Well, I liked the first part, where he laid out his terms. Now it's getting a bit muddled, really, and at times it seems back-track-y and at other times very hippy-dippy (with some due respect to hippies, but none to dippies). It is going to take at least a second reading to get a good handle on. As of today I will sum up as:
At least he's not trying to justify killing people. That's a step up, in my book, though it will be interesting to see where the next step lands.
Showing posts with label atheism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label atheism. Show all posts
Tuesday, January 08, 2008
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
The Little Book of Atheist Spirituality
By Andre Comte-Sponville.
I'm on page 62 of this little book so far. Written for the lay-reader (ie, non-professional philosopher), Comte-Sponville's work is a contemplative and personal examination of atheism, morals, and history as it regards the building of ethics. Unlike many now-popular works on atheism, it does not exhort a complete abandonment of Judeao-Christian traditions as far as a code of living goes, rather he posits that we are best served by building on these materials- the teachings, he avers, are valid with or without God. I am inclined to agree with many of his ideas so far, though not totally with his interpretation of political history (into which he does not go deeply, so it is almost a non-issue. At least at this point).
A run-down of the contents (and questions):
I. Can We Do Without Religion?
II. Does God Exist?
III. Can There Be an Atheist Sprituality?
Conclusion: Love and Truth.
So far he has taken both nihilism and post-modernism to task -citing the rejection by post-modernists of the ideals of the Enlightenment, to wit- the denial of knowledge and humanity by its insistence that it is impossible to know truth, or that there even is such a thing as truth. While not proclaiming that there is One Big Truth, Comte-Sponville decries the idea which follows so often in that line that since we can not find it, it is not worth looking for. Nihilism and Post-Modernism are, it seems, linked in their common denial of history and their lack of will to affect the future. (After all, if there is no way to know the past, what business do we have trying to do anything in the future?)
Interestingly, he delineates two kinds of Barbarism-
There are two types of barbarism, however, which it is important not to conflate: The first, irreligious, is merely generalized or triumphant nihilism; the second, fanaticized, attempts to impose its faith on others through use of force. Nihilism leads to the former and leaves the field open to the latter.
The dangers of these barbarisms are clear- in the case of the first, there is an unrootedness, a committment only to the whims of the holder, and a denial of ideal or ideologies, an abandonment of culture and cummunity in toto. Indeed, the very idea of culture is antithetical to nihilism.
I think of a number of people in the "atheist world" who do not appeal to reason in favour of atheism, but spend their time in the excoriation of religions, and people who have faith in any form, without regard to whom they are alienating, or why, and with the idea only of shouting down any questions or challenges (Hitchens, particularly of late, as well as many angry forum participants). There is often to be found the expression that religion and faith need to be utterly abandoned, that they have contributed nothing to human thought or history (I know, but what is history, anyway- yes, yes.).
In the case of the latter- we see it in many ways:
They know everything there is to know about Truth and Goodness. Of what use is science to them? Of what use democracy? Everything worth knowing is in the Book. One need only believe and obey. Between Darwin and Genesis, human rights and Sharia, the rights of peoples and the Torah, they have taken sides once and for all.
Examples greet us on the front pages of the papers every day.
I'm on page 62 of this little book so far. Written for the lay-reader (ie, non-professional philosopher), Comte-Sponville's work is a contemplative and personal examination of atheism, morals, and history as it regards the building of ethics. Unlike many now-popular works on atheism, it does not exhort a complete abandonment of Judeao-Christian traditions as far as a code of living goes, rather he posits that we are best served by building on these materials- the teachings, he avers, are valid with or without God. I am inclined to agree with many of his ideas so far, though not totally with his interpretation of political history (into which he does not go deeply, so it is almost a non-issue. At least at this point).
A run-down of the contents (and questions):
I. Can We Do Without Religion?
II. Does God Exist?
III. Can There Be an Atheist Sprituality?
Conclusion: Love and Truth.
So far he has taken both nihilism and post-modernism to task -citing the rejection by post-modernists of the ideals of the Enlightenment, to wit- the denial of knowledge and humanity by its insistence that it is impossible to know truth, or that there even is such a thing as truth. While not proclaiming that there is One Big Truth, Comte-Sponville decries the idea which follows so often in that line that since we can not find it, it is not worth looking for. Nihilism and Post-Modernism are, it seems, linked in their common denial of history and their lack of will to affect the future. (After all, if there is no way to know the past, what business do we have trying to do anything in the future?)
Interestingly, he delineates two kinds of Barbarism-
There are two types of barbarism, however, which it is important not to conflate: The first, irreligious, is merely generalized or triumphant nihilism; the second, fanaticized, attempts to impose its faith on others through use of force. Nihilism leads to the former and leaves the field open to the latter.
The dangers of these barbarisms are clear- in the case of the first, there is an unrootedness, a committment only to the whims of the holder, and a denial of ideal or ideologies, an abandonment of culture and cummunity in toto. Indeed, the very idea of culture is antithetical to nihilism.
I think of a number of people in the "atheist world" who do not appeal to reason in favour of atheism, but spend their time in the excoriation of religions, and people who have faith in any form, without regard to whom they are alienating, or why, and with the idea only of shouting down any questions or challenges (Hitchens, particularly of late, as well as many angry forum participants). There is often to be found the expression that religion and faith need to be utterly abandoned, that they have contributed nothing to human thought or history (I know, but what is history, anyway- yes, yes.).
In the case of the latter- we see it in many ways:
They know everything there is to know about Truth and Goodness. Of what use is science to them? Of what use democracy? Everything worth knowing is in the Book. One need only believe and obey. Between Darwin and Genesis, human rights and Sharia, the rights of peoples and the Torah, they have taken sides once and for all.
Examples greet us on the front pages of the papers every day.
Friday, August 24, 2007
Not actually a miracle, though it might look like one to some
So, Sam Harris has a letter in Nature.
The letter:
Scientists should unite against threat from religion
Sam Harris
Sir
It was genuinely alarming to encounter Ziauddin Sardar's whitewash of Islam in the pages of your journal ('Beyond the troubled relationship' Nature 448, 131–133; 2007). Here, as elsewhere, Nature's coverage of religion has been unfailingly tactful — to the point of obscurantism.
In his Commentary, Sardar seems to accept, at face value, the claim that Islam constitutes an "intrinsically rational world view". Perhaps there are occasions where public intellectuals must proclaim the teachings of Islam to be perfectly in harmony with scientific naturalism. But let us not do so, just yet, in the world's foremost scientific journal.
Under the basic teachings of Islam, the Koran cannot be challenged or contradicted, being the perfect word of the creator of the Universe. To speak of the compatibility of science and Islam in 2007 is rather like speaking of the compatibility of science and Christianity in the year 1633, just as Galileo was being forced, under threat of death, to recant his understanding of the Earth's motion.
