Religion, what's the point?

bishblaize said:
I think you must be missing the point of the original comment. The point was that if you believe there is an objective morality then its reasonable to act like there is.

On the other hand if you do not believe in an objective right and wrong, then its unreasonable to act like there is.

The existence of god is irrelevant. All that we're discussing is the actions of the person relative to their belief.
Click to expand...

In what way would it be clearly different to argue rationally that there is a correct and incorrect line of thought which would then become unreasonable if you held to a subjective morality rather than an objective one?
 
Sam Harris has also called for racial profiling, I suspect he really does think he's different from the Pam Geller types but he's someone who has said torture is justified and a necessary evil despite many saying there is evidence to the contrary.

Many people have criticised religion. Richard Feynmann etc, but sweeping generalisations is exactly what he does make. CJ Werlemen, atheist writer for Salon has written books about bashing religion but puts it into proportionality when talking about religion from a sociopolitical POV. Harris looks at the poll numbers but will be happy to ignore other poll numbers that dampen/contradict his rhetoric. He wants to push a clash of civilisation, he's a bigot. Poor guy so badly wants to convince himself he isn't. And he is taken seriously. Glenn Greenwald once mentioned he's never faced so much vitriol online as he did compared to the Sam Harris fans when he had a go at Harris in the Guardian for hiding his anti-muslim animus under the guise of rationalism/atheism.

What does strike me as interesting though about Harris is the difference between his barbed rhetoric online in contrast to a relatively calm demeanour in person. Affleck wasn't the right type to debate him. Reza Aslan would have been much better. Or someone like Mehdi Hasan. Group of guys talking about Muslims and not a single Muslim or social scientist on the panel didn't feel right. Nicholas Kristoff in that shouting match I thought came out well and wrote a decent NY times op ed about it afterwards too.
 
Raoul said:
Sam Harris' response to the Affleck debacle.....

http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/can-liberalism-be-saved-from-itself?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed: SamHarris The End Of Faith, by Sam Harris
Click to expand...
Very much agree with this. Affleck looked like a driven agenda muppet who didn't have a clue with whom he is talking and what he is talking. His best argument on the debate was what 'you're saying, black people, they shoot each other' tell you all you need to know about how clueless he was.

Still, no idea why there wasn't there someone who is more competent. Harris is one of the best debaters, and it would have been fair if on the other side was someone who knows what he is speaking. Reza Aslan would have been perfect, especially considering that they hate each other.
 
Raoul said:
Sam Harris' response to the Affleck debacle.....

http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/can-liberalism-be-saved-from-itself?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed: SamHarris The End Of Faith, by Sam Harris
Click to expand...

Wow I totally missed that whole thing. Quite amazing how Affleck and Kristof practically proved what Harris and Maher just said seconds before they went all ape shit on Harris.

I mean come on if you can't have an honest debate over the topic of Islam being a harmful "idea" or philosophy (just for the record I think all monotheistic religions are harmful ideologies/philosophies/ideas not just Islam) without being called a bigot/racist than what's the point of calling yourself a liberal if all you do is shout down ideas that don't go conform with yours.
 
I'm not going to argue tht you can't argue that Islam or other religions are not good for society, have backward views, are not correct intellectually etc etc. The problem I have is that Harris said that Islam is the "mother lode" of bad ideas. Maher regularly hints at this as well quoting statistics. Look at how many people support the death penalty for apostates and uses that to argue that 25% of the globe's population is an existential threat, and the biggest one at that.

That is what I'm arguing, the notion that liberals are "afraid" of criticising Islam. You get pushback know on nonsense, and rightly so. I will vociferously challenge their islamophobic bullshit should I see it. Because Islamic fundamentalism is a problem, Muslims have some iffy views on things but to argue that we're a threat to society (Western or global) is hyperbolic bullshit.

Calling for me and my family to be profiled, to be put into intern camps (heard it on the lovely Fox News channel), this stuff isn't on the fringe far right or in the youtube comments section. Its mainstream. At its worst it's Anders Breivek style rhetoric, and then there's the political side of it. Banning of minarets in Switzerland for example.

