Either I missed something in this chapter or this discussion has gone way off base. In my reading of this Harris is saying that if all religious people were really following their religious writings (koran, bible, etc.) they would be killing each other because the writings tell them to do so. HIs statement is accurate.

All of the posts on this subject seem to be defending or defiling Harris and he is merely quoting the words that religious folks say they live by. Whether folks like it or not, the teachings definitively tell them to kill others who don't follow their own beliefs.

DWill wrote:Chris recommended attention-getting thread titles, so I obliged!

Thank you! This is a great topic.

Dwill wrote:...if nothing more than faith is supposedly needed for the assurance that propositions are true, why then do the faithful show such interest in seeking evidence for these propositions?

I'd like to hear some Christians answer this question in detail. Why the thousands of books, essays, lectures, movies and sermons defending belief in God as rational and reasonable? Do we need faith or evidence to believe? And if evidence is ever considered why isn't it always considered? To me it seems that reason and science are used right up to the point where they no longer support belief in God. At some point when logic and facts conflict with the conclusion that a creator exists and is responsible for creating and overseeing the universe believers seem to drop the guise of caring about being rational and they quickly spout out, "Well, you just have to have faith." Really? Well, then why all the wasted time arguing about missing links, violation of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, and such? Should we have faith or trust in reason? Which is it?

Interbane wrote:Meaning, the only way to distinguish which of two people with identical beliefs is more dangerous is by their actions, in this case joining a militant group. It's hard to see how belief alone is enough to condemn a man.

I'm struggling to put my thoughts into words right now. The key is clearly the action someone takes as the result of their thoughts. I think I've heard the term "thought crime" used to describe what we're discussing here. OK, I looked it up and according to Wikipedia George Orwell's 1984 is about "thought crimes." I've not read the book. I'm sure we can agree that there is no crime in thinking thoughts, no matter how vile, disgusting and evil the thoughts. But we can also probably agree that there is a much higher probability of vile, disgusting and evil actions being taken by someone who has such thoughts. The problem is in knowing for CERTAIN what someone is thinking and knowing for CERTAIN they plan to act on those thoughts. I doubt this level of technology will ever be realized so freedom of thought must be protected.

But the moment someone joins a militant group that has committed crimes that person becomes a part of the larger group and can be judged based on the actions of the group. You're a member of Al Queda yet you've never personally beheaded a news reporter? You are still a target and guilty of supporting the actions of the larger group.

Where do we draw the line? Should each of us that live in the USA be judged for the actions of our government and military? Did any of us take an action to join the United States? (some did through immigration) And aren't there an infinite amount of beliefs within the populace of this nation and no real consensus on military actions? I guess the issue is the stated purpose or agenda of a group AND that groups actions.

I told you I was struggling to find the right words!

Stahrwe wrote:Our humanness is not a function of any of our traits. From my perspective we are different from all other animals because we have a soul.

Premise 1: Souls are awesome
Premise 2: Only humans have souls
Conclusion: Humans are therefore awesome

I agree with Premise 1! Souls are really cool!

Premise 2 is actually not a premise, but an unfounded conclusion. We don't have any evidence that souls exist or that humans possess them.

So your conclusion is invalid because you've used an unfounded premise. There is currently no reason to conclude anything other than that humans are simply one animal of millions inhabiting this rock we can Earth. Yeah, we're pretty cool and all, but we're an animal nonetheless.

Stahrwe wrote:I'm not sure what you mean by the Hitler comparison. My answer to that puzzle would not be to kill him but to alter his life situation so that he would not become the evil man he ulitimately was.

We're talking magic here. If you magically could be transported back in time to a scenario where you could kill Hitler prior to the Holocaust and you magically knew with certainty that if you did not kill him he would cause the Holocaust to occur would you kill him? Don't add any variables. You have two choices: do nothing or kill Hitler.

What would you do?

Stahrwe wrote:As for SH arguing that action and belief are equivalent, I wonder if he knows that he is promoting something Jesus said. When talking about lust, Jesus said that if a man lusts in his heart, it is as if he had committed the act.

I don't have Sam's book here with me to go back and read his words so I'll assume that Sam has indeed made this argument. If he has I disagree much the same as it appears Interbane disagrees. But this is very valid point, Stahrwe.