An Editorial announcing the publication of Francis Collins's book, The Language of God ('Building bridges' Nature 442) represents another instance of high-minded squeamishness in addressing the incompatibility of faith and reason. Nature praises Collins, a devout Christian, for engaging "with people of faith to explore how science — both in its mode of thought and its results — is consistent with their religious beliefs".
But here is Collins on how he, as a scientist, finally became convinced of the divinity of Jesus Christ: "On a beautiful fall day, as I was hiking in the Cascade Mountains... the majesty and beauty of God's creation overwhelmed my resistance. As I rounded a corner and saw a beautiful and unexpected frozen waterfall, hundreds of feet high, I knew the search was over. The next morning, I knelt in the dewy grass as the sun rose and surrendered to Jesus Christ."
What does the "mode of thought" displayed by Collins have in common with science? The Language of God should have sparked gasping outrage from the editors at Nature. Instead, they deemed Collins's efforts "moving" and "laudable", commending him for building a "bridge across the social and intellectual divide that exists between most of US academia and the so-called heartlands."
At a time when Muslim doctors and engineers stand accused of attempting atrocities in the expectation of supernatural reward, when the Catholic Church still preaches the sinfulness of condom use in villages devastated by AIDS, when the president of the United States repeatedly vetoes the most promising medical research for religious reasons, much depends on the scientific community presenting a united front against the forces of unreason.
There are bridges and there are gangplanks, and it is the business of journals such as Nature to know the difference.
The Link:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v448/n7156/full/448864a.html
Now me:
Well, this is not meant to make anyone suddenly think there is a god, but I actually agree with Harris' letter here. In a science magazine or publication of any kind, SCIENCE needs to be foremost. Science arenas need to be bastions of rational thought, of evidence-gathering, not throwing up your hands and saying "God did it", which is the very antithesis of inquiry.
The question of whether science should investigate or comment of religion is a valid one, but I think it has been framed as being "don't question people's beliefs", rather than "what *is* belief and why" in most cases. A proper scientific investigation into the mechanical aspects of belief (what happens to your brain waves under the influence of religion, what actually caused the burning bush, the ins and outs of visions, etc) would be more than fair game. Where the intersection of science and religion gets dangerous (or deadly in some cases) is where it is said "Do Not Look". Kills science right there, and people actually do die of self-imposed ignorance. I agree with Harris that there has been too much willfull blindness.
Add to this- why is it that we so seldom hear about someone coming upon a sight of extreme beauty and being overwhelmed by the love of nature? Here:
When I lived in Utah I was surrounded by some rather unpleasant people (of many religious stripes, lest you think I'm about to go off on an anti-LDS tangent). But I was surrounded by some really beautiful scenery. This is where we keep the Purple Mountains Majesty, after all.
The Wasatch would almost glow at sunset, and the sun in the high desert would cast golden rays as it went down- if its rays hit me, my own skin would take on the hue of antique 18 carat and I would feel beautiful, too. These were times which brought me into a realization of my own existence in the universe as a whole- reminded me of the entirety of the solar system and our collective fate and history going back to the very first moment in time. Such times *included* me, included everyone, as part of this all, not as some specially created creatures here to do the bidding of some Other.
The beauty of which we are a part is so much better than a beauty over which we are supposedly given dominance. The potential for knowledge is so much wider than the fetters of various religions would have us realise. The more we know, the more we discover, the more we look, the easier that is to see.
The letter:
Scientists should unite against threat from religion
Sam Harris
Sir
It was genuinely alarming to encounter Ziauddin Sardar's whitewash of Islam in the pages of your journal ('Beyond the troubled relationship' Nature 448, 131–133; 2007). Here, as elsewhere, Nature's coverage of religion has been unfailingly tactful — to the point of obscurantism.
In his Commentary, Sardar seems to accept, at face value, the claim that Islam constitutes an "intrinsically rational world view". Perhaps there are occasions where public intellectuals must proclaim the teachings of Islam to be perfectly in harmony with scientific naturalism. But let us not do so, just yet, in the world's foremost scientific journal.
Under the basic teachings of Islam, the Koran cannot be challenged or contradicted, being the perfect word of the creator of the Universe. To speak of the compatibility of science and Islam in 2007 is rather like speaking of the compatibility of science and Christianity in the year 1633, just as Galileo was being forced, under threat of death, to recant his understanding of the Earth's motion.
An Editorial announcing the publication of Francis Collins's book, The Language of God ('Building bridges' Nature 442) represents another instance of high-minded squeamishness in addressing the incompatibility of faith and reason. Nature praises Collins, a devout Christian, for engaging "with people of faith to explore how science — both in its mode of thought and its results — is consistent with their religious beliefs".
But here is Collins on how he, as a scientist, finally became convinced of the divinity of Jesus Christ: "On a beautiful fall day, as I was hiking in the Cascade Mountains... the majesty and beauty of God's creation overwhelmed my resistance. As I rounded a corner and saw a beautiful and unexpected frozen waterfall, hundreds of feet high, I knew the search was over. The next morning, I knelt in the dewy grass as the sun rose and surrendered to Jesus Christ."
What does the "mode of thought" displayed by Collins have in common with science? The Language of God should have sparked gasping outrage from the editors at Nature. Instead, they deemed Collins's efforts "moving" and "laudable", commending him for building a "bridge across the social and intellectual divide that exists between most of US academia and the so-called heartlands."
At a time when Muslim doctors and engineers stand accused of attempting atrocities in the expectation of supernatural reward, when the Catholic Church still preaches the sinfulness of condom use in villages devastated by AIDS, when the president of the United States repeatedly vetoes the most promising medical research for religious reasons, much depends on the scientific community presenting a united front against the forces of unreason.
There are bridges and there are gangplanks, and it is the business of journals such as Nature to know the difference.
The Link:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v448/n7156/full/448864a.html
Now me:
Well, this is not meant to make anyone suddenly think there is a god, but I actually agree with Harris' letter here. In a science magazine or publication of any kind, SCIENCE needs to be foremost. Science arenas need to be bastions of rational thought, of evidence-gathering, not throwing up your hands and saying "God did it", which is the very antithesis of inquiry.
The question of whether science should investigate or comment of religion is a valid one, but I think it has been framed as being "don't question people's beliefs", rather than "what *is* belief and why" in most cases. A proper scientific investigation into the mechanical aspects of belief (what happens to your brain waves under the influence of religion, what actually caused the burning bush, the ins and outs of visions, etc) would be more than fair game. Where the intersection of science and religion gets dangerous (or deadly in some cases) is where it is said "Do Not Look". Kills science right there, and people actually do die of self-imposed ignorance. I agree with Harris that there has been too much willfull blindness.
