Ah! Now I’ve got your meaning. Yes, you’re right. It does have a pejorative and condescending tone to it.
Actually, as a person of faith, I’m obviously (irrationally enough?) willing to check reason with faith, but it only goes so far. So, in all honesty, the pejorative also applies, though differently and less strenuously.[/quote]
Jaboney -
That clears things up as to the basis for your views on this. I think.
Thanks.
[quote]Jaboney,
You are confusing me. What argument are you trying to make? What does any of this have to do with Muslims? Where do your quotes from Corinthians condone violence?[/quote]
Ah Jaboney lives to ride another poster into exasperated desperate distraction. haha
[quote=“fred smith”]Ah Jaboney lives to ride another poster into exasperated desperate distraction. haha[/quote]Giddy-up.
J, you’re jumping around a bit too much for me. First you are using Corinthians to make an unknown point. When I question you on it, you jump over to the gospel of Mark. I already stated that there are wackos in every religion (or any other group for that matter).
The point I am trying to make is that you will not find anything in the new testament that tells Christians to go out and kill unbelievers.
Time for bed for me. Hopefully we can continue tomorrow (or tonight for those in the east). Peace
So nobody wants to answer if they believe that the old testament/Torah still applies?
Is that what you think?
I own it. OK I checked. You’re right, he addresses Islam from pages 83 to 86. In “End of Faith” an entire chapter is devoted to Islam. Read it. He makes quite clear that the tenets of Islam are far more dangerous than those of all other major religions. He says we are at war with Islam, but not any other religion. He specifically discusses other religion whose tenets are not dangerous. In fact the last chapter of “End of Faith” is hardly more than an all out defence of Buddhism, which bothered a lot of atheists, including me. Did you read the article I linked? I have read all Harris’ books, and I subscribe to Free Enquiry and he is a regular contributor. I have listened to his speeches online. You are completely mischaracterizing his philosophy.
[quote=“gao_bo_han”]I have read all Harris’ books, and I subscribe to Free Enquiry and he is a regular contributor. I have listened to his speeches online. You are completely mischaracterizing his philosophy.[/quote]I’m sure you have all his books; I recognize the arguments.
[quote=“gao_bo_han”]Did you read the article I linked?[/quote] Yes, I read the article. (A while ago. Got it saved on the hard drive.)
[quote=“gao_bo_han”]You’re right, he addresses Islam from pages 83 to 86. In “End of Faith” an entire chapter is devoted to Islam. Read it. He makes quite clear that the tenets of Islam are far more dangerous than those of all other major religions. He says we are at war with Islam, but not any other religion. He specifically discusses other religion whose tenets are not dangerous. In fact the last chapter of “End of Faith” is hardly more than an all out defence of Buddhism, which bothered a lot of atheists, including me.[/quote]Yeah. The West. Not him. His war is with religion. Save perhaps the most philosophical strains of Buddhism, which must offer the most practical, personal ‘religious’ practices available. Jolly good stuff.
[quote=“gao_bo_han”]You are completely mischaracterizing his philosophy.[/quote]When I state that he’s at war with religion? Really?
“Indeed, we know enough at this moment to say that the God of Abraham is not only unworth of creation, he is unworthy even of Man.” - Sam Harris, The End of Faith.
Please, pretty please, riddle me this. Reconcile this with your position in our long running argument:
Harris, closing statement to The End of Faith:
“The days of our religious identities are clearly numbered. Whether the days of civilization itself are numbered would seem to depend, rather too much, on how soon we realize this.”
And opening of the Afterword (is this written by him, or Richard Dawkins?):
“The human psyche has two great sicknesses: the urge to carry vendetta across generations, and the tendency to fasten group labels on people rather than see them as individuals.”
Now, it goes on to say that only the willfully blind could fail to see the role of religion in most of the conflicts in the world today. Then concludes, “Those of us who have for years politely concealed our contempt for the dangerous collective delusion of religion need to stand up and speak out.”
I REALLY WANT to know, have I missed characterized Harris’s position? Is he not at war with the dangerous collective delusion? If this is a book that so informs your thinking–which it obviously does–why disregard that bit about the second great sickness of the human psyche? Why are you buying into the religous identity argument? Why?
Because you are making it sound as if he considers all religions an equal threat to civilization. He does not. I suppose you will need Harris’ own words:
End of Faith, The Problem With Islam, page 108.
Clear enough for you Jaboney? 
