Faith Won't Heal a Divided World

[Freedom_from_Chains]

Sam Harris
“On Faith” panelist Sam Harris is the author of the best-selling books Letter to a Christian Nation (2006) and The End of Faith (2005), which won the 2005 PEN Award for Nonfiction and has been translated into many foreign languages. Harris is a graduate in philosophy from Stanford University, has studied both Eastern and Western religious traditions, and is now completing a doctorate in neuroscience. He makes regular appearances on television and radio to discuss the danger that religion now poses to modern societies. His essays have appeared in Newsweek, The Los Angeles Times, The Times of London and The Boston Globe. Close. Sam Harris
“On Faith” panelist Sam Harris is the author of the best-selling books Letter to a Christian Nation (2006) and The End of Faith (2005), which won the 2005 PEN Award for Nonfiction and has been translated into many foreign languages. more »
Main Page | Sam Harris Archives | On Faith Archives

Faith Won't Heal a Divided World
Most Christians believe that Jesus was the Son of God and, therefore, divine; Muslims, however, believe that Jesus was not divine and that anyone who thinks otherwise will suffer the torments of hell (Koran 5:71-75; 19:30-38). This difference of opinion offers about as much room for compromise as a coin toss.

If there is common ground to be found through interfaith dialogue, it will only be found by people who are willing to keep their eyes averted from the chasm that divides their faith from all others. It is time we began to wonder whether such a strategy of politeness and denial will ever heal the divisions in our world.

True dialogue requires a willingness to have one’s beliefs about reality modified through conversation. Such an openness to criticism and inquiry is the very antithesis of dogmatism. It is worth observing that religion is the one area of our lives where faith in dogma -- that is, belief without sufficient evidence -- is considered a virtue. If such faith is a virtue, it is a virtue that is completely unknown to scientific discourse. Science is, in fact, the one domain in which a person can win considerable prestige for proving himself wrong. In science, honesty is all. In religion, faith is all. This is about as invidious as comparisons get.

Whenever human beings make an honest effort to get at the truth, they reliably transcend the accidents of their birth and upbringing. It would, of course, be absurd to speak of “Christian physics” or “Muslim algebra.” And there is no such thing as Iraqi or Japanese -- as distinct from American -- science. Reasonable people really do have a monopoly on the truth. And while they might not agree about everything in the near term, common ground surrounds them on all sides. Consequently, there is no significant impediments within scientific discourse: It isn’t always pretty, but the conversation continues without appeals to force or deference to dogma. There are scientific dogmas, of course, but wherever they are found, they are set upon with hammer blows. In science, it is a cardinal sin to pretend to know something that you do not know. Such pretense is the very essence of religious faith.

It is not an accident that scientific discourse has produced an extraordinary convergence of opinion and remarkable results. What has interfaith dialogue produced? Meetings between representatives of the world’s major religions yield little more than platitudinous calls for peace and a willingness to ignore what many participants strongly believe -- that every other party to the conversation will probably spend eternity in hell for his misconceptions about God. The differences between scientific and religious discourse should tell us something about where to place our hopes for an undivided world.

www.samharris.org

Posted by Sam Harris on November 14, 2006 9:00 PM

[TallahasseeGrannie]

1. Harris doesn't think faith will

heal the world? Wow! What a surprise! Who knew?

[greyl]

2. He provides damn solid reasons for his view.

Care to show us the weaknesses you see in his arguments?

[Freedom_from_Chains]

3. Every time I post one of these they become damn silent

after being asked for their proofs. ;-)

[greyl]

7. Well, arguments against Harris aren't just lying around everywhere, so

it may require a bit more time. Hopefully some serious thought is going on.

[Freedom_from_Chains]

8. You're an optimist!

:toast:

[kwassa]

15. Why do anyone of us need to prove anything to you?

I don't need your acceptance of my beliefs.

Why should I care?

I don't need to prove anything to you, as far as I can see.

[kiahzero]

17. Exactly

If there's no desire to spread one's beliefs, there's no need to prove them to others.

[greyl]

22. I'm curious what you think the difference is between spreading beliefs

and education.

?

[kiahzero]

25. In the context of religion?

Religious education would be: "People believe X."
Spreading of religious beliefs would be: "You should believe X."

If I'm saying, "I believe Y," there's no need for me to justify that belief to others. If I'm saying, "You should believe Y" or "You shouldn't believe Z," then it's right for you to demand some sort of proof for that assertion.

[greyl]

62. No, not in religious context - including it.

"If there's no desire to spread one's beliefs, there's no need to prove them to others."

I'm trying to pinpoint the differences between what we can consider a desire to educate (which I assume most would smile upon) between a desire to spread religious beliefs (which many have a strong reaction against, re proselytizing)

The reply "why should we have to prove anything to you?" strikes me as a cop-out which indicates a weak pov.

[kiahzero]

72. It's not a cop-out.

It's a sign of evidence which cannot be replicated for others.

If an alien were to land on my doorstep right now, do all of the things necessary to prove beyond a shadow of a hint of a doubt that it was in fact an alien, and then leave without leaving a trace of physical evidence behind that I could use to prove my encounter to others, it would be irrational not to believe that it happened in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. However, without physical evidence, it would also be irrational to attempt to prove to anyone else that the event occurred.

[greyl]

83. Faults seen in Harris's argument can't be replicated for others?

That's what this is specifically about, remember?

[kiahzero]

99. Wait... what?

Faults seen in Harris's argument can't be replicated for others?

I legitimately don't understand what you're asking here.

[Zhade]

144. "there's no need for me to justify that belief to others."

In the land of people who believe, despite evidence that disproves the very idea, in idiocy like "Intelligent Design" and try to foist that onto our children, do you really think that statement is true?

I don't. Leastways, not when someone's religious beliefs motivate them to use that unjustified belief to push for things like teaching unscientific bullshit like ID in public schools.

In some cases, it is an absolute necessity that believers justify their beliefs - and in those cases ("God hates fags") they can't possibly do so, because there is no basis for their beliefs except how they feel about them.

Take abortion as an example - anti-choicers aren't as concerned with us believing what they do about it, as long as they get their way and impose their anti-choice mindset as law.

(Keep in mind that I'm not saying YOU support anti-gay bigotry or laughable nonsense like Intelligent Design based on religious beliefs utterly lacking corroboration.)

[TallahasseeGrannie]

59. Explain something to me

Why do you feel I (or Christians in general) need to prove anything to you? I'm sure you're a great person and all, but I've never met you and your religious beliefs are none of my business.

I think this is what happens when the scientific mind approaches faith. It wants PROOF. And most of us have our own personal proof and no interest in sharing it. It's something you have to get for yourself. And you won't get it from matches of oral tennis.

I have determined that here in RT, the demand for PROOF is actually a demand for logical argument, which is an artform in itself, and I can see a whole lot of folks want to practice it. (and are, to their credit, quite good at it) But I have no interest in that skill, just like you probably don't want to learn to crochet..which I happen to be very good at. I think if we ever met, you'd sit in your rocker on the front porch talking about proof and I'd just keep crocheting and eating cookies. Where would that get us?

There is no proof. Men have argued this for thousands of years, better men than you or I, and nobody has won. Faith is an inner belief, perhaps it is even an emotion. Some folks have it; some don't. And I do think that is the way the world works.

I'd hope if you ever did show up on my porch and rock with me that you'd just let it go and have a few cookies and I'd tell you about the time the gator got into the garden.

[Finder]

93. But would you go to a crochet forum and refuse to discuss your techniques? n/t

[TallahasseeGrannie]

101. Ahhhhh "I see, said the blind man!"

So you see R/T as a place for logical argument and debate? See, that's the problem. I don't. I'll tell you what I believe and why, but I'm not a debater and I won't get into a pissing contest. And I'm quite fine with the folks who don't believe. I like them. We agree to disagree and that's life. I don't call them dumb or spiritually challenged or stupid things like that, and they don't tell me I believe in fairy tales. But I do ask questions, like what does "sacred" mean to you, or what do you feel in a church if you are an atheist, and I'm honest with my feelings and beliefs. I thought that was what the forum was, not debate time. Which doesn't mean I don't think debates are well-placed here...they are fine. I just choose not to enter into them on that level.