With that said I have a few comments about lust. Lust is natural, lust is good, not everybody does it, but everybody should. (George Michael from "I Want Your Sex")

On a serious note...lust is indeed natural. To not lust and desire sexually is abnormal. All sexually reproducing species experience a strong sexual desire. This is nature's way of seeing that we get together, have sex and create more little lustful beings. Wow, I said that in such an anthropomorphic way! Let me revise my words. Those organisms that had a strong enough lust for sexual reproduction did the deed and passed along their horny genes. Nature selects for horniness.

It has always bothered me how the Catholic Church (I was raised Catholic) teaches that masturbation is self-abuse and lust outside of marriage is a sin. If we all stopped lusting our species would be doomed. The Catholic Church has an unnatural and unhealthy stance on human sexuality and reproduction. And people ask us atheists why we don't just keep our mouths shut and let people believe whatever they want to believe! Some beliefs are dangerous and deleterious to society. And keeping in line with the topic of this discussion - many beliefs don't stay inside the believers head. Catholics are continuously fighting to get their beliefs incorporated into public policy. Atheists can sit around and wait for believers to act on their beliefs, which can prove to be too late at that point, or we can attempt to teach believers how to think more clearly and critically. We can attack the weed at the root so it stops growing.

I want to mention how much I appreciate Chris O'Connor's comments on this thread. As a lapsed Catholic myself, I know there is no end to the idiocy that comes from the Catholic Church. Harris briefly mentions one of my favorites, transubstantiation.

"Jesus Christ—who, as it turns out, was born of a virgin, cheated death, and rose bodily into the heavens—can now be eaten in the form of a cracker." (73)

As others have said, Harris assumes that people actually believe these things, but as a recent religious survey shows, almost no one really does. Most folks aren't even aware that the Catholic Church claims that at mass the wafer actually becomes Jesus' body, and the wine actually becomes Jesus' blood. So what Harris has failed to account for (so far) is our amazing ability to "believe" the tenets of religion to a very marginal degree. He does say that the terrorists who flew the planes into the World Trade Center were not cowards or lunatics—"they were men of faith—perfect faith, as it turns out—and this, it must finally be acknowledged, is a terrible thing to be." (67)

Just to clarify, Ch. 2 is entitled "The nature of Belief" and nowhere does Sam Harris actually suggest that people should be killed for their beliefs. He does ask this question hypothetically. See DWill's first post on this thread for the exact quote.

What Sam Harris does unequivocally argue is that faith should not be taught as a virtue. "Religious unreason should acquire an even greater stigma in our discourse, given that it remains among the principal causes of armed conflict in our world." (77)

Even if you aren't quite persuaded by the second part of this equation—that religion is the principal cause of armed conflict—Harris is absolutely right on the money with his argument that faith is not a virtue. We have talked about this many times before on BookTalk. How did we even get to this point where faith is considered a virtue? I think it is an artifact from the old, old days when we simply didn't know much about the world we live in and we made up stories to explain it. Science came along and filled in many of our knowledge gaps, but many people still hold on to this quaint(?) notion that faith is somehow a good thing.

Sam Harris has been widely criticized for taking such a hard line on religion, but he really makes some eloquently worded observations here.

". . . Religious faith is simply unjustified belief in matters of ultimate concern—specifically in propositions that promise some mechanism by which human life can be spared the ravages of time and death. Faith is what credulity becomes when it finally achieves escape velocity from the constraints of terrestrial discourse—constraints like reasonableness, internal coherence, civility, and candor. However far you feel you have fled the parish (even if you are now adjusting the mirror on the Hubble Space Telescope), you are likely to be the product of a culture that has elevated belief, in the absence of evidence, to the highest place in the hierarchy of human virtues. Ignorance is the true coinage of this realm—“Blessed are those who have not seen and have believed” (John 20:29)—and every child is instructed that it is, at the very least, an option, if not a sacred duty, to disregard the facts of this world out of deference to the God who lurks in his mother's and father's imaginations." (65)

In this chapter, Harris says there is a very thin line between faith and madness. Harris asks: what's the difference between a man who believes that God will reward him with 72 virgins if he kills a score of Jewish teenagers and someone who believes that creatures from Alpha Centauri are beaming him messages of world peace through his hair dryer? The difference is that the second guy is the only one who believes it. So he's crazy. But the first guy's beliefs are shared by an entire culture. And if your delusions are shared by others it's sign of faith, and that's a good thing.

Thank you, Geo.

