The End of Faith...

[fajrdrako]

I just finished reading The End of Faith by Sam Harris. I found it a moving, insightful and well-expressed book. I kept wanting to copy quotes from it, and I will.

His basic premise is that religion is the root of the worst evils in the world today - all the nastiest wars, all the worst bigotry, all the worst oppression of women or minority groups, all the suicide bombing and violence. His two polarities are reason and faith and it's reason that enhances human happiness, faith which causes suffering and misery.

Of course, Sam Harris was preaching to the converted where I am concerned, and many of his comments are things I have long believed and said - for instance, that any religion based on a book is suspect because it codifies a world-view that is one or two thousands years out of date and not only irrelevant to our world, but dangerous for it; and, moreover, religions based on books prohibit what should be the spiritual duty of every single person - to think for themselves. And the best information in this book, where I, personally, am concerned, is that spirituality need not be tied to religion to be viable.

Sam Harris states it all more clearly and more strongly than I ever have, and though I agree with most of his conclusions - that rationality is not incompatible with spirituality, and is the potential salvation of our species - I don't agree with them all. He thinks pacifism is immoral - and seems to see no middle ground between killing the enemy and letting the enemy kill us: he proclaims categorically that pacifism is immoral. But when a wild animal comes into a city, we don't kill it, these days - we drug it and return it to the wild. Surely some such middle ground is possible when the wild beasts are human?

Harris has some lines that made me laugh out loud with the twisting of ideas; others that I reread because I was so impressed by the ideas expressed. He isn't afraid of semi-colons or colons or footnotes, making him my stylistic hero. The book is not only fascinating, it's gripping - though the passages about the history and explicit nature of religion in historical terms make for some grim and gruelling chapters.

What is new and interesting about Harris is that he rejects the notion of religious tolerance or religious moderation, which merely perpetuates and condones the crimes of religion. He believes we cannot afford to be tolerant of those who would destroy the world (in all senses) for the sake of their faith - not as a perversion of their faith, but as a basis of it. But religion is so closely tied to culture, and how does one destroy culture without destroying those born into that culture?

In subjective terms, the search for the self seems to entail a paradox: we are, after all, looking for the very thing that is doing the looking. Thousands of years of human experience suggests, however, that the paradox here is only apparent: it is not merely that the component of our experience that we call "I" cannot be found; it is that it actually disappears when looked at in a rigorous way." - pp. 213-214

Mysticism is a rational enterprise. Religion is not. - p. 221

While I do not mean to single out the doctrine of Islam for special abuse, there is no question that, at this point in history, it represents a unique danger to us all, Muslim and non-Muslim alike. - p. 28

Consider it: every person you have ever met, every person you will pass in the street today, is going to die. Living long enough, each will suffer the loss of his friends and family. All are going to lose eerything they love in this world. Why would one want to be anything but kind to them in the meantime?- p. 226

Man is manifestly not the measure of all things. This universe is shot through with mystery. The very fact of its being, and of our own, is a mystery absolute, and the only miracle worthy of the name. - p. 227

To say that a person is "color-blind" or "achromatopsic" is now a straightforward statement about the state of the visual pathways to his brain, while to say that he is "an evil psychopath" or "lacking in moral fibre" seems hopelessly unscientific. This will almost certainly change. If there are truths to be known about how human beings conspire to make each other happy or miserable, there are truths to be known about ethics. - p. 175.

There are sources of irrationality other than religious faith, of course, but none of them are celebrated for their role in shaping public policy. - p. 165

Saving a drowning child is no more a moral duty than understanding a syllogism is a logical one. We simply do not need religious ideas to motivate us t live ethical lives. Once we begin thinking seriously about happiness and suffering, we find that our religious traditions are no more reliable on questions of ethics than they have been on scientific questions generally. - p. 172

It is clear that we have arrived at a period in our history where civil society, on a global scale, is not merely a nice idea; it is essential for maintenance of civilization. Given that even failed states now possess potentially disruptice technology, we can no longer afford to live side by side with malign dictatorships or with the armies of ignorance. - p. 150

We should, I think, look upon modern despotisms as hostage crises. Kim Jon Il has thrity million hostages. Saddam Hussein had twenty-five million. The clerics in Iran have seventy million more. It does not matter that many hostages have been so brainwashed that they would fight their would-be liberators to the death. They are held prisoner twice over - by tyranny and by their own ignorance. - p. 151

Comments

[countrycousin.livejournal.com]

hmmm. I understand what he is saying, and am sympathetic to his point of view, but from what you've excerpted here, he seems hopelessly muddled.

