Let's talk about Sam Harris's End of Faith.

[Ladyhawk]

I've read about half of it and I'm surprised by some of the positions Sam Harris is taking. His contention that Muslims are worse than anything in the West because of "intentions" is a completely new thought for me. Usually, that is a right-wing talking point, but Harris concedes that the United States hasn't exactly been a bastion of moral superiority. Still, he believes that the deaths of civilians in the war and occupation of Iraq are "unintentional" and therefore less evil than deaths caused by Muslims. Muslims, he contends, don't care about "collateral damage" because to them everyone who does not serve Allah is evil. Interesting.

He also points out that there are few (if any) moderate Muslims.

Were the situation reversed, I have to admit that life under fundy Muslims would be pretty bad. Would life under fundy Christians be any better? Harris says that Christians in the West have become moderate due to the constant barrage of science and reason. If fundy Christians take over, could it ever be as bad as it would be under fundy Muslims? Would Christians eventually take us back to the 14th century?

I'd like to hear your opinions. I'm asking atheists and agnostics because they (hopefully) are not too tied to any one dogma and can (hopefully) think more clearly about such issues. Let's discuss this.

(I would like to discuss other topics in the book, later.)

[salvorhardin]

1. All religious fundamentalists are bad

The fundie Christians are not quite as bad as Islamic fundamentalists yet because economic prosperity, education and social structures in the U.S. and Europe have traditionally kept their worldview from becoming popular. That's not so in the middle east where horrendous poverty, a general lack of access to education and a rigid sociopolitical structure constantly reinforces Islamic fundamentalism. However, I think if Christian fundamentlists were able to consolidate power in the U.S. then things could turn very ugly, very fast.

I have a lot of problems with Sam Harris and what little I've read or heard from him. Not because I don't agree that religion is inherently dangerous and promotes a tribal us worldview but becuase Harris seems to be making a lot of unfounded leaps in his reasoning and appears to be attempting to bend modern neuroscience research to support his forgone conclusion. Further he seems to be advocating the same 'us vs. them' mentality that he decries.

Also, DU A&A, R&T and Skeptics group regulars know that I am no big fan of concluding that religious belief is equivalent to mental illness. That so many people hold religious beliefs would on the face of it indicate that religious beliefs are likely a byproduct or artifact of normal brain functioning and may have had an evolutionary advantage. To this end I find Daniel Dennett's and Richard Dawkins' views more informative and neither of them are an apologist for religion. That's not to say that extreme religiosity does not lead to mental illness or that people can't easily be led about by their faith. Obviously extreme religiosity is often a symptom of mental illness and people are led about by their religion all the time. See: http://www.neuralgourmet.com/giantwaronxmas

BTW: You can hear Part I of an interview with Sam Harris on this week's Point of Inquiry podcast. Part II follows next week I believe.
Direct link to mp3: http://libsyn.com/media/pointofinquiry/4-7-06.mp3

[Warpy]

2. Harris is wrong. Dead is dead. Fundies are fundies, no matter

what god they blame.

I've known and been friends with a lot of strict Muslims. Mostly, they're the same as garden variety Methodists or Presybterians. They've been ethical and reasonable people. Harris also manages to forget that Mohammad offered a great improvement over the Christianity of the day, especially when it came to the rights of women. That tribal, misogynist, backwards horseshit has taken over both religions is their great tragedy.

All religions look equally insane to me, but a good 80% of religious people are sane and simply need to belong.

However, if the 20% who are pinhead literalist fundies take over, it will be just as bad if not worse than fundy Islam. Consider what Christians do to women who step out of line: they call them witches and torture them to death. Muslim stoning may be an awful way to go, but at least it's quicker than the Inquisition alternatives.

[salvorhardin]

3. Thanks Warpy

Sometimes I feel like a lone voice when I say that to equate religion and mental illness is itself insanity of a different sort. I agree too that fundies are fundies.

I'm sure Onager will have more stories of positive encounters he's had in Egypt with Muslims too if he has time to post.

[Ladyhawk]

5. I want to hear more from onager. Anyone wish to summon him?

Seriously, I want to hear all points of view on this.

[Ladyhawk]

7. I don't know any "sane" Christians, except for a few on DU.

The ones I know are all biblical literists, creationists and supporters of *. Sometimes I feel like I'm strangling in this environment because these otherwise "decent" people can support evil acts and turn on you in a second if they feel their faith demands it or is being threatened.

I've long admired and agreed with a Steven Weinberg quote Dawkins recited in his two-part series The Root of All Evil?: "Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."

So, I guess I do believe religion can make people insane and do insane things they otherwise might not have done.

[salvorhardin]

8. But religious beliefs themselves are not insanity

I think the extreme religiosity is a symptom of an underlying mental illness. I agree with Dawkins and Harris and Weinberg and anyone else who believes that we need to be rid of religion, that it is an old, outmoded worldview that we've outgrown. But we have to be careful that we don't project our own fears onto religious believers.

On edit: Sorry. I thought you were replying to me.

[Ladyhawk]

15. No, the beliefs themselves are not insanity.

They do cause some people to act as if they were insane. I also believe we need to outgrow "faith" as it exists now, but I'm very worried that we won't be able to do that before it's too late (or at all).

Another thing that worries me is that I don't know how we're going to do it. Humankind has needed it as a crutch almost from the beginning. We seem to need to feel we are in control of uncontrollable forces. I'm wondering if "faith" might be hard-wired in some of us.