Add to this- why is it that we so seldom hear about someone coming upon a sight of extreme beauty and being overwhelmed by the love of nature? Here:
When I lived in Utah I was surrounded by some rather unpleasant people (of many religious stripes, lest you think I'm about to go off on an anti-LDS tangent). But I was surrounded by some really beautiful scenery. This is where we keep the Purple Mountains Majesty, after all.
The Wasatch would almost glow at sunset, and the sun in the high desert would cast golden rays as it went down- if its rays hit me, my own skin would take on the hue of antique 18 carat and I would feel beautiful, too. These were times which brought me into a realization of my own existence in the universe as a whole- reminded me of the entirety of the solar system and our collective fate and history going back to the very first moment in time. Such times *included* me, included everyone, as part of this all, not as some specially created creatures here to do the bidding of some Other.
The beauty of which we are a part is so much better than a beauty over which we are supposedly given dominance. The potential for knowledge is so much wider than the fetters of various religions would have us realise. The more we know, the more we discover, the more we look, the easier that is to see.
Saturday, May 12, 2007
Brief History of Disbelief (2004)
I watched the three-part series by Jonathan Miller recently. Most of it was enjoyable, all of it made me realise I still have a lot of reading to do. (Hobbes, many of the Greek philosophers, etc.)Excitement built as he neared the atheism of the Russian Revolution, only to be deflated as all of three minutes (if that) was spent in (again, as usual) perpetuating the lie that Stalinism equated with communism (which is, of course, taken as an equation with socialism). I do not suppose I should have expected much, but given the intelligence and diligence of the rest of the programme, I did. This was, though a rather large letdown, the only one.
Setting that aside, the series was quite good, including brief interviews with such people as Daniel Dennett, Richard Dawkins, Arthur Miller, and many others- philosophers, scientists, and lay people. Jonathan Miller traced atheistic thought back to the afore-mentioned ancient Greek philosophers (Epicure among them), and did a good job of parelleling the history of disbelief with that of belief, as well as the story of his own atheism. It seems that throughout the ages, philosophers of various bents have recognised religion for what it is- (wait for it) the opium of the masses.
Speaking of which, the actor (Bernard Hill) they had voicing the quotes of such luminaries as Homer, Freud, and Thomas Paine, did an excellent reading of the entire paragraph wherein "the opium of the masses" first appeared.
This is a flawed piece, but it is a good start on the subject.
Setting that aside, the series was quite good, including brief interviews with such people as Daniel Dennett, Richard Dawkins, Arthur Miller, and many others- philosophers, scientists, and lay people. Jonathan Miller traced atheistic thought back to the afore-mentioned ancient Greek philosophers (Epicure among them), and did a good job of parelleling the history of disbelief with that of belief, as well as the story of his own atheism. It seems that throughout the ages, philosophers of various bents have recognised religion for what it is- (wait for it) the opium of the masses.
Speaking of which, the actor (Bernard Hill) they had voicing the quotes of such luminaries as Homer, Freud, and Thomas Paine, did an excellent reading of the entire paragraph wherein "the opium of the masses" first appeared.
This is a flawed piece, but it is a good start on the subject.
Thursday, May 03, 2007
Prayer Surge Part Two
I do not only blog, o, no, I also take part in a variety of forums (by variety, I mean three). I posted the article about the Prayer Surge at two of them, and the replies were largely positive. To the idea of praying, that is. Well, a lot of people pray, we all know that, but I wondered for a couple of days if I was just a weirdo for being annoyed/angered by the very idea. I held off of posting about it on one particular forum for a while, but finally could not stand it any more and so....
I am trying to decide what bothers me most about this so as to compose a coherent reply to the majority (overwhelming) saying that "It couldn't hurt" and "Well, obviously humans are doing a *great* job solving the problem". I think that the very idea is just absurd, of course, but I should be used to the absurd, so why am I so angry about it this time? I mean, really, roll-my-eyes-and-gnash-my-teeth angry.
Maybe it has to do with people dying and the obscenity of praying for the safety of the very people these Praying Soldiers are there to bomb, shoot, and make disappear. Maybe it's the over 3,000 dead US soldiers and how young the vast majority of them were (most younger than me, most young enough to have been a child of mine) and how they were trained (badly) to shoot people before themselves being blown up or shot or however they died too young and for a lie.
Maybe it's the prayer itself and the blindness of people not seeing that when they say "Confuse the wicked, O Lord, confound their speech. . . . Destructive forces are at work in the city; threats and lies never leave its streets," they could well be taliking about the wicked who lied and got us into this mess, them into this mess, that *they* are now the destructive forces at work in the city, and that further threats and lies are forthcoming every time I open the paper.
A combination? Is this just a straw too heavy on top of so many other bales?
------
So, that's what I wrote, and still there is the feeling that I am sort of alone on this one. Well, at least one person objected, let history show.
I am trying to decide what bothers me most about this so as to compose a coherent reply to the majority (overwhelming) saying that "It couldn't hurt" and "Well, obviously humans are doing a *great* job solving the problem". I think that the very idea is just absurd, of course, but I should be used to the absurd, so why am I so angry about it this time? I mean, really, roll-my-eyes-and-gnash-my-teeth angry.
Maybe it has to do with people dying and the obscenity of praying for the safety of the very people these Praying Soldiers are there to bomb, shoot, and make disappear. Maybe it's the over 3,000 dead US soldiers and how young the vast majority of them were (most younger than me, most young enough to have been a child of mine) and how they were trained (badly) to shoot people before themselves being blown up or shot or however they died too young and for a lie.
Maybe it's the prayer itself and the blindness of people not seeing that when they say "Confuse the wicked, O Lord, confound their speech. . . . Destructive forces are at work in the city; threats and lies never leave its streets," they could well be taliking about the wicked who lied and got us into this mess, them into this mess, that *they* are now the destructive forces at work in the city, and that further threats and lies are forthcoming every time I open the paper.
A combination? Is this just a straw too heavy on top of so many other bales?
------
So, that's what I wrote, and still there is the feeling that I am sort of alone on this one. Well, at least one person objected, let history show.
Thursday, April 19, 2007
So far...
Parenting Beyond Belief is made up of a wide variety of views. The common thread is parenthood, with a mostly-common thread being atheism. So far my favourite essay is by Julia Sweeney (of SNL fame) about her daughter and their discussions on faith as it relates to Big Things like death. Her honesty with her daughter, and her frank writing style are warm and engaging. It is interesting to see not only what she says to her daughter ("what happens when we die?" "Frankly, darling, we decompose.") but how she follows this up in regular life. As she notes, some people look aghast at the idea of telling a child such a truth. ("Horrible truth" is the actual phrase used).