Reason is very useful - I'm all for it - but it is severely circumscribed in its applicability. That was figured out some time ago, but it isn't clear he got the message. One needs faith to operate. (It doesn't have to be faith in a major religion.) Using it has all sorts of problems - people who have trouble reasoning prefer to use faith even when reason is appropriate. What is the difference between a priest and a scientist to those who can't follow the scientist's train of reasoning? There is a social stability in sticking to tradition, and a risk in accepting new ways too quickly. I suspect the ongoing battle between those two camps has evolutionary origins.

*goes off to ponder the irony inherent in the last statement*

[widget-alley.livejournal.com]

From what you say, that seems like a rather black/white approach. What about things like Quakerism? It's religion, but as far as I know, it has never oppressed anyone, and, in most cases, has been overwhelmingly positive. Most Quakers are pacifist, too, but, to quote the New Zealand Friends' declaration of peace, "This does not mean we are passive when faced with the violent and the injust." The Serbian revolution that brought down Milosivec seems like a pretty good indication that that approach can work.

[monsieureden.livejournal.com]

I can see the pov but being a person who values faith over reason, and who has never been violent nor forced my views on anyone else, I think it's a little black and white. My faith is based on a book, which I think is fine, but it's also based on experience, prayer, personal study, etc. I study that book for my own means, disregarding what I find to be dated and what I find to cross all eras; I have no intentions of quoting it to dispute anyone else's lives. I think you can have faith based on a book and still think for yourself. You may not be able to belong to particular groups, but that doesn't define your faith.

I don't ever want to be a purely reason-oriented being. Faith to me is like mythology, it's believing beyond the senses and beyond this existence, it's a very human thing to me. It isn't always relgious. So basically, I think there are too many exceptions to the rule to totally discount faith. There are too many ways faith helps people the same way it harms. It all depends on how you use it.

[silverwhistle.livejournal.com]

Too damn right. I read about this book, but haven't yet read it for myself. The key, I think, is education. A lot of people get off on the æsthetics of formal religion, and confuse the æsthetic response with "religion".

[silverwhistle.livejournal.com]

Re: Pacifism, yes, I see his point. It can only work if 100% of the population embraces it. Otherwise, the pacifist depends on other people to defend him/her, and do his/her dirty work for them.

[silverwhistle.livejournal.com]

Reason doesn't rule out art, poetry, myth. What it does is prevent the blurring of the boundaries of reality and fiction, which is what is dangerous.

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

I can only say that I wish more people with faith handled the matter the way you do.

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

[Error: Irreparable invalid markup ('<i.the>') in entry. Owner must fix manually. Raw contents below.]

<i.The key, I think, is education.</i>

The ray of hope for the future that I see is that where education comes, and a certain standard of living that is both the cause and by-product of education, reason tends to follow in its wake - or so it has done in the Western world, to some extent. Harris makes the point repeatedly (and if he has any major writing flaw, it's to repeat himself) that the Muslem world of today is living at the educational/social level of Europe in the 14th century. If 13th-century Europe managed to transform into the intellectual world of today, then 21st century Islam can make the same conceptual transformations - if change happens before war overcomes everyone.

Good point about the aesthetics. I too value the aesthetics. Frankly, I love precisely the aspects of religion that are conceptually dangerous - the fact that it perserves medieval mythic forms, like the use of a ring to seal a vow, magical transubstantiations, gothic architecture and stained glass, saintly deeds (especially St. George and St. Michael and their dragons), the metaphors, the angels....

