Confused / Achilles12604 debate : "The End of Faith&quo

[achilles12604]

Confused and I have decided to debate Sam Harris's book, "The End of Faith". I believe that we will be using a similar formate to the recent "The God Delusion" debate. As this is a one on one debate, no one else may post in this particular thread. However, I am creating a "comments" thread in general chat.

As I require some time to read this book, and I am going out of town for 5 days at the beginning of August, I would suggest that this particular debate begin on August 10th or later.

Is this acceptable Confused?

[Confused]

A) What are religious moderates?


Of course, to answer this question I would need to determine who's definition I was supposed to represent. Harris presents religious moderates as those who were likely born into religion, yet because of a deeper understanding of science and reality, have thrust off the totalitarian ideology of their fundamentalist counterparts and invented excuses which allow their ideas to fit both in the real world, and simultaneously in their fantasy world of religion.

Pt 14: People of faith tend to fall on a continuum. Some draw solace and inspiration from a specific tradition while remaining fully committed to tolerance and diversity (religious moderates) while others would burn the earth to cinders if it would put an end to heresy (religious extremists).

Harris doesn't define moderates as such. He uses the line of continuum for moderates and extremists. Where did you get this idea from? i am searching through the first chapter and can't find anything that would classify one simply born into religion as a moderate.

Ok, enough fror now so you have time to respond before we move on to the role of moderates and the danger of them. However. I will post stats still.

Harris presents religious moderates as those who were likely born into religion, yet because of a deeper understanding of science and reality, have thrust off the totalitarian ideology of their fundamentalist counterparts and invented excuses which allow their ideas to fit both in the real world, and simultaneously in their fantasy world of religion.

Ok, remove the phrase "likely born into" and replace it with "either born into, or accepted personally as truth". My point was that I read his definition of a "moderate" as someone who believes all the dogma of faith at one time, but rejects it later due to science.

Obviously I am still missing the point. Where does Harris state either born into or accepted personally as truth are qualificators for a religious moderate?

Here is what I see as what Harris is referring to as "moderates"
On page 14 he gives his continuum of moderate to extremist. A religious moderate is one who draws solace and inspiration from a specific spiritual tradition and yet remain fully committed to tolerance and diversity. This is the only definition I can find that Harris asserts is a "moderate".

[Confused]

But he hits it all on the head of the nail with this Quote:

Once a person believe, really believes, that certain ideas can lead to eternal happiness, he cannot tolerate the possibility that others might lead their loved ones astray.

Here is quite the message.

I'm not sure I would agree here. This is an example of Harris inserting an opinion, which my experience has negated.

My sister is Buddhist. She has rejected Jesus and Christianity in general. According to my beliefs she is headed for eternal destruction.

However, I am able to "tolerate that she was led away." In fact I am able to not only tolerate, but even like the guy who changed her beliefs. (Her longterm boyfriend). I like Bill (her BF). I am not angry at him for showing her something new which she chose to accept.

I think that this sort of "anger" would only apply to individuals who haven't really thought things through. Christian doctrine teaches that God adhere's to the ideas of "free will". Most people I know (and the producers of Bruce Almighty), agree that free will is God allowing people to reject him and refuse to follow and love him, taking instead a path of their own choosing.

Now if you really think about it, why should I try and control an aspect of my sister, which God himself has chosen not to control?

No I'm afraid that I am forced to disagree with Harris' assertion here, both because of my own experience, and on a logical level as described above.

From page 15:

Two myths now keep fatith beyond the fray of rational criticism, and they seem to foster religous extremism and religious moderation equally. (1) most of us believe that there are good things that people get from faith...... that cannot be found elsewhere; (2) many of us also believe that the terrible things that are sometimes done in the name of religion are the products not of faith per se but of our baser natures--forces like greed, hatred and fear

.

Further on he shows that religious moderates are those who have taken the higher road of pluralism, asserting that equal validity of all faiths, but in doing so, they neglect to notice the irredeemably sectarian truth claims of each.

In your case, you are tolerant of your sisters choice to practice buddhism. But if you believe that on judgment day one must accept Christ, then you cannot possibly hold the respect for your sisters choice of religion because you know she will be burning in hell, based on scripture, not your own personal interpretation. You may "tolerate" it, but does scripture allow you to? What I think Harris is alluding to is that you may personally say you tolerate it, but religion cannot.

