While discussing the recent Sam Harris podcast called The Future of Ideas on Scot Hacker's blog I found myself reviewing Harris' speech now three times. As I listen closer on each pass the reasonableness of the arguments fade and this post seems a good place to offer commentary.
My initial reaction to the speech was that indeed Islam is in need of reformation but why is this guy condemning all religion by lumping it into the same pot? What follows is a more in depth analysis with references, lacking a transcript, to the time from start of the IT Conversations audio file.
In his introduction, Harris offers that our failure to criticize religious beliefs equates to the fate of civilization hanging in the balance. He states that the world is balkanized by incompatible religious ideologies (Christians against Muslims against Jews).And each of these communities is organized around the proposition that the Creator of the universe wrote one of their books.
"They make genuinely incompatible claims against the universe" [3:08].
On the surface this may seem true: Judaism built around a single God and Temple cult; Christianity with a Triune God; and Islam with a final Prophet. Rather Harris claims that each religion insists upon a certain name for God and the claims to the land of Israel. Both these examples are profoundly weak or untrue. Those who take a deep look at such things find far more in common with these religions than divisive.
He then states his thesis:
We can not survive our religious differences indefinitely.
As he realizes that our beliefs drive our actions (however we do learn to temper our actions as a maturity process) he finds that this creates an intolerable condition. He uses the term 'maladaptive' [7:00] when he describes the belief that "Jesus will come down from the clouds", Harris concluding that the religious have no incentive to "get their act together". (This shows his profound ignorance of Christianity whose teachings/religion refutes that conclusion.) This is followed later by:
We're all getting pummeled by Intelligent Design debate... should be a genuine concern to all of us...
I just don't see the end of civilization here, most of us are not getting bruised by this (there is plenty of crap taught in public schools along with wonderful material which our kids have to sort out anyway as part of the experience of living) since we live in a democracy where school decisions are determined at a local level we learn to deal with it. A portion of college deals with unlearning what we thought we knew.
Harris then is bothered that we respect each other's beliefs but don't play by these rules for any other areas such as history or geography since we don't respect peoples beliefs (other than religion) but we evaluate their reasoning. (Harris fails to distinguish between the source of belief whether it is due to reason or faith.) He follows this with the example: we marginalize people that believe the holocaust never happened or believe in elves... [10:40] he says we are right to exclude them from conversations. It is a sign of stupidity or madness except on matters of faith. [This is the core of his thesis that those that believe in faith are mad or stupid!] On the matter of the holocaust this is not a faith belief this is purely one of reason and as such does not hold up to scrutiny. As far as belief in elves goes, well that wouldn't bother me too much. I have a close friend who is a native American with traditional beliefs that are fairly different from mine yet I view this as a matter of perspective. There are many things I don't understand and I don't yet understand his religion and the language it uses and how it relates to mine. In Judaism we don't judge others by their thoughts and ideas but by their actions - everything I have witnessed from this man is full of honor and respectable.
Harris later cites how Catholic priests in sub Saharan Africa (3-4 million die of AIDS) preach sinfulness of condom use. He claims this is criminal ignorance. (Of course this is not faith but a practice and current conclusion.) Harris also says it is a taboo to call "the Vatican a genocidally stupid organization". Perhaps people like Harris should go over there and educate Africans obviously the Catholic church believes that Africans are worth the investment. Where Harris does not go is to have that religious argument in the context of religion perhaps an argument better made is that condoms are sinful as a means of birth control but perhaps fine to prevent the spread of a fatal disease. [12:30]
Harris wants 'conversational intolerance' (not to pass new laws) and challenge bad ideas [although they always have been challenged and usually from within a religious organization.] Harris uses Poseidon as example for hurricane Katrina which would not be tolerated within a Congressional speech but this statement would have sat well within the Hellan civilization several millennia ago (but instead of intolerance - tolerance saw these ideas melt away).
Indeed extreme ideas such as these permeate our society and we do indeed tolerate those ideas - but the wisdom of the crowds simply dismisses them. However Harris is quick to dismiss ideas which are still popular and heartfelt. We ought not be terrified of such ideas rather these ideas discredit those individuals in our society.
Harris asserts that scientists are terrified that they can't admit that science and religion are incompatible and as evidence he mentions that the National Academy of Science states that science and religion represent different ways of knowing [15:00] that they ask different questions. Harris claims "this is genuinely bogus".
Harris fundamentally believe there is only one way to view the world and as such his "Future of Ideas" is resigned to an idea without a future. There is a scientific view which represents the physical world. There is a religious view that fundamentally represents the spiritual world. Harris seems to have a definition of a spiritual world that consists of thought and ego and should be measurable by a scientific standard.
He then references [15:30] an idea 'that God hates homosexuals and that our tolerance for homosexuality has caused the attack on the World Trade Center' - which is an idea that I doubt is mainstream. Most religious people might say that we were attacked because some terrorists hate us and we can't think of any good reason why they should have done this. Perhaps Harris is even correct in the acceptance of this idea, he still needs to make the jump between belief and practice. I was dismayed to learn that many Muslim (Wahabist) preachers teach violence against Jews but then I was relieved to hear that most Muslims have never met a Jew and hold no animosity against us. It is one thing to listen to a thing and another to act upon it. I have met many Arabs in Israel and in the surrounding areas and they all treated me with respect and honor. During Sadam's reign Iraqi lands belonging to the wealthy were redistributed to local Shiites. The Imams preached against this exchange but were largely ignored by the people. Religion might nominally controlled by the clergy but the actions of faith are in the hands of the people.
