it is.
Charlie,
You replied while I composed my last reply to. Now, I must be off to my son's football game. The short version of the answer is this: I was a theist for a long time, and dropped it after a determined search for *any* rational basis for the belief that God or gods exist. Not just the demon that Calvinists worship, but *any* god.
If there were a rational basis I could identify, then if I personally wasn't aware of such a god, I've have to classify myself as more an agnostic than atheist. I know of no such basis, though, save for the possible retort that "My Mama raised me to believe in God, what can I do?". That actually carries some weight in terms of rationality, but that's an artifact of child raising, a rational response to indoctrination of irrational beliefs.
More anon.
-TS
Subsets of people with irrational religious beliefs do not equate to religion as a whole.
Religion IS irrational belief. That is the point. Religion relys on "faith" Faith is belief without evidence. If you can convince someone to BELIEVE without rational evidence then convicing them that their next door neighbor should be burned as a heretic is not far behind. Or flying an airplane into a building.
The only issue you have with this discussion is that you don't believe that religion is irrational faith. Being part of a system of thought precludes you for seeing the system as it is.
Charlie,
A religious belief is a belief in something supernatural, i.e. beyond the natural, rational world. Religious claims are largely based on personal, unverifiable experiences. To hold a position based on emotion or someone else's claim about something supernatural that happened to them is not a position held on rational bases. So religious beliefs are inherently irrational.
Touchstone,
I'll await the long version, since the short version, of course, did not contain any logical argumentation or evidence.
Also:
"1) irrational actions depend on irrational beliefs
2) theism represents irrational core beliefs
3) Ergo, theism supplies a basis for irrational actions"
Like I said to Philip, a premise merely asserted without justification does not make for a good argument. You will be hard pressed to come up with an argument for (2) that isn't problematic; you'll see.
To argue that theism is false is one thing. Many atheist philosophers have tried. To argue that it's inherently irrational is an uphill battle. Remember, the truth-value of a proposition, p, is to be distinguished from the means by which one comes to believe in p. Rationality involves the latter. It's possible to irrationally hold true beliefs. It's possible to rationally hold false beliefs.
I also have difficulty taking seriously your suggestion that belief in a god allows the believer to justify nearly any action whatever. Where did you get that from? A moment's reflection should tell you that that depends on the conception of God to which the believer is committed.
Like naturalism, there are many different types of theism with varying degrees of detail. At center they involve a personal God, but the peripheries change. I know many theists for whom (rightly or wrongly) a broad range of actions are not justified, given their conception of God. So I have to confess: given the complexities involved here, it strikes me as intellectually lazy to say that, across the board, any conception of God, just theism as a whole, allows the believer to justify "nearly any" belief, no matter how crazy or dangerous that belief is.
The complexities of these disputes demand care and attention to specifics. As you'll agree, sweeping generalizations are not the product of a mind sincerely conducting rational inquiry.
Charles M.
To blame 'religion' as a whole is fallacious and irresponsible (and perhaps even dangerous, since many otherwise good religious people are thereby demonized without reason).
Why do you believe it is irresponsible? I am amazed how you can say that blaming a group in the whole is a problem. Look how some religious leaders came out shortly after 9/11 blaming different groups being the reason that the attack worked. How it was their fault that your god no longer was protecting this country. Some of those leaders did get called on thee comments but the apologies I heard didn't really go far enough. I wonder how many people of these groups were attacked physically over the words o these religious leaders? We will never know for sure since it isn't important enough to some.
I have faced up to the supporting role that *particular* dangerous and irrational beliefs play in tragedies like 9/11. But the particular beliefs of madmen don't magically equate to religion as a whole. Think!
I keep getting hung up oh this statement charles. If I am reading this correctly you are saying because of the actions of the terrorist religion played no part in why they did it. It sounds to me like you are saying if what someone does doesn't fit your personnel view of religion then it isn't based on any religious view they might think they have.