[Confused]

Harris gives a perfectly reasonable position as to why there can be no religious moderates on page 13:

The central tenet of every relgious tradition is that all others are mere repositories of error or, at best, dangerously incomplete. Intolerance is thus intrinsic to every creed.

Now, you might tolerate you sisters choice, but does the word of God allow you to tolerate it?

[achilles12604]

Incidentally, I have completed my research regarding Sam Harris assertion that most violence and wars are grounded or based on religion.

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... php?t=6339


The results were 3.3 to 1 that wars were caused by politics over religion. We should replace all the politicians with clergy. I did try to use very liberal numbers slanted to Harris\' side so as to avoid bias on my part so the ratio may be more like 3.5 or more to 1, but I\'m still satisfied with the results.

I think we are seeing this the same, yet different. In regards to Harris, death tolls attributed even to "ethnic cleansing" such as Rwanda, etc... are still ultimately a result of religion. However, he goes further with this in future chapters, so for now, I will keep note on your stats and mine.

In R and R I am going through objections. I agree with some of them, (and perhaps Rwanda will be one that I must change my mind on) but certainly not all of them. And I am sure that I was not wrong about enough to shift the tremendous 3.3 to 1 ratio into supporting Harris\' assertion that religion was at the root of most violence.

[achilles12604]

A) What are religious moderates?


Of course, to answer this question I would need to determine who's definition I was supposed to represent. Harris presents religious moderates as those who were likely born into religion, yet because of a deeper understanding of science and reality, have thrust off the totalitarian ideology of their fundamentalist counterparts and invented excuses which allow their ideas to fit both in the real world, and simultaneously in their fantasy world of religion.

Pt 14: People of faith tend to fall on a continuum. Some draw solace and inspiration from a specific tradition while remaining fully committed to tolerance and diversity (religious moderates) while others would burn the earth to cinders if it would put an end to heresy (religious extremists).

Harris doesn't define moderates as such. He uses the line of continuum for moderates and extremists. Where did you get this idea from? i am searching through the first chapter and can't find anything that would classify one simply born into religion as a moderate.

Ok, enough fror now so you have time to respond before we move on to the role of moderates and the danger of them. However. I will post stats still.

Harris presents religious moderates as those who were likely born into religion, yet because of a deeper understanding of science and reality, have thrust off the totalitarian ideology of their fundamentalist counterparts and invented excuses which allow their ideas to fit both in the real world, and simultaneously in their fantasy world of religion.

Ok, remove the phrase "likely born into" and replace it with "either born into, or accepted personally as truth". My point was that I read his definition of a "moderate" as someone who believes all the dogma of faith at one time, but rejects it later due to science.

Obviously I am still missing the point. Where does Harris state either born into or accepted personally as truth are qualificators for a religious moderate?

Interesting question. Is there a way to be a religious moderate without personally accepting a religion, either being born into it, or accepting it along the way?

Anyone who does not accept religion personally, would be considered atheist correct? So unless one was either born into it, or accepted religion along the way, that person would have to be an atheistic, religious moderate. That simply doesn't make sense.

Hence to be a religious moderate, one must be born into religion, or accept it as true somewhere along the way, before trimming it down with intellect.

In other words, A person can be fully religious and then become a moderate. A person can be a moderate thinker and then find religion.

I'm missing where there is a problem.

Here is what I see as what Harris is referring to as "moderates"
On page 14 he gives his continuum of moderate to extremist. [b:fbe4687002]A religious moderate is one who draws solace and inspiration from a specific spiritual tradition and yet remain fully committed to tolerance and diversity. [/b:fbe4687002] This is the only definition I can find that Harris asserts is a "moderate".

Harris does provide this definition. He also expands on it with further writings. For example page 17 -

It is with respect to this rather surprising cognitive scenery that we must decide what it means to be a religious "moderate" in the twenty-first century. Moderates in every faith are obliged to loosely interpret (or simply ignore) much of their canons in the interests of living in the modern world. . . .

He continues on with further refining of what a moderate is.