It obviously does eh? I read “The End of Faith” and “Letter to A Christian Nation” over the last Christmas holiday (classy, huh?). I began studying Islam and Middle Eastern history three years ago. If he informs my thinking so much, I wonder what I was doing in all that time. Oh yeah! Reading the Qur’an, Lewis, Hitti, Hourani, Qutb, Khan, Bostom, Spencer, Armstrong, Said, Ernst, etc. etc. Pretty lame attempt to characterise me as some kind of Harris groupie, Jaboney.
By the way I strongly agree with Harris that all religions are delusional and irrational, no question about it. I also agree with Harris that not all religions are equally dangerous. Don’t get me wrong here. I think Christianity is a complete crock of shit. I do not believe in virgin births any more than I believe men rise from the dead. I do not believe in gods, heaven, hell, angels, demons, elves, the tooth fairy, or the Easter bunny. Harris’ scathing rebuke of all faiths not based in reason (read: religions beliefs) is spot on.
[quote=“Jaboney”]And opening of the Afterword (is this written by him, or Richard Dawkins?):
[color=blue]“The human psyche has two great sicknesses: the urge to carry vendetta across generations, and the tendency to fasten group labels on people rather than see them as individuals.”[/color]
Now, it goes on to say that only the willfully blind could fail to see the role of religion in most of the conflicts in the world today. Then concludes, “Those of us who have for years politely concealed our contempt for the dangerous collective delusion of religion need to stand up and speak out.”
I REALLY WANT to know, have I missed characterized Harris’s position? Is he not at war with the dangerous collective delusion? If this is a book that so informs your thinking–which it obviously does–[color=blue]why disregard that bit about the second great sickness of the human psyche? Why are you buying into the religous identity argument? Why?[/color][/quote]ahem
That pretty much says it all. There are millions of Muslims who are good people, but only because they ignore the ugly aspects of their religion. That’s one of the reasons religions are such bullshit. The only way you can be a good person is to completely disregard major portions of your barbaric holy books. If you did not disregard them, then you would be as barbaric and revolting as the authors who wrote those books in the desert hundreds of years ago. You want to kill people for disobeying their parents? Not observing the Sabbath? If you discover your new bride isn’t a virgin are you going to take her to her father’s doorstep and stone her to death right then and there? If your daughter asked you to worship other gods with her are you going to choke her to death?
Bah. The only reason the world is somewhat civilized is because most people ignore their disgusting religious texts and choose to live according to our evolving standards of morality. The difference in the Abrahamic “peoples of faith” in the modern world is that Jews and Christians have moved on, whereas a hell of a lot of Muslims haven’t.
[quote=“gao_bo_han”]That pretty much says it all. There are millions of Muslims who are good people, but only because they ignore the ugly aspects of their religion. That’s one of the reasons religions are such bullshit. The only way you can be a good person is to completely disregard major portions of your barbaric holy books. [/quote]:lol: That’s an argument for being a hermit, nothing more. Every institution has its ugly aspects. Some more than others, no doubt. ANY fundamental absolutism quickly descends into barbarism… even Kant’s truthfulness imperative.
'course, if you were to go the hermit route, you’d have to start dealing with individuals. 
Not nearly so easy, that.
[quote=“Jaboney”]
you’d have to start dealing with individuals.
Not nearly so easy, that.[/quote]
Especially if they’re trying to cut your head off.
That would get in the way of a meaningful dialogue, wouldn’t it.
As someone who hasn’t read “The End of Faith,” may I ask a few questions about it?
-
What basis for morality does the author install as a replacement for religious morality, and why should we expect it to be more effective?
-
Does the author advocate a strong atheist position? (as opposed to either the agnostic position or the doubtful/ignorant position) If so, how does he reconcile his affirmative atheistic position, which must require some amount of “faith” with his call for the “End of Faith.”?
Just curious.
[quote]As someone who hasn’t read “The End of Faith,” may I ask a few questions about it?
- What basis for morality does the author install as a replacement for religious morality, and why should we expect it to be more effective?[/quote]
First off let me say that if you are interested in secular humanism, Harris’ book is not the work I would recommend as a first read. If you are really interested in secular humanism let me know, and I can direct you to much better and more focused books on the subject. Now if you are just interested in Harris’ viewpoint, I will try my best to present it.