[Finder]

104. You are always open to discussion...both sides luv ya...

and I wasn't referring to you in any way.

I was referring to those that feel offended if they are asked questions or feel their beliefs challenged.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

129. Thank you very much

I rarely get insulted with questions or even challenges. But I've have been known to get annoyed at the adolescent crowd who want so hard to prove how enlightened they are, at the expense of others. And I've seen that about five times total. Mostly folks are respectful, if passionate. I personally have a complete fascination for the beliefs of others, whether believers or not. Nothing is more interesting to me.

[kiahzero]

4. The Abrahamic-centric notion that all theists believe in Hell, for one.

The notion of eternal punishment for not believing the right thing is pretty much exclusively a Christian and Muslim concept.

[Freedom_from_Chains]

5. O.K. so when you look at the major religions of the world

they are about 40% Christian, 40% Muslim, and then all the others. So then I would have to say that he is writing about the majority, wouldn't you?

[kiahzero]

19. Your estimates appear to be off

http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html

If these numbers resemble the actual percentages, the percentage of people that believe in eternal punishment for non-believers is near or less than half of the world's population.

[trotsky]

87. Didn't notice this earlier.

You changed the sampling criteria to exaggerate your point.

In post #4 you're talking about "all theists."

Here you are using stats covering all *people*.

Taking out the 16% nonreligious, and at probably most of the 6% each of Buddhists, "Chinese traditionalists," and "primal-indigenous" (animistic, maybe?), that would adjust the stats less in your favor.

[greyl]

6. Buddhism and Hinduism have the "same" thing.

They say the default state of humanity is one of divine suffering, and that one must think and behave a certain way in order to achieve eternal release. Salvation, in other words. Same stuff, different costumes.

[Freedom_from_Chains]

9. Yeah, I have been really concerned lately about those Buddhist

terrorists with the AK-47's.

[kwassa]

20. Pol Pot was a Buddhist

at least he quoted Buddhist philosophy in his rationalization for the million people he had murdered.

[catbert836]

27. He was raised as one...

He wasn't practicing the religion at the time of the Killing Fields, though.

[Finder]

29. Actually, he attended Catholic School as a child. n/t

[Lydia Leftcoast]

40. The medieval Japanese used Buddhism as an excuse for some pretty

horrible attitudes. For example, Buddhist monks were, of course, celibate, but it was phrased in terms of forbidding sex with women. So what did they do? They institutionalized pedophilia by taking in orphan boys, supposedly to be servants, dressed them as girls, and used them sexually.

The samurai also justified murder and suicide by saying that it was a sin to be "too attached to the world." Therefore, if your master commanded you to commit seppuku or if you died in battle or in a massacre and you expressed regret or concern about your loved ones or anything else except going boldly to your death, you were told that you were going to hell for not being able to separate yourself from earthly bonds.

The emperor in Kyoto didn't dare offend the monks of the nearby mountain of Hieizan, because they would arm themselves and go rampaging through the city.

You can pervert any ideology. Buddhism is quite benign now, but it hasn't always been so.

[kiahzero]

44. Well said. (n/t)

[greyl]

65. a central function of the samurai? Guarding crops. nt

[Lydia Leftcoast]

80. And that is germane to the discussion exactly how?

:shrug:

[greyl]

84. Locking up the food is a policy that distinguishes our culture

from the thousands of others that have no salvationist religion.

Our culture has tried to turn this planet into an empire, based on the belief that Earth was made for humans to conquer and rule.

[kwassa]

46. How are you to know he wasn't practicing?

and define practicing Buddhist, please.

[trotsky]

106. Interesting thing here, kwassa.

You fervently reject any attempt to use Hitler's frequent quotation of Catholic/Christian theology as a rationalization for his actions, to imply that he was a Christian.

But you use that very method yourself to link Pol Pot and Buddhism.

Fascinating. Care to explain the apparent hypocrisy?

[Dorian Gray]

114. Though I would agree that he wasn't a practicing Buddhist

I do think that this very argument being turned around is interesting. Despite his being raised in a Buddhist environment and embracing some of the terminology of Buddhism, it's quite apparant that Pol Pot didn't truly live the life of a Buddhist and wasn't a practicing Buddhist. But, it's Kwassa's (sp?) question is worth asking, particularly in light of how much people insist that Hitler was in fact a Christian. I am not saying that Hitler wasn't raised Christian, just that he rejected most of the precepts of Christianity. I believe the same is true of Pol Pot. I am not claiming that either was Atheist, but I am claiming that they utilized terminologies to sort of sponsor a religion of the state while picking and choosing their beliefs from many different areas. (And, I do truly believe that Hitler believed in God, a sort of generic presence with the trappings of a Christian background. But, he also practiced the occult, and used pagan terminology in order to raise the Fatherland up to some sort of cultish following.) Neither's beliefs are easy to pinpoint, but Pol Pot's banning of religion in Cambodia leads me to believe that he didn't embrace Buddhism or the Catholicism of his youth.

[trotsky]

128. This just devolves into the "No true Scotsman" fallacy.

Not interested in rehashing that old mess.

I just want to say that Hitler claimed to be a Christian, and that's all we can know. In the eyes of many other Christian groups, YOU reject most of what they perceive to be the precepts of Christianity, too. Does that mean you're not a Christian?

[Dorian Gray]

156. Nope...

and I am not making the argument one way or the other about Hitler, really. Just meant to point out that the same logic should be applied to both Pol Pot and Hitler when discussing their backgrounds. All information should be included when listing their religious beliefs, as neither answer is a simple answer. Belief evolves throughout life. It is not static, nor is is unmalleable. Both Hitler and Pol Pot were influenced by their religious upbringings, as well as other theologies and philosophies surrounding them. Hitler was baptized Catholic, and I never denied that. Pol Pot went to Catholic School, and I don't dney that either. I will go further to say that their world view was influenced by their Catholic upbringing to some extent or another. But, it is not the sole provider of their world view.

I am a Catholic and a Christian who has absolutely no problem saying that some Catholics and Christians are bad people. I've stated that many times. Whether anybody else in the world cares whether or not I'm Christian? I couldn't give a fig. It's not up to them. It's between me and God.

[kwassa]

121. Are you calling me a hypocrite?

You don't know what my method is, so your attempt to question it is amusing, to say the least. You also misrepresent my views on Hitler's so-called Christianity.

[trotsky]

125. Just wanted you to explain the apparent double standard.

If you're not interested and just want to let it hang out there, that's OK.

[kiahzero]

10. Not at all.

As I understand them, Buddhism and Hinduism both come from the presumption that life is suffering, and that there is a way to escape that suffering. In other words, if you don't like the way the world is, there is a way out. Yes, there is an eternal release, but there is no eternal punishment. If you're happy with the cycle of samsara, there's no need to accept the doctrines of either faith. There is a quote of the Buddha flat out saying that if one did not perceive life as suffering, there was no need to follow his teachings.

[greyl]

12. On the contrary.

The eternal punishment is being stuck on the wheel of unenlightened life itself. "All life is suffering".
Like the teachings of John, Buddhism is about humans escaping the physiological experience of this world in order to be saved from it's default state of pain, suffering, and earthly-mindedness.

What Gautama was saying is that if you've achieved enlightenment at a certain time, listening to him is valueless.
Again, like all the other salvationist religions, the central concern was people, not the world. He wasn't interested in saving the world, he was interested in saving souls.