I didn't make it to the bottom...so forgive me if this has already been mentioned - I thought this blog was about debunking Christianity...not Religion. To me, they are two very different things. Being a Christian means I know that Jesus died for my sins and through him I can know God. Religion can be just about anything...
Baconsbud - You asked if any Christian group has done anything for anyone without forcing their beliefs on them. Well, here is an example, the Church I attend had some men get together, the Pastor included, they primed and painted the aging City Hall building in our town. There is no sign on the newly painted building professing who completed the work. It was simply done because there was a need and these Christian men felt the need to fill it. And it looks very nice.
Heather,
A religion cannot be just anything. A religion is a set of beliefs about the supernatural, and is generally focused around the worship of a supernatural power.
Considering it "a relationship" is not only just an opinion, it is beside the point: Christianity is most certainly a religion.
I'm curious, Heather: does it bother you that, despite your sermonizing and fact-free rhetoric, you've not convinced any non-Christians on here that you're right? What makes you keep coming back to offer your opinions?
Philip - I agree that there are many Christian religions.
I don't come to this site and post my "opinions" with the idea that someone will respond to my post with a cry of "I have been saved". I mean, come on...I am not stupid. (although it would be awesome). For some reason I just feel the need to post and I do it for Jesus. You mention that my posts are fact-free. Well, I think in my last post here it was a fact the building was painted and it is a fact that this site is about debunking christianity, or so I thought. When I talk about Faith, that is Fact. Maybe they are just facts you want to ignore...
Heather,
Most of your posts that I've read have been riddled with bare assertions about Christian theology. That's where the "fact-free" part comes in.
And if Jesus wants someone to defend him, why doesn't he just pop on down here and post for himself instead of getting someone else to do it for him?
Charlie the reason that many atheists believe religion to be inherently irrational is because of the epistemic claims made by theism.
The specific one that most theists assert is that they can have direct knowledge of the will of God. This is lunacy, plain and simple.
I don't know whether you personally believe that you can have direct knowledge of the will of God or not. I certainly agree that there are forms of God-belief that are not inherently irrational (deism, pantheism, for example), but they are not theism. Theism requires that God interacts with his creation in specific ways and thus makes scientific claims.
Most of the original claims of theism have been examined by experiment and found to be wrong. When theism has made assertions about the way things are (the earth is the center of the universe, heaven is in the sky, mankind is not an animal like other animals, there is evidence of God creating life on earth), it has been wrong every time.
100% of the time.
Every single time.
Wrong.
So why then are the residual, untestable beliefs posited by theism considered rational?
Heather,
The bulk of the contributors for this site have proven themselves to be fond of writing fact-free and evidence-free posts. Scroll up, for example, to my exchange with touchstone and philip and you will see that both of them rely on dogmatic assertions ("belief in god is irrational!") with no logically sound arguments or evidence to back them up.
To them, this is apparently what it means to "debunk" Christianity or theism.
Philip,
"I'm curious, Heather: does it bother you that, despite your sermonizing and fact-free rhetoric, you've not convinced any non-Christians on here that you're right?"
This is horrible, considering your posts contain about 10x more fact-free rhetoric and argument-free assertions than Heather's. You couldn't even post a valid, unambiguous argument when I asked you to. Don't be a hypocrite.
Charlie,
Let me suggest you get a copy of Jon's book and read the two chapters on evil and suffering and you will see that the God of Theism is a sick retarded fuck.
You ignored my post on my logic behind my claim that religion is inherently irrational, and you apparently did not read it because you did not respond to it. I've made an argument, you just haven't acknowledged it.
I did my part, so don't accuse me of having no substance when you ignore the substance I provide for you.
PS: And even if my posts were devoid of arguments, it would not absolve Heather of her refusal to make any.
Let's not forget that Osama Bin Ladin, at one point, went up to Islam clerics to seek support for his agenda--but was denied. Bin Ladin is anti-Islam just as much as he is anti-Christian. To find evidence of this, look no further than the outcries of influential Muslims against him.
In calling the 9/11 attacks a sign of the "danger" of Islam, we not only dishonor Muslims but our own capacity to reason.
