I like a lot of what he is saying, but he seems to waffle a bit between saying there are many peaks and valleys in the moral landscape but also that there is a Right Answer that science can provide. I went to his website to read more about his ideas and was disappointed to find this:
I should add that, like Christopher Hitchens, he is (correctly, in my view) faulting popular religion while Karen Armstrong, while certainly not a heavyweight philosopher/theologian, is closer to that space than to popular religion.
It was an entertaining talk. Harris is articulate and for the most part I agree with his ideas about morality. But I don't see how science leads us to the conclusion that morality consists in promoting the well-being of all conscious creatures, or that all those grounded in science would all agree on moral principles. Indeed, both Ayn Rand's objectivism and Herbert Spencer's social Darwinism claimed to be scientifically -- or at least rationally -- based, and both claimed that to raise a finger to help someone else in need is an immoral act. Both would roundly condemn Obama's health reform as profoundly immoral -- and claim that their judgment was scientifically based.
Not too long ago Stanley Fish discussed Steven Smith's new book, “The Disenchantment of Secular Discourse,” in which Smith argues that secular reasoning cannot provide a basis for morality. http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/22/are-there-secular-reasons/
Smith says that once you reduce the world to a bunch of particles randomly colliding and sometimes forming complex systems, it's hard to come up with a justification for morality. It happens, of course, but only by smuggling essentially religious ideas into the conversation -- introducing them "incognito under some sort of secular disguise." Which, in my view, is exactly what Harris did in his talk.
While I support your claim that science can (and has) lead us to immoral decisions (at least based on societal views either at or shortly after the decisions were made), I think Stanley Fish and Steven Smith are heading in a somewhat simplistic and confining direction.
It's not necessarily smuggling in religions ideas, it's smuggling in cultural, experiential, personal, societal, "the piece of undigested beef", and thousands of other factors in coming with a moral decision. But it is all in the name of making a moral decision that is rational. Rational is a human based, language based, temporal (as we currently understand time) based, existential based process. If Steven Smith is saying that rational decisions are inferior to religious ones (and I'm not sure what he means by that), then I think he is limiting himself.
What about Sam Harris's article was disappointing to you? I'm not asking this confrontationally, just curious.
And Myk, I understand your point about how so-called rational or non-religious secular reasoning such as Rand's or Spencer's can result in positions that many people consider immoral, but the difference is they don't demand that their ideas be treated as dogma or insist on exemption from criticism. (Though it may not seem that way when talking to many Objectivists). Their philosophies are frameworks of ideas competing in a marketplace among many other ideas, and are subject to debate and revision- a quality not exactly encouraged in most religious discourse.
Harris basically says that, given the choice between a 2,000 year old book and the scientific method, we can at least come a bit closer to a consensus on moral matters when relying on reason rather than dogma.
And I think the other important point he made was we should abandon the cringing, reluctant attitude that so many of us have when confronted by moral questions with obvious answers (ie. the subjugation of women) which are only ever excused when they're practiced by other cultures.
I like you intro, we should all place that at the top of our posts.
I could quote individual lines like:
"In any case, I am hopeful that Armstrong’s winsome depiction of Islam will shame and enlighten them, as it has me. They will discover that Hassan al-Banna and Tariq Ramadan are paragons of meliorism and wisdom, while we are ignorant bigots who know nothing of theology (of course), politics (Christopher, are you listening?), human nature (what’s to know?), or the proper limits of science (um ... narrower?)."
Like the above, his whole article pokes fun at Armstrong and doesn't really carry on a meaning dialogue with her. Her response, on the other hand, is measured and without sarcasm.
So to answer your question, his tone.
Now, in his defense, the video shows a much more measured person, who, as you so well put in you post, wants to place "ideas competing in a marketplace among many other ideas, and are subject to debate and revision" and then comes the key to the whole problem...
"A QUALITY NOT EXACTLY ENCOURAGED IN MOST RELIGIOUS DISCOURSE."
This is completely true in the religious domain in which Harris and Hitchens are talking. I mean that honestly. They are right. BUT, and I can't emphasize this enough, it is completely antithetical to the domain of Armstrong (and other philosophers/theologians and I'll include myself, and at least as far as I know and how we debated, my immediate family)
To put it a different way one side is talking about the way religion is, for the most part, practiced (at least perceived as popular practice); the other side is talking about, as Armstrong puts it "the endless search for meaning."
I've posted too much, but I do love philosophy and ideas, so sometimes I can't help myself. I thought of an analogy that you can relate to.
To me and I believe Karen Armstrong, philosophy/religion is like the Castle for the Lampoon--anything goes...absolutely anything.
Some (sadly, not just Bob) have said the best thing you can say about God is that he/she/the verb doesn't exist. Armstrong has written quite a bit about this and writes how ancient holy(?) men(?) would go off and contemplate the transcendence of that notion. Then they would come together and try their hardest to expound on that transcendence, i.e. God, and the next one would take it a step further. "But the person who won the competition was the person who reduced all of his opponents to silence."