Then, of course, there are moral questions. I pretty much don't want to go out of my way to "preach" atheism to someone. It's one of the things that so annoys me about the religious. They seem to want to infect everyone with their delusions. They want to shove their narrow-minded bigotry down my throat even more than ever. They had the first 18 years of my life, but it seems even that wasn't enough.

In one part of the book, Harris was stepping into some pretty dangerous territory when he trial-ballooned the idea that some people perhaps should be killed for their beliefs if those beliefs would cause them to be dangerous to others. Well, in my opinion, all fundamentalist ideas are dangerous. Those same fundies think my ideas are dangerous and in Inquisition times I would have been tortured and killed for having them. There's no fucking way I would condone any kind of action against anyone because of their beliefs. That's too much like pre-emptive war. If we can't win in the world of ideas, then maybe our species is doomed...and it ain't worth killing for.

I'm not sure how to win in the world of ideas if fundies continue to cut themselves off from the world. They perpetuate their ideas by ignoring anything that doesn't agree with them...how do you beat that?

[salvorhardin]

16. How do you beat that?

I think first you have to look at how the ideas are perpetuated. The first and obvious way is through indoctrination of children via the immediate family. Another way is to through encoding the fundamentalist religious beliefs into the sociopolitical culture via institutions and laws and government (e.g. all children must receive religious instruction, disbelievers shall be killed). And yet another is through conversion.

Now, of those, the first is the hardest to counteract and you probably never will. The second and third can be counteracted by encouraging those things that cause people to disregard fundamentalist religious teachings and traditions and discouraging those who seek to use religion as a means to perpetuate their regressive worldview. The U.S. is doing exactly the opposite at this point in time, IMHO.

[Ladyhawk]

21. I was heavily indoctrinated and managed to get out.

I don't understand what allows some to escape while most do not. I think exposure to a more liberal kind of Christianity first opened the door for me. At the time, I thought I was being tempted by the devil. I fought and clawed and scratched and argued. :) I have to admit those poor professors were very patient (most of them, that is). Most of them never saw me escape and none of them would approve of the path I chose for myself. But it is MY path, this time, not theirs, not my family's. It took awhile to find my way, to stretch my reason. And I reserve the right to change my mind on some things. Life is always a process of discovery.

[salvorhardin]

22. And that's the way it should be!

I don't know what allows some to escape but I think it's safe to say that secular education (especially science) and tolerance as a culturally valued trait are two of the things that allows some people to escape. And we know that is why religious fundamentalists hate those. I'm too tired but I could dig up quotes from evangelical preachers going back 200 years that decry education and tolerance.

[progressoid]

4. My initial thoughts...

Fundy xians & fundy Muslims have the potential to be equally destructive and repressive. In addition to the benefit of science & reason (also, let's not forget secular TV!), the difference lies in the arena in which they have to operate. Here in the west, xians are also reigned in by our open society and government (well...it used to be open). I think that's why a progressive gov't is so abhorrent to them. New ideas & freedom of speech are a threat to their dogma. Also why they oppose liberal educations - they fear the exposure their followers would get to new ideas.

Seems to me, Islam has some growing up to do. I see them in their version of the dark ages. Whether they will get their Renaissance or not is hard to tell. With their society, religion, even commerce being so intertwined, it becomes a complicated issue.

Gotta run. I guess I should check that book out again. I only had time for the first couple chapters.

[Ladyhawk]

6. Harris contends that it may be impossible for Islam to grow up.

He admits they may liberalize in time, but he contends that their holy book and accompanying teachings (hadith) are even more bloody than the bible, outright commanding them to kill infidels and wage war on infidel nations. At any rate, he says Islam is at a point in its development comparable to that of Christianity during the Inquisition.

He believes it is of the utmost importance to keep WMDs out of the hands of Muslim extremists. This may, in fact, be true, which means the war on Iraq is even more unconcionable than I first believed. We wasted lives and resources on a nation that was not a threat and we are now in no position (morally or strategically) to stop the proliferation of WMDs in Muslim extremist nations. We cried, "Wolf!" and wasted countless lives on a boogie man that didn't exist. Am I now to believe the administration's posturing on Iran? What if they're telling the truth (for once) and Iran becomes a nuclear power?

[Warpy]

13. The Hadith codifies all the tribal bullshit

that Mohammad tried to get rid of, especially all the bullshit against women. Right now Islam is in a period of looking backward, of belief that all important interpretation and commentary was finished by the end of the thirteenth century. If they ever get convinced of the need to progress, they may quickly outstrip Christianity in progressivism. Remember, Christianity was in their backwards phase when Islam was new and in its golden age.

There are plenty of dissident groups in Islam, especially feminist groups, and they make a great deal of sense.

I flatly refuse to believe that a religion that first gave women the right to property in their own names (rather than BEING property) is incapable of growing up and progressing.

I would greatly prefer to keep WMDs out of everyone's hands, including my own. No one can be trusted with that much destructive power under any circumstances. They always look for a way to use it.

[Ladyhawk]

17. Thanks for the information. I grew up in strict fundy Christianity,

so I know next to nothing about Islam. My fundy school teachers were heavily into reading the Old Testament. No wonder I was so terrified of god. :)

[TallahasseeGrannie]

9. Well, I haven't read the book yet

and I'm not agnostic or atheist. But I'll annoy everyone and pipe up.

My first thought is that he must be coming from a Western perspective to come up with that conclusion because it seems so ethnocentric. Then I think to myself, get real. He's right. We can be a nasty culture, but we don't blow ourselves up in the marketplace and we don't behead our enemies on TV. (we are much more tasteful and covert than that). I don't know why that is.