The following links won't back up all the above claims, but they will give you a sense of where mainstream (and fundamentalist) Islam stands in relation to Bin Laden:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/14/AR2005071401030.html
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0715/dailyUpdate.html
What seems to be missed is that Harris HIMSELF is a piece of work.
Between him and Hitchens, you couldn't kill Muslims fast enough to keep them happy. He makes rationaizations in his book for pre-emptive nuclear war (p. 129) and rationaized torture as a form of "interrogation".
Outrageously, he says on page 52 of his book that "Some propositions are so dangerous that it may be ethical to kill people for believing them."
To KILL people for BELIEFS! And he will decide which beliefs are dangeous enough.
If fools like him ever get political power, and pass of his bigotry as "reason" we are truly doomed.
Between him and Hitchens, you couldn't kill Muslims fast enough to keep them happy.
While such generalizations might fool others, I don't think you'll find anyone here persuaded by such appeals.
He makes rationaizations in his book for pre-emptive nuclear war (p. 129) and rationaized torture as a form of "interrogation".
More hand waving?
If you've actually read Harris' book you'd realize he points out how a cold war, as we had with the Soviet Union, would likely be impossible with fundamental Islamic states as their own destruction is irrelevant. In fact, some may view their destruction, as part of an attack on the US and our allies, as Martyrdom, which is rewarded by Allah. This is why it's so critical to prevent fundamental Islamic nations, such as Iran, from gaining nuclear capabilities.
Harris is pointing out that If, and only if, this occurs, we might find ourselves faced with the choice of massive global casualties from a two sided nuclear exchange or a preemptive nuclear attack.
Obviously, this way lies madness, which is precisely Harris' point. He writes..
Needless to say, this would be an unthinkable crime - as it would kill tens of millions of innocent civilians in a single day - but it may be the only course of action available to us, given what Islamists believe.
Of course, some Christians might think global destruction would be God's will. Armageddon. After all, the Bible says that any global peace that occurs before Jesus returns is a false peace and the work of the anti-christ. So, Christianity, by it's very doctrine, appears to hold world peace as something false and based on underlying evil. How can we survive as species with this sort of mentality?
FYI: Harris isn't currently pushing for a preemptive strike, however Christians United for Israel is. And their motivation isn't something rational, such as preventing a two sided nuclear exchange, but to prevent Iran from "interfering" with the second coming as Christ.
Adamh wrote: Outrageously, he says on page 52 of his book that "Some propositions are so dangerous that it may be ethical to kill people for believing them."
Have we not killed terrorists because they believe that if they die defending Islam that they will be rewarded in heaven with 72 virgins?
When one person with these beliefs is planing to kill thousands of people, would you not preemptively kill that one person to save them? When they clearly state they will take such action at the first opportunity they get, then state they are actively working to bring such opportunities to fruition?
Sure, education and diplomacy is an important tool, but there are some people for which such efforts will fall on deaf ears. Rational discussion is irrelevant. Their belief system has evolved to the point where it's too late for any other method short of physiological deprogramming. However, you can't even get close enough to them without them killing themselves, and possibly dozens of others, first.
So, while I can't speak directly for Harris, it appears that he's pointing specifically at these cases.
This does not mean we should not work to educate people and work for peaceful solutions, but there are times when it's just not an option. And in many cases, it's because they believe that God has taken all the other options off the table.
Charlie wrote...
To argue that theism is false is one thing. Many atheist philosophers have tried. To argue that it's inherently irrational is an uphill battle. Remember, the truth-value of a proposition, p, is to be distinguished from the means by which one comes to believe in p. Rationality involves the latter. It's possible to irrationally hold true beliefs. It's possible to rationally hold false beliefs
If we're going to discuss if theism is rational, we should clarify what it means. My dictionary says...
Belief in the existence of a god or gods, esp. belief in one god as creator of the universe, intervening in it and sustaining a personal relation to his creatures.
Wikipedia says..