But mostly my "belief" in it is the same sort of believe which I save for art and beauty and literature and heroic legend - a poetic love, but not a faith. I feel much the same way about the world-view of Homer - with adjustments for my special fondness for the middle ages.

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

I can see that point, but I don't believe it. One can handle an enemy or obstacle or theeat without using his/her methods. If people are throwing around nuclear bombs, it doesn't matter who is sending them up and who they are landing on - everybody dies, whether they are trying to attack, or defend themselves, or whatever. I think it is preferable to find alternatives.

This isn't to say that I can't admire the heroism of those who fight. Nor is it to say we should ignore or underestimate a real threat, like Chamberlain.

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

Yes - that's Harris' point exactly. That faith-based action are always open to error because they bypass reason.

The 'boundaries of reality and fiction' is an interesting concept to someone like me, who loves fiction, works of the imagination, and tries to reconstruct a historical past in accordance with my notion of the truth. I find that boundary area fascinating - yes, it's important to me to know what is truth and what is fiction, but they weave together in interesting ways and fiction often creates fact - i.e., belief in something that didn't actually happen, or belief that it happened in a way that isn't as believed.

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

From what you say, that seems like a rather black/white approach.

Harris presents it in such terms, and insists that an areas-of-grey approach is half the problem - that in becoming apologists for any religion, we make possible the extremists who would destroy us all as infidels.

What about things like Quakerism?

Harris does not actually talk about Quakers - though he talks about Jains, which I think would be a sort of analogue. I think his answer would be something along the lines that although Quakers themselves are blameless, insofar as they are Christian, they partake of a religion based on a book that demands the burning of witches and heretics, and are dependent only on their conscience - or their goodwill - and specifically, their individual choice not to fulfull that commandment of the Bible.

to quote the New Zealand Friends' declaration of peace, "This does not mean we are passive when faced with the violent and the injust."

Yes. If I were Christian, I would be a Quaker. I might be a Quaker anyway if it weren't for the necessary detail of believing in Jesus and the Bible and the Christain God. Otherwise Quaker views are pretty much like my own - but that's a big "otherwise".

I do not, of course, presume to answer for Harris on that matter.

The Serbian revolution that brought down Milosivec seems like a pretty good indication that that approach can work.

A triumph of international law over despotism and chaos? That is exactly what Harris, and I, think is optimum for the world.

[silverwhistle.livejournal.com]

Personally, there is nothing I would be willing to die for, but a few things I'd be willing to kill for. I would rather kill than be killed.

[silverwhistle.livejournal.com]

If 13th-century Europe managed to transform into the intellectual world of today, then 21st century Islam can make the same conceptual transformations - if change happens before war overcomes everyone.

How long will it take the Christian nutters, too? They've backtracked on the fact there was an Enlightenment in the West!

I feel much the same way about the world-view of Homer - with adjustments for my special fondness for the middle ages.

Yes - we can enjoy it as art and pleasing fiction, without taking it as factual.

[silverwhistle.livejournal.com]

I think because I spend so much time in the world of the imagination, I am very aware of the boundaries, and police them strongly. That's why I worry when fiction gets peddled as 'fact'.

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

I think Harris would agree with the 'evolutionary origins' theory! And I think he'd argue that no one needs faith in religion to operate - but that's the whole thesis of a rather detailed book that he take great pains to explain as he goes; I couldn't possibly paraphrase.

What is the difference between a priest and a scientist to those who can't follow the scientist's train of reasoning?

Oh dear, here I am trying to anticipate what Harris would answer - inadequately, I'm sure.

I think he would say that to those who can't follow the scientists' reasoning, there is still no imperative on him to act in accordance with the scientists' dictates as he would holy commandment from the Bible or the Koran. Hehas said, whether he understands it or not, with no punishment involved if he fails to do so either actual punishment (as in the Inquisition, or the legal punishments handed out today by Muslem rulers on apostate Muslems) or promised punishment in the afterlife.

