Today The Revealer points to this review over at Reason Online, wherein Chris Lehmann, of New York Magazine, has little nice to say about The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason, by Sam Harris. It would seem Mr. Harris possesses an unusually single-minded (dogmatic?) devotion to casting all religious thought in an eerie, monochromatic light. Lehmann writes:
Never mind … that militantly atheist movements like Soviet and Khmer Rouge communism-as well as volkish pagan ones like Nazism and Tutsi supremacy-stand behind some of the worst mass violence of the past century. Harris believes religious belief is the single greatest threat to the survival of the human species. Religious faith is not merely a maladaptive superstition, Harris writes; it is the ‘common enemy’ for all reasonable people concerned with the preservation of the world as we know it. All extant religious traditions, to him, are without exception ‘intellectually defunct and politically ruinous.’
I’ve long been a proponent of the idea (heh heh!) that ideas have consequences and that sometimes ideas can even kill. But this is not a viewpoint we’ve come to expect from secularism. Harris seems to promote a slightly more militant version of secularism than we’re used to. Lehmann goes on to say:
… Harris, as it happens, is only getting warmed up with the 9/11 scaremongering. He’s ready to roll up his sleeves and endorse pre-emptive assaults on both individual bad believers and dangerous Islamist regimes by any means necessary. In a world-class show of ‘this hurts me more than it hurts you’ disingenuousness, Harris makes it clear that the fault for this state of affairs resides entirely with the believers he thinks we may have to kill. ‘Some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them.’
Full disclosure: I’ve not read Harris’ book. But sometimes the reviews are entertaining enough.
( continued from above )
But what do you do when the radical religious ideologue under the label of “Islamic terrorist” shows up and is willing to sacrifice anyone, including himself, to achieve his ideological goal (which, we must be honest, is an Islamic theocracy), and your safety, the safety of your loved ones, or the safety of your community or society is at stake? Do you roll over and refuse to kill because it is “always” unethical to take life? If so, I wouldn’t want to be your friend, and will arm and defend myself, thank you very much. Self-preservation wins out over any invisible ideal like “nonviolence.”
This is one of the defining characteristics of a surviving society, that it is able to practice nonviolence internally but recognize the need to invert its ethics at the edges for the common defense. Call it hypocrisy if you like, but without this characteristic, Western civilization (nor any other) would not exist.
( continued from above )
It is the inextricable linking of religion with one’s social, political, and ethical life that makes religion so dangerous. When people make their decisions about the physical world based on their unprovable, unobservable, unmeasurable metaphysical beliefs, what is to stop a religious authority from doing, say, what Pope Urban II did?
You can also create an ungrounded ideology by which to move your troops without religious metaphysical beliefs. For instance, Hitler used neopagan, Christian-ish, and trumped up nationalist ideology to mobilize the Germans into the mass extermination of the Jews. When you believe that your people are intrinsically superior and that Jews are intrinsically cancerous, what other choice do you have but to export or exterminate them?
Religion, as you so often point out, Funky, demands certain things of its adherents, and those demands can (and very often do) lead those adherents to do things that are annoying, offensive, even abominable to other people (who themselves might be adherents to another religion, or to none at all). It is not at all uncommon to find religious people doing something they know will annoy, offend, or otherwise negatively affect a person who does not share their beliefs, but to insist that the demands of their religion trump the demands of the personal relationship at stake. (Jesus even says as much explicitly–“I bring not peace, but a sword.”)
Meanwhile, atheism (which is hardly an -ism at all) comes with no built-in demands from any great beyond or higher power. If an atheist wants to act, and to defend his or her actions, that atheist must provide reasons; to say that “god demands it” is not enough. (Sooner or later, if you take that path, you’ll end up in Euthyphro’s shoes.)
“There is no escaping metaphysics.”
Sure there is, if only you’d stop telling other people what they believe (or that they believe), stop redefining the words they use, and stop insisting that every thought, idea, principle, or statement is metaphysical, and stop making “metaphysics” an all-inclusive concept that completely negates the meaning of the word by making it mean everything and, hence, nothing at all.
“If an atheist wants to act, and to defend his or her actions, that atheist must provide reasons;”
Strictly speaking, an atheist need only say that he wants to act and since there are no moral absolutes he may act however he pleases. To demand reasons, i.e. logical and rational explanations, for actions is to make a god of logic. Without God as the standard by which we set all our measuring devices (so to speak), there is no standard we all must adhere to, not even logic.
But seriously folks…
Coupla quick points:
1.) I too think that Nazism was an intensly religious movement. It certainly shared with religion a kind of disdain for reason and logic. Every Nazi is a True Believer and most religious folk are true believers (in the Eric Hoffer sense, the kind of pro lifers who blow up clinics and shoot doctors for example…)
2.) Actually, being that I don’t have constant conversation with the Lord on Highest, it keeps me humble. I might be wrong. And whenever I can’t back up my position with logic and reason I know that I need to reexamine it and possibly discard it.
