Sam Harris stirs the pot…again
30 March 2007 by Naomi
I’ve selected parts of the LA/Times editorial by Sam Harris. You can read the full text via the link. Harris is no Dawkins, and I have a problem with him rating Islamic fundamentalists as a greater menace than RaptureRight christianists. But I recognize that’s just selfishness on my part…
God’s dupes: Moderate believers give cover to religious fanatics — and are every bit as delusional.
Mythology is where all gods go to die, and it seems that Stark has secured a place in American history simply by admitting that a fresh grave should be dug for the God of Abraham — the jealous, genocidal, priggish and self-contradictory tyrant of the Bible and the Koran…
Within every faith one can see people arranged along a spectrum of belief. Picture concentric circles of diminishing reasonableness: At the center, one finds the truest of true believers — the Muslim jihadis, for instance, who not only support suicidal terrorism but who are the first to turn themselves into bombs; or the Dominionist Christians, who openly call for homosexuals and blasphemers to be put to death…
Outside this sphere of maniacs, one finds millions more who share their views but lack their zeal. Beyond them, one encounters pious multitudes who respect the beliefs of their more deranged brethren but who disagree with them on small points of doctrine…
Out further still, one meets religious moderates and liberals of diverse hues — people who remain supportive of the basic scheme that has balkanized our world into Christians, Muslims and Jews, but who are less willing to profess certainty about any article of faith…
The problem is that wherever one stands on this continuum, one inadvertently shelters those who are more fanatical than oneself from criticism. Ordinary fundamentalist Christians…inadvertently support the Dominionists — men and women who, by the millions, are quietly working to turn our country into a totalitarian theocracy reminiscent of John Calvin’s Geneva. Christian moderates…protect the faith of fundamentalists from public scorn. Christian liberals — who aren’t sure what they believe but just love the experience of going to church occasionally — deny the moderates a proper collision with scientific rationality. And in this way centuries have come and gone without an honest word being spoken about God in our society…
Everything of value that people get from religion can be had more honestly, without presuming anything on insufficient evidence. The rest is self-deception, set to music.
And I’ve got the perfect quote to finish on:
“If one accepts that art is the expression of Truth and Beauty (T&B), one can argue that there’s more art in a Hubble photograph of the Horsehead Nebula (which nebula was discovered, incidentally, by a woman) than in the whole of the Sistine ceiling. Both are depictions of creation, but only one glorifies a lie.” Twisty Faster, I Blame the Patriarchy blog
30 March 2007, on 1:06 pm
That says it all really, and what’s more it is true.
30 March 2007, on 1:13 pm
xtian fundies don’t fly planes into buildings, nor stone little girls to death for public displays of affection. get over the guilt of hating on the dark folk and realize that its ok to call someone dumb, no matter their color.
30 March 2007, on 1:23 pm
xtian fundies don’t fly planes into buildings, nor stone little girls to death for public displays of affection.
rh - but xian fundies have no problem with bombing buildings in other lands, and probably would stone people to death as ordered in their holy text if there weren’t laws preventing them from doing so…refer to my post HERE.
30 March 2007, on 1:32 pm
Well, there ARE moderate xtians who voice their disapproval of the wackinoids. In most countries, it’s the polar opposites who get most coverage.
There are also moderate Muslims who speak up as well. Again, the middle road gets little air time.
I’ve said this before: It’s the same analogy as anti-fur protesters (as to the latter). It’s easier to harass rich white women who wear fur, than it is to hassle bikers wearing leather chaps. The latter are likely to toss you a beating.
30 March 2007, on 1:56 pm
It’s easier to harass rich white women who wear fur, than it is to hassle bikers wearing leather chaps.
Hate to nitpick, but these two things are not the same. There are plenty of meat-eaters who have no problem using cow skin for leather but still have a problem raising animals just for their fur. It’s not necessarily the fact that we use animals, but rather how we use them.
30 March 2007, on 2:22 pm
xtian fundies don’t fly planes into buildings, nor stone little girls to death for public displays of affection.
However, they do like to bomb clinics, horribly injure medical care personnel and kill doctors.
30 March 2007, on 2:25 pm
Yet many fundies are quite happy to say that they would kill others if their ‘god’ told them to do so, or otherwise gave them a sign.
Also, what do you mean by, “get over the guilt of hating on the dark folk” - apart from being ungrammatical, it is senseless per se, since I neither hate ‘dark folk’ nor feel guilty about my feelings.
30 March 2007, on 2:28 pm
It’s not necessarily the fact that we use animals, but rather how we use them.
I fail to see the logic in that. Keeping and killing animals for food is qualitatively no different from keeping them for any other products that they may provide.