You may like Karen Armstrong. One positive thing about her is that she is very accessible, unlike some. Of course you will disagree with some of her ideas also, as I do. One thing you will like about her, she has no use for the afterlife.
Yeah, it is too sarcastic- seems he was getting fed up with being called ill-informed. And yes, a common criticism of Harris, Hitchens, et. al. is that they attack only the most literal of interpretations of religion, while ignoring the more measured, watered-down version of religious thought that the more progressive among us choose to follow.
However, I think that Hitchens has the best rebuttal to this line of argumentation, which can be found in this interview: http://www.portlandmonthlymag.com/arts-and-entertainment/category/books-and-talks/articles/christopher-hitchens/
I'll excerpt the salient question:
"The religion you cite in your book is generally the fundamentalist faith of various kinds. I’m a liberal Christian, and I don’t take the stories from the scripture literally. I don’t believe in the doctrine of atonement (that Jesus died for our sins, for example). Do you make and distinction between fundamentalist faith and liberal religion?"
Hitchens: "I would say that if you don’t believe that Jesus of Nazareth was the Christ and Messiah, and that he rose again from the dead and by his sacrifice our sins are forgiven, you’re really not in any meaningful sense a Christian."
In other words, those of us who take a la carte which teachings to take seriously and which to ignore, is, in a certain sense, not really a religious person. Rather, it seems like evidence for a pretty strong moral inclination innate in us; the ability to distinguish, rather easily, the difference between moral edicts found in the bible (treat others as you would expect to be treated), and the immoral ones (commit genocide against the Amalekites).
I do like Karen Armstrong's idea about how "anything goes". It would be great step forward if the majority of religious believers in the world felt like that.
"In other words, those of us who take a la carte which teachings to take seriously and which to ignore, is, in a certain sense, not really a religious person."
Bingo!! Here is the problem. Any real religious person including Karen Armstrong would NEVER follow a pre-ordained set of principles--it is "the endless search for meaning" that makes one religious.
As kids, when Mother would drive us home after Sunday mass we would unmercifully criticize the sermon as hearsay. One of our favorite little stories was this: (it is a metaphor, please don't think we believed in the pearly gates) When you die and go up to St. Peter at the pearly gates he will ask you, "Why did you protest against pro choice?" or "Why did you not eat the meat that your host so generously gave you on Friday?" or any other topic that the sermon addressed. Any your answer was, "Because I was following the doctrine of the Church." St. Peter: "WRONG!! You can not relinquish your own responsibility for your life! Off to hell."
Every religion, as far as I know, up holds this principle, even though many followers, even the clergy, don't realize it. Myk could give more details.
However, it is a legitimate question. How can you believe what you want and still be called a Catholic or Christian or whatever? Again Myk could provide you with more details, but basically, a church or organized religion is just (an earthly structure) there to lend a hand. Like a bowling club it may reserve some time for your game. It doesn't really mean anything other than a support group. If it doesn't do that (which obviously in many areas it doesn't) then it is failing.
Now others are going to be a little cross with me because that may be simplistic but it begins to address the question.
Again, Jim, I would love it if more religious people actually practiced religion in this way. The problem is many, many millions, (most likely billions, but I'll err on the absolute bottom end) of people do not have such a skeptical attitude towards religious belief, and the reason for this is expressly because the religious texts themselves demand servile obedience.
You say that every religion encourages the questioning of accepted religious doctrine. This is simply untrue.
The religious texts followed by the three major monotheisms insist on their inerrant infallibility.
The Koran says, in the most declarative, Hemingway-esque sentences possible, that apostasy is a sin. In other words, if you dare to question the faith you are doing something very, very wrong. Not only that, but such a pronouncement is also cited as justification- every single day, in the 21st century, all across the world- to execute people for blasphemy, witchcraft, homosexuality, and apostasy. All are egregious crimes against the one true faith, as it was recorded and demanded in a book written about 1500 years ago.
Now, people will say things like: "This isn't what most Muslims believe, it's a religion of peace, etc. etc.", but it doesn't speak well of your holy text if it's so easily and commonly interpreted in exactly the way it was written.
Evangelical Christians say you MUST believe in Christ to go to heaven. This is non-negotiable point. Either you do, or you don't. Millions of people swear by this, and if given the chance, they would have said to an impertinent, spunky young Jim that his doubts were put there by the Devil.
And so on and so on and so on.
The point isn't that questioning can't be fostered in religion. But by it's very nature, it is an uphill battle.
I agree completely. There is a HUGE gulf between the two camps--what I would call the truly religious and the indoctrinated religious. That is why Karen Armstrong and Sam Harris have practically no common ground.
Don't say "You say that every religion encourages the questioning of accepted religious doctrine. This is simply untrue." however, because Myk with most likely serve you up quotes from Thomas Aquinas to some obscure Sufi master.
Another point is this. These religions were born by people who came up with extraordinary philosophical ideas. They really were revolutionary. As Peter often includes in his Lenten letters, religion is to shock people into reassessing what is proper and what is not. It is a shame general religion has lost that revolutionary, shocking attitude.