When 9/11 happened I think it was Jimmy Breslin who remarked that the Christian religion was much more bloodthirsty in its 1300th year, and that the Muslim faith was still young. That might be rather condescending, or it might be right on. I actually know very few Muslims and haven't been in that area of the world, but his point makes sense to me.

Would I rather a Christian or Muslim theocracy? Obviously, I don't want either, but the Christian would be more familar to me culturally. Would they be as blood thirsty as the Taliban? I don't think so because the Taliban were partly acting in response to years of war. But I think back to Oliver Cromwell and really don't want any part of that...or Jerry Falwell's rules for Liberty College. Free will means free will. I vote for the separation of Church and State. That's why we came over here and we need to hold on to that.

[salvorhardin]

10. TallahasseeGrannie...

Speaking for myself, your opinions are always welcome in this group.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

11. Somebody bless you!

[Ladyhawk]

20. Yeah, she's pretty brave to come in here. :)

Hi, Grannie!!!

[TallahasseeGrannie]

26. Brave? Nah

just kind of lonely. I know what threads to stay out of, too.

[Ladyhawk]

19. It could be ethnocentrism. Regardless, I've been a bit surprised by

some of the ideas proposed in the book. Harris seems to be "okay" with the war on terror and with the so-called "collateral damage" in "wars of necessity." What Harris misses is that the war in Iraq was absolutely NOT necessary. Harris has skirted the issue of the Iraq War to some degree, but thinks the war with Afghanistan was necessary. How necessary was it if we can't keep the Taliban from regaining control? One thing is certain: We can't go to war against every Muslim state to keep WMDs out of Muslim hands. We couldn't even win a war against a demoralized people (the Iraqis). What makes him think we could win a war against a more powerful Muslim nation?

Let's just say I agree with some of Harris's positions on religion, but not some of his other conclusions. I think he'd agree with the Pretzeldent's assessment: "They hate us for our freedoms." :crazy:

Yeah, Harris has made me think, but I think I am going to have to say no to the war on terror (i.e. Islam). We just make more and more enemies by doing it this way. I guess I'm rejecting his claim that Muslims are inherently more violent than Christians, as well as his claim that even if we hadn't done anything to the Muslim peoples of the world, they'd still want to slit our throats. I definitely believe fundamentalist Islam makes these people more dangerous than they would be otherwise, but it is not the only ingredient.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

27. I agree

the concept of a "War on Terror" is pretty dumb. Protection, vigilence, sure. But also a program geared to opening dialogue, understanding, etc.

The fine line is working towards that without giving in to bullies. I am not quite sure where that line is, but I don't think the answer is military.

[Ladyhawk]

37. Right now the US is definitely the bully and that makes me ashamed.

We should be better than this. :(

[unschooler]

25. I think fundamentalist Islam, in its most extreme current forms, is

more dangerous, violent and misogynist than any form of modern Christianity of which I'm aware. While the U.S. government has certainly been responsible for an enormous amount of violence, it is not justified specifically in terms of religious duty. Yes. Pat Robertson is scary, but, as TG points out, he hasn't engaged in any public beheadings lately. I think the worst forms of Islam are comparable to the worst forms of medieval Christianity.

This is not necessarily a reflection on Islam as much as on its sphere of influence. As Harris points out, perhaps the major reason modern Christianity is less dangerous than modern Islam, is that fundamentalist Christianity has been restrained from exercising political control, while fundamentalist Islam has political control in some places. Also, while there are many modern cities filled with Muslims, and I agree that the Muslims I know personally are pretty comparable to the Presbyterians I know personally, there are are also geographic areas where fundamentalist imams hold sway over uneducated populations.

[Warpy]

29. Elohim City

is just one place you'll find the equivalent. Christian Identity meetings are another. Dominionist plotting is another. They're out there right now, barely co operating but still splintered enough to be considered the lunatic fringe. However, consider that the holy roller Calvinist was the lunatic fringe only 26 years ago, before Reagan made them legitimate by giving them the GOP.

Again, a fundy is a fundy is a fundy, and they're all nuts, hostile to women and vicious toward their fellow human beings.

[unschooler]

31. Fortunately, "Elohim City" is not a real city, state or nation.

The lack of political power is the most important restraint on these people. Some of their members may engage in criminal acts, but they're really cna't control many people to a significant degree.

[Warpy]

48. Elohim City IS a real city

Check it out: http://www.adl.org/learn/ext_us/Elohim.asp?xpicked=3&item=13

[unschooler]

51. I know it's a white separatist loony compound. But a "city"?

What I meant was that such groups do not have the official sanction of government here.

[toddaa]

12. Sam Harris is an anti-theist

Now, I have to admit that I haven't read his book. What I have read is his manifesto, which claims to be about atheists claiming their civil rights, but is really nothing more than a rehash of all the hoary old "Problem of Evil" arguments that can be made against Christianity. You can find a mountain of that kind of material on the Internet Infidels and it's usually more thoughtfully argued. What bothers me about people like Harris and Dawkins is that they have a very limited viewpoint on what exactly is religion. Simply put revealed monotheism is not the sum total of religious belief.

Now, he's probably right about Islamic fundamentalism being a more destructive belief, but much of his rhetoric strikes me as nothing more than xenophobic fear of foreign culture than anything else.

When you're finished with his book, you might try Howard Bloom's The Lucifer Principle. Despite being rather unconvincing, it is nevertheless a thought provoking read.

