You Guys Need to Communicate! (thoughts from an ex evangelical Christian)

Sam Harris is an atheist and author of The End of Faith, a New York Times bestseller a year or so ago. He believes that fundamentalist beliefs are far more consistent and intellectually honest than those of religious moderates. The fundamentalists have read and understood the books, and they know and believe exactly what they say. Moderates ignore broad portions of the Bible while accepting others without any particularly compelling reasons for distinguishing between them, other than that they're anachronistic or no longer relevant, or even that it just seems right for them. If religion is revealed truth, then fundamentalists have it all over the moderates.I'm not an atheist, but from the standpoint of intellectual integrity I'd have to say that the atheists have it over everybody, including the agnostics.One thing I believe: with so many different religions claiming to have the one revealed truth, they're probably all wrong.--Percy

I'm only just barely able to describe Sam Harris's views on religious moderates, so defending them is probably too much a stretch for me. I think he makes his point very effectively when he speaks, but reproducing those arguments should not be casually attempted. In the video Sam Harris at Idea CIty '05 he gives a very good summary of this view.This view, among other Harris views, is likely to come up in the upcoming Great Debate between Jazzns and Randman.--Percy

On page 45 of the paperback edition of his bookThe End of Faith, Sam Harris gives the shortest summary I've seen so far of his problem with religious moderates: Sam Harris gives an extended presentation of his views in The View From the End of the World. This is an audio-only copy of a Sam Harris address to The Long Now Foundation of San Francisco in December of 2005. It's the same as the short presentation I referenced earlier, but he has the time to provide more examples and make a few additional relevant digressions.--Percy

No, they're two different presentations. In the first one I mentioned in Message 18 (Sam Harris at Idea City '05) Harris has about 18 minutes. In the second one I mentioned in Message 31 (The View From the End of the World) he develops the same ideas over about 80 minutes, so he's able to provide more detail and examples.In the longer presentation he provides four objections to religious moderates, and the first is, I think, the most significant. Beginning around the 18:30 point he says: I see that you and Jar both replied to my short summary of Sam Harris's views on religious moderation from his book The End of Faith. I assumed that the earlier characterizations I provided would allow that short excerpt to be interpreted in context, but that appears not to be the case. I think both you in Message 35 and Jar in Message 33 jumped to some conclusions that only follow if you consider that short Harris excerpt I provided in isolation, and I didn't intend that it be considered that way.My interpretation of what Harris is saying about religious moderation is that its respect for other religious views encourages an atmosphere of tolerance that prevents the necessary objective analysis of religious beliefs, religious beliefs that can be characterized as at best loony and at worst a threat to civilization itself. You have only to look at such things as the Jewish belief that God gave Palestine to the Jews for all time to recognize the dangerous geopolitical consequences of treating such views with respect. The modern state of Israel may or may not have a legitimate basis for existence, but whether God really gave it to the Jews should not be a factor in making that determination.Harris's concern is that the influence of religious moderation makes it at best very difficult to challenge the assertion that Israel belongs to the Jews because God gave it to them, because the simple courtesy of respect for other's religious views places them off-limits from criticism. As Schraf noted, Jar is certainly an exception in this regard, and if there's any such thing as a radical moderate than Jar might be it.I haven't yet decided whether I buy into Harris's positions yet, but I think they're worthy of discussion. You're definitely not alone in disagreeing with his views. At the Beyond Belief 2006 conference, Lawrence Krauss took the position that the science/religion problem is at heart one of education. Harris stated his position by asking the question, "How many engineers and architects flying planes into buildings does it take before we realize this is not an issue of education?"--PercyEdited by Percy, : Minor correction.Edited by Percy, : Grammar.

Well, yes, actually. Harris's position is that this climate of tolerance for other religions allows unfounded and potentially dangerous claims to go unchallenged. This is why I mentioned the Jewish claim that God gave Israel to the Jews. But Harris isn't saying that religious moderates are catering to fundamentalists. I think his position is much closer to Edmund Burke's, "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Challenging and questioning the beliefs of other religions would be the height of intolerance, and so is discouraged.Expanding a little on Harris's views of religious moderation, he also feels it is bears some significant culpability for the west's underestimation of the Islamic threat to civilization. In the religious moderate's view, Islam is actually a religion of peace, and 9/11 was just an action taking by extremist Islamic terrorists who are not representative of mainstream Islam. I think the celebration in the Islamic world that followed 9/11 gives this the lie. Islam includes a strong tradition of violence that religious moderates paper over and hence fail to recognize, to our great peril.--Percy