And not to mention the rise in islamophobia in an academic sense and actual tangible sense with attacks on Sikhs (for "looking" Muslim) in the states and attacks on hijabs in the UK and elsewhere.

And still Sam Harris think Islam gets off easy. CNN had the headline "does islam condone violence?" they got some pushback on it from Reza Aslan who rightly pointed out that using terms like "Islamic world" is offensive because the realities of a woman in Saudi is miles away from what she'd have in say, Turkey. We absolutely have miles to go, but there are many Islamic countries with deeply religious people who have not brought into power Islamic groups

You would have thought jamaat-e-islamia would romp to victory in Pakistan, but they don't. Because its never as simple as "religious" + "believes in death for apostates" = danger to the planet.

A Daily Mail article once reported that 1 in 3 British muslims back killing in the name of Islam, read this on how nicely they manipulated the data on that for their headline
http://www.theguardian.com/science/the-lay-scientist/2010/dec/22/1

"Is it ever justifiable to kill in the name of religion?"
Yes, in order to preserve and promote that religion - 4%
Yes, but only if that religion is under attack - 28%
Click to expand...

And then of course there's Gallup which nobody ever wants to mention because it challenges their caricatures of Muslims.

So no I don't think Islam or Muslims are the mother lode of bad ideas. I think people like Sam Harris who have a Dick Cheney like mentality and worldview and opinions on what to do with Muslims is that. I'm not a religious person but I do believe that it is imperative we challenge Bill Maher type of rhetoric in vociferous terms but it is not evidence-based as much as they like to posit their viewpoints coming from an atheistic and therefore rational position. Much of it ignores social science (the little that we do have) in terms of saying how much of an impact religion plays in terrorism/terrorist goals etc, and a lot of it is about a weird siege mentality that they feel under threat by challenging this supposably unchallengable religion that has got liberals quaking in their boots.

Islam being challenged is mainstream, plenty do it. If you do it responsibly (i.e. criticise the ideas, the cultural practices, the opinions) and you do so in a broad sense (i.e. religion is bad) and in a proportional way then you're not a bigot. If you do it like Sam Harris: torture them, profile them, they are the worst idea ever...worse than climate change deniers etc etc and the mentality of the Islamic population at large poses a threat to us all and you make a career out of pushing for a clash of civilisations then you are an illiberal, unscientific, polemicist and a bigot.

Malala Yousafzai today with her Nobel Prize was appropriated by Harris as fighting against an ideology that is oppressive but she explicitly says she did it because she feels she is commanded and encouraged to do so by that ideology. You all may disagree, and say Muslims are followers of a terrible set of ideas, but the vast majority who subscribe to that ideology believe in humanity, compassion, and taking care of their families and friends. As a society/culture they will progress with better education, less poverty, challenges/reformists having a voice to affect cultural change. ISIS and these groups are a problem. Are Muslims in general, the ones you all have as your neighbours, fellow Manchester United supports, teachers, scientists, doctors they are not an existential threat. Asking for nuance, proportionality, more understanding, less caricaturing is not cowardice, it is progressive, makes you less of a dick and whatever it is that is the opposite of a bigot.
 
I thought Reza Aslan made a really fantastic argument here. Feel for him though, he's getting more and more frustrated as the hosts aren't getting his point but does well to stay composed!

 
Aslan usually makes good points and i particularly like his academic work about Jesus. That said, he and Harris obviously don't like each other and the tension is building by the day. They need to have a face off on TV on Maher's show or elsewhere soon.
 
JohnDoe said:
Are you being deliberately obtuse? Blatantly misrepresenting what's actually being said and written by Maher and Harris.

What a waste of time that post was.
Click to expand...

Yeah it was a bit long and ranty, sorry.

But I'm not sure I have misrepresented or made a conscious effort to misrepresent what Maher and Harris have said.

My issue with Maher is over his use of statistics to scare people and make simplistic and often what I find objectionable statements. Sam Harris I have an issue with for saying things like:

"Islam, more than any other religion human beings have devised, has all the makings of a thoroughgoing cult of death."

"I am one of the few people I know of who has argued in print that torture may be an ethical necessity in our war on terror."