[Ladyhawk]

18. I'm nearly an "anti-theist" myself, but I'm not agreeing with a lot of

what Harris has to say.

I am definitely an atheist, overall. Where Yahweh is concerned, I'm an anti-theist because Yahweh is a despicable, evil character. Some other deity that I don't believe in, however, may be relatively benign. :shrug: I can agree with some of Jesus's teachings, for example, although he did introduce the concept of hell. Unfortunately, the doctrine of hell pretty much cancels out any good that can come from fundamentalist Christianity. I'm sure there's an example of an even more benign deity, but since I can't be bothered to go chasing non-existence omnipotent beings (I have better things to do), I don't much care about studying mythology. :shrug:

I watched Dawkins' The Root of All Evil? and pretty much agreed with everything he had to say. In fact, he said a lot of the things I have been thinking. I had to watch the second program, "The Virus of Faith," in small doses because I was poisoned with toxic faith as a child. In my opinion it is definitely child abuse to teach a child there is a literal hell he or she will burn in if he/she doesn't believe in the right god.

Although I am not exactly a pacifist, I can't agree with Harris's stance on collateral damage and his musings that torture might actually be necessary in some instances. His belief that collateral damage is "okay" leads him to that position. I guess what I am thinking is that war is so nasty that it should only be a very last resort. In the case of Iraq, which Harris brings up, it was the first resort. I absolutely blame * for every single civilian casualty because the war was completely unnecessary.

[salvorhardin]

14. I forgot to mention earlier

If you want to see how religion could exist in a secular, modern, progressive society then read Kim Stanley Robinson's Mars trilogy (Red Mars, Green Mars, Blue Mars). It's long but I bet it's something you'd enjoy. Me, I was hooked after the first 100 pages. If you can hold out for the colonists to actually get to Mars then you're probably in the clear. That's when the action starts, and then later on you'll see all that stuff you sat through on the journey out was not only worth it, but integral to the story. I think you'll love the characters too.

[NMMNG]

23. I'm about 1/3 of the way through the book

I too was surprised at Harris' position on Islam. It smacks of the typical "right wing" take on Islam.

Were the situation reversed, I have to admit that life under fundy Muslims would be pretty bad. Would life under fundy Christians be any better?

In my opinion, no. The fundamentalists want to take us back to the dark ages with their "Bible as law of the land", repression of science, rigid definitions of morality and such. The America they envision is a fascist theocracy where gays are stoned to death, women are brood mares subjugated to men in every way, Christianity is the only allowed religion (and attendance at Church is mandatory), the Bible is a required text in public schools, anybody who teaches anything in opposition to the teachings of the Church is imprisoned or executed, and so on.

[ozone_man]

35. I was surprised too.

He was having such a great rant against Christianity, the Inquisition, then he went off the deep end in regards to Islam. But after reading how he arrived at some of his conclusions, it makes sense. Islam is still a medieval religion and hasn't undergone the moderating influences that Christianity has in the last 500 years. Christianty may not have even survived much past the Enlightenment were it not for the U.S., which gave it new life. Evangelism like Pentecostalism was started in the U.S., and is sweeping through Africa like a plague, after infecting South America, and becoming by 2030 the largest branch of Christianity, if projections are correct. We are the most religious nation in the developed world, by far, and are largely responsible for dragging much of the developing countries down with our ignorant faiths.

Ultimately, the influence of most religions will moderate and diminish by the end of this century (hopefully), but maybe not soon enough to stop some of the intolerant ones from being threats in the nuclear age. I don't know if Harris is completely right about this threat, but it does seem plausible. He says there really are no moderate views in Islam.

I guess my own view is that if Israel has nuclear weapons, maybe there should be a balance. If we want Iran to not be part of the nuclear club, then we should require Israel to give up their nuclear weapons. The present sitation is hypocritical, and the source for much violence in the Mid East. But I also see that the U.S. is the only one who has used a nuclear weapon, and is the biggest terrorist of all. So, we don't really have a leg to stand on.

Also, nuclear weapons could be the one thing that prevents Iran from being invaded. OTOH, we can still invade them under the pretense of requiring a preemtive strike to stop nuclear development, since they don't have them yet, like we did with WMDs in Iraq. So, it's a win win situation either way, they will be invaded. Really it's about control of the oil though. That's why we're there. Iran has IIRC the third largest reserves of oil, after number two Iraq. We get rid of the secular government in Iraq in favor of a theocracy? I think we want perpetual turmoil there, so we can keep them from advancing and take control of the oil. Between Iraq and Iran, the amount of oil is huge. So, watchout Iran and Venezuela, these are the countries most likely to be invaded next. The biggest bang for the buck so to speak. SH made the unfortunate choice of switching to Euros. Oil and dollar hegemony are strong influences on foreign policy. I think religion plays second to the evils of capitalism, though sometimes it's only a close second, like the Crusades. And didn't Bush say that God told him to invade Iraq?

As far as the end of faith, it will never completely end, but I think it will greatly diminish by the end of this century. And that is a good thing, but will it be in time to save the Earth? I'm not just talking about nuclear proliferation in the wrong hands. Equally important are the teachings of Monotheism that happiness and justice on Earth are unimportant, since the real rewards come from heaven, that even the Earth is not that important. We may not survive due to our own treatment of the Earth, global warming, deforestation, pollution of the oceans. In this respect, Christianity is the worst. Remember the fundamentalist James Watt, secretary of the Interior under Reagan? I'm afraid it's not much better now. These religions teach that the afterlife is where the rewards come from, that maintaining the Earth for future generations is not important, not pagan religions BTW, which showed great respect for nature, their deities were derived from a reverance for nature. In many ways, that is more dangerous than nuclear weapons. But it's not just organized religion that doesn't respect the Earth, capitalism is a far bigger threat. Profits have to be made, and our SUVs need oil to keep those corporate profits flowing, countries have to be invaded. There's a great movie out "Why We Fight" that I highly recommend.