[kiahzero]

13. It's not eternal

Eternal means unchanging and never-ending. Samsara is neither. While Christianity and Islam require you to think and do the right things in a certain period of time (your lifetime) in order to escape an eternity of torment, Hinduism and Buddhism both posit that we are already being tormented. However, if you don't feel tormented, if you don't seek to end samsara, then there is no torment for you. Keep in mind what Harris was arguing:
every other party to the conversation will probably spend eternity in hell for his misconceptions about God.

That is not true about religions other than some sects of Christianity and Islam.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

43. Depends on which variety of Buddhism you're talking about

Hinayana Buddhism, found in Southeast Asia, posits endless reincarnation until the achievement of enlightenment, whereupon the soul is annihilated and released from rebirth.

Mahayana Buddhism, found in China, Japan, and Korea, does have concepts of heaven and hell, and they show up in the literatures of those countries. One of the famous examples is the death of Kiyomori from the 12th century Japanese epic Tales of the Heike, in which Kiyomori is taken away to hell. A few chapters later, when the imperial family is surrounded by hostile forces, the child emperor's grandmother jumps into the sea with him, telling him that he is going to Amitabha's Paradise.

[greyl]

64. Every salvationist religion has varieties, but the crucial similarity remains.

They all assume humans are divinely flawed using one turn of phrase or another. It's very difficult to see this from inside our culture because it's so pervasive. Salvationist religions only exist within our culture, because they are the product of only our culture.
Everyone in our global culture, East or West, understands what it means when someone tells them "Let me show you how to be saved". Attempt to explain that and the other assumptions of any of the 5 major salvationist religions to the woman in the photo below, and she will probably look at you as if you were quite peculiar - with damn good reason. She isn't leading an unfilling life within the prison of a failing cultural experiment which whispers in her ear from the moment of birth that she is divinely flawed or doomed to endless suffering unless.



Humanity doesn't need some divine salvation from its physiological/biological lot in life.
If anything, it and the rest of the community of life need to be saved from our very young culture.

Faith won't fix our culture, nor will it save the world, because it is the absolutely false tenets of faith which are the problem. Not humanity.

[kiahzero]

74. Name the five "salvationist" religions

Buddhism and Hinduism, as I discussed above, are not "salvationist." At worst, you keep going around the cycle of samsara, which isn't a problem if you don't see it as something to be afraid of. This stands in stark contrast to some sects of Christianity and Islam, which posit that things will not only get much much worse, but that they will forever be that way.

So, let's return to what brought us to this argument in the first place.

Meetings between representatives of the world’s major religions yield little more than platitudinous calls for peace and a willingness to ignore what many participants strongly believe -- that every other party to the conversation will probably spend eternity in hell for his misconceptions about God.

The most you could say about the Buddhist and Hindu representatives at such a meeting is that they might look on the other participants as continuing to live lives similar to the ones they are living now, until they get tired of it and seek escape through enlightenment. There is no comparison (that doesn't debase the language, anyway) between such a view and the view of the Christian and Muslim sects which hold that the those who do not change their minds within a short period of time will be tortured forever.

[greyl]

82. If Christians aren't afraid of Hell, that's no problem either, correct?

The 5 are Judaism, Buddhism, Islam, Christianity, and Hinduism.

[kiahzero]

97. Strawman

There's an difference between saying, "You're not going to come to our special happy place, you'll just stay as you are now" and saying "You'll go to an evil bad place instead of staying as you are now."

Describing Judaism as in the same camp as Islam and Christianity is not quite as bad, since there are some camps in Judaism that do believe in a heaven or hell, but it is not all that accurate either, as the Torah says almost nothing on the topic. Just doing a little cursory research on the topic will indicate that lumping Judaism in with some sects of Christianity and Islam as believing that all others will go to eternal punishment is inaccurate.

[struggle4progress]

135. Since when is hell an "Abrahamic" notion?

[kiahzero]

136. Since about 100 BCE. (n/t)

[struggle4progress]

137. It certainly doesn't seem to be one of Abraham's notions.

[kiahzero]

138. That's not what "Abrahamic religion" means.

"Abrahamic religion" refers to any of the religions that worship the God of Abraham - Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and Ba'hai World Faith (the latter is generally left out because people don't usually think of it).

[struggle4progress]

139. Of course. Incidently, Judaism isn't united on the subject of hell.

[kiahzero]

141. I believe I actually argued that somewhere in this thread.

If not, it was in one of the other recent ones.

[struggle4progress]

143. Ah, yes. #97. Sorry. Didn't see it before

[kiahzero]

145. The thread is growing at a rather rapid pace

I can't blame you for missing a post in a separate subthread.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

11. Actually I kind of like his writings

although there are times he annoys me. His paints with a huge roller, rather than a broad brush. I think he might even use a sprayer. I'm not a logician or a debator; I leave that to you guys. You are much better at it than I.

Argument to me can be fruitless, because formal logic can prove just about anything right or wrong. It can be a game.

My amusement stems from the lack of surprise about his position. One thing you can say about him, he is consistent.

If he ever converted, I'd freak! His opinions are one thing you depend upon in this world.

[greyl]

14. You have an internal dialogue which bears fruit, correct?

"formal logic can prove just about anything right or wrong."

No, I don't think so.
What is your opinion on the capacity of faith driven thought to prove anything right or wrong?

Do you ever use maieutic teaching with your students?

[TallahasseeGrannie]

18. You are way, way outta my league now,

Grey. I am an art teacher. I teach kids how to make cool stuff.

I think anybody can think they can prove anything. There are no absolutes.

[greyl]

60. What does being a creativity facilitator have to do with it? :)

I'm probably using a looser definition of maieutic than the one found in a dictionary.
If you make a point of suggesting to your art students how they may find their own way to a finished creation rather than giving them a rigid paint by numbers template to work within or doing it for them, you're using maieutic teaching as far as I'm concerned.

[Ron Green]

24. I'm willing to bet that TG teaches her students truths that can't be

hinted at by formal logic.

From the evidence of her posts on this forum, her segment of our young people are in good hands.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

28. Thank you very much

My students are my life.

[Dorian Gray]

67. What is "maieutic teaching?"

I was an education major, and I never heard that word. Perhaps it's a newer teaching method, though.

[kiahzero]

75. Quite the opposite, really.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maieutics

Maieutics is a method of teaching introduced by Socrates. It is one of the four parts of socratic method. It is based on the idea that the truth is latent in the mind of every human being due to his innate reason but has to be "given birth" by questions asked by the teacher and answers given by the student.

[Dorian Gray]

116. Thanks Kiahzero

It's good to learn something "new!" :)

[greyl]

85. I was too, and never heard it till later.

Ftr, right out of high school I went to a lousy art school in York PA for a year, then a few years later 'decided' to become a teacher partly because my fiance at the time "needed a man with a degree". I didn't become a teacher. The more I learned about the modern education system at school and from my retired teacher Mom, the less becoming a part of it appealed to me.
I don't have a degree but can proudly say that I and Frank Zappa dropped out of the same college. ;)

[kiahzero]

16. Yes, formal logic can prove just about anything, but it's all about the axioms

If you choose inappropriate axioms to work from that are, themselves, not proven, then a logical proof doesn't get you anywhere with someone who doesn't accept those axioms.

Deductive reasoning still is a superior method for moving from a set of given principles to a conclusion from those principles. Its utility in deriving said principles is another matter entirely.

[greyl]

61. I don't think so. Can you give me an example

of how an argument which is both sound and valid can prove "just about" anything?

valid: the conclusion logically follows from the premises
sound: the premises are true

[kiahzero]

71. I was only discussing validity.

Once you start moving away from math, determining if one's premises are true or not is the most problematic part of the proof. While I did not use the word "soundness" in my post, I feel it is clear that the soundness of the logical argument in question was not definite.