"the people who speak most sensibly about the threat that Islam poses to Europe are actually fascists."

"We should profile Muslims, or anyone who looks like he or she could conceivably be Muslim, and we should be honest about it."

Perhaps you'll find Glenn Greenwald's take on Sam Harris' musings when it comes to Islam more worth your time and understand where we're coming from?
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/apr/03/sam-harris-muslim-animus

Or the atheist Salon and Alternet writer CJ Werleman
http://www.salon.com/2014/09/17/ath...ils_to_understand_the_islamic_threat_partner/

There's a reason I take issue with people like Pam Geller, Sam Harris and not many others who do speak against Islam/Muslim/cultural practices, who challenge norms and ideas etc. People like Maajid Nawaaz for example.
 
Raoul said:
Aslan usually makes good points and i particularly like his academic work about Jesus. That said, he and Harris obviously don't like each other and the tension is building by the day. They need to have a face off on TV on Maher's show or elsewhere soon.
Click to expand...

They did have a debate which is available on youtube about religion and compatibility with reason or something to that effect.

But yeah on geopolitics/terrorism and the role Islam plays in that would be interesting to see. Both clearly have a knowledge of about a lot of issues pertaining to their points of view.

Sam Harris does come across really well in person. Partly because he is such a good speaker (and indeed writer) so even some of the most objectionable stuff he says (which I find objectionable anyway) is disguised in erudite rhetoric which in my opinion just by virtue of being well written is interpreted as being rational/correct. Hitchens was much the same despite his often neocon views. Harris also has a calm demeanour in person which serves him well, its almost Chomsky-ish but with just enough personality and inflections to not make it boring.

Aslan I like because he there's not many like him in the media standing up for Muslims in the vociferous and passionate way that he does which comes across as hostile I guess. He articulates and embodies quite well the frustrations many western-raised Muslim moderates have when these kinds of conversations take place.
 
Yeah its good to see an actual religious scholar (i.e. one with PhDs and written thesis) talk about some of these things. He's presented as a Muslim speaker despite many things, e.g. his conclusions on Jesus directly contradicts what Islam says.

I also would like to see some of these guys who make a living out of Op-Eds and polemics delve into religion from an academic point of view a bit more. By that I mean social science, political science, publishing papers etc.

There's a lady called Brigitte Gabriel who gets the occasional bit of air time and has strong anti-Islam views which she writes on the web in the same milieu as Robert Spencer. But she posits herself as a "terrorism expert", literally using that phrase. Her wiki says she has a business administration course. So yeah I take issue with that, we've got polemicists and not academics framing debates, it makes for better television and angrier op-ed exchanges but doesn't really get us anywhere.
 
Well you don't need a degree to be an expert on something. Nor is a degree a guarantee that someone is smart on a given topic. Making sense is making sense regardless of credentials.
 
Shamwow said:
I thought Reza Aslan made a really fantastic argument here. Feel for him though, he's getting more and more frustrated as the hosts aren't getting his point but does well to stay composed!

Click to expand...


Ugh, Liberal journos are always the worst, even worst than reactionary and conservatives. CNN is probably the biggest trash around.
 
JohnDoe said:
Well you don't need a degree to be an expert on something. Nor is a degree a guarantee that someone is smart on a given topic. Making sense is making sense regardless of credentials.
Click to expand...

Of course, there are immunologists who are vaccine deniers. But its a good area for research. Like "does religion contribute to terrorism", that is a scientifically falsifiable hypothesis. You couldn't really do a double blinded placebo controlled trial, which after metanalysis is the pinnacle of scientific research, on it but you could have a go doing more social science stuff on it which could actually be illuminating and help us make better decisions on foreign policy and be beneficial sociopolitically.

Op-eds are nice but very often based on conjecture. And so you don't know if it really is "making sense" or just an opinion. It would be nice to see more people who write peer-reviewed theses on this stuff get more air time for a more evidence-based discussion and maybe if there is another prism to view these issues through that we aren't doing yet.
 