OK, I'm done with my rant. :)

[NMMNG]

36. Christianity did undergo moderation

But it has backlashed recently with the fundamentalists growing more vocal and powerful. Where before it was marching forward, they now are working to take it backward--and Americal with it.

I only hope that you and Harris are right that the influence of religion will ultimately die out. Unfortunately I doubt that will be in my lifetime.

I too have thought it hypocritical that the U.S. sits on a mountain of nuclear weapons while holding Iran and other nations to a Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty. Who are we to wield such power while keeping others without it when we have proven to be such bullies to the world? And the notion that some nations are too much of a threat is questionable, considering we have a President who goes to war because "God told me to". If another nation went to war against us because "Allah said so" our pundits would be declaring them evil beyond belief.

As to capitalism and monotheism, they are currently undeniably intertwined--at least fundamentalist monotheism. They cater to each other and rape the planet in tandem, because neither is concerned with what will happen to the planet in a century or two. All that matters is the profits that can be made here and now (to both groups) and the promised afterlife (to the fundamentalists). I wonder why the fundies don't give a damn what's going to happen to the passels of kids they spew out, once they destroy the Earth. :shrug:

[ozone_man]

42. True there has been a backlash.

It is sort of a second wave for Christianity, after the brutal hit it took during the Age of Reason and Enlightenment. But even in this country, atheism has been growing. Much of the church going Christians attend for the social aspect, particularly the more educated. Since 1990, polls indicate less religiosity in this country, but still two to three times the percentages in European countries, Canada or Australia.

I think there are several factors, the most obvious being education and prosperity. But also, there is some kind of fertile ground that capitalism has made for Christainity in this country. They are undeniably intertwined as you say. Most neocons probably aren't much more religious than you or me, but they know how to manipulate the religous right to stay in power. But there is a certain synergy, a common thread being this lack of concern for the environment, albeit for slightly different reasons.

But while Christianity is starting to slide from the peak in this country (Falwell and Robertson are losing it), it is still growing by leaps and bounds in the developing countries of the world with the help of missionaries. So, we have become the world's largest exporter of evangelist religions (at least we export something ;)). And for good reason. prosyletizing indigenous cultures with Christianity has been used for a long time in getting control of their land and resources, by destroying their link with the land and culture, brainwashing them into believing in heaven where the rewards come from, while the multinational corporations bring them coca cola and cigarettes. It's an old formula, but it works.

The Rockefeller-led effort to conquer the Amazon and exploit its natural riches had been made possible in no small measure by SIL's missionary activities. Colby and Dennett found a historic parallel in John D. Rockefeller, Sr.'s support for Christian missionaries in the American west, who were compiling extremely useful information on Native American communities, which were potential sources of opposition to the entrance of Standard Oil into their lands.' As a bonus, the evangelization process weakened the American Indians' social structure and so undermined their resolve to fight for their rights. The authors quote Baptist reverend Frederick Gates, who for many years was John D. Sr.'s right-hand man, as saying that "We are only in the very dawn of commerce, and we owe that dawn to the channels opened up by Christian missionaries.... The effect of the missionary enterprise of the English speaking peoples will be to bring them the peaceful conquest of the world."

http://www.cephas-library.com/church_n_state_rockefeller_and_evangelism.html

[unschooler]

40. Living under ANY theocratic fundmentalist regime would be a

nightmare. I don't think Harris' point is to slam Islam harder than Xianity. It's just that Islam currently has fewer checks on its influence in some places. That could, of course, change.

[ozone_man]

41. He makes the distinction

between Christianity during the most oppressive periods, like the Inquisition and modern day Christianity. Jews have been persecuted by both religions over the years, but Christianity has been much worse than Islam in that respect. Harris mentions how the Catholic church fomented religious hatred of Jews, which evolved into a secular hatred, culminating with the Nazi Holocaust. Medieval antisemitism was accelerated by Martin Luther, and several hundred years later reached a climax in Germany.

Check out some these excerpts from Luther's book in the link below.

Medieval Sourcebook:
Martin Luther (1483-1546):
The Jews and Their Lies, excerpts (1543)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

At the beginning of his career it is often said that Luther was apparently sympathetic to Jewish resistance to the Catholic Church. He wrote, early in his career:

The Jews are blood-relations of our Lord; if it were proper to boast of flesh and blood, the Jews belong more to Christ than we. I beg, therefore, my dear Papist, if you become tired of abusing me as a heretic, that you begin to revile me as a Jew.

However, sometime before 1517, in his Letters to Spalatin, we can already see that Luther's hatred of Jews, best seen in this 1543 letter, was not some affectation of old age, but was present very early on. Luther expected Jews to convert to his purified Christianity. When they did not, he turned violently against them.

It is impossible for modern people to read the horrible passages below and not to think of the burning of synagogues in November 1938 on Krystalnacht. Nor would one wish to excuse Luther for this text.