But again you are right that most people practice a very childlike and servile religion. That is why we pretty much lost touch with that kind of thinking long ago. It's why I can't get too excited about Harris or Hitchens chastising religion. We did that long ago and moved on. Now I agree it is something that has value, but it's like teaching third grade...you can only do it so long before you start picking up third grade attitudes.
I'm have trouble with my account. What I meant to say was: I'm being too elitist here. I should read more of Harris and Hitchens (and Dawkins and Andre Comte-Sonville)
I must say, this has been one of the most thoughtful dialogues I've read in some time. It's too bad I wasn't aware of this earlier, or maybe not, because I wouldn't have gotten a lick of work done this afternoon.
I must, of course, weigh in on Jim's (James I) side. It seems that at least there is some recognition that religion can exist in both positive and negative forms. I want to suggest that religion as "the endless search for meaning" may be closer to the mark of true religion and more widespread than anyone suspects. The notion that I know the will of God and, therefore, I know that God hates fags, is not religion at all, but some form of grandiose self-delusion.
While there is a lot of talk about blindly following of authority in Catholicism, for example, that's not really part of Catholic orthodoxy. Thomas Aquinas, Mr. Catholicism himself, said that it is more important to follow one's conscience than Church authority: "It is better to perish in excommunication than to violate one's conscience." John Henry Newman centuries later, echoed this view: "I shall drink . . To Conscience first, and to the Pope afterwards." And more recently: "We follow church leaders only to the extent that they themselves follow Christ. . . Some situations oblige one to obey God and one's own conscience rather than the leaders of the church. Indeed, one may even be obliged to accept excommunication rather than act against one's own conscience." (Cardinal Walter Kasper, Head of Ecumenical Matters at the Vatican.) Following one's own conscience sounds a lot like a search for meaning, at least a search for right and wrong.
What lies behind this view, as Jim pointed out, is the fundamental idea that on the last day we are judged alone, and the Nuremberg defense "I was only following orders" will not allow us to escape from the wrath to come. One cannot, at that point, appeal to a higher authority. It's not so much that we should examine things and decide on our own -- it's that we must. There's no escaping the responsibility.
And even if it was written 2000 years ago, the Bible has a few choice words on this. Jesus himself says, exasperated: "And why can't you decide for yourselves what is right?" Luke 12:57. (as he criticizes people for taking their disputes to a judge rather than working them out for themselves -- hardly an endorsement of the practice of deferring to authority.)
Jim promised you a quote from me from Thomas Aquinas, and I have complied. I now supply the quote Jim promised from a sufi mystic. This time it's Jalal ad-Dīn Muhammad Rumi (Rumi for short):
Guest House
This being human is a guest house Every morning a new arrival. A joy, a depression, a meanness, some momentary awareness comes as an unexpected visitor. Welcome and entertain them all! Even if they are a crowd of sorrows, who violently sweep your house empty of its furniture, still treat each guest honorably. He may be clearing you out for some new delight. The dark thought, the shame, the malice, meet them at the door laughing, and invite them in. Be grateful for whoever comes, because each has been sent as a guide from beyond.
True religion is an openness to the world. And if you consider the endless debates among numerous Christian thinkers over the centuries, you can't say that these ideas do not "compet[e] in a marketplace among many other ideas, and are subject to debate and revision." We're not burning people at the stake anymore. The four horsemen -- Hitchens, Dawkins, Dennett and Harris -- simply do not get it as far as I can tell. They think they they are superior to religion and fully understand it, but for my money they barely scratch the surface.
Caveat: This post is potentially nonsensiscal and possibly will add nothing to the conversation.
When I was at Dickinson, Karen Armstrong came to speak. I cannot for the life of me remember what it was about, although it was only a few years after 9/11 and I think it had something to do with that. Anyway, I had two religion professors at the time (the first was a professor of the history of Christianity. He also taught courses on Islam. He was also an Orthodox priest. Actually one of the smartest and best professors I have ever had. The other, also a great professor, specialized in Indian culture and relgion - which are very strongly connected.) All I really remember from Karen Armstrong's talk was that the Orthodox priest professor was as excited as I had ever seen him. I have too much respect for him to say this, but if he had started drooling in anticipation I would not have been surprised. The other professor HATED Karen Armstrong (actually, he probably just hated her books, she seemed like a wonderful woman). I can't remember the reasons exactly for the like and dislike expressed by my professors (I think the one that hated her felt she dumbed down religion to a point that it became useless to study - but don't quote me on that.) The really interesting part of the whole thing was how diametrically opposed these two professors were. In fact, the one that didn't like her was clearly in the minority. Like I said, I don't know what that has to do with this conversation, but I just remembered Karen Armstrong had come to speak (does it say something that I remember nothing about her talk only my two professors opposite views?)
She must not have had much to say, at least to you, if you don't remember it. The first time I came across her was listening to NPR on the radio which rebroadcast a Chautauqua lecture she gave. I was so impressed I started reading her books.
However, I will readily admit that she is not cutting edge religion or philosophy. I guess I like her because, as James points out, you rarely ever hear meaningful religious thought expressed. And, as I said, she is very approachable.