Essentially he approaches your question from two directions. The first is to attack the idea of “religious morality”. He rejects the notion that religion, and the Abrahamic faiths in particular, teach good morals if taken as a whole. A good example he gives are the Ten Commandments. The Ten Commandments are often held up by Christians as encompassing the heart and soul of Biblical morality. He makes the points that the first few commandments address things like, you aren’t supposed to worship other gods, make graven images, or take the Lord’s name in vain. The Biblical punishments for breaking these commandments is death in all cases. Ditto for breaking the Sabbath or failing to honor your mother and father. But the reality is that people no longer feel it is ethical to execute people who commit any of these “sins”. In addition the Bible lists hundreds of other crimes and punishments, the crimes of which we no longer consider crimes and the punishments we now consider barbaric. The few gems in there (Sermon on the Mount for instance) are the exceptions to the rule of cruelty, intolerance, and barbarism. The pervasive belief that the Bible contains a blueprint of morality and justice for all times and places is refuted by the fact Western society no longer practices the overwhelming majority of Biblical law. Our standards of morality have simply moved past the Bible, and yet we continue to pay lip service to its divine authority and perfect moral laws.
That brings me to the other way he addresses your problem. He asks if our standards of morality have evolved, why have they? In other words, if the Bible is the basis for morality, then how can our sense of morality have changed so much? What is this change based on? Harris theorizes that our sense of good and evil is somehow based on the notions of pleasure and pain.
If we see somebody skinning a dog alive, for instance, and pouring salt on its body while it cries for help, we judge him to be evil. Why? You aren’t going to find an answer in the Bible, and even if you could find something, it wouldn’t explain your initial reaction. We all just know that torturing dogs is evil without having to consult a holy book, or a secular philosophy book, or any book at all. We just know it. Or how about if you see a dog limping through the park with a thorn in its paw, and someone stops to help it, gently pulling the thorn out and dressing the wound? Again we need consult no holy book to know if that person has done right or wrong. We just know that helping the dog is good. Now if you were to replace the dog in the examples above with a human child, no doubt you could find something in the Bible or some other religious scripture condemning the torture and praising the kindness, but again it would not be necessary. Something inside us tells us that causing other creatures pain is bad, whereas causing them pleasure is good. The Biblical notion of sin is meaningless when we make our assessments of who is a good person and who is not.
That in a nutshell is Harris’ argument. I agree with his general principles, but problems of morality have to be addressed systematically, and his book is not intended as such a tome. (By the way, he doesn’t use those exact examples, except for the Ten Commandments one, but they do follow his general line of reasoning).
He does advocate a strong atheist position, yes. I think he rejects the idea that being a strong atheist (as opposed to being a weak atheist or agnostic) requires “faith”. In other essays (not in the book), he makes the point that having a word for atheism at all is insulting. We don’t have a word for someone who is particularly not an astrologist, or particularly not an alchemist. It is likewise foolish to have a word for someone who does not believe in Poseidon or the Christian god or Allah or whoever. It does not require faith to not be an astrologist, an alchemist, or a neo-Pagan who worships Poseidon (there are some actually, Poseidon is making a comeback).
Now I think what you are driving at is that we can’t technically prove there is no Christian god, which therefore requires some modicum of “faith” to thus not believe in him. I don’t remember if Harris delves into it that deeply, but Richard Dawkins does acknowledge this conundrum. His response is to say that we can’t technically prove there aren’t tea kettles orbiting Mars, and so therefore to say there are no tea kettles orbiting Mars is to require “faith”, technically. You are an a-tea kettleist. I think that exposes how ridiculous such a line of reasoning really is, and how pathetic it is for Christians to delude themselves into thinking that being an atheist requires as much faith as being Christian. It requires no more faith to be an atheist than is required to not believe in elves or pixies.
Thanks for the response. As for morals, I agree to his point that there is a morality that exists apart from what any religion I know of teaches, as your examples demonstrate. I probably should read a little more on the “secular humanism” line, so I’ll hold my doubts until I’ve had a chance to read some more about it. I also question certain value judgments in the absence of a standard to appeal to. It seems awfully difficult to have any strong notion of right or wrong.
As for “faith,” I follow the rationale, but the problem is that there are so many otherwise rational people who will swear to their grave that they have experienced something beyond the natural world. Since the question is in fact whether something otherwise unobserved is there, simply saying “I don’t see it, so it isn’t there” doesn’t satisfy me, which is why I specified the “strong” atheist" as opposed to a weak athiest, agnostic, or doubting position.
Secular humanism is definitely one of the best places to look for the bases of modern morality, and as gbh said, Sam Harris isn’t a great source for getting into it.
Cognitive psychology has made some pretty good strides when it comes to explaining the brain states responsible for unworldly experiences; Ramachandran’s work in particular.
Or lack of.
Or lack of.[/quote]
Care to elaborate?