[achilles12604]

But he hits it all on the head of the nail with this

Once a person believe, really believes, that certain ideas can lead to eternal happiness, he cannot tolerate the possibility that others might lead their loved ones astray.

Here is quite the message.

I'm not sure I would agree here. This is an example of Harris inserting an opinion, which my experience has negated.

My sister is Buddhist. She has rejected Jesus and Christianity in general. According to my beliefs she is headed for eternal destruction.

However, I am able to "tolerate that she was led away." In fact I am able to not only tolerate, but even like the guy who changed her beliefs. (Her longterm boyfriend). I like Bill (her BF). I am not angry at him for showing her something new which she chose to accept.

I think that this sort of "anger" would only apply to individuals who haven't really thought things through. Christian doctrine teaches that God adhere's to the ideas of "free will". Most people I know (and the producers of Bruce Almighty), agree that free will is God allowing people to reject him and refuse to follow and love him, taking instead a path of their own choosing.

Now if you really think about it, why should I try and control an aspect of my sister, which God himself has chosen not to control?

No I'm afraid that I am forced to disagree with Harris' assertion here, both because of my own experience, and on a logical level as described above.

From page 15:

Two myths now keep fatith beyond the fray of rational criticism, and they seem to foster religous extremism and religious moderation equally. (1) most of us believe that there are good things that people get from faith...... that cannot be found elsewhere; (2) many of us also believe that the terrible things that are sometimes done in the name of religion are the products not of faith per se but of our baser natures--forces like greed, hatred and fear

.

Further on he shows that religious moderates are those who have taken the higher road of pluralism, asserting that equal validity of all faiths, but in doing so, they neglect to notice the irredeemably sectarian truth claims of each.

In your case, you are tolerant of your sisters choice to practice buddhism. But if you believe that on judgment day one must accept Christ, then you cannot possibly hold the respect for your sisters choice of religion because you know she will be burning in hell, based on scripture, not your own personal interpretation. You may "tolerate" it, but does scripture allow you to? What I think Harris is alluding to is that you may personally say you tolerate it, but religion cannot.

I have bolded what I found to be an interesting pre-requisit in your paragraph.

Based on scripture . . . . Tell me, who's definition of scripture is the absolutely correct one? I base my interpretations on the same words on the same paper. I simply read it with a slightly more open mind than most of the catholic or protestant clergy.




Anyway, as for addressing what you wrote, or implied, I do not agree with your interpretation of the book. You write,

What I think Harris is alluding to is that you may personally say you tolerate it, but religion cannot.

But this is clearly not what Harris wrote. He said that violence stems from this inability to tolerate loved ones receiving bad info. Last time I checked, my bible was not capable of violence. It mostly sits around in my backpack. I haven't seen it punch anyone lately.

Thus the violence must be associated with a person, not the religion itself as you have implied. Thus I hold that Harris' statement was not entirely accurate, if for no other reason than my experiences, and the teachings of free will.


I believe we will probably debate Paul vs Jesus later. For as tolerant as Jesus is portrayed as being, Paul strikes me as a bit of a self righteous prick. But lets get into this when it comes.

[achilles12604]

Ok, I think we are on different waves again. Mostly my fault for missing some key statements.

On the issue of tolerance:

Harris is quite explicit in the intolerance of any religion. Pg 13 he starts his reasoning:

Each of these texts (referring to whatever book is used for any given religion) urges its readers to adopt a variety of beliefs and practices, some of which are benign, many of which are not. While all faiths have been touched here and there, by the spirit of ecumenicalism, the central tenet of every religious tradition is that all others are mere repositories of error, or at best, dangerously incomplete. Intolerance is thus intrinsic to every creed.

It is here that Harris hammers in the issue of belief he alluded to on pg 12. If one truly believes in the creed of their faith, they cannot be tolerant of others because their creed alone rejects this.

Isn't it funny when something happens in everyday life that just totally FITS into something else, totally unrelated which you are doing?