As to potentially nonsensical, you can rarely go wrong with real life stories and, as I am reminded, you can never post too much.
In reading these comments over, I have come up with an idea which potentially could have a greater impact than Harris, Hitchins, et al., in bringing people to their senses about religion.
We need someone to write a new comedy series staring a priest/rabbi/mullah/whatever who keeps running up against these ridiculously childish religious views. He could be as witty and sarcastic as Hitchens, but also be as warm and forgiving as...I don't know...Rumi. The show would get incredible publicity by being condemned by every religion, but praised by the knowledgeable in those religions. (Fr. Hegge used to say that a priest was not doing his job if he did not get a letter from his bishop each month.)
If such a show was ever approved for production (The movie "The TV Set" would seem to indicate this would be difficult.), it would be the most talked about, written about, most publicized, and thus most popular show on TV. And, if done right, it could even cause some people to re-evaluate some of the silly notions they hold about religion.
Jim makes an interesting comment when he says that he likes Karen Armstrong because you rarely ever hear meaningful religious thought expressed.
It's interesting because there was a time -- my formative years -- when there was a lot of interesting talk about religion floating about.
I confess that if I had to choose between Pat Robertson and Mr. Hitchens, I'm with Hitchens all the way. But there was a time when a third voice, the voice of Karen Armstrong, was heard much more widely and more forcefully than it is today. This voice was not only louder but more cutting edge and more intellectually vigorous than Armstrong (in my humble opinion).
Just to get a sense of what you all missed out on, here is a sample:
We define religion as the assumption that life has meaning. . . . One's religious attitude is to be found at that point where he has a conviction that there are values in human existence worth living and dying for. Rollo May
The history of religions is destined to play an important role in contemporary cultural life. This is not only because an understanding of exotic and archaic religions will significantly assist in a cultural dialogue with the representatives of such religions. It is more especially because ... the history of religions will inevitably attain to a deeper knowledge of man. It is on the basis of such knowledge that a new humanism, on a world-wide scale, could develop. Mircea Eliade
Every religion is true one way or another. It is true when understood metaphorically. But when it gets stuck in its own metaphors, interpreting them as facts, then you are in trouble. Joseph Campbell
Being religious means asking passionately the question of the meaning of our existence and being willing to receive answers, even if the answers hurt. Paul Tillich
The courage to be is rooted in the God who appears when God has disappeared in the anxiety of doubt. Paul Tillich
The Christian of the future will be a mystic or he will not exist at all. Karl Rahner
As a matter of fact, you have deficiencies in all religions, but you have truth in all religions. Hans Kung
There is no salvation outside the world. Edward Schillebeeckx
Sadly, Schillebeeckx, one of the most profound thinkers at least in my day, died recently on Dec. 23 at the age of 95.
Here is my short response. I see nothing in Harris' statement that is misguided or, for that matter, controversial. (Well...that should be controversial.)
I have two thoughts here. One, how is "maximize human wellbeing" different from "love thy neighbor," especially when our neighbor includes the Samaritans? Indeed, just like Harris, Christianity distinguishes between answers in practice and answers in principle ("For all the law is fulfilled in this one saying: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.'" Galatians 5:13-14)
The other curious thing here is while Harris, the atheist, is trying to establish an objective scientifically based morality, Christian thinkers are pushing relativism. "The knowledge of good and evil appears to be the goal of all ethical reflection. The first task of Christian ethics is to invalidate that knowledge." D. Bonhoeffer, Ethics. "What the serpent had in mind [when he promised Adam and Eve that they would become as God] is the establishment of ethics." K. Barth, Church Dogmatics.
On your first point, I would like to say that, with risk of simplifying Harris, he is basically saying moral behavior should be approached rationally. (He uses the term (big) science.) So I think everyone is in agreement here...except for those who know the will of God, i.e. practicing "some grandiose self-delusion."
As to the second point, I think it is hard to pin down Harris here. I just don't know enough about him. As I said much earlier, sometimes he seems to waffle. I know this will be a point of contention, so let me suggest this. As to forcing half the population to wear uncomfortable clothing, there appears to be little rational basis for this. Clearly this points to less than optimal well-being or loving thy neighbor.
On the other hand, the fact that wealth is unevenly distributed does not create the same 'rational' response in most people. To me redistribution of wealth clearly increases well-being. I doubt that Harris would be willing to advocate that, but maybe I underestimate him.
There are at least two problems here. One, people are not static creatures. It is why all attempts to come up with universal rules for education, economics, or any of the social sciences including ethics are doomed to failure. But that doesn't mean we don't keep trying, while recognizing we must continually re-evaluate.
Two, there is a difference between (and maybe this is also the difference between practice and principle) deciding something is wrong, (i.e. slavery, forced bag wearing), and how to correct it. ("We had to destroy the town to save it.")
26 comments:
I like a lot of what he is saying, but he seems to waffle a bit between saying there are many peaks and valleys in the moral landscape but also that there is a Right Answer that science can provide. I went to his website to read more about his ideas and was disappointed to find this:
http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/the-god-fraud/
To his credit he allows the Karen Armstrong powerful rebuttal to remain on his site.