Theism is defined as a philosophical system which interprets man's worthiness in terms of one God [1]. Thus it is the belief in the existence of one or more divinities or deities. The term itself is interchangeable with monotheism.
A more narrow view is...
..the belief that at least one divinity is immanent in the world, yet transcends it, along with the idea that this divinity (perhaps among others) is omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent
Of course, there are many different shades levels in between. Which version might you subscribe to?
Cole,
"Let me suggest you get a copy of Jon's book and read the two chapters on evil and suffering and you will see that the God of Theism is a sick retarded fuck."
Don't believe everything you read. It's a bad habit. When you're ready to present logical arguments rather than pseudo-skeptical atheist dogma, let me know.
Scott,
You obviously haven't read Harris's book. It is a fact that Sam Harris defends the use of torture and believes it may be ethically necessary in some cases. It is also a fact that he's in favor of murdering people for their beliefs. Everybody who has read Harris carefully -- apparently that leaves you out -- has been aware of these facts about Harris for some time now. In your desperation to deny these facts, you mischaracterize Harris's view as follows:
Harris is pointing out that If, and only if, this occurs, we might find ourselves faced with the choice of massive global casualties from a two sided nuclear exchange or a preemptive nuclear attack."
This is precisely wrong. Harris does not just say we might "face the choice of whether" to torture somebody, he doesn't just say that we might "face the choice of whether" to kill somebody for their beliefs. He believes we may have to. Do you believe that you may have to murder religious people for their believes someday, Scott? Is that rational? In his bloodlust, Harris also thinks we should consider preemptively nuking millions of Muslims. And I quote:
"It should be of particular concern to us that the beliefs of Muslims pose a special problem for nuclear deterrence. There is little possibility of our having a cold war with an Islamist regime armed with long-range nuclear weapons. A cold war requires that the parties be mutually deterred by the threat of death. Notions of martyrdom and jihad run roughshod over the logic that allowed the United States and the Soviet Union to pass half a century perched, more or less stably, on the brink of Armageddon. What will we do if an Islamist regime, which grows dewy-eyed at the mere mention of paradise, ever acquires long-range nuclear weaponry? If history is any guide, we will not be sure about where the offending warheads are or what their state of readiness is, and so we will be unable to rely on targeted, conventional weapons to destroy them. In such a situation, the only thing likely to ensure our survival may be a nuclear first strike of our own. Needless to say, this would be an unthinkable crime—as it would kill tens of millions of innocent civilians in a single day—but it may be the only course of action available to us, given what Islamists believe. How would such an unconscionable act of self-defense be perceived by the rest of the Muslim world? It would likely be seen as the first incursion of a genocidal crusade. The horrible irony here is that seeing could make it so: this very perception could plunge us into a state of hot war with any Muslim state that had the capacity to pose a nuclear threat of its own. All of this is perfectly insane, of course: I have just described a plausible scenario in which much of the world’s population could be annihilated on account of religious ideas that belong on the same shelf with Batman, the philosopher’s stone, and unicorns. That it would be a horrible absurdity for so many of us to die for the sake of myth does not mean, however, that it could not happen. Indeed, given the immunity to all reasonable intrusions that faith enjoys in our discourse, a catastrophe of this sort seems increasingly likely. We must come to terms with the possibility that men who are every bit as zealous to die as the nineteen hijackers may one day get their hands on long-range nuclear weaponry. The Muslim world in particular must anticipate this possibility and find some way to prevent it. Given the steady proliferation of technology, it is safe to say that time is not on our side."
The End of Faith, pp.128-9
For future reference, Scott, you may want to actually read Harris's bloodthirsty, irrational, and bigoted books before you think about defending him publicly.
You obviously haven't read Harris's book.
Actually, I have read his book, which is precisely why I posted my previous comment. I've grown tired of people confusing Harris' position with the kind of abuse we see in the Bush administration.
Please see Harris' response to this sort of misrepresentation.