Wolverine said:
Of course, there are immunologists who are vaccine deniers. But its a good area for research. Like "does religion contribute to terrorism", that is a scientifically falsifiable hypothesis. You couldn't really do a double blinded placebo controlled trial, which after metanalysis is the pinnacle of scientific research, on it but you could have a go doing more social science stuff on it which could actually be illuminating and help us make better decisions on foreign policy and be beneficial sociopolitically.

Op-eds are nice but very often based on conjecture. And so you don't know if it really is "making sense" or just an opinion. It would be nice to see more people who write peer-reviewed theses on this stuff get more air time for a more evidence-based discussion and maybe if there is another prism to view these issues through that we aren't doing yet.
Click to expand...

I disagree. Much of social science is notoriously difficult to get right, because there are so many ways to get it wrong and it's so prone to error. There are many, many ways of answering the question "does religion contribute to terrorism" within social science, with wildly different conclusions. That's why I don't think it's particularly useful or necessary (not all of it mind).
 
Phil Duck said:
Ugh, Liberal journos are always the worst, even worst than reactionary and conservatives. CNN is probably the biggest trash around.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure, I'd take their rabbit in the headlights stares over Bill O'Reilly's shout them down and cut off the mic if that doesn't work style.
 
Phil Duck said:
Ugh, Liberal journos are always the worst, even worst than reactionary and conservatives. CNN is probably the biggest trash around.
Click to expand...

Don't think their liberal, at least not judging by the way they phrased their questioning. The blonde woman looks like she's right out of the Fox News female Aryan factory, and lo and behold a quick google search shows she used to work for Fox News.
 
Yeah it's a good response. The thing that worries me is that we're at a point now where Harris & his ilk have become such professional anti-theists that they're almost a liability to the ideology they've done a lot to promote. Him, Dawkins and Hitchens have been very important and very needed high profile trailblazers for a still pretty fledgling ideology (relative to worldwide religious entrenchment) but the very nature of their prominence sets them up as easy targets for retaliatory accusations of being 'prophets' for it. Which religious people love to think is some kind of hypocritical trump card.

Obviously the big falacy of that is that no one who agrees with their opinions on religion has any obligation to agree with them about anything else (or indeed every facet of their God-bashing) but the more they become the 'faces' of a thinking that by necessity needs no organising, no rules or no leaders, the more they become short hand equivalents for lazy neutrals. Dawkins is clearly the biggest offender, but Harris seems to be grooming himself as his replacement.

It doesn't help that he comes across like Ben Stiller playing a pedantic alien robot trying to ape human interaction.
 
Yeah the Ben Stiller thing is a bit surreal. Watching Harris almost feels like you're trapped in some bizarre Stiller comedy, especially when he was on set with Affleck.
 
When the Hitchens biopic starring Roger Allam is made, Stiller's a shoe in for Harris. I'm going Nigel Havers for Dawkins.

Maybe I should Kickstarter this?
 
Dennet's a tough one. I was thinking Jim Broadbent, but obviously most of the deep character stuff would rely on the stunt beard.

Linking back to the earlier point, Dennet's a great example of the kind of guy that ideally should be the face (if there needs to be a face, which there doesn't) of the "movement"...But because he's so tame and fluffy and unconfrontational, he never would be.
 
Last edited:
I wonder if it was Ayaan Hirsi Ali making the same points Harris made on Bill Maher's show, Affleck would have been so quick to come in with the whole 'it's racist' argument.
 
Amethyst said:
I wonder if it was Ayaan Hirsi Ali making the same points Harris made on Bill Maher's show, Affleck would have been so quick to come in with the whole 'it's racist' argument.
Click to expand...

That actually wouldn't surprise me. The fact that Ayaan Hirsi Ali had to take a job at the conservative think tank American Enterprise Institute because no liberal institutions wanted her seems very illustrative of the problem. A woman that is a victim of FGM, fled from a forced marriage, had her collaberator killed in the streets of Amsterdam in broad daylight because of a movie they made critical of the treatment of women within Islamic societies, and who lives with armed security around her 24/7, and yet amazingly enough she's radioactive to many liberals because of her criticism of Islam. Even Nicholas Kristof, the great defender of women's rights, has all but denounced her as a bigot. It's extraordinary.