[greyl]

86. Well, that's the rub. That means a better phrasing would be:

"Poor, fallacious logic can be used to prove anything to oneself, or in a futile attempt to prove anything to people who can spot the fallacies."

[kiahzero]

98. Fallacies generally refer to the validity of an argument, not the soundness. (n/t)

[greyl]

173. Generally? That means you admit the existence of

fallacies which refer to soundness, correct?
Validity is a necessary condition of a sound argument.
Sound arguments are always valid.

edit: I'm still interested in seeing an example of how logic can be used to prove "just about anything".

[JerseygirlCT]

21. Just what I was thinking!

I think he discounts the ability of people of faith to embrace tolerance, and the possibility that they are not 100% correct.

He seems to enjoy setting up a rigid, fundamentalist strawman to represent all people of faith -- which is, of course, all to easy to knock down.

It's far more complicated, nuanced, and kind than that.

[trotsky]

23. Actually, Harris pretty effectively destroyed the tolerant/moderate viewpoint.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,1072-1531851,00.html

But by failing to live by the letter of the texts — while tolerating the irrationality of those who do — religious moderates betray faith and reason equally. As moderates, we cannot say that religious fundamentalists are dangerous idiots, because they are merely practising their freedom of belief. We can’t even say that they are mistaken in religious terms, because their knowledge of scripture is generally unrivalled. All we can say, as religious moderates, is that we don’t like the personal and social costs that a full embrace of scripture imposes on us. It is time we recognised that religious moderation is the product of secular knowledge and scriptural ignorance.

[kiahzero]

26. Hardly

He's relying on an unstated premise - that a fundamentalist interpretation of text is superior to a non-fundamentalist interpretation. As most theologians would tell you, fundamentalists tend to selectively interpret their texts just as much, if not more, than more liberal people working from the same text.

All we can say, as religious moderates, is that we don’t like the personal and social costs that a full embrace of scripture imposes on us.

That's a complete and utter strawman.

[trotsky]

30. You misstate his position.

He does not indicate a fundamentalist interpretation is superior, only based on a certain thorough knowledge of the text. Much like moderates claim.

"All we can say, as religious moderates, is that we don’t like the personal and social costs that a full embrace of scripture imposes on us."

That's a complete and utter strawman.

Okey dokey. Tell us why.

[kiahzero]

31. A number of reasons:

All we can say, as religious moderates, is that we don’t like the personal and social costs that a full embrace of scripture imposes on us.

Dealing specifically with the Bible:
First, scripture doesn't actually say a number of the things that it has been translated to say. For instance, the "clobber passages" in the Bible referring to homosexuality are by and large mistranslated from the Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic.
Second, there's the distinction between descriptions of how things were at the time of the writing (the historical content, as it were) and the religious message of the work, and the debate over whether certain passages fall into one side or another.
Third, there's are the arguments over what the actual themes of the work are. Biblical analysis isn't so different from literary analysis, which doesn't exactly lend itself to precise and definite answers.

These shouldn't be construed to be all of the arguments against a literal, textual approach, but just the ones that immediately come to mind. As a law student, I see attempts to "strictly construe" the Bible to be just as nonsensical as attempting to do so with the Constitution. Thus, I see it as absurd to argue that because we don't like the beliefs of those who follow a literal, textual approach to analyzing the Bible, we should attack those with a different approach.

It is flat out wrong to say that moderates are moderate only because they "don't like the personal and social costs that a full embrace of scripture imposes." In fact, it is wrong to say that all moderates do not see themselves as "fully embracing" scripture.

[trotsky]

34. So you're saying there is one, agreed-upon, 100% certain interpretation?

More importantly, why did these "enlightened" translations and interpretations only really start appearing once humankind began to explore secularism and rationality?

I think that "strawman" is actually pretty accurate - and you seem to be confirming it.

[kiahzero]

36. No

I'm saying that it is wrong to argue that the way fundamentalists interpret scripture is the only valid way to do so, and anyone who does otherwise only does so because they "don't like the personal and social costs that a full embrace of scripture imposes."

[trotsky]

38. Why do you have to misstate Harris' position?

I'm saying that it is wrong to argue that the way fundamentalists interpret scripture is the only valid way to do so

Good, because no one here (nor Harris) is saying that. Well, you keep trying, but I'm not sure why.

anyone who does otherwise only does so because they "don't like the personal and social costs that a full embrace of scripture imposes."

Like I noted, it's interesting how these alternate methods and interpretations really only started appearing once secularism and enlightenment did. Seems to prove Harris' point.

[kiahzero]

42. Maybe I will write him to try and figure out what the hell he means, then.

Perhaps you could try and enlighten me, though. I fail to understand what "But by failing to live by the letter of the texts" in reference to moderates can mean, other than their understanding of the texts in question is wrong.

[JerseygirlCT]

45. Alternative interpretations have existed as long as the texts

The product we have today is a result of certain interpretations and translations winning out over others. Theologians have been arguing about interpretations of the Bible since Christianity began.

And of course, in Judaism, interpretation is a long-continuing and long-respected part of their practice, adding to changing, evolving their understanding.

A static text wouldn't continue to have such meaning to so many.

[trotsky]

48. Well sure they've been arguing.

But the substance, the reasoning behind the arguing has changed. Surely you can see that in the history. Today's tools of analysis are much more refined and encompassing, wouldn't you say? Now, did religious faith give us those, or did secular scholarship?

[JerseygirlCT]

55. What's the difference between scholarship and

"secular scholarship"?

I've known some seminary students and professors who were quite intelligent, even brilliant scholars. Are they disqualified as secular scholars? Or is it secular because it's scholarship?

[trotsky]

57. You're misunderstanding.

Secular scholarship I use as the term indicating that the idea of god or religion is not central to the pursuit. Language analysis, historical context, etc.

So knowing that, please address the question instead of insinuating that I don't think seminary students or professors can be scholars.

[Finder]

81. Scholarship is academic and secular...

otherwise it would not be considered scholarship.

One of the biggest problems some professors of Biblical scholarship have is students who cannot separate their faith from study.

[JerseygirlCT]

33. I should have read yours first!

Yes, I agree.

[JerseygirlCT]

32. I disagree

Again, he's setting up *his* definition of what a religious person ought to be: literalist, absolutist, following scripture as a rule book.

None of this is how many Christians approach their faith. In fact, the strict literalist view is the johnny-come-lately, belonging to the more recent strains of Protestantism. It's not what you'll find in the RCC or the mainline Protestant churches. It's not what you'll find in most Orthodox churches, either.

I disagree that what he calls a "full embrace of scripture" dictates slavish dependence on the words of humans as a list of "do" and "do nots". That's the simplistic view of scripture and its usefulness.

But you cannot set up the secular vs. religious as opposites and then hope to synthesize the two. I reject his premise, to borrow a phrase from The West Wing.

[trotsky]

35. Nope, he's not doing that.

You are not reading his words carefully. You've made up your mind that a rigid fundamentalist literalist reading of a holy text is crucial to Harris' arguments. I'm sorry, but you're wrong. You can reject that premise, but it's not what he's arguing.

[kiahzero]

37. He is arguing that only fundamentalists "fully embrace" scripture.

His argument is that religion naturally entails the conclusions that fundamentalists reach, and that moderates fail to reach those conclusions only because of the influence of non-religious factors.

[trotsky]

39. Nope.

I can't try to explain it anymore - maybe you should write him yourself? He seems like a pretty engaged guy - I bet he'd respond. You could ask him if he'd post his response on his website or somewhere that he posts articles.

[JerseygirlCT]

41. I don't think so

Here are his words:

"But by failing to live by the letter of the texts — while tolerating the irrationality of those who do — religious moderates betray faith and reason equally."


He's setting up living by the letter of the text as the standard for religious practice. As I said, to the majority of Christians in the world (not to mention Jews, who are also not generally speaking, literalists) "living by the letter of the texts" is not at all the crux of their faith, or even recommended in the furtherance of faith. It's a distraction, can even be called "bibliolotry" -- bible worship.