To clarify, Harris is not talking about the kind of abuse that we see in the current administration. He's talking about a "ticking-bomb" situation in which clear and credible evidence that someone was withholding information that could save directly the lives of many people. These are statistically highly unlikely situations in which such drastic action is necessary.
Perhaps you're suggesting that we could never really know if said person really had information that could make such a difference or even having this option on the books would open it to abuse? Harris addresses these issues as well in his response.
Charlie wrote Harris does not just say we might "face the choice of whether" to torture somebody, he doesn't just say that we might "face the choice of whether" to kill somebody for their beliefs. He believes we may have to.
Harris is trying to make a point here. We are being presented with an insane proposition. Under these circumstances, our choices would indeed be one that is essentially insane as well. But the result of our inaction would be even more insidious.
Again, I think you're mistaking Harris as somehow being in approval of the Bush administration's actions, which I too see as being a blatant abuse of power.
Returning to the original subject of the post, the very idea that someone can possibly know the will of God - and God is a being that transcends human knowledge and understanding - and that the accuracy of such assumptions cannot be verified empirically provides the very foundation for such actions to be held above human social and moral condemnation. The fact that God is depicted committing genocide in the Bible (the flood, the destruction of the Canaanite by the sword, etc.) clearly doesn't help matters much.
Of course, if one believes there is an afterlife, then the death of thousands or millions could be perceived as merely accelerating one's journey to paradise or possibly a key part of God's plan. And what has God historically done when people interfere with his plan? He orders humans to kill them instead of doing his own dirty work.
For future reference, Charile, you may want to take the time to actually comprehend Harris's point instead of echoing mischaracterizations printed in the media.
Charlie,
I, too, think you are taking Harris' comments seriously out of context. He did present the hypothesis that if nothing is done and Islamic terrorists do acquire nuclear weapons, that our only response may be to be respond preemptively. However, to say that he condoned or endorsed this type of preemptive strike is to IGNORE most of what Harris wrote. How do you justify your comments when Harris calls a preemptive nuclear strike:
an unthinkable crime
an unconscionable act
perfectly insane
The Muslim world in particular must anticipate this possibility and find some way to prevent it.
In this case Charlie, it seems it is though it is you who are not carefully reading. Are your biases preventing you from seeing that he did not advocate what you claim?
Secondly, his advocation of killing individuals for their beliefs was well qualified. He specifically stated that it "may be" necessary to kill people if their beliefs are inspiring them to commit acts of extraordinary violence against others.
He even further clarified his belief by stating,
This is what the United States attempted in Afghanistan...
In the US, if some one threatens to kill another, the behavior is illegal and they can be prosecuted. When Jihadist members make threats to kill Americans, how can we respond. Ideally, they would be prosecuted for terroristic threats. Since there is no law against threatening death to infidels, how do you purpose that we respond. It is not as though they don't regularly act on their beliefs.
Charlie, if you are honestly criticizing Harris, rather than just attempting to smear him, how do you deal with his statements describing as a preemptive nuclear as being a crime, an unconscionable act, and insane?
Secondly, how do you respond to his clarification of killing people for their that IMMEDIATELY proceeds that statement which fully explains that he thinks this MAY BE necessary only when those beliefs are causing members of their own cohort to commit horrible acts of terrorism?
Scott,
After reading your last post, I am convinced that either (a) you have never laid so much as your pinky finger on Harris's book or (b) you tried to read the book but understood next to nothing of what Harris was saying.
The link you just now provided is the same one I already gave you in my last reply. Wake up, will you? In his "response to controversey" Harris merely re-affirms his views. Read it! This has been known for some time now. Harris firmly believes that it is sometimes OK to wage pre-emptive nuclear strikes against Muslim populations, that it is sometimes OK to murder people for their beliefs, and that it is sometimes OK to torture people.
The "ticking time bomb" scenario has been around for years now and has been widely discredited as a failure by moral philosophers, long before Harris dug it out of the trashbin for mass consumption. You cannot argue from vanishingly unlikely hypotheticals to reality. Think.