I wonder, though, about the horror voiced by people about telling kids the truth. While I agree that the truth should be put into terms the child can understand, I also think that many times the intelligence of children is underestimated. I am not saying "my child is a genius and so all children are", or anything of the sort. I do say, though, that they understand a lot more than we think. Their capabilities are often given short shrift.
Also given short shrift is the effect of "white lies" meant to comfort. Santa Claus, Heaven, and the Easter Bunny all spring to mind. Most of us have come to terms with the non-existance of Santa Claus. Many people remember the disappointment in finding out that no, indeed, there is no such person. I don't think anyone has totally lost faith in their parents on finding this out, but some sense of betrayal might well be there. We do get over it.
But what is the point in the first place? Why do we choose Santa Claus and Heaven to put forth as truth, and not, say, Sleeping Beauty?
The thing about Sweeney's presentation of the truth is not just the words she uses, it is also the attitude with which she speaks those words and the way she lives her life which will teach. A bird dies in their back yard, and they watch it for days, every day a little bit less of it remains. They talk about the breakdown of the material, what happens to the material. It is done without fear. It is presented as fact (and it is), but not as a warning, nor as a means of keeping the child in line.
Sweeney's father, who had been very close with the child, dies. Sweeney illustrates to her daughter how he lives on in their memory- in things they do either consciously remembering him, or as a result of his influence on their lives.
It is very clear in her writing, that Julia Sweeney loves her child, has an open and honest relationship with her, and thinks deeply about her welfare. It is her clarity which convinces.
Her atheism is presented without condemnation of religion (her family is religious, Catholic) or excoriation thereof. It is what it is. Clearly, she is at peace with letting go of god. This peace is transmitted to her child.
I wonder, though, about the horror voiced by people about telling kids the truth. While I agree that the truth should be put into terms the child can understand, I also think that many times the intelligence of children is underestimated. I am not saying "my child is a genius and so all children are", or anything of the sort. I do say, though, that they understand a lot more than we think. Their capabilities are often given short shrift.
Also given short shrift is the effect of "white lies" meant to comfort. Santa Claus, Heaven, and the Easter Bunny all spring to mind. Most of us have come to terms with the non-existance of Santa Claus. Many people remember the disappointment in finding out that no, indeed, there is no such person. I don't think anyone has totally lost faith in their parents on finding this out, but some sense of betrayal might well be there. We do get over it.
But what is the point in the first place? Why do we choose Santa Claus and Heaven to put forth as truth, and not, say, Sleeping Beauty?
The thing about Sweeney's presentation of the truth is not just the words she uses, it is also the attitude with which she speaks those words and the way she lives her life which will teach. A bird dies in their back yard, and they watch it for days, every day a little bit less of it remains. They talk about the breakdown of the material, what happens to the material. It is done without fear. It is presented as fact (and it is), but not as a warning, nor as a means of keeping the child in line.
Sweeney's father, who had been very close with the child, dies. Sweeney illustrates to her daughter how he lives on in their memory- in things they do either consciously remembering him, or as a result of his influence on their lives.
It is very clear in her writing, that Julia Sweeney loves her child, has an open and honest relationship with her, and thinks deeply about her welfare. It is her clarity which convinces.
Her atheism is presented without condemnation of religion (her family is religious, Catholic) or excoriation thereof. It is what it is. Clearly, she is at peace with letting go of god. This peace is transmitted to her child.
Friday, April 13, 2007
Here's hoping...
I have a new book- Parenting Beyond Belief- On Raising Ethical, Caring Kids Without Religion, edited by Dale McGowan (American Management Association, paperback, $17.95)
I ordered this book as soon as I heard it was to be released. Odd publisher, but I should not be too surprised that a smaller pub is more willing to put it out than, say, Random House. Contributors include Julia Sweeney (of SNL fame), Penn Jillette, and Richard Dawkins. Forward by Michael Shermer (hmm...that one should be interesting).
Like many parents of little to no faith, I have been a bit disappointed with the lack of non-god-based books on child-rearing vis a vis ethics. We read a lot in my house, and there are a lot of fantasy books in our collections (kid and grown-up), but anything on Why To Be Nice has seemed very Jesusy/Mosesy/Buddha-y. The books aimed at parents specifically have been quite Christian, going by the shelves at Powell's (where there is a huge section of Christian Parenting books). Supply and demand, I know, but my wee demand was left supply-less until this one. (I hope, anyway.)
This is this week's reading.
I ordered this book as soon as I heard it was to be released. Odd publisher, but I should not be too surprised that a smaller pub is more willing to put it out than, say, Random House. Contributors include Julia Sweeney (of SNL fame), Penn Jillette, and Richard Dawkins. Forward by Michael Shermer (hmm...that one should be interesting).
Like many parents of little to no faith, I have been a bit disappointed with the lack of non-god-based books on child-rearing vis a vis ethics. We read a lot in my house, and there are a lot of fantasy books in our collections (kid and grown-up), but anything on Why To Be Nice has seemed very Jesusy/Mosesy/Buddha-y. The books aimed at parents specifically have been quite Christian, going by the shelves at Powell's (where there is a huge section of Christian Parenting books). Supply and demand, I know, but my wee demand was left supply-less until this one. (I hope, anyway.)
This is this week's reading.
Thursday, March 22, 2007
This is the last time I'm going to talk about Harris- unless he continues to write stuff down
A recent review on the wsws.org of Dawkins' new book- ( http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/mar2007/dawk-m15.shtml ) prompted a deeper look into Harris, with whom Dawkins has been hanging about. The company you keep, and all that. It's unfortunate thet Dawkins has become such a champion of Harris, and, indeed, I have for some time wondered if they are not just so fast because Harris is, it seems, seen as the Voice Of American Atheism.
Rationalizing Neo Colonialism-
The End of Faith:Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason by Sam Harris (ww norton, paperback 2004)
Sam Harris has gained much attention with the publication of his books, The End of Faith, and Letters to a Christian Nation, as well as a number of op-ed pieces in various mainstream publications. He has been hailed within many atheist and generally secular communities as something of a Rationalists’ Savior. On the surface, his arguments against the current violent trends in fundamentalist religions seem something with which most people would agree. Digging deeper, though, one cannot help but see a disturbing lack of reason in Harris’ own thinking.
It is important to remember, when reading The End Of Faith:Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason (ww norton, paperback), that the book was started on September 12, 2001. As such, the entirety is coloured by what could be described as a sort of philosophical trauma endured by the author. Despite its title, this is not so much a call for reason as a justification for the current policies of aggressive war and neo-colonialist expansionism.