A number of points must, however, be made. The most important concerns the language used. Luther used violent and vulgar language throughout his career: he was not a man to say "manure" when he meant "shit". We do not expect religious figures to use this sort of language in the modern world, but it was not uncommon in the early 16th century. Second, although Luther's comments seem to be proto-Nazi, they are better seen as part of tradition of Medieval Christian anti-semitism. While there is little doubt that Christian anti-Semitism laid the social and cultural basis for modern anti-Semitism, modern anti-Semitism does differ in being based on pseud-scientific notions of race. The Nazis imprisoned and killed Jews who had converted to Christianity: Luther would have welcomed them.

None of this justifies what follows, but it may help to comprehend what is being written here.

The full text of this text is also available

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/luther-jews.html

Harris points out that it is the more intolerant Hadith that most devout Muslims follow, and teh percentage of devout Muslims is much higher than with Christianity. It leaves not much room to misinterpret the requirement that apostates must die. Look at the recent case in Afghanistan. Probably if we weren't so involved in that country and the poor guy wasn't Christian, he would have been killed. One can hope that there is a path to moderation, but Harris paints a grim picture.

[onager]

24. LH summoned me, and here I am!

:hi:

And your Irony Meters will blast off the scale at this one! Today (Monday) is an official Egyptian national holiday. And what holiday finally gave me the time to yak with my atheist buddies?

Why, the birthday of the Prophet Mohammed!

:rofl:

This Harris quote really bothers me: He also points out that there are few (if any) moderate Muslims.

That's just not true in my experience, though I guess it depends on your definition of "moderate." As I've ranted elsewhere, this Grumpy Atheist literally trusts Muslims with his life every day. I've run into a lot more un-moderate American Fundie Xians than I have their Muslim counterparts, at least in Egypt.

I'm racking my brain trying to think of when I have been proselytized by any Muslims in Egypt. It has just never happened to me here. It only happened a couple of times in the world's most Muslim nation, Saudi Arabia, where I managed to live for 2 years without being beheaded or stoned to death. :sarcasm:

One Saudi who half-ass tried to convert me would probably qualify as a "Muslim fundamentalist extremist." He spent years sneaking into Afghanistan with "humanitarian aid," which I suspect was mostly spelled "Kalishnikov" and "RPG." He later did the same thing in Bosnia, where he was killed. I was very sad to hear that. He was a smart, well-educated guy and I always enjoyed talking to him, even though we would have never agreed on religion in a million years.

But like most Muslims I've met, he didn't go around getting in people's faces about his religion. Or theirs. When he tried to "convert" me he approached it in a quiet manner and basically laid out his reasons why he thought Islam was the best religion. When he saw that I didn't agree, he changed the subject. Just like any well-behaved, civilized person would do. Amazing, huh?

This will probably go on too long...typically for me...but let me tell you about my day yesterday, spent in the company of those wild-eyed fanatical, never-moderate Muslims.

It was an unusual day. I had to leave my job site for a few hours, then go back. So along with my driver/translator, I went roaming around the farm villages in the area (the Nile Delta).

Did I get any shouts of "infidel," "heathen" or "you'll burn in hellfire for eternity?" Nope. Just a lot of "marhaba" ("welcome"). Also some "we love Americans" and the usual "Boosh no good."

I was personally hurt by one question, when we stopped for a Falafel Break: "Why do so many Americans hate Arab people?" I've heard that one before, and I always try to explain that we don't. Now all of us know where that perception mostly comes from--the antics of our current mAdministration and idiots like Ann Coulter. But I worry that Harris generalizing about "all Muslims" will just make that sort of thing worse.

Now this was an interesting part of the day. My driver's friend is a doctor in the local government hospital, so we went to visit him. I guess he works in Pediatrics, because we ended up in a room full of Egyptian women and their kids. Also a few nurses. (Oh, for the record, some men brought their kids in too. I guess it works the same as it does in the U.S.--whichever parent is not busy takes the kid to the doctor.)

WHAT? An infidel foreign male mingling with Muslim women? Couldn't I get stoned to death or something?

I guess not. We all had a nice chat, with translating. One of the women...obviously unafraid of Foreign Infidel Contamination...asked me to hold her baby. This was a tiny baby girl, just a few months old. Though in what seems to be an Egyptian custom, her ears were already pierced and she wore little gold stars in them.

When I took the kid, she behaved pretty much like any Western Infidel Baby. First she gave me that Universal Baby Look of "WTF? You're not my Mom!" Then she decided I was OK and I toted her around and played with her for a while. We had a good old time, and the Egyptians seemed to get a big kick out of that. It probably looked pretty funny. I'm childless and don't have much experience with babies.

Now if you were a religious fanatic, would you hand your baby over to Satan's Helper? Probably not, I think...

Later on the driver translated some of their conversation. So I feel safe in reporting that Egyptian Muslim women yakking together talk about the same things as American women. They were not discussing various interpretations of their religious literature. They complained about their husbands, kids and the price of food, etc. Some of them thought I was a visiting doctor, which caused some mirth and...um...earthy comments. (The Wife Of Bath, translated into Arabic, sort of.)

After that we visited with a couple of sisters who run a small store. Their names were Asmaa and Mona. They certainly looked "Arab," though Mona--the younger sister, still in high school--had absolutely startling blue eyes. They were obviously Muslim, since both were wearing the hijab--head-covering.

They are also very good cooks, and I'm not dead yet, so I guess they didn't pave their way to Paradise by poisoning the infidel.

Anyway, I've probably bored you all. But maybe that's the whole point--religion in this Muslim country, Egypt, is just an ordinary part of many people's lives. Same as it is in America, with its 47 churches in every little town. I don't feel any more threatened by the Muslims here, than I do in South Carolina, where I don't go around worried that the Baptist or Presbyterian neighbors might suddenly decide to burn me at the stake.