Almost by definition, religious moderates are not literalists. That doesn't in the least mean their faith is less, their dedication less. They approach their faith with a greater degree of open-mindedness, perhaps. They depend on their religious traditions as well as text. They also depend on their own intelligence and conclusions (discernment).

So they don't meet the test that Harris sets up. The thing is, his test matters not a whit.

[trotsky]

47. Sorry, not reading it the same way you are.

He's setting up living by the letter of the text as the standard for religious practice.

Nope, he's saying that's the extreme. The fundamentalist, irrational position. Do you disagree with that?

Almost by definition, religious moderates are not literalists. That doesn't in the least mean their faith is less, their dedication less.

Good thing he doesn't say that, then.

The thing is, his test matters not a whit.

In the grand scheme of things, no, certainly not. He's just a person who has an opinion and I must admit, does a pretty good job of arguing it. But it sure gets people talking, and hopefully analyzing their own faith. I hope more religious folks can at least acknowledge how much progress, even in their own religion, has been brought about by secularism.

[kiahzero]

49. What is he saying about moderates, then?

What does this mean?

But by failing to live by the letter of the texts — while tolerating the irrationality of those who do — religious moderates betray faith and reason equally.

[trotsky]

50. That you're enabling the extremists.

You DON'T take the texts at face value - you apply secular tools and reasoning to them. Just not all the tools, and by insisting religious beliefs get that special treatment, you give shelter to the extremists.

[kiahzero]

51. So "at face value" is the only valid way to interpret the texts?

You realize that taking the text literally and "at face value" is the modern innovation, right?

[trotsky]

52. So the Christians in 300CE *didn't* believe in a virgin birth?

A bodily resurrection?
That men survived a blast furnace with protection from god?
That a giant body of water was literally split apart for god's chosen ones to cross it?

Modern fundamentalist literalism is indeed a fairly recent creation, but I assure you the earliest followers took the texts quite literally.

[kiahzero]

53. Your assurances are misplaced

First of all, what is important is not the belief in past miracles, such as the bodily resurrection. Those have no impact on modern life, which is what Harris is concerned with, because he's talking about the "personal and social costs a full embrace of scripture imposes on us."

From what we know of mystery religions, their myths were not considered to be literally true, but rather were stories meant to express deeper meaning. There is some indication that early Christians were similar - certainly the Gnostics were, and Christianity has a fair number of similarities to Mithraism, one of the prominent mystery religions of the time.

Edit: My title was overstated.

[trotsky]

56. Hold on there.

You seem to not be able to anchor an arguing point. You brought up ancient believers, in the context of literalist fundamentalism being a "modern" invention. Now you're saying what they believed has no impact? I'm having a really tough time understanding your point.

There is some indication that early Christians were similar

Right. So you've read people like Origen?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origen

He was, indeed, a rigid adherent of the Bible, making no statement without adducing some Scriptural basis. To him the Bible was divinely inspired, as was proved both by the fulfilment of prophecy and by the immediate impression which the Scriptures made on those who read them. Since the divine Logos spoke in the Scriptures, they were an organic whole and on every occasion he combatted the Gnostic tenet of the inferiority of the Old Testament.

In his exegesis, Origen sought to discover the deeper meaning implied in the Scriptures. One of his chief methods was the translation of proper names, which enabled him, like Philo, to find a deep meaning even in every event of history (see hermeneutics), but at the same time he insisted on an exact grammatical interpretation of the text as the basis of all exegesis.

Or Tertullian?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tertullian

The Scripture, the rule of faith, is for him fixed and authoritative (De corona, iii.-iv.). As opposed to the pagan writings they are divine (De testimonio animae, vi.). They contain all truth (De praescriptione, vii., xiv.) and from them the Church drinks (potat) her faith (Adv. Praxeam, xiii.). The prophets were older than the Greek philosophers and their authority is accredited by the fulfilment of their predictions (Apol., xix.-xx.). The Scriptures and the teachings of philosophy are incompatible, in so far as the latter are the origins of sub-Christian heresies.

Interesting how many Christians have this romanticized view of their religion, that it only recently has morphed into this rigid authoritarian variety. Not true at all.

[kiahzero]

70. I'm not Christian

And I was not saying that no early Christian interpreted the Bible literally - that is a stronger argument than what is necessary to contradict your argument that non-literal understandings are a modern invention. The fact remains that a fair number of early Christians (the Gnostics, for instance) saw a literal understanding of the Bible to be shallow, and interpreted it as having a deeper underlying meaning, much like other mystery religions.

[trotsky]

73. Actually you backed way off.

You stepped back into the realm of mystical religions, then tried to make a really loose connection to a specific offshoot of Christianity. So I guess I don't see how that really had much to do with the discussion.

your argument that non-literal understandings are a modern invention

Ah, now I see. It was the setup of your own strawman. That's not what I'm saying. I don't think it's what Harris is saying, either. There is a nuance here that you're not picking up on. It is clear Harris is referring to the modern religious moderate, whose religious heritage and understanding have been keenly shaped by secular scholarship (as even you pointed out), using literary and historical analysis methods that are not specifically religious in nature. But it's also shaped by a willful ignorance of certain scriptures. For instance, you attempt to wave off all the passages against homosexuality as being mistranslations without any citations of serious scholarship to prove it. Of course that discounts the voices of many serious bible scholars who DO acknowledge the bible is against homosexuality, but that we must put it in historical context and realize relationships with each other and god are different now. (Again, those crazy secular tools of reasoning!) There is no "one" reading of the bible that is clearly more accurate than any other. The existence of the hundreds of Christian sects and cults would seem to prove that beyond doubt. It seems to me that it's Harris' observation (the tempering of religion by secularism) that has caused the differences.

[kiahzero]

76. I think you're misstating the liberal position on the Bible.

First, read this:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibl.htm

I found it to be very interesting - the authors go back to the original Hebrew and Greek and attempt to discern meaning, rather than relying on centuries of prejudicial translations.

Second: Of course that discounts the voices of many serious bible scholars who DO acknowledge the bible is against homosexuality, but that we must put it in historical context and realize relationships with each other and god are different now.

I've never heard that argument. The only thing close to that argument I've seen is the argument that some of the passages in question dealt with civil society, not religion; that the Hebrews needed babies, so anything that detracted from that, such as men having sex with men rather than women, was bad at the time, and that doesn't make it bad for all eternity.

Third: There is no "one" reading of the bible that is clearly more accurate than any other. The existence of the hundreds of Christian sects and cults would seem to prove that beyond doubt. It seems to me that it's Harris' observation (the tempering of religion by secularism) that has caused the differences.

Are you arguing that all the various sects came about because of various tempering of religion with "secular" thinking?

[trotsky]

77. There is no one "liberal" position on the bible.

Or are you saying there is? Are you a fundamentalist now?

I'm sure biblical scholars are like the old saw about economists - lay them all end to end and they still couldn't reach a conclusion. Let's continue on the homosexuality angle - there are liberal Christians, even in this forum, who adopt a stance like the Catholic church - that having homosexual feelings is OK, but homosexual sex is a sin. Are they still liberal? Is their position? Are you going to be the authority on this? If not you, then who? Or what?

Are you arguing that all the various sects came about because of various tempering of religion with "secular" thinking?

What other way do you propose? They all prayed to god and got different answers? Is god just fucking with them all?

[kiahzero]

78. No, I'm not saying there's only one position.

I wouldn't consider Christians who hold the view you describe to be particularly liberal, but that's my label, not some authoritative distinction.

What other way do you propose? They all prayed to god and got different answers? Is god just fucking with them all?