Certainly, the grip which religions have maintained on the minds of so many people needs to be called into question. Indeed, there is much which religions have to answer for- from the suicide bombings perpetrated by many sects from Buddhist Kamikaze pilots, Palestinian Christians, and Islamic Jihadist to the suppression of scientific development and exploration, and unscientific anti-Darwinism. Much damage has been done, physical as well as psychological and social by religion’s call for ignoring the realities of the world in favour of attributing the unknown to the Unknowable. This perpetuation of ignorance has had a terrible effect on humankind. Too many politicians have used the Appeal to the Ultimate Authority to justify the most horrific deeds- often with the complicity of the Earthly religious institutions.
There is no denying that religion has its uses, most famously as “the opiate of the masses”, and there is no doubt that in these time we are seeing a re-administration of this most potent and deadly drug.
Certainly, we do need a call to Reason. This call, though, must itself be reasonable. This is where Harris fails.
Harris' first book is rife with cherry-picked Koran passages and blatant misrepresentations of Islam in particular. The book starts off with an imagined bus ride in which a young man blows himself and others to smithereens. Though much of what we do not know about this person is pointed out, it is only to ask, "Why is it so easy...to guess the young man's religion?"
"Given the vicissitudes of Muslim history, however, I suspect that the starting point I have chosen for this book- that of a single suicide bomber following the consequences of his religious beliefs- is bound to exasperate many readers, since it ignores the painful history of the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. It ignores the collusion of the Western powers with corrupt dictatorships. It ignores the endemic poverty and lack of economic opportunity that now plague the Arab world. But I will argue that we can ignore all of these things- or treat them only to put them safely on the shelf- because the world is filled with poor, uneducated, and exploited people who do not commit acts of terrorism, indeed who would never commit acts acts of the sort which has become commonplace among Muslims; and the Muslim world has no shortage of educated and prosperous men and women, suffering little more than their infatuation with Koranic eschatology, who are eager to murder infidels for God's sake." (109)
Here we have the crux of Harris' argument; that in trying to find the root cause of the problems we now face and in determining our future course, we must ignore history and objective social forces in favour of the simple explanation that Islam is the sole source for all anti-western sentiment.
Throughout the book, he conflates Islam and "The Muslim World" with terror. While it is understandable as an immediate emotional reaction to the falling of the WTC, it has no place in a plea for rationality.
Misleading statements abound. One in particular, on page 123 Harris cites the following quote:
"Sayyid Qutb, one of the most influential thinkers in the Islamic world, and the father of modern Islamism among the Sunni, wrote, "The Koran points to another contemptible characteristic of the Jews: their craven desire to live, no matter at what price and regardless of quality, honor, and dignity." He comments, " This statement is really a miracle of concision. While it may seem nothing more than a casual fillip against the Jews, it is actually a powerful distillation of the Muslim world view."
This sounds pretty serious. But is it accurate? Even a little outside reading proves it not to be.
First, let us identify Sayyid Qutb. Born in 1906 in Egypt, he moved to Cairo as a teenager to further his education. Not particularly religious, he was known to not even observe the friday evening prayers. His two-year visit to the US in the late 1940’s exposed him to the rampant consumerism and comparatively "loose" behaviour of the post-war boom years. He returned to Egypt disgusted with what he saw and joined the Muslim Brotherhood- hardly a mainstream organization even then. He was jailed for activities with the MB when they openly opposed the government of Jamal Abdul Nasser.
His shaky knowledge of Islamic law, combined with his harsh prison experience gave birth to a radicalized splinter religion wherein traditional interpretation relying on looking at both other passages of the Koran and the Haadeeths gave way to Qutb’s proclamations.
Though his views and methods gained popularity in certain politically disillusioned circles, it is hardly representative of Wahabi or Sunni Islam, nor even of the majority of sects within. It is certainly not the predominant view of "the Muslim world." To claim otherwise is a serious distortion. One must ask why the distortion is there.
In addition to this kind of “mistake”, he adds deliberately provocative turns of phrase- for example, referring to the "twin terrors of Koranic literalism" (p. 34), an obvious reference to the World Trade Center. Another passage: "Yes, the Koran seems to say something that can be construed as a prohibition against suicide- 'Do not destroy yourselves' (4:29)- but it leaves many loopholes large enough to fly a 767 through..." (pg. 33, emphasis mine.)
There is also a 5-page (118-122) stretch of selected Koranic exhortations to do violence onto unbelievers of various sorts. While it makes for chilling reading, one could as easily cherry pick a comparable selection from the Bible (Old and New Testament) or just about any other holy book. That the Koran is over-represented in Harris' book there can be no argument. It could well be asked why the Bible is not so represented here. It is an easy game, to pick out atrocities from these holy books, but what is it meant to accomplish?
One has to question Harris's facile identification of “acts of terrorism” with the Arab masses. Those Islamic fundamentalists who pursue a reactionary policy of individual terrorism (mostly against innocents) and the justified struggle against the occupiers are not politically equal. Second, the “poor, uneducated, and exploited Muslims” did not commit “acts of terrorism” until recently. One then must wonder why the Arab/Muslims, whose countries have been occupied or dominated by one or another imperialist power for close to a century, chose this period to engage in such actions. Which then raises the question of the fragmenting of (and sometimes just plain exterminating of, as in Iraq in the 1970's) the socialist/progressive opposition within the Arab countries. Finally, “Collusion of Western powers with corrupt dictatorships” surely begs the question: where did both the Shah of Iran and Saddam originate from other than the machinations of the CIA? Whose military placed the Saud dynasty in power? For that matter, who funded bin Laden in Afghanistan?
Aside from the pervasive anti-Islamic-in-particular bent, some of what Harris writes is quite reasonable. Take for example, the following, found on page 35:
"We live in an age in which most people believe that mere words- "Jesus", "Allah", "Ram"- can mean the difference between eternal torment and bliss everlasting. Considering the stakes here, it is not surprising that many of us occasionally find it necessary to murder other human beings for using the wrong magic words, or the right ones for the wrong reasons. How can any person presume to know that this is the way the universe works? Because it says so in our holy books. How do we know that our holy books are free from error? Because the books themselves say so. Epistemological black holes of this sort are fast draining the light from our world."
At one point (page 180) we find:
"I believe that [cultural] relativism and pragmatism have already done much to muddle our thinking on a variety of subjects, many of which have more than a passing relevance to the survival of civilisation.
"In philosophical terms, pragmatism can be directly opposed to realism. For the realist, our statements about the world will be "true" or false" not merely in virtue of how they function amid the welter of our other beliefs, or with reference to any culture-bound criteria, but because reality simply is a certain way, independent of our thoughts. Realists believe that there are truths about the world that may exceed our capacity to know them; *there are facts of the matter whether or not we can bring such facts into view.*"
By "realism" Harris it can be assumed to mean philosophical materialism. But why doesn't he use the world materialism? Harris is not a dialectical materialist but a vulgar materialist. As Engels showed in his pamphlet on Fuerbach, vulgar materialism inevitably leads back to idealism because it is unable to deal with the question of social man, real man living in class society. Society is not simply an amalgam of individual egos, but an organism with its own historical laws of development determining social consciousness.