Here we are having this debate, and then while at my wife's doctor visit, I was reading Newsweek magazine and found an article which pertains to our discussion exactly.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19876834/site/newsweek/

An equally critical but perhaps less obvious benefit to U.S. Muslims is the religiosity of the American people. Even if a religious practice is regarded with suspicion in America, it is generally treated with respect. In a NEWSWEEK Poll, 69 percent of Americans said they thought Muslim American students should be allowed to wear headscarves in class. (The devout prime minister of Turkey, a Muslim country with a tradition of militant secularism, actually sent his daughters to America for college so they could continue wearing their scarves.) "When I say to an evangelical Christian, 'It's prayer time,' they might question the way I pray, but they understand viscerally the importance of prayer," says Eboo Patel, founder of the Interfaith Youth Core in Chicago. "When I lived in England"which Patel did from 1998 to 2001"and I said, 'It's prayer time,' people looked at me as if I was an alien."

It is possible to be devote in one's faith, and still tolerate another, even to the point of defending its rights.

Harris isn't flat wrong in his assertions. However, he has grossly overstated them.

You say you are tolerant of your sisters choice. I don't dispute that. Also, the interpretation thing is never good either. But the bottom line is that Christianity is intolerant of Islam which is intolerant of Judaism etc....... You may accept your sisters choice, but your creed rejects it. Though I realize your very open minded and liberal in your faith, scripture still doesn't allow for you to go to heaven and your sister to go as well. If your sister doesn't accept Christ, then she has no chance of eternal life. This is the intolerance of religion that Harris alludes to.

I'm not sure how believing that my sister is headed for destruction equates to my not being tolerant of her or her beliefs. I think you may be confusing tolerance with condoning or agreement. I can disagree with someone, even very strongly, and still be tolerant of both them, and even what I disagree with.

An example of intolerance would be if I refused to speak to me sister simply because of her beliefs. This would be placing action behind my disagreement.

While we are hammering out the belief and tolerance issue, I am going to hold off on the moderates issue since we obviously are having some wide differences before that area even comes up. Is this ok?

Fine with me. I think this will take us a while.

[Confused]

Ok, I think we are on different waves again. Mostly my fault for missing some key statements.

On the issue of tolerance:

Harris is quite explicit in the intolerance of any religion. Pg 13 he starts his reasoning:

Each of these texts (referring to whatever book is used for any given religion) urges its readers to adopt a variety of beliefs and practices, some of which are benign, many of which are not. While all faiths have been touched here and there, by the spirit of ecumenicalism, the central tenet of every religious tradition is that all others are mere repositories of error, or at best, dangerously incomplete. Intolerance is thus intrinsic to every creed.

It is here that Harris hammers in the issue of belief he alluded to on pg 12. If one truly believes in the creed of their faith, they cannot be tolerant of others because their creed alone rejects this.

Isn't it funny when something happens in everyday life that just totally FITS into something else, totally unrelated which you are doing?

Here we are having this debate, and then while at my wife's doctor visit, I was reading Newsweek magazine and found an article which pertains to our discussion exactly.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19876834/site/newsweek/

An equally critical but perhaps less obvious benefit to U.S. Muslims is the religiosity of the American people. Even if a religious practice is regarded with suspicion in America, it is generally treated with respect. In a NEWSWEEK Poll, 69 percent of Americans said they thought Muslim American students should be allowed to wear headscarves in class. (The devout prime minister of Turkey, a Muslim country with a tradition of militant secularism, actually sent his daughters to America for college so they could continue wearing their scarves.) "When I say to an evangelical Christian, 'It's prayer time,' they might question the way I pray, but they understand viscerally the importance of prayer," says Eboo Patel, founder of the Interfaith Youth Core in Chicago. "When I lived in England"—which Patel did from 1998 to 2001—"and I said, 'It's prayer time,' people looked at me as if I was an alien."

It is possible to be devote in one's faith, and still tolerate another, even to the point of defending its rights.

Harris isn't flat wrong in his assertions. However, he has grossly overstated them.

You say you are tolerant of your sisters choice. I don't dispute that. Also, the interpretation thing is never good either. But the bottom line is that Christianity is intolerant of Islam which is intolerant of Judaism etc....... You may accept your sisters choice, but your creed rejects it. Though I realize your very open minded and liberal in your faith, scripture still doesn't allow for you to go to heaven and your sister to go as well. If your sister doesn't accept Christ, then she has no chance of eternal life. This is the intolerance of religion that Harris alludes to.