I should add that, like Christopher Hitchens, he is (correctly, in my view) faulting popular religion while Karen Armstrong, while certainly not a heavyweight philosopher/theologian, is closer to that space than to popular religion.
It was an entertaining talk. Harris is articulate and for the most part I agree with his ideas about morality. But I don't see how science leads us to the conclusion that morality consists in promoting the well-being of all conscious creatures, or that all those grounded in science would all agree on moral principles. Indeed, both Ayn Rand's objectivism and Herbert Spencer's social Darwinism claimed to be scientifically -- or at least rationally -- based, and both claimed that to raise a finger to help someone else in need is an immoral act. Both would roundly condemn Obama's health reform as profoundly immoral -- and claim that their judgment was scientifically based.
Not too long ago Stanley Fish discussed Steven Smith's new book, “The Disenchantment of Secular Discourse,” in which Smith argues that secular reasoning cannot provide a basis for morality. http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/22/are-there-secular-reasons/
Smith says that once you reduce the world to a bunch of particles randomly colliding and sometimes forming complex systems, it's hard to come up with a justification for morality. It happens, of course, but only by smuggling essentially religious ideas into the conversation -- introducing them "incognito under some sort of secular disguise." Which, in my view, is exactly what Harris did in his talk.
While I support your claim that science can (and has) lead us to immoral decisions (at least based on societal views either at or shortly after the decisions were made), I think Stanley Fish and Steven Smith are heading in a somewhat simplistic and confining direction.
It's not necessarily smuggling in religions ideas, it's smuggling in cultural, experiential, personal, societal, "the piece of undigested beef", and thousands of other factors in coming with a moral decision. But it is all in the name of making a moral decision that is rational. Rational is a human based, language based, temporal (as we currently understand time) based, existential based process. If Steven Smith is saying that rational decisions are inferior to religious ones (and I'm not sure what he means by that), then I think he is limiting himself.
Jim-
What about Sam Harris's article was disappointing to you? I'm not asking this confrontationally, just curious.
And Myk, I understand your point about how so-called rational or non-religious secular reasoning such as Rand's or Spencer's can result in positions that many people consider immoral, but the difference is they don't demand that their ideas be treated as dogma or insist on exemption from criticism. (Though it may not seem that way when talking to many Objectivists). Their philosophies are frameworks of ideas competing in a marketplace among many other ideas, and are subject to debate and revision- a quality not exactly encouraged in most religious discourse.
Harris basically says that, given the choice between a 2,000 year old book and the scientific method, we can at least come a bit closer to a consensus on moral matters when relying on reason rather than dogma.
And I think the other important point he made was we should abandon the cringing, reluctant attitude that so many of us have when confronted by moral questions with obvious answers (ie. the subjugation of women) which are only ever excused when they're practiced by other cultures.
I like you intro, we should all place that at the top of our posts.
I could quote individual lines like:
"In any case, I am hopeful that Armstrong’s winsome depiction of Islam will shame and enlighten them, as it has me. They will discover that Hassan al-Banna and Tariq Ramadan are paragons of meliorism and wisdom, while we are ignorant bigots who know nothing of theology (of course), politics (Christopher, are you listening?), human nature (what’s to know?), or the proper limits of science (um ... narrower?)."
Like the above, his whole article pokes fun at Armstrong and doesn't really carry on a meaning dialogue with her. Her response, on the other hand, is measured and without sarcasm.
So to answer your question, his tone.
Now, in his defense, the video shows a much more measured person, who, as you so well put in you post, wants to place "ideas competing in a marketplace among many other ideas, and are subject to debate and revision" and then comes the key to the whole problem...
"A QUALITY NOT EXACTLY ENCOURAGED IN MOST RELIGIOUS DISCOURSE."
This is completely true in the religious domain in which Harris and Hitchens are talking. I mean that honestly. They are right. BUT, and I can't emphasize this enough, it is completely antithetical to the domain of Armstrong (and other philosophers/theologians and I'll include myself, and at least as far as I know and how we debated, my immediate family)
To put it a different way one side is talking about the way religion is, for the most part, practiced (at least perceived as popular practice); the other side is talking about, as Armstrong puts it "the endless search for meaning."
I've posted too much, but I do love philosophy and ideas, so sometimes I can't help myself. I thought of an analogy that you can relate to.
To me and I believe Karen Armstrong, philosophy/religion is like the Castle for the Lampoon--anything goes...absolutely anything.
Some (sadly, not just Bob) have said the best thing you can say about God is that he/she/the verb doesn't exist. Armstrong has written quite a bit about this and writes how ancient holy(?) men(?) would go off and contemplate the transcendence of that notion. Then they would come together and try their hardest to expound on that transcendence, i.e. God, and the next one would take it a step further. "But the person who won the competition was the person who reduced all of his opponents to silence."
You may like Karen Armstrong. One positive thing about her is that she is very accessible, unlike some. Of course you will disagree with some of her ideas also, as I do. One thing you will like about her, she has no use for the afterlife.