Perhaps due to the trauma of 9/11/01, there seems, a *lack of willingness* on Harris' part to bring some facts into view.
Moving through a selective history of Christianity and Judaism (particularly the Inquisition and the Holocaust), Harris paints a bleak picture of the misuses of faith to suppress and subdue the general population. Along the way, however, a major assumption takes form- that religion itself is to blame for the woes wrought by those wielding it. There is no discussion on the forces outside of religion which bear on the beliefs or the people holding them. There is a distinct lack of historical perspective- only faith - in the form of religion- is to blame. While it can generally be agreed that religion has a lot to answer for, to view it as the be all and end all of motivating factors is to view history with a rather large blind spot.
He briefly decries the "political religions" represented by Stalinism and Maoism. Though it is certain that blind faith in any entity, real or imagined, is a danger it is interesting that he does not tackle more current personages. It is also interesting that these two, figures of the supposed left, are highlighted. Why, it must be asked, are not past fascists’, nor the present Bush Administrations uses of religion brought into question? Where is the examination of the neo-cons’ mobilization of the religious right to gain and keep power? An examination of the use of religion as driver of fear in the current climate would be very useful, indeed. This is, however, not Harris’ thesis, as we see.
While it is true that religion has been a method for the oppression of and promotion of backwardness within the masses within class society, the whys are herein largely ignored in favour of a surface examination of the what. Who benefits from the ignorance and obedience of the people in question? This question is not asked. It is also not answered beyond a brief mention that some of the property seized during the Inquisition made it into the hands of the Church and that rewards for turning in "witches" were sometimes offered to an impoverished peasantry. Not mentioned are the similar rewards offered for turning in “enemy combatants” in Afghanistan. The political motivations of the Holocaust are unexamined, though they are very briefly acknowledged ("Nazism evolved out of a variety of economic and political factors, of course, but it was held together by a belief in the racial purity and superiority of the German people" pg. 101).
While, on page 140, Harris states, "We have surely done some terrible things in the past. Undoubtedly we will do terrible things in the future. Nothing I have written in this book should be construed as a denial of these facts, or as a defense of of state practices which are manifestly abhorrent.", he makes no bones about the real source of evil in the world. Ultimately, it is religious faith alone which must be held accountable. It is only the reaction of Islamic Extremists which should be called into question, not the political and economic forces which have shaped the lives of so many in the Middle East and Africa. In Harris' view, the recent uptick in violent incidents can have nothing to do with being subject for so many years to the economic interests and military incursions by the Occidental powers.
His starting point is meant to frighten the Western Mind. The Man on the Bus is both alarming and unrepresentative. While religion has been used through the ages to justify the most atrocious acts, to dismiss out of hand the forces surrounding and shaping the beliefs in question is grossly irresponsible and only serves to incite fear. For what purpose?
Ignored also is the increasingly mid and upper-class makeup of the terrorist leadership in question. Osama himself (a follower of Qutb, no less) comes from the moneyed class and essentially bought his way to the top. How ignoring the facts of history can be called "reasonable" is beyond understanding. Confusing the uses of religion with religion itself will not lead to reasonable thought and action.
Religious tolerance is also given a smack by Harris- he states, partially correctly, that those who preach tolerance and soften the harsher aspects of their religions to better function on modern society do not do anyone any favours, as they serve to perpetuate religion itself and show too much leniency for the excesses of fundamentalism. Harris' views are all or nothing- either be a fundamentalist or get rid of your faith entirely. If you're a fundamentalist (particularly Islamic), get ready to die.
The End Of Faith paints a gloomy picture of reason's future. For Harris, the methods of dealing with extremism called for are the very same for which he decries the extremists. He states (on pages 52/3 of the paperback edition), "Some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them. This may seem an extraordinary claim, but it merely enunciates an ordinary fact about the world in which we live."
While it is true, as he avers early on, that "there is no talking to some people", his answer to the problem is still more reactionary killing. His methods of applying reason are as faulty, selective, dogmatic, and blind as he claims faith to be. This is not entirely surprising, as twisting history to suit one’s needs is a common occurrence when dealing with the ruling classes. It is alarming, however, coming from someone claiming to be a scientist (Harris, according to his bio, is currently working on a doctorate in neuroscience “studying the neurological basis of belief, disbelief, and uncertainty.”), as it flagrantly disregards any observance of the scientific method.
A call for reason is indeed needed at this time- perhaps more than ever before- but this book is not that call. Rather, it serves to justify yet more oppression, less understanding, and further war in the name of defeating a religion which is grossly misrepresented both in practice and in population within these pages. It turns the use of religion as a means of oppression on its head in its call for the use of a Fear Of Religion as the new weapon.
In this Straussian bit of myth-making worthy of any neo-con, Harris helps to created an Enemy Worth Fighting for our age. His insistence that faith alone (ie religion) is to blame for the world's troubles is narrow and misleading. His focus on Islam as the Worst of the Worst is both facile and useful to the ruling classes in their current conflicts. While, as Engels points out, "we simply cannot get away from the fact that everything that sets men acting must find its way through their brains", Harris falls into the trap of assigning one and only one possible course of action to the Islamic faiths. He also displays willingness to believe that everything follows from religious faith without regard for forces political, social, or historical. To exclude from the analysis the economic and political elements involved begs the question of what master Mr. Harris is serving. Reason is betrayed by such obscurantism.
As socialists, we realize the long history of oppression wrought in the names of various religions. We absolutely reject the continuance of superstitious and backward thinking represented by religious faith. Just as strenuously, though, do we reject the reactionary calls to war- new crusades- supposedly in the defense of "reason" or “civilization”, which only serve to once again pit worker against worker, human against human, for the ultimate gain of the moneyed classes.
It is in the vital interest of the working class to shake off the controlling hand of religion- to be able to view the world rationally, reasonably, and clearly without appeal to “higher powers”. Such appeals serve only to keep ignorance and oppression well-fed.
It is likewise vital to recognize that the absence of religion does not always equal the presence of reason. Though those such as Harris would have you think otherwise, religion is not the only driver of actions.
Rationalizing Neo Colonialism-
The End of Faith:Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason by Sam Harris (ww norton, paperback 2004)
Sam Harris has gained much attention with the publication of his books, The End of Faith, and Letters to a Christian Nation, as well as a number of op-ed pieces in various mainstream publications. He has been hailed within many atheist and generally secular communities as something of a Rationalists’ Savior. On the surface, his arguments against the current violent trends in fundamentalist religions seem something with which most people would agree. Digging deeper, though, one cannot help but see a disturbing lack of reason in Harris’ own thinking.