I've heard people refer to the terrorists that flew the planes into the World Trade Center as cowards too. But in my opinion people throw the word "coward" around as a tool to belittle their enemy into changing their behavior, making a stupid move, and exposing themselves to a quick demise. I mean...if we call them cowards maybe we will embarrass them into walking right out in the open with a big target on their backs so we can pick them off like ducks in a shooting gallery.

In my opinion there is nothing cowardly about flying a 727 into the side of a skyscraper 1,000 feet over the streets of New York. My heart races just thinking about how terrifying it must have been for the terrorists and the people on board. Those terrorists had large testicles, which is why they were chosen or why they volunteered for such a scary suicide mission. No matter how many times we call them cowards they don't suddenly become cowards.

What do people expect Islamic terrorists to do to show their manliness? Walk up to a US soldier and challenge him to an arm wrestling match? They are out-gunned and stand no chance without employing tactics that we consider barbaric. I'm not defending their actions, but damn they weren't cowards. Those guys had more courage and conviction than most people could ever muster up.

Chris OConnor wrote:
In my opinion there is nothing cowardly about flying a 727 into the side of a skyscraper 1,000 feet over the streets of New York.

To me this was the most jarring aspect of the 9/11 attacks. That anyone could be so motivated (programmed) to hurt others that they would be willing to sacrifice themselves in the process. This "perfect faith," as Harris puts it, illustrates the true evil nature of religion.

Chris OConnor wrote:Thank you, Geo.

I've heard people refer to the terrorists that flew the planes into the World Trade Center as cowards too. But in my opinion people throw the word "coward" around as a tool to belittle their enemy into changing their behavior, making a stupid move, and exposing themselves to a quick demise. I mean...if we call them cowards maybe we will embarrass them into walking right out in the open with a big target on their backs so we can pick them off like ducks in a shooting gallery.

In my opinion there is nothing cowardly about flying a 727 into the side of a skyscraper 1,000 feet over the streets of New York. My heart races just thinking about how terrifying it must have been for the terrorists and the people on board. Those terrorists had large testicles, which is why they were chosen or why they volunteered for such a scary suicide mission. No matter how many times we call them cowards they don't suddenly become cowards.

What do people expect Islamic terrorists to do to show their manliness? Walk up to a US soldier and challenge him to an arm wrestling match? They are out-gunned and stand no chance without employing tactics that we consider barbaric. I'm not defending their actions, but damn they weren't cowards. Those guys had more courage and conviction than most people could ever muster up.

Chris, that's a good point. Normally, we call the actions of the fighters on our side brave, and the actions of those on the other side something else, maybe cowardly. Both sides agree, though, that when their enemies kill defenseless, uninvolved citizens, the word "cowardly" applies to them. That's why I can still see some sense in calling the actions of the 9/11 attackers cowardly. They paid the ultimate price themselves, but that doesn't make their actions brave, because they had no right to decide that innocents had to die with them. If I were an ordinary citizen of Pakistan who had just lost members of my family to a drone attack, I would justifiably feel the same way.

geo wrote: As others have said, Harris assumes that people actually believe these things, but as a recent religious survey shows, almost no one really does. Most folks aren't even aware that the Catholic Church claims that at mass the wafer actually becomes Jesus' body, and the wine actually becomes Jesus' blood. So what Harris has failed to account for (so far) is our amazing ability to "believe" the tenets of religion to a very marginal degree. He does say that the terrorists who flew the planes into the World Trade Center were not cowards or lunatics—"they were men of faith—perfect faith, as it turns out—and this, it must finally be acknowledged, is a terrible thing to be." (67)

Perhaps these people ignorant of basic tenets are the moderates Harris speaks of (and disparages). I can see how, if I liked going to Catholic Mass for the ritual, the music, the bonding, the positive message I've distilled from the Bible, I would just be uninterested in the hard core and would appear to be ignorant about that when questioned. That appears to me, personally, as a type of obliviousness, and I can't bring myself to approve of it, but I can understand it.

What Sam Harris does unequivocally argue is that faith should not be taught as a virtue. "Religious unreason should acquire an even greater stigma in our discourse, given that it remains among the principal causes of armed conflict in our world." (77)

Thanks for emphasizing this. Harris isn't condemning "religion," because that is too nonspecific a target. Faith is what has become outmoded and, he strongly believes, dangerous in this age of WMD. To those who say that faith is a natural inheritance of humans, as anthropology attests, and that therefore we have to live with it, I would suggest that before we had the means to explain phenomena naturalistically, we had much less need to exercise faith. Belief in supernatural causes came naturally and was, by the light of those times, reasonable. Faith only came about as the nature of God began to change to something less blatantly anthropomorphic and more centered on the life afterwards. Also, the slow dawning of science created a counterforce that faith stepped up to resist. As science continued its development, the unreason of faith, and the effort needed to maintain it, became ever greater. (You said much the same thing in your following paragraph.)