3.) Religious people with weapons of mass destruction, who are often given to projection and their belief and need for an evil “other” (whether its the secular humanists or gay people…) are a danger to this world. One, because they just KNOW they’re right and two they have a backup afterlife, which makes this world and this experience quite the meaningless one. Again, I just hope there are significant people off planet, genetically engineered to survive space and who would by necessity need to hack their own dnas, to keep the human race going whenever Islamist fundies with nukes (Iran and possibly Pakistan) meet Christian fundies with nukes (US, where everyone is convinced that they are the Arms of God and the infidels must be obliterated…
Let me add to theomorph’s brilliant comments:
Religion bad. Baaaaaaad.
I’m drained…
Reason made a god? Why, because people defer to it and put it above themselves? Then do you worship arithmetic? the laws of physics? the power of nature?
What is a “god” to you?
Regarding ideology, I have pinned the blame on ideology before, in comments on this here blog, if I’m not mistaken, only to be rebuffed. Now I go out of my way to give explicit examples of religion (i.e., radical Islam) and quasi-religious ideology (i.e., Naziism) without calling it ideology, only to have you call my observations into question because of it. Of course the problem is ideology, which was implicit in what I wrote, though I didn’t put that label on it, because the moment I put a label on something you’re there to tell me the label is overreaching, simplifying, or reducing something more complex.
Yes, the problem is ideology, but how exactly does one have religion without it? Secular humanism is an ideology and, in my opinion, a religion. I think secular humanists are deluding themselves because their ideology is predicated on a vague an undefinable entity: humanness. Christianity without ideology would only be a story, lacking in all that allegedly transformative power its adherents claim for it.
The whole point, which should be clear if you re-read my comment above, is that religions (or ideologies) put ideas (or theologies) above more immediate concerns. This is the curse and disease of Platonism, Cartesianism, dualism, and all those philosophies that posit something more real than real (but nonetheless invisible and unattainable–until you’re dead and no one can ask you what you’ve seen anyway).
Furthermore, Mr. Harris has a good point. Sometimes it is necessary to kill people with a certain ideology, not because of their ideology, but because of the violent symptoms that ideology requires them to exhibit. This is the limit of extreme pacifism (which is an ideology that puts the idea of nonviolence above everyday concerns like, say, security, safety, and defense). A truly pacifist society that is lacking in hypocrisy would be easy prey for any society where violence is possible and allowed. The pacifists are in your way? Kill them all; they won’t care; they’ll go to their graves thinking they’re better than you.
( continued below )
Religion is a kind of ideology, and its kind of a dangerous one. I actually do think that’s correct. Okay, let’s put it this way: Christian fundies with nukes, well, that’s just great. And it’s great that they’re American. That’s great too because we’re on God’s side or whatever. Fine. Let’s suspend logic and go with that.
Do you feel comfortable with the Iranians having weapons of mass destruction? Iranian mullahs who will feel comfortable with MAD because they KNOW the afterlife is on their side with their 90 virgins and whatever. Or what if radical muslims take over in Pakistan…? Is that better? Are these rational people, rational actors as it were?
Again, and I hate to mention this, but if the Star Trek/Bladerunner future frightens you, then a nice nuclear exchange is what you’re looking for, should set back human progress centuries. Won’t have to worry about evil life extension research or humanity robbing AI research…it all ends. If I wanted that, I’d vote pro life corporate theocrat every time…
Soviet and Khmer Rouge communism may have been militantly anti-religion and their militant leaders may have been atheists, but to say that those regimes were “militantly atheist” completely misunderstands the meaning of atheism, which is, as I have said over and over and over and over and over and over, simply not being theistic. There is no political, social, or ethical philosophy that automatically derives from atheism.
You could say that if there is no god, then all things are permissible, and that would be perfectly amenable with atheism. It just would be extreme individualism built on the foundation of atheism, and the extreme individualism would be the really important part of that way of life, not the atheism part.
However, you could also say that if there is no god, people are responsible for building safe and free societies themselves, should they so desire them, and that, too, would be perfectly amenable with atheism. In that case, you would be building a system of social pragmatism on a foundation of atheism, and the really important part of that way of life would be the social pragmatism part, and not the atheistic part.
Religious belief, however, demands various social, political, or ethical philosophies, depending on the flavor of the religion in question. In other words, if your religion tells you that your god is the greatest god, that your people are chosen by your god, that all unbelievers, infidels, or heretics deserve death, and that it is your responsibility to carry out the will of your god, then a certain social, political, and ethical result is demanded. Then there is no separating your metaphysical religious belief from your social, political, and ethical life (which, in fact, is what most serious religious people seem to insist upon).
I.e., while it would be hypocritical for Osama bin Laden and his cronies to believe what they do and then participate peaceably in world politics (hence relinquishing the sovereignty of their god to the sovereignty of earthly powers and to the desires of other people whose interests conflict with theirs and those of their god), the only way for an atheist to be hypocritical about his or her atheism is to live and think theistically, in which case he or she is no longer an atheist.
( continued below )
testing???
