Tuesday, January 03, 2006
No Faith?!
SmartChristian points to a HuffPo piece by Sam Harris that is just a little amazing. It is about how science must push out religion. Andy is right when he says
Finally, the crux of his argument is completely nonpersuasive.
But the real problem with this argument is the lumping of all religion together as unreasonable. Without even bothering to argue that my particular faith is the most reasonable, anyone, I would think, would have to agree that some religions are more reasonable than others? This is a bit like saying "All vegetables are green," completely ignoring corn, beets, and any number of other wonderfully edible, and non-green, plant material.
He dismisses miracles off-handedly as unreasonable, as if the unexplained does not happen every day. At best, what he argues against applies not to religion itself, but to some, perhaps even most, religious practioners, but that hardly argues against religion completely.
But it is his conclusion that is most startling
Harris' blog post would be extremely dangerous were it not so superficial and unconvincing. No doubt many superficial people will be convinced, but I think most are smarter than that.
It is kind of a communist thing.but it is also an awful argument - dismissive instead of engaging, belittling where it should be constructive, and based on faith nearly as much as any religious pronouncement.
Finally, the crux of his argument is completely nonpersuasive.
It is time we conceded a basic fact of human discourse: either a person has good reasons for what he believes, or he does not. When a person has good reasons, his beliefs contribute to our growing understanding of the world.Note what he argues for here, not fact and reason, but reasonable belief. He goes on to try and distinguish, without explanation between reasonable belief and faith.
Faith is nothing more than the license that religious people give one another to believe such propositions when reasons fail.What an incredible false dictomy he has created here. Seems to me he is putting as much faith in his reasonable belief as any religious believer puts into their belief, reasonable or otherwise.
But the real problem with this argument is the lumping of all religion together as unreasonable. Without even bothering to argue that my particular faith is the most reasonable, anyone, I would think, would have to agree that some religions are more reasonable than others? This is a bit like saying "All vegetables are green," completely ignoring corn, beets, and any number of other wonderfully edible, and non-green, plant material.
He dismisses miracles off-handedly as unreasonable, as if the unexplained does not happen every day. At best, what he argues against applies not to religion itself, but to some, perhaps even most, religious practioners, but that hardly argues against religion completely.
But it is his conclusion that is most startling
I am hopeful that the necessary transformation in our thinking will come about as our scientific understanding of ourselves matures. When we find reliable ways to make human beings more loving, less fearful, and genuinely enraptured by the fact of our appearance in the cosmos, we will have no need for divisive religious myths.Set aside for the moment the question of "truth" in religion -- this statement belies a compelte misunderstanding of the role of religion in civilization. How does he propose that we will even define what is "more loving" or "less fearful?" More importantly, presume we can arrive by some undefined mechanism at such defintions, how do we enforce them? What is to prevent some future Hitler from defining love as the elimination of the Jews, after all, it would be for the best of the most of the population, isn't that "loving?" Further, what would then prevent this hypothetical dictator from scientifically implanting that definition of love?
Harris' blog post would be extremely dangerous were it not so superficial and unconvincing. No doubt many superficial people will be convinced, but I think most are smarter than that.