I'm not sure how believing that my sister is headed for destruction equates to my not being tolerant of her or her beliefs. I think you may be confusing tolerance with condoning or agreement. I can disagree with someone, even very strongly, and still be tolerant of both them, and even what I disagree with.

An example of intolerance would be if I refused to speak to me sister simply because of her beliefs. This would be placing action behind my disagreement.

It isn't your tolerance that I think Harris is alluding to. It is the myth of religious tolerance. If your religion states that the Messiah has yet to come, then you cannot be tolerant of a religion that states the Messiah has already come.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/tolerance

tol-er-ance /ˈtɒlərəns/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[tol-er-uhns] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun 1. a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, practices, race, religion, nationality, etc., differ from one's own; freedom from bigotry.
2. a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward opinions and practices that differ from one's own.
3. interest in and concern for ideas, opinions, practices, etc., foreign to one's own; a liberal, undogmatic viewpoint.

Now, based on this definition, can we say that any religious dogma/ideology is tolerant of others? Is there anything in the bible that says you should tolerate those who commit sins against God? Does it not say that you should cast them out, destroy the town, stone them to death? Does scripture condone tolerance? This is where I think Harris is going in terms of tolerance w/belief. Your attitude might be tolerant, but is your religion?

While we are hammering out the belief and tolerance issue, I am going to hold off on the moderates issue since we obviously are having some wide differences before that area even comes up. Is this ok?

Fine with me. I think this will take us a while.

It appears so. But I am learning a lot. Honestly, I never thought we would get stuck so early on though.

[achilles12604]

Ok, I think we are on different waves again. Mostly my fault for missing some key statements.

On the issue of tolerance:

Harris is quite explicit in the intolerance of any religion. Pg 13 he starts his reasoning:

Each of these texts (referring to whatever book is used for any given religion) urges its readers to adopt a variety of beliefs and practices, some of which are benign, many of which are not. While all faiths have been touched here and there, by the spirit of ecumenicalism, the central tenet of every religious tradition is that all others are mere repositories of error, or at best, dangerously incomplete. Intolerance is thus intrinsic to every creed.

It is here that Harris hammers in the issue of belief he alluded to on pg 12. If one truly believes in the creed of their faith, they cannot be tolerant of others because their creed alone rejects this.

Isn't it funny when something happens in everyday life that just totally FITS into something else, totally unrelated which you are doing?

Here we are having this debate, and then while at my wife's doctor visit, I was reading Newsweek magazine and found an article which pertains to our discussion exactly.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19876834/site/newsweek/

An equally critical but perhaps less obvious benefit to U.S. Muslims is the religiosity of the American people. Even if a religious practice is regarded with suspicion in America, it is generally treated with respect. In a NEWSWEEK Poll, 69 percent of Americans said they thought Muslim American students should be allowed to wear headscarves in class. (The devout prime minister of Turkey, a Muslim country with a tradition of militant secularism, actually sent his daughters to America for college so they could continue wearing their scarves.) "When I say to an evangelical Christian, 'It's prayer time,' they might question the way I pray, but they understand viscerally the importance of prayer," says Eboo Patel, founder of the Interfaith Youth Core in Chicago. "When I lived in England"which Patel did from 1998 to 2001"and I said, 'It's prayer time,' people looked at me as if I was an alien."

It is possible to be devote in one's faith, and still tolerate another, even to the point of defending its rights.

Harris isn't flat wrong in his assertions. However, he has grossly overstated them.

You say you are tolerant of your sisters choice. I don't dispute that. Also, the interpretation thing is never good either. But the bottom line is that Christianity is intolerant of Islam which is intolerant of Judaism etc....... You may accept your sisters choice, but your creed rejects it. Though I realize your very open minded and liberal in your faith, scripture still doesn't allow for you to go to heaven and your sister to go as well. If your sister doesn't accept Christ, then she has no chance of eternal life. This is the intolerance of religion that Harris alludes to.

I'm not sure how believing that my sister is headed for destruction equates to my not being tolerant of her or her beliefs. I think you may be confusing tolerance with condoning or agreement. I can disagree with someone, even very strongly, and still be tolerant of both them, and even what I disagree with.