And that's a big difference.

here is a social stability in sticking to tradition,

Stability is not so good when it involves, say, enslavement, warfare, or retrograde thinking.

a risk in accepting new ways too quickly

Two or three thousand years and counting....

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

I think that's where I stand too. It's important to me to know the 'truth' Ias closely as possible) before I weave the fiction.

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

How long will it take the Christian nutters, too? They've backtracked on the fact there was an Enlightenment in the West!

Yes - rather a large movement to just overlook. Or ignore. Or deny. And their denials ring hollow - though presumably not to themselves. I cannot believe that there are people in the U.S. who deny evolution and believe in Creationism on a very simplistic level. I cannot believe that there are other people - school boards, yet! - who think this is okay.

Yes - we can enjoy it as art and pleasing fiction, without taking it as factual.

And we can enjoy, sympatize with, and understand their world-view without partaking of it.

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

There are things I would die for, if I had to - but chances are that my death will be an unmeaningful thing due to bodily-functions-failure just like most other people's deaths are. I'm not sure if there is anything I would kill for, because I don't believe it necessarily helps a principle or an idea to die for it. It'd rather live for it, or illustrate it in my life and my writing.

[monsieureden.livejournal.com]

Me too. :(

[widget-alley.livejournal.com]

I might be a Quaker anyway if it weren't for the necessary detail of believing in Jesus and the Bible and the Christain God.

..... Are you talking about programmed, evangelical meetings? Because I can tell you right now, at least half of the people in my unprogrammed Meeting would not even describe themselves as Christian, and I do not know a single one who believes in the traditional Christian god, or, for that matter, the absolute divinity of Jesus. I'm closer to pagan in my spiritual views than I am Christian, and I was born under the care of a Meeting and have been a fully-fledged member for eighteen years. Most of my friends are agnostic or atheist, my mother is... probably closest to Taoist. *grin* If you're interested in Quakerism, by all means, do not let your lack of subscription to Christianty keep you from checking out an unprogrammed Meeting. They couldn't possibly care less.

I <3 Quakerism-- no creeds, no dogma, no preachers, just silence and the idea that every person can have a direct relationship with the Divine, the Universe, or just their own inner wisdom. Although, of course, you don't have to believe that, 'cause, you know, no creed. :D

[monsieureden.livejournal.com]

My example of myth was to show that faith can be a perfectly lovely thing. I am neither anti-reason, but I am not ALL reason and anti-faith, as seems to be the push of this book from what I read in the entry.

[silverwhistle.livejournal.com]

I don't think that 'faith' in anything which is not real is lovely at all. I think it's bloody dangerous.
One can appreciate stories & c without believing them to be literally true. I worry about anyone who believes dead people getting up and walking really happens.

[silverwhistle.livejournal.com]

Despite occasionally getting very depressed due to unemployment and poverty, I value my own life too highly. I don't value some people's that greatly, though. The under-educated trolls who made my life hell as a child... I'm glad some of them are now dead.

[monsieureden.livejournal.com]

I am quite sure my faith in God (or anything pertaining to my spirtuality) is not dangerous, and I think it would be pretty presumptuous for anyone to say so. Faith to me isn't the core problem, it's the extent to which people take their faith. Anything in excess can be dangerous.

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

..... Are you talking about programmed, evangelical meetings? Because I can tell you right now, at least half of the people in my unprogrammed Meeting would not even describe themselves as Christian, and I do not know a single one who believes in the traditional Christian god, or, for that matter, the absolute divinity of Jesus.

Hmm. Maybe I could handle that. Last time I went to a Quaker meeting, which must have been twenty years ago, they were describing themselves as Christian, at least in their printed literature. Perhaps it is time for me to look into it again.

I describe myself as pantheist, though calling myself a Quaker-type Taoist might fit the bill, or certain varieties of Hinduism of Shinto.

Yes, I love Quakerism for exactly the reasons you describe them as espousing. I also like the Quaker sense of social responsibility. I would probably be Quaker now if it were not for the caveat already mentioned - ties to Christianity - and that I don't feel a particular need for group worship - although I certainly felt the meetings I went to in the past were worthwhile.