It is important to remember, when reading The End Of Faith:Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason (ww norton, paperback), that the book was started on September 12, 2001. As such, the entirety is coloured by what could be described as a sort of philosophical trauma endured by the author. Despite its title, this is not so much a call for reason as a justification for the current policies of aggressive war and neo-colonialist expansionism.
Certainly, the grip which religions have maintained on the minds of so many people needs to be called into question. Indeed, there is much which religions have to answer for- from the suicide bombings perpetrated by many sects from Buddhist Kamikaze pilots, Palestinian Christians, and Islamic Jihadist to the suppression of scientific development and exploration, and unscientific anti-Darwinism. Much damage has been done, physical as well as psychological and social by religion’s call for ignoring the realities of the world in favour of attributing the unknown to the Unknowable. This perpetuation of ignorance has had a terrible effect on humankind. Too many politicians have used the Appeal to the Ultimate Authority to justify the most horrific deeds- often with the complicity of the Earthly religious institutions.
There is no denying that religion has its uses, most famously as “the opiate of the masses”, and there is no doubt that in these time we are seeing a re-administration of this most potent and deadly drug.
Certainly, we do need a call to Reason. This call, though, must itself be reasonable. This is where Harris fails.
Harris' first book is rife with cherry-picked Koran passages and blatant misrepresentations of Islam in particular. The book starts off with an imagined bus ride in which a young man blows himself and others to smithereens. Though much of what we do not know about this person is pointed out, it is only to ask, "Why is it so easy...to guess the young man's religion?"
"Given the vicissitudes of Muslim history, however, I suspect that the starting point I have chosen for this book- that of a single suicide bomber following the consequences of his religious beliefs- is bound to exasperate many readers, since it ignores the painful history of the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. It ignores the collusion of the Western powers with corrupt dictatorships. It ignores the endemic poverty and lack of economic opportunity that now plague the Arab world. But I will argue that we can ignore all of these things- or treat them only to put them safely on the shelf- because the world is filled with poor, uneducated, and exploited people who do not commit acts of terrorism, indeed who would never commit acts acts of the sort which has become commonplace among Muslims; and the Muslim world has no shortage of educated and prosperous men and women, suffering little more than their infatuation with Koranic eschatology, who are eager to murder infidels for God's sake." (109)
Here we have the crux of Harris' argument; that in trying to find the root cause of the problems we now face and in determining our future course, we must ignore history and objective social forces in favour of the simple explanation that Islam is the sole source for all anti-western sentiment.
Throughout the book, he conflates Islam and "The Muslim World" with terror. While it is understandable as an immediate emotional reaction to the falling of the WTC, it has no place in a plea for rationality.
Misleading statements abound. One in particular, on page 123 Harris cites the following quote:
"Sayyid Qutb, one of the most influential thinkers in the Islamic world, and the father of modern Islamism among the Sunni, wrote, "The Koran points to another contemptible characteristic of the Jews: their craven desire to live, no matter at what price and regardless of quality, honor, and dignity." He comments, " This statement is really a miracle of concision. While it may seem nothing more than a casual fillip against the Jews, it is actually a powerful distillation of the Muslim world view."
This sounds pretty serious. But is it accurate? Even a little outside reading proves it not to be.
First, let us identify Sayyid Qutb. Born in 1906 in Egypt, he moved to Cairo as a teenager to further his education. Not particularly religious, he was known to not even observe the friday evening prayers. His two-year visit to the US in the late 1940’s exposed him to the rampant consumerism and comparatively "loose" behaviour of the post-war boom years. He returned to Egypt disgusted with what he saw and joined the Muslim Brotherhood- hardly a mainstream organization even then. He was jailed for activities with the MB when they openly opposed the government of Jamal Abdul Nasser.
His shaky knowledge of Islamic law, combined with his harsh prison experience gave birth to a radicalized splinter religion wherein traditional interpretation relying on looking at both other passages of the Koran and the Haadeeths gave way to Qutb’s proclamations.
Though his views and methods gained popularity in certain politically disillusioned circles, it is hardly representative of Wahabi or Sunni Islam, nor even of the majority of sects within. It is certainly not the predominant view of "the Muslim world." To claim otherwise is a serious distortion. One must ask why the distortion is there.
In addition to this kind of “mistake”, he adds deliberately provocative turns of phrase- for example, referring to the "twin terrors of Koranic literalism" (p. 34), an obvious reference to the World Trade Center. Another passage: "Yes, the Koran seems to say something that can be construed as a prohibition against suicide- 'Do not destroy yourselves' (4:29)- but it leaves many loopholes large enough to fly a 767 through..." (pg. 33, emphasis mine.)
There is also a 5-page (118-122) stretch of selected Koranic exhortations to do violence onto unbelievers of various sorts. While it makes for chilling reading, one could as easily cherry pick a comparable selection from the Bible (Old and New Testament) or just about any other holy book. That the Koran is over-represented in Harris' book there can be no argument. It could well be asked why the Bible is not so represented here. It is an easy game, to pick out atrocities from these holy books, but what is it meant to accomplish?
One has to question Harris's facile identification of “acts of terrorism” with the Arab masses. Those Islamic fundamentalists who pursue a reactionary policy of individual terrorism (mostly against innocents) and the justified struggle against the occupiers are not politically equal. Second, the “poor, uneducated, and exploited Muslims” did not commit “acts of terrorism” until recently. One then must wonder why the Arab/Muslims, whose countries have been occupied or dominated by one or another imperialist power for close to a century, chose this period to engage in such actions. Which then raises the question of the fragmenting of (and sometimes just plain exterminating of, as in Iraq in the 1970's) the socialist/progressive opposition within the Arab countries. Finally, “Collusion of Western powers with corrupt dictatorships” surely begs the question: where did both the Shah of Iran and Saddam originate from other than the machinations of the CIA? Whose military placed the Saud dynasty in power? For that matter, who funded bin Laden in Afghanistan?
Aside from the pervasive anti-Islamic-in-particular bent, some of what Harris writes is quite reasonable. Take for example, the following, found on page 35:
"We live in an age in which most people believe that mere words- "Jesus", "Allah", "Ram"- can mean the difference between eternal torment and bliss everlasting. Considering the stakes here, it is not surprising that many of us occasionally find it necessary to murder other human beings for using the wrong magic words, or the right ones for the wrong reasons. How can any person presume to know that this is the way the universe works? Because it says so in our holy books. How do we know that our holy books are free from error? Because the books themselves say so. Epistemological black holes of this sort are fast draining the light from our world."
At one point (page 180) we find:
"I believe that [cultural] relativism and pragmatism have already done much to muddle our thinking on a variety of subjects, many of which have more than a passing relevance to the survival of civilisation.