I'm proposing that that the various sects found different themes in the same book, in the same sense that different people find different themes in any other book. Your argument seems to have come round to the conclusion you previously rejected: that there is only one view of "religion," and the various sects only differ in how much "secular" thinking they let in, or, in other words, how much they "embrace" their religion.

[trotsky]

79. Sure you are.

The subject of your post was: I think you're misstating the liberal position on the Bible.

"The" liberal position. Are you qualifying that now to say YOUR position, not necessarily "the" liberal one?

I'm proposing that that the various sects found different themes in the same book, in the same sense that different people find different themes in any other book.

And how do they find these themes? Again, is god revealing different ones to different people? Or are they using other means to extract themes and analyze the text? I don't see how you answered the question.

Your argument seems to have come round to the conclusion you previously rejected: that there is only one view of "religion," and the various sects only differ in how much "secular" thinking they let in, or, in other words, how much they "embrace" their religion.

It is clear that despite my best efforts, I cannot communicate effectively enough to explain my position, or Harris' (which for all I know could be slightly different) to you. I would love for you to write Harris and perhaps he can do a better job. Please ask him if you can post the exchange for all of us.

[JerseygirlCT]

91. And again, entirely possible

"Again, is god revealing different ones to different people?"

Precisely what I think. God being far bigger than what can be contained in a human mind, that's likely. Perhaps the idea is that together, we could form a better sense of the whole. Although I don't think we'll have that sense in this life.

And I do understand that to you, that's all nonsense. But if you want to truly understand non-fundamentalist Christian faith, that's part of what you might look at. Of course, that doesn't leave anti-faith arguments easily tied up in a neat box, either.

[trotsky]

95. Sounds to me that such a god

is purposely introducing contradictory views of itself to various people - and then guaranteeing that no one can reproduce or communicate exactly what they see. The result, whether he intends it or not, sows discord and disharmony rather than understanding and cooperation. Been that way throughout history. So either he likes the conflict, or doesn't care. Either way, not a very impressive guy.

[JerseygirlCT]

109. I don't think it's God's choice -- I think it's our human limitations

and free will. We see -- all of us, regardless of belief (or lack thereof) what we want to see to a great extent. No one is entirely immune.

I think we're only capable of so much understanding -- or only willing to work so hard for it. And don't forget that the bedrock lesson our faith is supposed to impart to us is just the understanding and tolerance -- love -- that would assist us in shortcutting that disharmony, and instead finding a greater harmony. If you see 30%, and I see 30%, and we're able to work together, we have access to 60%.

[trotsky]

127. So, god doesn't know about these limitations?

I think my point stands - such a creature would be outright cruel or disinterested at best, knowing that we have these limitations and will not be able to understand and reconcile the different views of him. Falling short, it's not a matter of "oh well, we'll grow" - real live innocent people have suffered because of these differences. Doesn't seem like those folks got much of a chance to work hard and gain more understanding, does it?

You want to apply your progressive modern theology to a time when no such thing existed. Not that everyone in the world is past that old stage even today, though.

[JerseygirlCT]

131. If God manipulated events in the way you suggest, there

would be no place for free will, would there?

Perhaps it's a means for learning?

An awful lot of awful things have happened in the history of the world. Some small and intimate, some huge and cataclysmic. But I don't think of God as a puppeteer, manipulating the strings on all world events. I think all too often, we behave badly. We have a great deal to learn about treating each other well. And until we do, crappy stuff is going to continue to happen.

[trotsky]

142. Ah yes, the old free will conundrum.

Strange how there never seems to be a problem with the free will of innocent victims being taken away.

Or why there is no free will problem in heaven?

Anyway, seems like a really shitty system in which innocents have to suffer while other humans are learning how to behave. Did those innocents have a chance to learn?

[JerseygirlCT]

162. You continue to base you view on the idea that God

ought to be actively involved in pulling all the strings. I've told you why I reject that.

Innocents suffering? Sort of a cornerstone of our faith, in case you've missed that part. You know, feeding the hungry, housing the homeless, healing the sick? The point is, their suffering is our concern, not something to wait for God to take away. Their suffering is laid at our feet in a very real way. Our challenge is to step up and do something about it.

[trotsky]

166. An active god is not necessary to see the problem.

A passive god actually even makes the problem worse. The people who are supposed to learn to take care of others, fine, they need to learn a lesson. But why does someone innocent have to suffer for them to learn it? What did the innocent person learn? How did they grow?

Don't worry, in 2000 years of Christian theologians trying to solve this problem, the best they've come up with is some variation of "free will... god's plan... god works in mysterious ways." I didn't expect you to have a different or unique answer.

[Zhade]

149. The short version: "All believers pick and choose what they believe...

...and none of them have any more evidence than their fellow believers that their beliefs are "the" correct version of their belief system."

There. That was easy!

(It all comes down to the fact that ALL the versions lack corroborating evidence to back them up. Believers across the spectrum are essentially arguing from the exact same position, validity-wise.)

[trotsky]

169. Yup!

Adding to that, it seems that every single believer stance is shaped too by how they think or feel it should be. Intolerant, conservative people develop intolerant, conservative views of god. And of course, tolerant, liberal people develop the same kind of view of god. Well, at least most do. Some just can't discard pieces of the intolerant tyrant god - you know, the one that condemns homosexuality as a sin, or created a special place of torture that people go to when they reject him. But of course he's just following the rules there, nothing else he can do!

[JerseygirlCT]

89. "They all prayed to god and got different answers?"

Sure. Certainly part of it.

[trotsky]

96. And then they went and killed each other over those different answers.

Sheesh. This is supposed to be a good thing?

[JerseygirlCT]

108. You really don't think people would find plenty of other things

to kill each other over?

Religious differences are an excuse, not a cause. I'm afraid we seem to be addicted to conflict.

[trotsky]

126. Stay on topic, please.

Seems like a strange system, this god revealing conflicting (not necessarily complementary - sometimes outright contradictory) information about itself to different people, some of whom then proceeded to kill each other based on those different ideas. Just remarking is all.

[JerseygirlCT]

132. You branched off here, I just responded.

You can put aside the schoolmarm voice now.

I'll leave it at this: I don't see it as a matter of God choosing only to *reveal* certain things to certain people. I think it's more a matter of different people only being willing to *see* certain aspects. It's not a matter of withholding from humanity, but of humanity's limitations.

[trotsky]

140. Right. Limitations.

And can you remind me who designed us with these limitations?

[greyl]

158. It's a sneaky way of blaming God, isn't it? nt

[trotsky]

167. Yeah, interesting, isn't it?

It's the way it has to be because god set up the rules to work like that but he just has to follow them too. Got it? Now quit asking questions. No different than I heard throughout years of Sunday School, confirmation classes, and religion courses in college.

[JerseygirlCT]

163. The necessary flip-side of free will nt

[greyl]

157. "humanity's limitations" ! Goddammit.

"You see? You see him repressing me?" ;)

[JerseygirlCT]

54. Reasoning isn't the same thing as "secular" you know

Just because I use my mind, doesn't make that non-religious. That's another one of those dichotomies that don't make sense to me.

Because many of us use discernment and tradition to interpret the meaning of the bible, we're turning our backs on religion?

What are the "secular tools"? I'm honestly not understanding this.

[trotsky]

58. See post #57. n/t

[cosmik debris]

130. Pardon me, may I butt in here?

It seems to me that our Constitution gives special treatment to religious beliefs, not just to religious moderates. Are you opposed to this? Please clarify that remark.

[trotsky]

146. Clarify which remark?

The Constitution guarantees freedom of religion, not "special treatment" of religion. It's also clear from various Founders' writings, in particular Jefferson, that they believed freedom of religion ended where the next guy's person and property began.

It's interesting you bring up the Constitution - another product of secular enlightenment that served to temper religion, and keep it from exercising undue power over the population.