Admittedly some of her statements have been a bit over the top (and arguably counter-productive), but if anyone deserves a platform to speak about Islam without charges of racism or bigotry it's her.
 
Raoul said:
You haven't really articulated a position in this thread. Do you have one or are you just being a contrarian hipster ?
Click to expand...

I've said several times in this thread I'm a zen buddhist so I'm not avoiding making my views known. I appreciate you won't have read every single post in a 169 page thread so probably just missed it, but still.

I don't think that theist religions represent any form of factual truth. But then I don't think life can be boiled down to facts and falsehoods.

I think that theist religions often do a lot of good and are represented by some seriously clever people. Besides with more than half the entire population of the planet being Christians or Muslims, any sweeping statement is bound to be a gross generalisation. I think the rise of both Christian and Muslim fundamentalists is a shame, but neither represents the totality of their religions.

I also think that rationalism is, if anything, less relevant to the more subtle aspects of the human experience than religion. rationalism claims complexity, but in truth it often views the world in terms of black and white. Any such over simplification is contrary to the complex and subjective experience every human has. It sometimes seems that many rationalists are simply avoiding thinking about the complexity of the human condition by claiming only the rational aspects of life are worth thinking about In the first place. Complex stuff that doesn't fit into the paradigm of rational or irrational is disregarded and often denigrated.

Theist religions oversimplify too of course. They just do it in a different way.

Zen Buddhism doesn't claim to have any answers so if you're looking for them its not for you. Indeed it kind of says life is simply too complex and contradictory to ever fully understand and the best you can do is roll with it. Learn to appreciate the contradictions. By all means try to understand bits of it but you'll never grasp the entirety of reality. Better to understand your own nature.

On the whole I don't think that rigid beliefs around God are better than rigid beliefs about rationalism. However in a thread where the general trend is rationalists criticising theist religions I seem to end up supporting the religious argument.
 
I disagree, there are Muslim feminists challenging FGM (although its rare outside of Africa), child marriages, repressive ideas, honour killings, cultural norms. which are by no means exclusive to Islam but certainly a massive problem in Muslim majority countries.

Irshad Manji, Mona Eltahawy are a few names and they do so without saying things like Islam is a nihilistic death cult (which fair enough she's entitled to as an opinion) but she says things like...

"Violence is inherent in Islam – it’s a destructive, nihilistic cult of death. It legitimates murder"

"Once it’s defeated, it can mutate into something peaceful. It’s very difficult to even talk about peace now. They’re not interested in peace."

Along with some very disturbing answers to some questions here
http://reason.com/archives/2007/10/10/the-trouble-is-the-west/singlepage

She had a good youtube debate with Maajid Nawaaz who is a reformist Muslim now who took her to task for her wikipedia-like knowledge in many cases when it comes to scripture and mistranslations of Arabic.

I am as much scared for me life if she was in charge in any political sense as I would be being an atheist Shia as compared to militant Sunni groups.

There is precedent of what crushing religion by force/militarism in Soviet Russia, Albania or through. And it wasn't pretty. You look at Ayaan Hirsi's "them vs us" mentality that she wants, her defense of George W Bush in that interview, her views on the Palestine/Israel conflict (which exposes a lot of moral hypocrisy in Harris too IMO).

I am glad that majority of atheists (including myself) that I know in person do not want a clash of civilisation but want dialogue, change through legal (and not military) ways which isn't what Harris and Hirsi want.

I am often called for "misrepresenting" their positions but I've not levelled the charges of Islamophobia against many other prominent atheists thinkers or bloggers. That's what these guys don't understand. They think liberals are against them because they are too PC or wanting to avoid the charge of racism or bigotry. But if you call for a quarter of the world's population to be "crushed" you are going to get some pushback.

The far right want this war on Islam, the left is reflexive against that because they see that leaking into the mindset of their own too. I do not think Sam Harris and Sarah Palin are identical. But in terms of what Harris has said, as erudite as he is, I am as much scared for my fellow Muslims with his hawkish views on what should be done as I would be with many on the right.

The following discussion on the Young Turks show with non-believers (including CJ Werleman) regarding Harris is closer to my point of view and some of the issues we have touched on regarding Islam:

 
You must log in or register to reply here.