Yeah, it is too sarcastic- seems he was getting fed up with being called ill-informed. And yes, a common criticism of Harris, Hitchens, et. al. is that they attack only the most literal of interpretations of religion, while ignoring the more measured, watered-down version of religious thought that the more progressive among us choose to follow.
However, I think that Hitchens has the best rebuttal to this line of argumentation, which can be found in this interview: http://www.portlandmonthlymag.com/arts-and-entertainment/category/books-and-talks/articles/christopher-hitchens/
I'll excerpt the salient question:
"The religion you cite in your book is generally the fundamentalist faith of various kinds. I’m a liberal Christian, and I don’t take the stories from the scripture literally. I don’t believe in the doctrine of atonement (that Jesus died for our sins, for example). Do you make and distinction between fundamentalist faith and liberal religion?"
Hitchens: "I would say that if you don’t believe that Jesus of Nazareth was the Christ and Messiah, and that he rose again from the dead and by his sacrifice our sins are forgiven, you’re really not in any meaningful sense a Christian."
In other words, those of us who take a la carte which teachings to take seriously and which to ignore, is, in a certain sense, not really a religious person. Rather, it seems like evidence for a pretty strong moral inclination innate in us; the ability to distinguish, rather easily, the difference between moral edicts found in the bible (treat others as you would expect to be treated), and the immoral ones (commit genocide against the Amalekites).
Oh, and Jim- there's no such thing as posting too much!
One more thing-
I do like Karen Armstrong's idea about how "anything goes". It would be great step forward if the majority of religious believers in the world felt like that.
"In other words, those of us who take a la carte which teachings to take seriously and which to ignore, is, in a certain sense, not really a religious person."
Bingo!! Here is the problem. Any real religious person including Karen Armstrong would NEVER follow a pre-ordained set of principles--it is "the endless search for meaning" that makes one religious.
As kids, when Mother would drive us home after Sunday mass we would unmercifully criticize the sermon as hearsay. One of our favorite little stories was this: (it is a metaphor, please don't think we believed in the pearly gates)
When you die and go up to St. Peter at the pearly gates he will ask you, "Why did you protest against pro choice?" or "Why did you not eat the meat that your host so generously gave you on Friday?" or any other topic that the sermon addressed. Any your answer was, "Because I was following the doctrine of the Church."
St. Peter: "WRONG!! You can not relinquish your own responsibility for your life! Off to hell."
Every religion, as far as I know, up holds this principle, even though many followers, even the clergy, don't realize it. Myk could give more details.
However, it is a legitimate question. How can you believe what you want and still be called a Catholic or Christian or whatever? Again Myk could provide you with more details, but basically, a church or organized religion is just (an earthly structure) there to lend a hand. Like a bowling club it may reserve some time for your game. It doesn't really mean anything other than a support group. If it doesn't do that (which obviously in many areas it doesn't) then it is failing.
Now others are going to be a little cross with me because that may be simplistic but it begins to address the question.
Again, Jim, I would love it if more religious people actually practiced religion in this way. The problem is many, many millions, (most likely billions, but I'll err on the absolute bottom end) of people do not have such a skeptical attitude towards religious belief, and the reason for this is expressly because the religious texts themselves demand servile obedience.
You say that every religion encourages the questioning of accepted religious doctrine. This is simply untrue.
The religious texts followed by the three major monotheisms insist on their inerrant infallibility.
The Koran says, in the most declarative, Hemingway-esque sentences possible, that apostasy is a sin. In other words, if you dare to question the faith you are doing something very, very wrong. Not only that, but such a pronouncement is also cited as justification- every single day, in the 21st century, all across the world- to execute people for blasphemy, witchcraft, homosexuality, and apostasy. All are egregious crimes against the one true faith, as it was recorded and demanded in a book written about 1500 years ago.
Now, people will say things like: "This isn't what most Muslims believe, it's a religion of peace, etc. etc.", but it doesn't speak well of your holy text if it's so easily and commonly interpreted in exactly the way it was written.
Evangelical Christians say you MUST believe in Christ to go to heaven. This is non-negotiable point. Either you do, or you don't. Millions of people swear by this, and if given the chance, they would have said to an impertinent, spunky young Jim that his doubts were put there by the Devil.
And so on and so on and so on.
The point isn't that questioning can't be fostered in religion. But by it's very nature, it is an uphill battle.
I agree completely. There is a HUGE gulf between the two camps--what I would call the truly religious and the indoctrinated religious. That is why Karen Armstrong and Sam Harris have practically no common ground.
Don't say "You say that every religion encourages the questioning of accepted religious doctrine. This is simply untrue." however, because Myk with most likely serve you up quotes from Thomas Aquinas to some obscure Sufi master.
Another point is this. These religions were born by people who came up with extraordinary philosophical ideas. They really were revolutionary. As Peter often includes in his Lenten letters, religion is to shock people into reassessing what is proper and what is not. It is a shame general religion has lost that revolutionary, shocking attitude.