You see, Scott, this is why civilized, progressive nations have agreed to include torture's prohibition -- no exceptions -- as part of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. You and your friend Sam, by definition, disagree with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Perhaps you two should take up a condo in the ghettos of Afghanistan; I'm sure you'll find more like-minded company there.
If you believe it is ever OK to torture or murder somebody for their beliefs, there is something fundamentally wrong with you. Period.
Charlie,
In the end, I think you are right
If you believe it is ever OK to torture or murder somebody for their beliefs, there is something fundamentally wrong with you. Period.
I, too, disagree with Harris' conclusion. However, he did provide better qualifications for his thinking than you are willing to admit to. I still believe you are distorting his words to make him sound much more treacherous than he actually is. In the end, Harris is wrong, but attack him for what he actually said. Harris seems to think it would only be okay to torture someone if it will save lives. As a parent, I can understand this to some extent. If my own child's life were in danger by a terrorist, and if torturing the terrorist meant my child would live, I would probably violate my own ethical code. Fortunately, this sick hypothetical scenario will never happen. AND were I a law maker, I would affirm the no torture rule for any reason ever.
This was one of the main reasons I left the Christian faith. I could not reconcile the stories in the old and new testaments about God killing millions of people, condoning torture, slavery, and other horrible acts of evil.
Charles,
First off, I applaud your strong position on torture. I think a strong and clear position is necessary in light of what we've seen in our own administration and the long standing actions we've seen from other countries.
It's likely that we would all agree (Including Harris) that torture should be illegal and that labels such as "OK" should never be associated it such actions. To quote Harris...
In light of this concern, the best strategy I have heard comes from Mark Bowden in his Atlantic Monthly article, “The Dark Art of Interrogation.” Bowden recommends that we keep torture illegal, and maintain a policy of not torturing anybody for any reason.
However, Harris' doesn't stop here. He publicly discusses the problems with such a black and white position in light of the world we live in. Specifically, the impact of collateral damage and the existence of belief systems in which killing your enemy at the expense of your own life is advocated and rewarded by supernatural beings.
For example, imagine a scenario where a terrorist smuggles nuclear warheads in to one or more major metropolitan cites with the intention of killing millions of people. This terrorist knows the locations of these warheads, how and when they will be detonated. etc. It's clear that gaining access to this information could allow the disarmament and removal of these weapons from enemy hands, saving millions of lives. Assuming that, by some stroke of luck, we capture said terrorist alive, what if he refused to divulge this information?
Clearly, there is a conflict with the - no exceptions - prohibition of torture based on human rights. This is because, in this particular scenario, we must also consider the millions of other humans whose rights would be infringed on if the warhead was detonated.
Perhaps you'd rather pretend that such a scenario could never exist or that even discussing it publicly is taboo. Perhaps you object to Harris associating such scenarios with religion. Or perhaps you disagree that a the very foundation of most religions - the unverifiable belief that humans can somehow know the mind and will of a transcendent God - can strongly contribute to such scenarios. This is your right.
However, this does not entitle you to misquote or ignore clear conditions Harris puts forth in his position.
Harris goes on to say..
But our interrogators should know that there are certain circumstances in which it will be ethical to break the law. Indeed, there are circumstances in which you would have to be a monster not to break the law. If an interrogator finds himself in such a circumstance, and he breaks the law, there will not be much of a will to prosecute him (and interrogators will know this). If he breaks the law Abu Ghraib-style, he will go to jail for a very long time (and interrogators will know this too). At the moment, this seems like the most reasonable policy to me, given the realities of our world.
Here, Harris makes it clear that any instance of torture would be a violation of law. Such an interrogator would indeed be guilty of breaking such law. Only under a case by case judicial review could someone avoid punishment. Harris references an article by Mark Bowden, which presents this concept in more detail.
"...The state's obligation is then to put me on trial, for breaking the law. Then I come and say these are the facts that I had at my disposal. This is what I believed at the time. This is what I thought necessary to do. I can evoke the defense of necessity, and then the court decides whether or not it's reasonable that I broke the law in order to avert this catastrophe. But it has to be that I broke the law. It can't be that there's some prior license for me to abuse people."