An example of intolerance would be if I refused to speak to me sister simply because of her beliefs. This would be placing action behind my disagreement.

It isn't your tolerance that I think Harris is alluding to. It is the myth of religious tolerance. If your religion states that the Messiah has yet to come, then you cannot be tolerant of a religion that states the Messiah has already come.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/tolerance

tolerance /ˈtɒlərəns/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[tol-er-uhns] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
noun 1. a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, practices, race, religion, nationality, etc., differ from one's own; freedom from bigotry.
2. a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward opinions and practices that differ from one's own.
3. interest in and concern for ideas, opinions, practices, etc., foreign to one's own; a liberal, undogmatic viewpoint.

Now, based on this definition, can we say that any religious dogma/ideology is tolerant of others? Is there anything in the bible that says you should tolerate those who commit sins against God? Does it not say that you should cast them out, destroy the town, stone them to death? Does scripture condone tolerance? This is where I think Harris is going in terms of tolerance w/belief. Your attitude might be tolerant, but is your religion?

As I said earlier, Harris made his point in reference to people and their actions, not the teachings of religion as a whole.

You are correct that religious texts are almost all exclusive. Each one rejects the others. But this does not necessarily cause violence. People interpreting those scriptures in a certain way, creates violence. Like the article I pulled from Newsweek, I maintain that MOST of the time, people agree to disagree and believe what they want. This sort of action is the at the very heart of the idea of tolerance.

a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, practices, race, religion, nationality, etc., differ from one's own; freedom from bigotry.

a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward opinions and practices that differ from one's own.


Harris writes that the PEOPLE of the various religions will never and can never tolerate anyone trying to sway those around them, thus resulting in violence. I can not agree with this statement. Not with the emphasis and fury with which he puts it forth.

I could agree if he had written something akin to (People's beliefs are very important to them. On occasion individuals allow these beliefs to override their better judgment and violence erupts. The occurrence of this given the numbers of population and the hundreds of different beliefs, is (insert adjective), but still can cause a significant impact on the world if it occurs to the wrong types of people, with the ability and tendency to react violently.) If he had written something more like this, I could agree with him on this point. However, because his implication, nay his very words suggested that all believers are incapable of tolerating other beliefs to sway those around them, I am forced to disagree. This sentiment is simply untrue, as Newsweek's poll showed.

I could also agree if he had written something like,"The teachings of the various religions are in stark contrast with one another. Each holy book demands strict adherance, to the rejection of all other teachings. Indeed, these religions try to teach great intolerance to their followers." I could accept this as true.

But again Harris didn't write this. He wrote that the people themselves were incapable of tolerating if someone tried to influence those they cared about away from the religion. I'm not debating you with regard to the general idea that religions teach intolerance. I am rejecting the position that Harris has put forth as common and factual.

[Confused]

I could also agree if he had written something like,"The teachings of the various religions are in stark contrast with one another. Each holy book demands strict adherance, to the rejection of all other teachings. Indeed, these religions try to teach great intolerance to their followers." I could accept this as true.

That is pretty much what he writes on pg 13:

Our situation is this: most of the people in this world believe that the Creator of the universe has written a book. We have teh misfortune of having many such books on hand, each making an exclusive claim to its infallibility.....Each of these texts urges its readers to adopt a variety of beliefs and practices, some of which are benign, many of which are not. All are in perverse agreement on one point of fundamental importance however: "respect" for other faiths, or for the views of unbelievers, is not an attitude that God endorses.......Intolerance is thus intrinsic to every creed.

We seem to be beating a dead horse here because I am viewing what Harris writes as applicable to religion in general, not each individual practitioner of it. You can practice tolerance, but God does not. This is where we seem to differ. Would you agree with this? If so, we will need to decide if it is really important to find a common ground here in order to move on to the next concept Harris addresses in regards to religious moderates.

I am not sure we need to agree to move on, I do however think we have to agree that Harris is addressing religion in its entirety rather than individual religions or practitioners. The premise of this book is an assertion of religion in its entirety. In other words, everything that has been done either by religion or in the name of religion or under the rebellion against religion.