But again you are right that most people practice a very childlike and servile religion. That is why we pretty much lost touch with that kind of thinking long ago. It's why I can't get too excited about Harris or Hitchens chastising religion. We did that long ago and moved on. Now I agree it is something that has value, but it's like teaching third grade...you can only do it so long before you start picking up third grade attitudes.
Jim - besides Harris and Hutchins (and you can't leave out Dawkins of course), you should also try my personal favorite, Andre Comte-Sponville
Harris and Hitchins
I'm have trouble with my account. What I meant to say was:
I'm being too elitist here. I should read more of Harris and Hitchens (and Dawkins and Andre Comte-Sonville)
I must say, this has been one of the most thoughtful dialogues I've read in some time. It's too bad I wasn't aware of this earlier, or maybe not, because I wouldn't have gotten a lick of work done this afternoon.
I must, of course, weigh in on Jim's (James I) side. It seems that at least there is some recognition that religion can exist in both positive and negative forms. I want to suggest that religion as "the endless search for meaning" may be closer to the mark of true religion and more widespread than anyone suspects. The notion that I know the will of God and, therefore, I know that God hates fags, is not religion at all, but some form of grandiose self-delusion.
While there is a lot of talk about blindly following of authority in Catholicism, for example, that's not really part of Catholic orthodoxy. Thomas Aquinas, Mr. Catholicism himself, said that it is more important to follow one's conscience than Church authority: "It is better to perish in excommunication than to violate one's conscience." John Henry Newman centuries later, echoed this view: "I shall drink . . To Conscience first, and to the Pope afterwards." And more recently: "We follow church leaders only to the extent that they themselves follow Christ. . . Some situations oblige one to obey God and one's own conscience rather than the leaders of the church. Indeed, one may even be obliged to accept excommunication rather than act against one's own conscience." (Cardinal Walter Kasper, Head of Ecumenical Matters at the Vatican.) Following one's own conscience sounds a lot like a search for meaning, at least a search for right and wrong.
What lies behind this view, as Jim pointed out, is the fundamental idea that on the last day we are judged alone, and the Nuremberg defense "I was only following orders" will not allow us to escape from the wrath to come. One cannot, at that point, appeal to a higher authority. It's not so much that we should examine things and decide on our own -- it's that we must. There's no escaping the responsibility.
And even if it was written 2000 years ago, the Bible has a few choice words on this. Jesus himself says, exasperated: "And why can't you decide for yourselves what is right?" Luke 12:57. (as he criticizes people for taking their disputes to a judge rather than working them out for themselves -- hardly an endorsement of the practice of deferring to authority.)
Jim promised you a quote from me from Thomas Aquinas, and I have complied. I now supply the quote Jim promised from a sufi mystic. This time it's Jalal ad-Dīn Muhammad Rumi (Rumi for short):
Guest House
This being human is a guest house
Every morning a new arrival.
A joy, a depression, a meanness,
some momentary awareness comes
as an unexpected visitor.
Welcome and entertain them all!
Even if they are a crowd of sorrows,
who violently sweep your house
empty of its furniture,
still treat each guest honorably.
He may be clearing you out for some new delight.
The dark thought, the shame, the malice,
meet them at the door laughing,
and invite them in.
Be grateful for whoever comes,
because each has been sent
as a guide from beyond.
True religion is an openness to the world. And if you consider the endless debates among numerous Christian thinkers over the centuries, you can't say that these ideas do not "compet[e] in a marketplace among many other ideas, and are subject to debate and revision." We're not burning people at the stake anymore. The four horsemen -- Hitchens, Dawkins, Dennett and Harris -- simply do not get it as far as I can tell. They think they they are superior to religion and fully understand it, but for my money they barely scratch the surface.
Caveat: This post is potentially nonsensiscal and possibly will add nothing to the conversation.
When I was at Dickinson, Karen Armstrong came to speak. I cannot for the life of me remember what it was about, although it was only a few years after 9/11 and I think it had something to do with that. Anyway, I had two religion professors at the time (the first was a professor of the history of Christianity. He also taught courses on Islam. He was also an Orthodox priest. Actually one of the smartest and best professors I have ever had. The other, also a great professor, specialized in Indian culture and relgion - which are very strongly connected.) All I really remember from Karen Armstrong's talk was that the Orthodox priest professor was as excited as I had ever seen him. I have too much respect for him to say this, but if he had started drooling in anticipation I would not have been surprised. The other professor HATED Karen Armstrong (actually, he probably just hated her books, she seemed like a wonderful woman). I can't remember the reasons exactly for the like and dislike expressed by my professors (I think the one that hated her felt she dumbed down religion to a point that it became useless to study - but don't quote me on that.) The really interesting part of the whole thing was how diametrically opposed these two professors were. In fact, the one that didn't like her was clearly in the minority. Like I said, I don't know what that has to do with this conversation, but I just remembered Karen Armstrong had come to speak (does it say something that I remember nothing about her talk only my two professors opposite views?)
She must not have had much to say, at least to you, if you don't remember it. The first time I came across her was listening to NPR on the radio which rebroadcast a Chautauqua lecture she gave. I was so impressed I started reading her books.