I believe Harris is assuming, correctly in my opinion, that religious moderates are the dominant group in American society (though fundamentalism is growing). Were they a minority their attitude of religious tolerance wouldn't figure so prominently. Maybe someone has some figures.--Percy

You're sort of making Harris's point for him. Religious tolerance is a fine ideal, most of us here are strongly in favor, but Harris is arguing that we live in a world where the availability of modern technologies of destruction makes such tolerance untenable. He believes that the truly crazy religious ideas that motivate engineers and architects to fly planes into buildings must be challenged rather than held in respect.Underlying all of what Harris says is his belief that essential to a safe modern world is an alignment between our ideas and reality. The idea that you can indiscriminately mass murder Jews by suicide bombing and get 72 virgins in heaven must be challenged rather than classified as that of a few deranged individuals. Harris thinks we are kidding ourselves if we fail to understand the important role that jihad and martyrdom play in Islamic thought, and that we allow them to go unchallenged at our peril. The odds of safely coexisting with such ideas for any extended time period are not good, you can only throw up the bulwarks for so long. Harris is saying that inaction on this front is dangerous and that action is essential.Harris has not that I've noticed so far indicated what form this action should take. Convincing religious moderates to accept that jihad and martyrdom are actually widely accepted concepts within Islam and that crazy religious ideas should be challenged is where he's starting, but where he wants to take it from there I'm not sure, and it's possible he hasn't thought this far ahead.--Percy

I think it would be a mistake to conclude that Harris is merely playing a blame game, as if he were just an atheistic Jerry Falwell casting blame for 9/11 on groups he dislikes. I think his identification of the tolerance of religious moderation as a critical weakness in the west's attitude toward fundamentalism merits some serious consideration.As an aside, it's been interesting observing the reactions of religious moderates in this thread, who appear incredulous that someone could somehow find fault with tolerance. But tolerance isn't always a profitable avenue, witness Neville Chamberlain's attempted appeasement of Hitler prior to World War II. And a substantial portion of the blame for Hitler's early success can be laid at the feet of the disarmament community that was so active throughout most of the 1930's. I think Harris has pretty much said what he means. All of American society would include the fundamentalist community, a group with whom religious tolerance is not usually associated.--Percy

You've raised a common objection to Harris's views, that it isn't religion that motivates men to fly airplanes into buildings and blow themselves up on crowded buses, but other conditions such as poverty or lack of nationhood or lack of education or revenge or desperation and so forth, and that the psychological climate of such men is far more complex than just seeking the glory of martyrdom and eternal happiness in heaven.One Harris reply to this is that if these were the conditions that drive men to terrorism then the repressed Buddhists of Mongolia would be the lead terrorists in the world today. But they're not, because the philosophy of Buddhism takes them in other directions. I think Harris would agree that an Islam not under stress from outside forces would be far less likely to breed terrorists. The problem he sees is that unlike Jainism and Buddhism, Islam reacts to stress with violence and terrorism. Unlike in times past, today their impact can and has been global.--Percy

Hi Archer,The longer we focus on Sam Harris's views the less I feel like I'm in a discussion. My feeling is that you and Anastasia are misinterpreting what Harris is saying, and I was only trying to clearly explain his views as I understand them. I have no problem if you want to reject his views, but I think what you're actually rejecting is a misunderstanding of his views. The more I try to clarify the greater becomes the disparity between what you and Anastasia think he's saying and what I think he's saying, so maybe I better quit before I get behinder.--Percy