Theo,
While I agree that “metaphysical” is a very broad term (and difficult to define), I hardly think I am making it mean “everything.” I was in fact using it in the sense that distinguishes the “above” physical/natural from the physical/natural–the subjective from the objective. This discussion centers around the question: Is religion dangerous to civil society? Is there an objective measure of “danger” to “civil” society? I say no. Perhaps such measures are “self-evident.” But “self-evident” doesn’t mean objective, but rather that it is an unprovable axiom that is simply assented to by all observers. And if the keeping “civil society safe” is so self-evident, why is it so not evident in the practice of all societies that have ever existed?
I think we agree that “genocide is bad” (ignoring for the moment what “bad” might mean, or whether it is always “bad”). Can we agree that there is no objective proof for this? If there is no proof, then assenting to the proposition that “genocide is bad” is a metaphysical (in this case, ethical or moral) mental action. So can we quit with this notion that is possible for a rational person to not possess intellectual assent to metaphysical (ethical, epistemological, existential, &c.) propositions.
That being said, I agree that religion can be, and in fact has been, dangerous to civil society. If we agree to substitute “ideology” for “religion” (and I think we can), then I would even go as far to say: Ideology is the only danger to civil society over which humans have control. Relgious ideology might prompt killing of all infidels, just as Communistic ideology might prompt killing of all bourgeoisie, just as secularist ideology might prompt killing of all ideologues 8-). The problem is ideology you seem to say. And I say yes, but… it is also the only solution. You say just eliminate ideology and we’ll all be “safe.” I say, I’d love to eliminate certain ideologies (if it my ideology permitted it), but if I eliminate all of them, then I’ll have nothing left with which to measure the supposed “safety,” nothing to draw upon to know whether the Ideology Elimination Programme has been truly successful.
And if there is no rational end to ideology, then what remains is an evaluation of which ideologies are dangerous and which are not. I think we’re agreed that radical Islam is a “dangerous” ideology. Though I’ll not agree that it is ever ethical to kill someone merely for their ideology. It might be ethical to do so if motive and means are present, and such a one presented an imminent threat to act. It may be that such an ethic presents a problem for societal survivability. But to me, some things are more important than survival. And I s’pose that makes my ideology “safer” (to other societies at least) than yours. 😉
Cheers!
Theo:
[BTW, I claim the post, not Funky ;-)] First off, I don’t see that “militant atheism” fails to apprehend your definition of atheism: “simply not being theistic.” Could one not be “militantly simply not theistic”? I.e., it is very important (aesthetically pleasing) to simply be not theistic–so important that we have to kill (or otherwise curtail) theists?
Secondly, I utterly fail to see what religion has to do with much of this–the root is ideology. It is something ideological that says we must kill our enemies to advance our cause, whatever that cause may be, whether it be religious (implementation of the will of god), pagan (advancement of the Teutonic race), totalitarian (advancement of state interest to liberate the proletariat), or, and as is the case with Mr. Harris’ book, secularist (some ideas are so dangerous it may be ethical to kill their adherents).
It is the inextricable linking of religion with one’s social, political, and ethical life that makes religion so dangerous. When people make their decisions about the physical world based on their unprovable, unobservable, unmeasurable metaphysical beliefs, what is to stop a religious authority from doing, say, what Pope Urban II did?
But this is what makes atheism and secularism so dangerous: What is to stop Mao, Stalin, Hitler or Pol Pot from doing what they did? The only thing that can stop any of them (Urban II included) is a metaphysic that says it isn’t right to commit genocide to advance “your cause”–whatever that cause may be. There is no objective proof that “genocide is bad.” It is only the “inextricable” linking of the metaphysical with sociopolitical concerns that allow us to eschew genocide and promote “safe and free societies” in the first place.
There is no escaping metaphysics. The only thing that makes one’s (e.g., religious) metaphysic “dangerous” is another’s (e.g., secularist) metaphysic that says certain things are “bad.”
Finally at risk of encouraging Mr. Shropshire, I would like to respond to his
Religious people with weapons of mass destruction, who are often given to projection and their belief and need for an evil “other” (whether its the secular humanists or gay people…) are a danger to this world. One, because they just KNOW they’re right and two they have a backup afterlife, which makes this world and this experience quite the meaningless one.
2 things: First the point of the review article to which I referred was that it was a “militant secularist” who was requiring the “evil other,” and in this case the other was religion–painted in broad strokes to all appear exactly like that “religion” which prompts hijackers to crash planes into buildings. Second, I thought “not knowing” kept you humble. Yet it would seem you “know” that religious people “are a danger to this world.” How could one as epistemologically humble as yourself possibly “know”
Well, I’ve seen the planes crashing into buildings! I’ve seen the Crusades. I’ve watched Pro Lifers shoot doctors and blow up clinics. I’ve watched Christians in this country and their oil war and their “moral values.” It’s just reality and history. History history history…
[dawg… thot that was under 3kB… here’s the rest]
… Second, I thought “not knowing” kept you humble. Yet it would seem you “know” that religious people “are a danger to this world.” How could one as epistemologically humble as yourself possibly “know” this?
Cheers!