However, I will readily admit that she is not cutting edge religion or philosophy. I guess I like her because, as James points out, you rarely ever hear meaningful religious thought expressed. And, as I said, she is very approachable.
As to potentially nonsensical, you can rarely go wrong with real life stories and, as I am reminded, you can never post too much.
In reading these comments over, I have come up with an idea which potentially could have a greater impact than Harris, Hitchins, et al., in bringing people to their senses about religion.
We need someone to write a new comedy series staring a priest/rabbi/mullah/whatever who keeps running up against these ridiculously childish religious views. He could be as witty and sarcastic as Hitchens, but also be as warm and forgiving as...I don't know...Rumi. The show would get incredible publicity by being condemned by every religion, but praised by the knowledgeable in those religions. (Fr. Hegge used to say that a priest was not doing his job if he did not get a letter from his bishop each month.)
If such a show was ever approved for production (The movie "The TV Set" would seem to indicate this would be difficult.), it would be the most talked about, written about, most publicized, and thus most popular show on TV. And, if done right, it could even cause some people to re-evaluate some of the silly notions they hold about religion.
Jim makes an interesting comment when he says that he likes Karen Armstrong because you rarely ever hear meaningful religious thought expressed.
It's interesting because there was a time -- my formative years -- when there was a lot of interesting talk about religion floating about.
I confess that if I had to choose between Pat Robertson and Mr. Hitchens, I'm with Hitchens all the way. But there was a time when a third voice, the voice of Karen Armstrong, was heard much more widely and more forcefully than it is today. This voice was not only louder but more cutting edge and more intellectually vigorous than Armstrong (in my humble opinion).
Just to get a sense of what you all missed out on, here is a sample:
We define religion as the assumption that life has meaning. . . . One's religious attitude is to be found at that point where he has a conviction that there are values in human existence worth living and dying for. Rollo May
The history of religions is destined to play an important role in contemporary cultural life. This is not only because an understanding of exotic and archaic religions will significantly assist in a cultural dialogue with the representatives of such religions. It is more especially because ... the history of religions will inevitably attain to a deeper knowledge of man. It is on the basis of such knowledge that a new humanism, on a world-wide scale, could develop. Mircea Eliade
Every religion is true one way or another. It is true when understood metaphorically. But when it gets stuck in its own metaphors, interpreting them as facts, then you are in trouble. Joseph Campbell
Being religious means asking passionately the question of the meaning of our existence and being willing to receive answers, even if the answers hurt. Paul Tillich
The courage to be is rooted in the God who appears when God has disappeared in the anxiety of doubt. Paul Tillich
The Christian of the future will be a mystic or he will not exist at all. Karl Rahner
As a matter of fact, you have deficiencies in all religions, but you have truth in all religions. Hans Kung
There is no salvation outside the world. Edward Schillebeeckx
Sadly, Schillebeeckx, one of the most profound thinkers at least in my day, died recently on Dec. 23 at the age of 95.
Harris responds to common criticisms of his talk: http://www.project-reason.org/newsfeed/item/moral_confusion_in_the_name_of_science3/
Here is my short response. I see nothing in Harris' statement that is misguided or, for that matter, controversial. (Well...that should be controversial.)
I have two thoughts here. One, how is "maximize human wellbeing" different from "love thy neighbor," especially when our neighbor includes the Samaritans? Indeed, just like Harris, Christianity distinguishes between answers in practice and answers in principle ("For all the law is fulfilled in this one saying: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.'" Galatians 5:13-14)
The other curious thing here is while Harris, the atheist, is trying to establish an objective scientifically based morality, Christian thinkers are pushing relativism. "The knowledge of good and evil appears to be the goal of all ethical reflection. The first task of Christian ethics is to invalidate that knowledge." D. Bonhoeffer, Ethics. "What the serpent had in mind [when he promised Adam and Eve that they would become as God] is the establishment of ethics." K. Barth, Church Dogmatics.
On your first point, I would like to say that, with risk of simplifying Harris, he is basically saying moral behavior should be approached rationally. (He uses the term (big) science.) So I think everyone is in agreement here...except for those who know the will of God, i.e. practicing "some grandiose self-delusion."
As to the second point, I think it is hard to pin down Harris here. I just don't know enough about him. As I said much earlier, sometimes he seems to waffle. I know this will be a point of contention, so let me suggest this. As to forcing half the population to wear uncomfortable clothing, there appears to be little rational basis for this. Clearly this points to less than optimal well-being or loving thy neighbor.
On the other hand, the fact that wealth is unevenly distributed does not create the same 'rational' response in most people. To me redistribution of wealth clearly increases well-being. I doubt that Harris would be willing to advocate that, but maybe I underestimate him.
There are at least two problems here. One, people are not static creatures. It is why all attempts to come up with universal rules for education, economics, or any of the social sciences including ethics are doomed to failure. But that doesn't mean we don't keep trying, while recognizing we must continually re-evaluate.
Two, there is a difference between (and maybe this is also the difference between practice and principle) deciding something is wrong, (i.e. slavery, forced bag wearing), and how to correct it. ("We had to destroy the town to save it.")
Post a Comment