Okay, skepticism then. But to me you appear to be skeptical of a misunderstood take on Harris's views. In other words, you're skeptical of things he's not saying. Rather than responding to my attempted characterizations of Harris's views, you're drawing your own conclusions as to their implications and attacking those instead.To this point I've only been trying to get us on the same page regarding what Sam Harris really means. I don't think we're there yet.To attempt to draw us back into the discussion, my last point was that Harris believes that the tradition of religious tolerance among moderates is a critical weakness in the way the west approaches the threat of fundamentalist religious belief throughout the world. As I said earlier, and perhaps it was to Anastasia so maybe you didn't see it, I think Harris's first goal is to convince people that this is a real and serious problem, and that I'm not aware at this point of solutions that Harris has proposed. Certainly your example of the Lutherans does not seem like a proposal he would seriously entertain.I think what you and Anastasia are wondering is, "Okay, if religious tolerance puts us at untenable risk in a world of technologies of mass destruction, then what reasonable actions can we take?" This is a good and important question. I haven't finished The End of Faith yet (as a tough read I find it a surprising best seller), so I don't know if Harris addresses this question, but it would be very interesting to brain storm about reasonable possibilities.I've been puzzling about why this topic is drawing emotional reactions, and a thought just struck me. Perhaps the way you're reacting to these ideas is because you see Harris as using the threat of fundamentalism only as a rationale for attacking his true enemy, all of religion; that he's just an opportunist grasping at the events of 9/11 and after to forward his own anti-religion agenda. I don't think Anastasia sees it this way as she's already on record as believing he's doing this for the money. But questioning motivation is a debate tactic designed to distract attention from the ideas under consideration, and I hope we can avoid spending much time on them.--Percy

Both you and Archer have questioned what Harris actually means by religious moderate. If I come across the answer somewhere I'll pass it on, but my guess is that you're largely correct, that it is anyone who is not a fundamentalist, atheist or agnostic. We Americans pride ourselves on our country's freedom of religion, and a general climate of religious toleration is widely prevalent. One example I've provided so far is the idea that you get 72 virgins and eternal bliss in heaven if you martyr yourself by killing the enemies of Islam, namely men, women and children who happen to be Jews in Israel or who work in skyscrapers in America. Another example provided by Harris is the danger of having policy set by those who believe that a mushroom cloud rising over Jerusalem would be a tragic event with a silver lining, because it would herald the end times that will bring glorious rapture to the saved. We want policy set by those who sincerely believe in preserving the human race for thousands of year, and not by those who think Jesus will be returning and bringing the materialistic world to an end in their lifetimes.I understand that you don't think blame can be laid at the door of religious tolerance. You don't see what good could be served by an America that by and large saw Islam as a faith of violence. That would simply reduce whatever dialogue already exists, increase paranoia in the Islamic world, and would probably increase suicide bombings and other terrorist acts. I think this argument is somewhat along the lines of the point Archer is trying to make, and I of course accept this argument because it is obviously true. That's why I don't think Harris is proposing anything like this.In other words, increasing the fires of religious strife is not Harris's goal. I think he understands the dangers of upping the ante by overt challenges to deeply held religious beliefs. Archer's scenarios, such as the Lutherans, were obviously wrongheaded approaches few would ever think worth considering, and unless someone can find evidence that Harris is proposing such ideas I don't think it's worth spending any time discussing them.I think Harris views religious tolerance as a dangerous enabler. Think of tolerance as analogous to the enabling behavior that is discouraged with alcoholics. No one can actually cure an alcoholic, typically they only begin recovery when they achieve realization on their own, but there are many behaviors of family and friends that can enable alcoholic behavior and increase the likelihood of it continuing. My guess is that Harris believes that tolerance should be replaced by simple honest reactions to daffy religious beliefs.To draw an analog to a conversation at a large dinner party where you accidentally say something incredibly stupid, tolerance is when you draw reactions like, "Well, that's an interesting point of view. Can you tell us more?" Confrontation would be when someone loudly says, "Well, that's incredibly stupid," and then a fight ensues. And I think what Harris is imagining is replacing tolerance with honest reactions, where people would say nothing but quiet "ahems" and just stare at their napkins in embarrassment for you. This is the way bad ideas become marginalized. Just a clarification. Religious tolerance isn't causing the fundamentalist threat to be ignored. It's hard to ignore 767's colliding with skyscrapers. Rather, it is causing the threat to be underestimated and misunderstood. It is allowing the threat to be characterized as one rooted in economics or politics or education, and perpetrated by extremists whose beliefs aren't shared by the wider community of which they are a part.But the evidence says this isn't so. The men who flew those planes were middle class with higher degrees, and a large percentage of the Islamic world considers them heroes. As Steven Weinberg, Nobel laureate, has said, "I think that on the balance the moral influence of religion has been awful. With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil. But for good people to do evil -- that takes religion."--Percy

I guess it should come as no surprise that as a Unitarian I fail all of these. Couldn't you add one about believing in God so I wouldn't feel so left out? --Percy