Must resist temptation to follow that line of reasoning... :-)

So at least from what I've seen, there are plenty of "moderate" Muslims. Could they become raving fanatics? Probably, but so could many of our "moderate, liberal" Xian friends, I suspect, under the right circumstances and the right (wrong) leaders.

Some of those circumstances, of course, being an absolute conviction that an all-powerful Invisible Man In The Sky told you that your beliefs should rule the world. And instead, you see the world effectively ruled by a nation whose founders specifically EXCLUDED an Invisible Man In The Sky from its Constitution. Also a nation that has produced such obviously godless phenomena as Britney Spears and Checkbook Televangelism...

I'll sign off, as I'm starting to ramble even more than usual. I'm having a blast catching up on my DU reading!

[Warpy]

30. Thanks, Onager, my experience has been equivalent

although not even the Saudi royals I cared for tried to convert me. They did try to convince me to move there temporarily to work in their hospitals, presumably at the behest of the family dowager who had herself moved to Egypt in her later years because it was easier for a woman to live there(!). The only religious discussions I've ever had with Muslims were on the cultural differences and how to accomodate them. Nobody has ever tried to push it on me the way that Christians typically do.

The only one I know who went nuts and became a bomb thrower was one I went to high school with, and he was an atheist.

[unschooler]

33. Harris and Dawkins both argue that moderate religionists are

really just people who don't take seriously their own sacred texts. Most Christians, Muslims and Jews fall into that category, fortunately.

[Ladyhawk]

45. I would rather them NOT take those sacred texts seriously.

Those "sacred texts" which include the Old Testament, are immoral and violent to the extreme. Yahweh is a complete prick with no redeeming values at all.

[Ladyhawk]

38. Thanks for the information, onager.

Egypt really has been a bastion of reason in this Muslim vs. Jew vs. Christian problem we have. As you know, some Egyptian moderate leaders have paid the ultimate price for their concessions. Compromise can sometimes be very brave...and very deadly.

I'm really glad to hear that these people are indeed people. There are some DUers who have claimed that Iraqis are not "our kind of people." I can't wrap my mind around that. The pictures I've seen show them grieving just the same as anyone I know would in similar tragic circumstances. :shrug: I can't justify the "collateral damage" in Iraq and don't understand how Sam Harris could, although he did not mention Iraq specifically when he went into his tirade against Muslims and how it's important to kill them--collateral damage and all--so they don't get the bomb. Not in Iraq it isn't. Besides, we attacked these people directly in Fallujah. We tortured them directly in Abu Ghraib and most of them hadn't even committed a crime. That was not "collateral damage." It was a direct attack on innocents. How can it possibly be justified?

Also, I think that once a war has started the potential for unrestrained violence is very real, especially when folks like Rumsfeld are in charge. Those war crime orders came directly from the top. Remember My Lai in Vietnam? Where the hell did that come from? Soldiers and police officers are both given lethal power and sometimes they can't handle it.

Our little foray into Iraq was nothing but a waste of lives, resources and money (except for Halliburton, Bechtel, etc.). No one with any brains or empathy could justify this particular war. One point right-wingers might understand is that we have WASTED OUR TROOPS and materiel on the wrong target. If a real threat rears its head, we might be in deep shit. Sigh. I still haven't heard the words, "I was wrong...the Iraq War was a big mistake" from my mother, my brother or any of the fundies I know at the college. None of them will admit they were wrong. I think they still support the weed, despite all that has happened. I can't believe it. The man lied us into war, outed a CIA agent and spied on Americans without a warrant. These examples are only the tip of the iceberg, yet my family and "friends" still support him and this stupid-ass, bloody war. God, I'm so ashamed.

I wish I could meet these people, onager. I want to meet some real Muslims, not the boogeymen portrayed by the media and by people like Sam Harris. I sometimes wonder if our Christian fundies could kill these Muslims people face-to-face. I wonder what our fundies would think if we dropped them in the middle of a war zone and forced them to confront what is happening? Would anything make them stop supporting this goddamn war?

I hope it isn't racist to say this, but I find dark skin and blue eyes attractive. I saw a picture of an Arab girl with those features and she was beautiful. Of course, it may be that those traits are unusual enough to attract attention. I'm a typical light-skinned, light-haired caucasian with blue eyes. I find men with very dark hair and blue eyes attractive, also, because it isn't all that usual. About a week ago, I came face to face with a Chinese man who was bald except for a small queue. When our eyes met, I was surprised that his were light grey with the barest hint of blue: the color of mist. He looked a LOT like Chun Yow Fat in Crouching Tiger, only with eyes the color of mist. My inner libido went sha-WING!

Okay, I'm going to shut up now, too. I've rambled enough.

[onager]

49. Inner libido, you say?

One of the young women working in my hotel has an Egyptian father and a Chinese mother. :9

I was surprised by all the variety in this "Arab" country. It may be a bit more pronounced here in Alexandria, which had large foreign populations for many decades. I frequently see a local guy buying his grand-daughter ice cream or other junk food in the neighborhood. He looks about as traditionally Arab as possible--dark-skinned with straight black hair and black eyes. The little girl, who is about 7 or 8, has reddish-blonde hair, sort of pale-caramel skin, and green eyes.

[Brewman_Jax]

28. There is a relatively recent example

refer to the history of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, run by the puritans and pilgrims. Salem witch trials, Indian massacres, etc. What can happen with "Fundies gone wild."