Harris states that "religious moderation gives enormous cover to religious extremism and fundamentalism" he says this is because faith is given a pass. [17:30] [But this is because the argument needs to be within the context of religion rather than science! As Harris points out earlier, a minority of people live only in the scientific world, most people are somewhere in the religious spectrum. The arguments need to be made from either a moderate of religious point of view that respects and appreciates the faith. Harris is trying to argue that the small minority outside of the faith can change the faith. I see no support for this position.]
Then Harris asserts: "genuine acts of violence come out of religious ideology" (of course this argument is specious and shows a lack of logical thought well researched studies by Sageman show that the 9/11 attacks were not driven by religion, and plenty of other genuinely violent acts were committed without religious justification (Hitler and Stalin) - and yes plenty of violence was also committed by the religious.
Harris continues with "religious moderates won't allow us to notice that our religions are different..." [What planet is Harris on? This is a sweeping generalization that is used as proof] And then Harris cites from fundamentalists: "Islam is an evil religion" [another sweeping generalization that represents just one perspective, on the other hand I once heard one of the leaders of one of the largest fundamentalist churches declare that in regards to other religions that all he could say was that he knew God would judge justly (pretty radical, huh?)]. In other words one can cherry pick the most extreme and convenient statements and positions (often out of context) and make any line of thinking sound intolerable.
Harris then goes after Islam (and while there are legitimate criticisms) Harris is simply unable to rise to the level of confronting Islam in context. I have had the great pleasure of meeting and talking with Khaleel Muhammed who as a distinguished Sunni and Shiite scholar (and practicing Muslim) knows and teaches that peaceful coexistence with Christians and Jews is both possible and required by his faith.
Harris claims [19:30] that religious moderates are blinded by their own moderation, citing cases where Jihadists blow themselves up and that moderates can't accept religion as the motivation. [While this must certainly be considered you can't also rule out other factors like culture that drive this behavior. Harris is unable to demonstrate convincing causative evidence but rather takes hold of correlative context. When he specifically cites the 9/11 suicide murderers he relies upon his intuition to make this kink rather than anything substantive (see Sageman link). At best he can claim that they used religion as an excuse (talking about martyrdom) rather than as a cause (more likely cultural and religious separation).
Harris then takes on both fundamentalists and moderates as being irrational. (Fundamentalists for articulating reasons that he won't accept and moderates for focusing on the meaning that religion brings to their lives in a way that Harris can not comprehend.) What Harris reveals is his shallow understanding of the faith and the experiences that religious people have undergone. An example is his claim that religions worship in one book to the exclusion of all others. This simply is not true of these religions but rather certain sects and individuals among various religions. (The Jewish writings are the sacred Christian Old Testament as well as revered by Islam.)
Then he cites the books themselves as being engines of intolerance. I would only concur with him as regarding a simplistic and uninformed reading of these sacred books. My experience is that the greatest criticisms of holy books (or just about anything for that matter) comes from the uninformed and ignorant. Harris uses the same tricks that politicians and miscreants have used throughout the ages that is to misrepresent and then criticize. Jews have been persecuted for thousands of years (you may have heard of the libel of Jews drinking the blood of _____. You take the Passover tradition of remembering the blood of the slain Egyptian children from the participants wine cups and voila! - instant sensation! You could do the same with Christian's communion wine - change the meaning from one of reverence to one of barbaric ritual.)
Harris then deftly [24:30] proclaims various laws as barbarism and then uses the example that these were never rescinded however you must first naively accept that these laws were barbaric to start with. People with greater wisdom and humility learn to study these apparently problematic verses and find understanding and harmony. (If Harris really had a clue about religion he might be able to chronicle how many children and homosexuals were documented as actually having been stoned in ancient days. But instead he is railing against a hypothetical situation which exists more in theory than in history.)
Furthermore Harris reveals his lack of grasp on history by claiming that moderation has only come to us by virtue of modern science [25:00]. Judaism (see Hillel), Christianity (see Apostle Paul or Martin Luther) and Islam (see the Prophet's views of Jews and Christians) have evolved and undergone constant transformation and moderation. The doors leading out of fundamentalism do indeed open from the inside.
He is correct in refuting the popular 'gentle Jesus' notion and the travesties visited upon others half a millennium ago. But consider that Christianity ultimately rejected this approach and not because of science. The case Harris makes against Islam today could have been made back then against Christianity with the same 'we can not survive our religious differences' argument which was as false back then as it is today.
His final condemnation is upon religious moderation in that it reduces the likelihood of coming up with modern alternatives to these ancient religions (which have evolved and survived the test of time). Perhaps he should study L. Ron Hubbard to understand the impact of inventing a religion Harris' criteria is that a religion should have scientific basis with corresponding evidence. One of the problems with this perspective is that it assumes we have enough scientific knowledge to judge all aspects of our existence. Imagine Pythagoras or Archimedes having quantum mechanics explained and demonstrated to them - it would simply be too much of a leap from their baseline knowledge and come across as magic. In the same manner is it possible that our scientific understanding is so primitive that spiritual 'mechanics' appear as magic and superstition? This is simply arrogance in dismissing religion as the sanctuary of the stupid. Wiser men council that truth will prevail and time will deal with all things.
His ending statement is fair enough in that we have a choice between conversation and violence and that we need to embrace conversation. At this point with most people of the world embracing some religion it only makes sense to understand how to engage in conversation and that will not come from profound disrespect or not tolerating their beliefs in discussion. Getting everyone to agree to reason, as Sam Harris sees it, is not at all reasonable.
Recent Comments