In this chapter, Harris says there is a very thin line between faith and madness. Harris asks: what's the difference between a man who believes that God will reward him with 72 virgins if he kills a score of Jewish teenagers and someone who believes that creatures from Alpha Centauri are beaming him messages of world peace through his hair dryer? The difference is that the second guy is the only one who believes it. So he's crazy. But the first guy's beliefs are shared by an entire culture. And if your delusions are shared by others it's sign of faith, and that's a good thing.

Being in the mental health field, I've been tantalized by the religiosity/madness relationship. On the one hand, mental health clients can be just like the healthier population in receiving a benefit from their participation in religion, a benefit that has no obvious downside. This is all from the purely practical point of view of keeping people out of trouble. On the other hand, we commonly take certain reports of religious beliefs as indications that clients are becoming symptomatic. The striking thing about these reports is their similarity to various figures in the Bible who have visions of God and regular communication with him. These are the revered figures of the faith, but I question whether these days even the devout would not look with suspicion on any contemporary who claimed to have a direct link with God, saw him or Jesus, or whatever. So there is a disconnect between what is approved in the old days versus what is approved now. I think this shows an unacknowledged acceptance that those supposed events are not real. They don't conform to the light of modern reason, which people may do all they can to avoid but really can't escape from.

The classic episode of madness or psychosis in the Bible is Abraham's taking orders from Yahweh to kill his son Isaac. This is clearly, clearly, something right out of the pages of DSM-IV. In the days when this story was written down, there was still a respect for visions of this kind, showing that the person was specially singled out by the god to be his instrument. It was a remnant from the times of the shaman, the role that the priest inherited.

An aside from the main point of the chapter, but did anyone else find his American Embassy story hard to believe (p. 55)?

He says both he and his fiancee were intent on not visiting the American Embassy because it might have been a terrorist target. But because they partitioned their beliefs, his fiancee specifically asked for a hotel room with a view of the embassy and was disappointed when they didn't have one. They both only realized the contradiction when their friend said something and then they were both astounded.

Not that it really matters, and I think his point about brain function is still valid, but it just seemed like a made-up story.

Dexter wrote:An aside from the main point of the chapter, but did anyone else find his American Embassy story hard to believe (p. 55)?

He says both he and his fiancee were intent on not visiting the American Embassy because it might have been a terrorist target. But because they partitioned their beliefs, his fiancee specifically asked for a hotel room with a view of the embassy and was disappointed when they didn't have one. They both only realized the contradiction when their friend said something and then they were both astounded.

Not that it really matters, and I think his point about brain function is still valid, but it just seemed like a made-up story.

I don't find this difficult to believe, no. Maybe it's not a particularly interesting story. We do have these moments sometimes when we say, man, what was I thinking?

Geo wrote: Even if you aren't quite persuaded by the second part of this equation—that religion is the principal cause of armed conflict—Harris is absolutely right on the money with his argument that faith is not a virtue. We have talked about this many times before on BookTalk. How did we even get to this point where faith is considered a virtue? I think it is an artifact from the old, old days when we simply didn't know much about the world we live in and we made up stories to explain it. Science came along and filled in many of our knowledge gaps, but many people still hold on to this quaint(?) notion that faith is somehow a good thing.

We are all entitled to our thoughts but I couldn't help thinking here that our thoughts are not God's thoughts on this matter. Even if one doesn't believe in God, He's the one calling the shots and "Without faith it is impossible to please God, for whoever would draw near to God must believe that He exists and that He rewards those who seek Him." (Heb.11:6). You don't have to have faith--but who gets to define 'virtue'? Wasn't the idea of a virture something that came from a moral Judeo-Christian ethic? Crazy thing is we can toss around the idea of virtue but our (American) culture is built on a moral base that has made us clearly superiour as a nation, something that is not as clear the further we go toward abandoning faith and God...
What muddies this discussion is the object of faith. The faith of Islam calls for killing. It is not based on the God of the Bible. This call to kill is not shared by Christianity. Christians are called to love their enemies, to overcome evil with good, and to pursue a Kingdom that is 'not of this world'... This is a critical understanding to have.