[kiahzero]

147. Actually, the Free Exercise clause does privilege religious exercise (n/t)

[trotsky]

148. It enumerates it as a right, sure. Like the right to bear arms, or speak freely.

But there *are* laws that restrict religious exercise, just as there are that restrict the others. Laws against polygamy, for instance.

[kiahzero]

150. That's a secular law, though.

:evilgrin:

[trotsky]

151. Um, yes?

Yet another example of the ability of secular achievements keeping religion in check. Not more religion.

[kiahzero]

152. It was a joke.

Hence the :evilgrin:. My point (which is actually how such laws skirt the Free Exercise clause) is that it's a law which restricts conduct regardless of its religiosity.

[trotsky]

153. Okey dokey.

a law which restricts conduct regardless of its religiosity.

Behold the power of secularism.

Nitey nite.

[cosmik debris]

154. This remark:

"...and by insisting religious beliefs get that special treatment, you give shelter to the extremists."

The First Amendment sets up religion as an enumerated right not accorded to the Lions Club or the VFW. That's special treatment.

But my real interest is in how that special treatment gives shelter to extremists. What is a Christian to do without violating the prohibition on being judgmental?

[trotsky]

168. Read Harris' full article.

He answers that better than I can.

[Imperialism Inc.]

63. But isn't the book supposedly the word of God?

I mean we are talking about taking dictation from the creator of the universe. One that supposedly wants us to behave in certain ways and believe certain things. Now here is this book he wrote but you are saying one shouldn't follow it to the letter? It doesn't make a lot of sense. If I actually believed there was a book by the creator of the universe I would certainly want to follow it to the letter.

The other side of the coin here is what to do if you decide it really isn't written by God. Or maybe only parts of it are. That seems to be the position of a lot of moderates. There is obviously a real problem once one adopts that point of view. Which parts are written/dictated by the creator of the universe and which aren't? How does one decide that? If you can't know which parts are and aren't how does one decide which pieces of it to follow to the letter? It is a very weak position to take. Sort of "well it isn't the word of God after all but I'll believe it anyway."

I disagree with Trotsky here because I think the literal interpretation is very much a part of what Harris is saying. I for one agree with Harris. Once you reject at least parts of the Bible as the word of God then it seems rejecting all of it shouldn't be far behind. You have to then realize that you cannot possibly know which parts to rely on and which parts not to. Such a thoroughly unreliable document seems a rather poor one to base a belief system on. The fundamentalist position of "It is the word of God and therefore I will follow it to the letter" does seem the much more intellectually tenable one even though I despise the result of it.

Edit: I should add that I understand what Trotsky is talking about too (moderates providing cover for extremists) and that it is the main thrust of the Harris argument. However, I do think Harris is also making a point about the fundamentalist view being more coherent.

[Dorian Gray]

69. This is the problem...

too many people believe that ALL CHRISTIANS believe that the Bible is the WORD OF GOD. Most of us believe, with the backing of our church, that the works are inspired by God, but they were composed, compiled, and contributed by human beings. It is a text meant to teach. It is a text meant to show the history of the Jewish.

The idea that it is the inerrant word of God is an idea embraced by a certain sect of Christians, and not the sect that has survived the ages since Christianity was established.

But, since there are so many disagreements among Christians about what exactly the Bible is, it goes to follow that those who don't believe would not know where to begin looking for a Christian standard in which to argue. It's so varied.

[JerseygirlCT]

88. That's just it -- we're absolutely not

"talking about taking dictation from the creator of the universe."

As I've explained, a very small segment of Christianity thinks like this.

For most, the bible is inspired of God -- meaning, written by humans, full of human flaws, but a written record of their experience of God. It is not meant to be read literally -- goodness, the OT is chock full of stories, allegory and myth -- and never intended to read as a strict rule book or history book. More in the way of very meaningful and instructive literature. Jesus taught in parables -- because they're an effective teaching tool.

Paul's letters are that -- the writings of a very moved, faithful man, trying to explain what he felt and thought to other new co-religionists.

Very, very few Christians (although I'll grant you, often loud ones) believe the bible was handed to us, fresh from Godly dictation.

[greyl]

92. I'd love it if

more of the faithful who are apologetic re-interpreters of their chosen Holy Book would realize that the tools (logic, reason, empathy, pragmatism) they use to disregard the garbage in their Book can serve as a solid foundation for their entire worldview - no revealed guide necessary.
Throw the Books away, and start fresh, I say. There's zero educational material in them that can't be learned from looking at how thousands of successful human cultures have sustained themselves for hundreds of generations, or by any other creature on earth that has existed for millions of years. The fact that they contain anti-evolutionary intellectual poison can only be denied by a fundamentalist of the highest degree.

If one believes that the ability to identify the bullshit in Holy Books written by men is a God-given gift, fine. Get on with it then.

edit: clarity

[JerseygirlCT]

107. You know, if I had exhibited even a part of the disdain for

your chosen worldview that you have for mine and others, you'd likely be quite upset.

There's no need for that. I've never once attempted to persuade someone to begin believing in God. I've often found myself in a defensive position though. And I wonder at that. I don't feel it necessary to tear apart your view; why do you feel it necessary to do so with mine?

Do you believe that an approach like yours in the debate really furthers discussion? Or does it just feel good to bash a few believers around every once in a while?

The truth is, for many of us there is a great deal to be gained from our faith. Our lives are enriched because of it, it is deeply meaningful to us. It would be a difficult thing to explain to someone who doesn't share that -- I understand that to someone like you it seems so much silly hocus-pocus. But if to me, it matters, and I'm asking nothing of you, why can't that be respected?

[greyl]

159. If I've torn your view apart, fantastic.

I'm confident that within you is the capability to reconstruct a more coherent one. If you don't believe that, I'm sorry.
In a direct sense, I'm trying to embolden you.
Unfortunately, you've misinterpreted what I've written even though it was meant to be taken literally.

What's the main difference between you and a fundamentalist Christian?
Does it originate with the Bible, or from something else?

I'm saying that nurturing that "something else" (logic, reason, empathy, pragmatism) while retaining your chosen or accidentally-born-into Hero figure (Jesus) is a fine thing.

Have you noticed how much bloodshed and evil occurs on the borders of the opposing major salvationist religions by any chance?

[Dorian Gray]

123. But I don't want to.

I lived without religion for a number of years, and I am much happier now with my faith than I was previously without it. That doesn't mean that I would expect everyone to react the same way to belief in God, but it's how I work. I find hope, a sense of peace, and joy through my faith. Why would I want to give that up? And why should I, or anyone else who feels the same way, have to? I already started fresh, and I enjoy the path that my life has taken.

And nobody said anything about "identifying bullshit."

[greyl]

160. All liberal Christians I'm aware of talk about "identifying bullshit"

in the Bible and fundy interpretions of It.

[Finder]

111. How do you know Paul existed?

You admit the Bible is written by flawed men but accept what is written as truth. That is what is deemed irrational by Harris and others.

[kwassa]

113. You don't know what we do accept and what we don't

so YOUR premise:

"You admit the Bible is written by flawed men but accept what is written as truth."

is also false, in my opinion.

[Finder]

118. The response is to post 88. n/t

[Finder]

119. What do you accept? n/t

[JerseygirlCT]

133. No, I accept that within what is written, truth can be found

"Truth" not necessarily being as limited as historically or scientifically provable fact.

Frankly, there is truth to be found in many things, and I do. Art, music, literature, my faith, the love of my loved ones...

I don't have the scholarly background in the history of the time to tell you whether historians have 100% confirmed Paul's identity. But I would think the huge amount of his correspondence would be of assistance in that, would it not?

[Dorian Gray]

120. Exactly, JerseygirlCT

You worded that slightly better than I worded my response, but your response was exactly what I was trying to get at.