[unschooler]

32. That's Sam Harris' point. The U.S. constitution prevents such

literal theocracies, as do the constitutions of many modern nations. This was not the case in the west in the 1600's and it is not the case in many middle-east nations today.

[Random_Australian]

34. If the fundies took over, the constitution would be changed. n/t.

[unschooler]

39. Certainly true.

[GOPFighter]

43. Just off the top of my head...

I believe there are a lot of moderate Muslims, but like progressive Christians, they have trouble speaking out against the radicals.

Would like in America be as bad as life under fundy Muslims? No, because it will never get that bad here. why? Because the real leaders of America are the wealthy corporatists. They are just using the fundy Christians to help them stay in power. They realize religion is the perfect vehicle for creating wedge issues that can only be opposed by criticizing religion. The wealthy will never let the fundies get strong enough to implement Biblical law, because that would also stifle the pleasure of the wealthy; they don't want to live under Biblical law than we do.

However, the wealthy will have to keep throwing the religious right regular concessionsin order to keep them energized so we can expect the seperation of church and state to be torn down little by little as long as the Republicans are in power.

[Ladyhawk]

44. Another problem: Sam Harris's speculation about an afterlife and the idea

that consciousness doesn't necessary reside in the brain is very, very flawed. I see no reason to believe we continue to exist after our brains die. In fact, brain damage very clearly demonstrates a relationship between the brain and consciousness. Once the brain is damaged, consciousness changes. If consciousness were a separate entity, brain damage would not affect it.

I somehow get the idea that Harris is grasping at straws, that perhaps he has not come to terms with his own mortality or the fact that his ideas concerning "collateral damage" mean the end of life for those damaged fatally. Most of true morality is based on the idea that it is wrong to kill people or cause them to suffer. If there is an afterlife, the "sting" is taken out of death and morality becomes more fuzzy. Ironically, he is giving fodder to those who would kill based on religious notions.

After I came to the conclusion my consciousness would not survive the death of my body, I had to do a lot of grieving. I had to deal with a lot of fear. I'd been taught I would live forever and that death was but a passage into a new life. Coming to grips with the near certainty that this is a lie was very, very hard for me. I didn't want to believe I would cease to exist. Realistically, who wants to cease to exist? Who wouldn't wish for a paradise after this life? I've come to the conclusion that it is dangerous to believe something simply because you would like to believe it. It is far better to follow truth and face the fear. Once you've faced the fear, you are forced to deal with this life as it is: the only life you will ever live. Morality becomes more clear. It is oh so wrong to kill indiscriminately or cause suffering because the person who dies or suffers will never have a chance at a better life. He or she will have to deal with the suffering you inflicted in this life.

My 2 cents.

[salvorhardin]

46. I didn't realize Harris was a mystic

Now I'm really starting to dislike the guy.

[toddaa]

53. Harris has a rather superficial understanding of Eastern mysticism

He claims to favor Eastern religion even though he admits to not being very familiar with it. Thus opening the way for Alan Watts, Benjamin Hoff, and Steven Mitchell new agey view of Eastern mysticism.

[ozone_man]

47. I don't think he's right about that

but I think he is right about human needs beyond pure reason and materialism. But he believes that this need can be explored rationally, even scientifically, instead of blind faith. For myself, I don't have many mystical needs that I'm aware of, but I do need to get outdoors, into nature, to feel wilderness around me. In that environment there is a sort of transcendant feeling for me. It's not pure reason. We have evolved to appreciate natural beauty, our senses have too.

A few relevant excerpts from a good review:

Harris writes what a sizable number of us think, but few are willing to say in contemporary America: ‘’We have names for people who have many beliefs for which there is no rational justification. When their beliefs are extremely common, we call them ‘religious’; otherwise, they are likely to be called ‘mad,’ ‘psychotic’ or ‘delusional.’ ‘’ To cite but one example: ‘’Jesus Christ—who, as it turns out, was born of a virgin, cheated death and rose bodily into the heavens—can now be eaten in the form of a cracker. A few Latin words spoken over your favorite Burgundy, and you can drink his blood as well. Is there any doubt that a lone subscriber to these beliefs would be considered mad?’’ The danger of religious faith, he continues, ‘’is that it allows otherwise normal human beings to reap the fruits of madness and consider them holy.

Harris, no pure materialist, acknowledges the human need for a mystical dimension to life, and he conveys something of a Buddhist slant on the nature of consciousness and reality. But he believes that mysticism, like other forms of knowledge, can be approached rationally and explored with the tools of modern neuroscience, without recourse to superstition and credulity.

http://www.samharris.org/index.php/samharris/full-text/new-york-times/

I think the central point he makes in the book is about how tolerance of religion and religious moderates act as road blocks to change in religion. Moderates make all religions seem plausible, while really, they're just different forms of insanity, mass insanity perhaps, but insanity just the same. If religion is made unassailable as it has been through the ages, then it's going to be difficult to change them, and we are in dangerous times to have so much of the world's population believing in and acting on religious delusions.

[unschooler]

52. Harris' premises are anti-monotheism and anti "book" religion.

I think his apparent open-mindedness on some other quasi-religious topics is simply an effort to not broaden the scope of his core assertions.

[Finder]

50. I read the book and did not come away with many...

of the conclusions mentioned in this thread. Sam is a rationalist. His comments on radical islam are right on.

I also think he understands the difference between spirituality and religiosity.

Can I ask where in the book he states we killed civilians unintentionally?