"In philosophical terms, pragmatism can be directly opposed to realism. For the realist, our statements about the world will be "true" or false" not merely in virtue of how they function amid the welter of our other beliefs, or with reference to any culture-bound criteria, but because reality simply is a certain way, independent of our thoughts. Realists believe that there are truths about the world that may exceed our capacity to know them; *there are facts of the matter whether or not we can bring such facts into view.*"
By "realism" Harris it can be assumed to mean philosophical materialism. But why doesn't he use the world materialism? Harris is not a dialectical materialist but a vulgar materialist. As Engels showed in his pamphlet on Fuerbach, vulgar materialism inevitably leads back to idealism because it is unable to deal with the question of social man, real man living in class society. Society is not simply an amalgam of individual egos, but an organism with its own historical laws of development determining social consciousness.
Perhaps due to the trauma of 9/11/01, there seems, a *lack of willingness* on Harris' part to bring some facts into view.
Moving through a selective history of Christianity and Judaism (particularly the Inquisition and the Holocaust), Harris paints a bleak picture of the misuses of faith to suppress and subdue the general population. Along the way, however, a major assumption takes form- that religion itself is to blame for the woes wrought by those wielding it. There is no discussion on the forces outside of religion which bear on the beliefs or the people holding them. There is a distinct lack of historical perspective- only faith - in the form of religion- is to blame. While it can generally be agreed that religion has a lot to answer for, to view it as the be all and end all of motivating factors is to view history with a rather large blind spot.
He briefly decries the "political religions" represented by Stalinism and Maoism. Though it is certain that blind faith in any entity, real or imagined, is a danger it is interesting that he does not tackle more current personages. It is also interesting that these two, figures of the supposed left, are highlighted. Why, it must be asked, are not past fascists’, nor the present Bush Administrations uses of religion brought into question? Where is the examination of the neo-cons’ mobilization of the religious right to gain and keep power? An examination of the use of religion as driver of fear in the current climate would be very useful, indeed. This is, however, not Harris’ thesis, as we see.
While it is true that religion has been a method for the oppression of and promotion of backwardness within the masses within class society, the whys are herein largely ignored in favour of a surface examination of the what. Who benefits from the ignorance and obedience of the people in question? This question is not asked. It is also not answered beyond a brief mention that some of the property seized during the Inquisition made it into the hands of the Church and that rewards for turning in "witches" were sometimes offered to an impoverished peasantry. Not mentioned are the similar rewards offered for turning in “enemy combatants” in Afghanistan. The political motivations of the Holocaust are unexamined, though they are very briefly acknowledged ("Nazism evolved out of a variety of economic and political factors, of course, but it was held together by a belief in the racial purity and superiority of the German people" pg. 101).
While, on page 140, Harris states, "We have surely done some terrible things in the past. Undoubtedly we will do terrible things in the future. Nothing I have written in this book should be construed as a denial of these facts, or as a defense of of state practices which are manifestly abhorrent.", he makes no bones about the real source of evil in the world. Ultimately, it is religious faith alone which must be held accountable. It is only the reaction of Islamic Extremists which should be called into question, not the political and economic forces which have shaped the lives of so many in the Middle East and Africa. In Harris' view, the recent uptick in violent incidents can have nothing to do with being subject for so many years to the economic interests and military incursions by the Occidental powers.
His starting point is meant to frighten the Western Mind. The Man on the Bus is both alarming and unrepresentative. While religion has been used through the ages to justify the most atrocious acts, to dismiss out of hand the forces surrounding and shaping the beliefs in question is grossly irresponsible and only serves to incite fear. For what purpose?
Ignored also is the increasingly mid and upper-class makeup of the terrorist leadership in question. Osama himself (a follower of Qutb, no less) comes from the moneyed class and essentially bought his way to the top. How ignoring the facts of history can be called "reasonable" is beyond understanding. Confusing the uses of religion with religion itself will not lead to reasonable thought and action.
Religious tolerance is also given a smack by Harris- he states, partially correctly, that those who preach tolerance and soften the harsher aspects of their religions to better function on modern society do not do anyone any favours, as they serve to perpetuate religion itself and show too much leniency for the excesses of fundamentalism. Harris' views are all or nothing- either be a fundamentalist or get rid of your faith entirely. If you're a fundamentalist (particularly Islamic), get ready to die.
The End Of Faith paints a gloomy picture of reason's future. For Harris, the methods of dealing with extremism called for are the very same for which he decries the extremists. He states (on pages 52/3 of the paperback edition), "Some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them. This may seem an extraordinary claim, but it merely enunciates an ordinary fact about the world in which we live."
While it is true, as he avers early on, that "there is no talking to some people", his answer to the problem is still more reactionary killing. His methods of applying reason are as faulty, selective, dogmatic, and blind as he claims faith to be. This is not entirely surprising, as twisting history to suit one’s needs is a common occurrence when dealing with the ruling classes. It is alarming, however, coming from someone claiming to be a scientist (Harris, according to his bio, is currently working on a doctorate in neuroscience “studying the neurological basis of belief, disbelief, and uncertainty.”), as it flagrantly disregards any observance of the scientific method.
A call for reason is indeed needed at this time- perhaps more than ever before- but this book is not that call. Rather, it serves to justify yet more oppression, less understanding, and further war in the name of defeating a religion which is grossly misrepresented both in practice and in population within these pages. It turns the use of religion as a means of oppression on its head in its call for the use of a Fear Of Religion as the new weapon.
In this Straussian bit of myth-making worthy of any neo-con, Harris helps to created an Enemy Worth Fighting for our age. His insistence that faith alone (ie religion) is to blame for the world's troubles is narrow and misleading. His focus on Islam as the Worst of the Worst is both facile and useful to the ruling classes in their current conflicts. While, as Engels points out, "we simply cannot get away from the fact that everything that sets men acting must find its way through their brains", Harris falls into the trap of assigning one and only one possible course of action to the Islamic faiths. He also displays willingness to believe that everything follows from religious faith without regard for forces political, social, or historical. To exclude from the analysis the economic and political elements involved begs the question of what master Mr. Harris is serving. Reason is betrayed by such obscurantism.
As socialists, we realize the long history of oppression wrought in the names of various religions. We absolutely reject the continuance of superstitious and backward thinking represented by religious faith. Just as strenuously, though, do we reject the reactionary calls to war- new crusades- supposedly in the defense of "reason" or “civilization”, which only serve to once again pit worker against worker, human against human, for the ultimate gain of the moneyed classes.
It is in the vital interest of the working class to shake off the controlling hand of religion- to be able to view the world rationally, reasonably, and clearly without appeal to “higher powers”. Such appeals serve only to keep ignorance and oppression well-fed.
It is likewise vital to recognize that the absence of religion does not always equal the presence of reason. Though those such as Harris would have you think otherwise, religion is not the only driver of actions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