[muriel_volestrangler]

161. But the official Catholic definition of 'inspired' goes beyond that

because it seems to use the literal meaning of 'inspired' - meaning the Holy Spirit, ie God, was directly involved. And the official line (of the church that makes up about half of all Christians in the world is:

The Second Vatican Council (Ended 1965): Over the previous three centuries, some liberal Roman Catholic writers had suggested that that God preserved the authors of the Bible from error only in matters of "moral and dogmatic teaching, excluding everything in the bible relating to history and the natural sciences." So, when the Bible talks about a dome over the earth supporting heaven or of a flat earth, or of the sun stopping in the sky, we can accept that it is in error. The authors were limited by the pre-scientific culture in which they lived. During Vatican II, some theologians suggested that the Church modify its traditional stance on Biblical inerrancy. The document issued by the Council, titled "Constitution on Divine Revelation," Dei Verbum, article 11 discusses the inspiration and inerrancy of scripture. A key clause states "...we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures." This phrase appears to be ambiguous:

Many theologians interpret it as stating that the entire Bible is inerrant. This has been the traditional teaching of the church throughout its history.

Others believe that it restricts inerrancy only to matters of faith and morals. They believe that Bible may be in error on matters of science and history. Fr. R.E. Brown, for example, writes of Vatican II: "In this long journey of thought the concept of inerrancy was not rejected but was seriously modified to fit the evidence of biblical criticism which showed that the Bible was not inerrant in questions of science, of history, and even of time-conditioned religious beliefs."

The Catechism of the Catholic Church (Imprimi Potest) 1994, states in section 107: "The inspired books teach the truth. Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confined to the Sacred Scriptures." Again, this statement is ambiguous. It could imply that the Bible is errant if God was not particularly concerned about error creeping in on matters that are only of scientific or historical significance.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/inerran1.htm

So, it's not a history or science book; but it is, as far as the Catholic church is concerned, inerrant and divinely inspired, in the literal sense, on matters of faith and morals. And that includes things like the attitude to homosexuality; or the 'list of "do" and "do nots"' you referred to earlier.

[JerseygirlCT]

164. Well, having grown up RC, I think it's pretty safe to say

that a great many Catholics in the west differ substantially with the Vatican on a number of issues.

Never in my 12 years of Catholic education, was I encouraged to believe in a literal reading of the bible, for instance.

[Finder]

165. Actually, the RCC discourages reading the scriptures without a guide...

and is more about teaching the Catechism.

Contrast that with some Protestant sects(Fundies) that require not only reading but memorizing.(Similar to Judaism and Islam)

That is what Harris referred to when he said that moderates(usually Catholic or other ritual based sects in Christianity)were scripturally challenged or something to that effect.

[kwassa]

170. How do you know that is what Harris meant?

Do you have another quote that shows this?

It certainly is not in the quote provided before.

[Finder]

171. What do you think "Scriptural ignorance" means? n/t

[kwassa]

172. Sorry, but I think this is your own personal interpretation of Harris

I analyzed the quote provided earlier as to why his premise is incorrect.

[Dorian Gray]

68. Especially when you take the

Catholic and the Orthodox churches, the oldest of the Christian churches. There is room for allegorical, symbolic, and all other literary tools in the interpretations of the Bible. Most of the established Protestant churches also allow for varying interpretations with ongoing dialogue. The Jewish tend to dissect their scripture at every turn.

It's primarily the function of fundamentalists to have a rigid, non-fluid reading of scripture. I don't think the "moderates" are disrupting the order of faith. Rather, I truly believe that the fundamentalists are doing so, with their unmoving insistence on knowing the will of God.

[JerseygirlCT]

90. I agree. And I find the idea that using literary tools

as you describe in understanding and interpreting the bible is somehow a modern and purely secular exercise.

Did people in the early Church not have the ability to think allegorically? To employ literary tools to further their understanding? Have we only recently evolved as far as brain capacity?

People, both believers and non-believers, have certainly been examining the bible since it was cobbled together -- probably well before.

And I agree -- the rigidity of fundamentalism is far more disruptive to the faith than are any number of questioners. That's where thought stops, and without it, I don't see how there can be a fully-formed faith.

[greyl]

94. The End of Faith was never sold as a Perfect Book, yet

some seem all too eager to disregard it altogether based on some of its content with which they disagree, while they remain clearly forgiving of a Book which - oh never mind.
...and I find that fascinating.

[kiahzero]

100. I'm disagreeing with the argument presented.

Harris seems to be arguing that religious moderates and liberals shouldn't exist on the basis that they are simply less religious than religious conservatives, and should just drop religion altogether. It's an argument based on false premises.

If Harris is not attempting to make a literal argument, but is rather attempting to discuss a larger concept, by all means, enlighten us. We're "religionists," you know... it's not like we're smart enough to figure it out ourselves, what with our diminished capability for reason and all. :eyes:

[Finder]

102. First of all, what is the premise you are calling false?...

the first paragraph does not reflect Harris's argument.

As far as your second paragraph, it is not a diminished capacity to reason but a refusal to when it comes to religion.

[kiahzero]

103. This premise:

But by failing to live by the letter of the texts — while tolerating the irrationality of those who do — religious moderates betray faith and reason equally. As moderates, we cannot say that religious fundamentalists are dangerous idiots, because they are merely practising their freedom of belief. We can’t even say that they are mistaken in religious terms, because their knowledge of scripture is generally unrivalled. All we can say, as religious moderates, is that we don’t like the personal and social costs that a full embrace of scripture imposes on us. It is time we recognised that religious moderation is the product of secular knowledge and scriptural ignorance.

[kwassa]

105. This premise is false:

Harris, cut and pasted from #23:

"But by failing to live by the letter of the texts — while tolerating the irrationality of those who do — religious moderates betray faith and reason equally."

Harris is judging that moderates fail to live to the letter of the text. Moderates strongly disagree.
Harris, in our eyes, is judging the letter of the text to be the literalist interpretation, which in and of itself is a pick-and-choose intepretation.

"As moderates, we cannot say that religious fundamentalists are dangerous idiots, because they are merely practising their freedom of belief."

Moderates can certainly say this. Why can't they?

"We can’t even say that they are mistaken in religious terms, because their knowledge of scripture is generally unrivalled."

Moderates can and do say that the literalist intepretation is mistaken.

"All we can say, as religious moderates, is that we don’t like the personal and social costs that a full embrace of scripture imposes on us."

False again. Harris's personal projection.

"It is time we recognised that religious moderation is the product of secular knowledge and scriptural ignorance."

A wrong conclusion based on a wrong premise. Understand now?

[Finder]

110. Not at all...let me ask you....

Should Christians be required to believe the Bible is the word of God or at least inspired by God?

Why?

[kwassa]

112. Required by who?

To me, one's faith is between oneself and God.

[Finder]

115. Does it matter which God? n/t

[kwassa]

117. There is no God but God

[Finder]

122. What do you base that on?

Did you gain that belief from Scripture? Was it directly revealed to you?

[Dorian Gray]

124. You and I are on the same page in this discussion

I've appreciated your posts in this topic, Jersey Girl (I'm originally from Jersey, too!)!

Just wanted to give you some positive feedback so you don't feel overinundated with debate.

The whole topic, though, is really a fascinating one, and I'm glad to see that the debate, for the most part, has been very respectful.

[JerseygirlCT]

134. Thank you!

It does feel good to have someone taking the same side of the discussion, I'll admit.

Can start feeling a bit lonely out here at times!

[Dorian Gray]

66. That one caught be off guard, too, Grannie!

;)

[Danger Mouse]

155. I don't think faith itself will heal it.

It will take people. It will take understanding. It will take time, love, compassion, dedication, sacrifice.
And all of those qualities are not limited only to those of faith, obviously. Faith might be a motivating factor for some of those who contribute to the healing of the world, but faith alone will not save it.
Love, and only love, will.

[greyl]

174. Love, and only Love? No, that's woefully inadequate as stated.

Love of what?