30 March 2007, on 2:32 pm
There are also moderate Muslims who speak up as well.
Not many of them in the UK, it would seem, since all the polls show that the majority of Muslims support their fanatical bretheren.
30 March 2007, on 4:10 pm
Bruce:
I was using it as an analogy.
But we raise cattle for food & clothing, do we not? ToG raised this point as well.
ToG:
How many Muslims are there in the UK? What were the size of the poll groups? What demographics? I’m asking, since you do live over there.
I know there’s been many underreported moderate Muslims speaking out on the fanatics.
I know I’ve posted on this, & there’s been a post or 2 here as well.
30 March 2007, on 4:46 pm
How many Muslims are there in the UK? What were the size of the poll groups? What demographics?
The total number as a percentage of UK population is not relevant, since it is the number of Muslims qua Muslims we are referring to.
The surveys were conducted by reputable polling organisations, using normal statistical paradigms and hypothesis testing for accuracy etc. The number of Muslims supporting atrocities in the name of Allah was always upward of 50%, and frequently much higher, adn irrespective of age, though predominantly male. The areas in which these surveys were conducted were those which are predominantly Muslim. What’s more, the Muslim Council for Great Britain refused categorically to condemn such actions, as did a number of other influential Muslim groups which claim to speak for the majority.
30 March 2007, on 4:48 pm
Wait, Muslims flew planes into buildings? Surely you can point out their names on the flight passenger list. And surely you can explain the seven that are still alive, right?
But I do love the bottom quote. The horse head nebula is absolutely beautiful. What I wouldn’t give to be able to actually SEE IT with my own eyes.
30 March 2007, on 5:25 pm
AUM:
Say what? What are you talking about?
ToG:
Okay, you lost me there. the # of Muslims in the characteristics of Muslims? Some links? I ask purely out of curiousity.
30 March 2007, on 6:14 pm
Naomi, the only part of the article I have a quibble with is the ending quote; otherwise, good post!
30 March 2007, on 7:04 pm
Okay, you lost me there. the # of Muslims in the characteristics of Muslims? Some links? I ask purely out of curiousity.
You asked how many Muslims in UK, as if that relevant to the polls, but it’s not, since the polls were merely investigating the opinion of Muslims as Muslims, not Muslims as a percentage of the UK population.
As for links, there were many reports in quality press and tv so try searching the BBC, Times, Guardian, Independent, Telegraph sites and you’ll find them back a few months, or even older. I did not link to them because I was going from memory of reports I’d read, but the info’s there if you want to search for it.
The Muslim Council of GB probably has it’s own site, as do many of the mosques here - add the name of one of our big cities to the word ‘mosque’ and you’ll no doubt find them.
30 March 2007, on 7:39 pm
Eve, I’m not sure why the last quote didn’t “speak to you” as it did me. Except for the casual use of the word “creator”, Twisty is just as much atheist as we are, and a FemWarrior who hates religion’s patriarchy, as well as all others. She’s also a scientist and is in awe of images of Space… (Yes, the word awe is another, like creator, that was/is owned by religion. Shame, isn’t it? I hate that some of my favorite curses have been spoiled by the god-bit.)
Shame is another… Can’t get away from them, dag-nabbit!
31 March 2007, on 11:55 am
Thanks everyone for welcoming me back.
Both are depictions of creation, but only one glorifies a lie.
Horsehead Nebula: http://www.noao.edu/image_gallery/html/im0057.html
Eve, it took me a while to think about the last quote, too. For some reason, I was being too much the “defensive atheist” to see it (not implying that you are, but just seeing my own shortcoming). It is a beautiful quote. Nebulas, as the places where stars are formed, represent the true beginning for us all, or at least a point close to that beginning. Well, and then there’s the Sistine Chapel and it’s false depiction of creation inspired by the judeo-xian book of genesis. Which is glorifying a lie? (not talking down to you, sorry if you already got that.)
31 March 2007, on 3:25 pm
Hey, guys, posting from a library computer, so couldn’t reply earlier.
I don’t know how well I can explain my “quibble,” which is not with the quote’s anti-religious, pro-nature sentiment (I happen to agree with that). I’ve tried five or six times now to describe my reaction, and I’ve erased all attempts so far in frustration. I also see and agree with your point, Bean, so at this time I think the only thing I can say is that I’m reading and reacting to the quote as a writer and artist, not as an agnostic/atheist, and it’s just not flipping my pancakes.
Since I don’t have a comment on the post itself, and I really don’t want to highjack the thread or go off-topic (plus, my time on the library computer is almost up), I’ll just go back to my journal and try to tease out my thoughts and feelings about it. Rock on, GifS!