However, I disagree with the author of the referenced article when he suggests that such matters should not be discussed with anyone. If such an act truly is justified, based on collateral damage, then such actions should be fit for public consumption. If they are not, this brings them into question. Nor do I agree that the Bush administration has adapted the right posture on the matter.
To address other issues you have raised...
Harris firmly believes that it is sometimes OK to wage pre-emptive nuclear strikes against Muslim populations, that it is sometimes OK to murder people for their beliefs,
This appears to be another example of willfully ignoring qualifications set forth in Harris' position.
Calling such a preemptive strike, perfectly insane, a horrible absurdity and a an unthinkable crime doesn't qualify as "OK" in my book. Nor is your generalization of "Muslim population" accurate. Instead, Harris specifically indicates a Islamist regime consisting of men who are every bit as zealous to die as the nineteen hijackers with long-range nuclear weapons.
Would it be accurate to assume that, given the horrific choice between a two sided nuclear exchange or a preemptive nuclear strike, you'd choose the option to maximize casualties?
An example would be a fundamental Islamic state, such as Iran, whom was in position of long-range nuclear weapons. However, it's unlikely that the US would actually allow Iran to build up such an arsenal without stating some kind of conventional preemptive attack. Iran would need to acquire weapons capable of reaching the US through some immediate means, such as purchase from some other nuclear power, or even a former Soviet state, India or Pakistan.
On further examination, you're protest seems to be based on a common fallacy that theists exhibit regarding the presentation of factual information.
For example, Dawkins is often falsely criticized for advocating a society that is based on survival of the fittest. However, just because Dawkins thinks it's factually true that such a path brought us to our current level of development doesn't mean that he thinks we should continue on such a path in the future. Instead, he want's us to be aware of how we got here, so we can create a society that is the quite the opposite. More importantly Dawkins doesn't think that pretending that evolution didn't happen because we don't like the implications isn't a rational corse of action.
The same can be said for Harris. In bringing up factual statements about possible worse case scenarios, you've jumped to the conclusion that he approves or actively want's to bring about the occurrence of such situations. Harris writes...
In The End of Faith, I argue that competing religious doctrines have divided our world into separate moral communities and that these divisions have become a continuous source of human violence. My purpose in writing the book was to offer a way of thinking about our world that would render certain forms of conflict, quite literally, unthinkable
Again, as much as you might not like the facts he presented or agree with their accuracy, it does not entitle you to misrepresent Harris's position.
Great post, Scott! I have read both Harris's book and his further clarifications which Charlie linked to, and I have to say that it's pretty obvious that Charlie is reading Harris like Satan reads the Bible (is that a common saying also in English speaking countries?). Charlie keeps whining about that you and other commenters here have not read Harris's book very carefully (or at all), which is downright bizarre. Think, Charlie, think.
Klas,
You wrote,
Charlie is reading Harris like Satan reads the Bible
That's funny. I don't think it is a common English phrase, at least I've never heard it before.
Charlie,
I don't believe everything I read.
Especially books that teach donkys talk.
Fuck your God.
John's book is a thoughtful and intellectually challenching work, presenting arguments that every honest Theist and Christian should face.
Dr. Norman L. Geisler
Your full of Shit Charlie.
Cole, you obviously do believe everything you read. I know you keep John's infallible book wrapped in a thick, leather zip-up cover and you read it every night before you go to bed to assure yourself that your worldview is perfect. Whatever floats your boat man. Just remember: some of us are more skeptical than you. OK? Deal with it.
You're a credulous fanatic, Cole.
"Your full of Shit Charlie."
Really? I own a 'full of Shit Charlie'? What's that?
The 9/11 attacks may have been despicable, but they certainly were not cowardly. Those Mohammedans were willing to kill themselves to strike back at ZOG. I only wish they had chosen better targets, like the US Capitol, CIA headquarters and the White House.
Post a Comment