Login |
New User
Books
Read the 1st Chapter!
The Greatest Show On Earth: The Evidence For Evolution
The God Delusion
Over 1.5 million copies sold
The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing
by Richard Dawkins
The Selfish Gene
by Richard Dawkins
The Blind Watchmaker
by Richard Dawkins
The Ancestor's Tale
by Richard Dawkins
Unweaving the Rainbow
by Richard Dawkins
Climbing Mount Improbable
by Richard Dawkins
Print
Beyond the Believers
by Sam Harris
Thanks to George Hyde for the link.
Reposted from:
http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=library&page=harris_27_2
Recently, I attended a three-day conference at the Salk Institute, organized by The Science Network. The conference was titled, Beyond Belief: Science, Religion, Reason, and Survival and was conducted as a town-hall meeting before an audience of invited guests. Speakers included Steven Weinberg, Harold Kroto, Richard Dawkins, and many other scientists and philosophers who have been, and remain, energetic opponents of religious unreason. And then there were other esteemed participants and audience members who proved themselves to be eager purveyors of American-style religious bewilderment.
It was a room full of bright, scientifically literate people—molecular biologists, anthropologists, physicists, engineers—and yet, three days were insufficient to force agreement on whether or not there is any conflict between religion and science. While at Salk, I witnessed scientists giving voice to some of the most unctuous religious apologies I have ever heard. It is one thing to be told that the pope is a great champion of reason and that his opposition to embryonic stem cell research has nothing to do with religious dogmatism; it is quite another to be told this by a Stanford physician who sits on the President's Council on Bioethics. Over the course of the meeting, I had the pleasure of hearing that Hitler, Stalin, and Mao were examples of secularism run amok, that the doctrines of martyrdom and jihad have nothing whatsoever to do with Muslim terrorism, that people can never be argued out of their beliefs because we live in an irrational world, that science has made no important contributions to our ethical lives, and that it is not the job of scientists "to take away people's hope"—all from atheist scientists, happily trading in the most abject and paralyzing shibboleths of academic political correctness. There were several moments during our panel discussions that brought to mind the final scene of Invasion of the Body Snatchers—people who looked like scientists, had published as scientists, and would soon be returning to their labs nevertheless gave voice to the alien hiss of religious lunacy at the slightest prodding. In case anyone thought that the front lines in our culture wars could be found at the entrance to a megachurch, I am here to report that we still have considerable work to do in a nearby trench.
For all the frustration I felt at this meeting, it seemed like the perfect forum in which to resolve the centuries-old collision between reason and faith. If reputable scientists cannot be made to agree that there are important intellectual and moral differences between knowing something and pretending to know it, we are doomed. Happily, the meeting at Salk will be convened again next fall. Perhaps then it will be possible to rule out the Virgin Birth of Jesus as a valid scientific hypothesis.
While I heard many silly retorts to atheism at this conference, here is a list of those most in need of deflation by freethinkers:
I invite readers of FREE INQUIRY to provide short answers to any or all of these fantasies. The winning responses will be published in a future issue of the magazine. Winners in each category will be sent signed copies of both of my books and a cash prize of $100. Each response must be two hundred words or less (longer responses will be disqualified). Correspondence should be sent to: Free Inquiry Contest, P.O. Box 664, Amherst, NY 14226-0664.
Sam Harris is the author of The New York Times bestsellers, The End of Faith and Letter to a Christian Nation.
Reposted from:
http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=library&page=harris_27_2
Recently, I attended a three-day conference at the Salk Institute, organized by The Science Network. The conference was titled, Beyond Belief: Science, Religion, Reason, and Survival and was conducted as a town-hall meeting before an audience of invited guests. Speakers included Steven Weinberg, Harold Kroto, Richard Dawkins, and many other scientists and philosophers who have been, and remain, energetic opponents of religious unreason. And then there were other esteemed participants and audience members who proved themselves to be eager purveyors of American-style religious bewilderment.
It was a room full of bright, scientifically literate people—molecular biologists, anthropologists, physicists, engineers—and yet, three days were insufficient to force agreement on whether or not there is any conflict between religion and science. While at Salk, I witnessed scientists giving voice to some of the most unctuous religious apologies I have ever heard. It is one thing to be told that the pope is a great champion of reason and that his opposition to embryonic stem cell research has nothing to do with religious dogmatism; it is quite another to be told this by a Stanford physician who sits on the President's Council on Bioethics. Over the course of the meeting, I had the pleasure of hearing that Hitler, Stalin, and Mao were examples of secularism run amok, that the doctrines of martyrdom and jihad have nothing whatsoever to do with Muslim terrorism, that people can never be argued out of their beliefs because we live in an irrational world, that science has made no important contributions to our ethical lives, and that it is not the job of scientists "to take away people's hope"—all from atheist scientists, happily trading in the most abject and paralyzing shibboleths of academic political correctness. There were several moments during our panel discussions that brought to mind the final scene of Invasion of the Body Snatchers—people who looked like scientists, had published as scientists, and would soon be returning to their labs nevertheless gave voice to the alien hiss of religious lunacy at the slightest prodding. In case anyone thought that the front lines in our culture wars could be found at the entrance to a megachurch, I am here to report that we still have considerable work to do in a nearby trench.
For all the frustration I felt at this meeting, it seemed like the perfect forum in which to resolve the centuries-old collision between reason and faith. If reputable scientists cannot be made to agree that there are important intellectual and moral differences between knowing something and pretending to know it, we are doomed. Happily, the meeting at Salk will be convened again next fall. Perhaps then it will be possible to rule out the Virgin Birth of Jesus as a valid scientific hypothesis.
While I heard many silly retorts to atheism at this conference, here is a list of those most in need of deflation by freethinkers:
1. Even though I'm an atheist, my friends are atheists, and we all get along fine without pretending to know that one of our books was written by the Creator of the universe, other people really do need religion. It is, therefore, wrong to criticize their faith.
2. People are not really motivated by religion. Religion is used as a rationale for other aims—political, economic, and social. Consequently, the specific content of religious doctrines is beside the point.
3. It is useless to argue against the veracity of religious doctrines, because religious people are not actually making claims about reality. Their claims are metaphorical or otherwise without real content. Hence, there is no conflict between religion and science.
4. Religion will always be with us. The idea that we might rid ourselves of it to any significant degree is quixotic, bordering on delusional. Dawkins and other strident opponents of religious faith are just wasting their time.
I invite readers of FREE INQUIRY to provide short answers to any or all of these fantasies. The winning responses will be published in a future issue of the magazine. Winners in each category will be sent signed copies of both of my books and a cash prize of $100. Each response must be two hundred words or less (longer responses will be disqualified). Correspondence should be sent to: Free Inquiry Contest, P.O. Box 664, Amherst, NY 14226-0664.
Sam Harris is the author of The New York Times bestsellers, The End of Faith and Letter to a Christian Nation.
Comments 1 - 32 of 32 |
Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers2. Comment #17909 by Mr Blue Sky on January 17, 2007 at 12:58 pm
Re 1 every addict needs their fixRe 2 doctrinal statements can not be beside the point these are the pushers
Re 3 religion is contrary to science hence there is conflict
Re 4 religion will disappear over time as we evolve since the truth will out
I live in hope!...
Other Comments by Mr Blue Sky
3. Comment #17930 by jeepyjay on January 17, 2007 at 3:31 pm
The cartoon made me laugh, but on second thoughts I think the rationalists should be thought of more as firefighters or fog dispellers than fighting men with guns. The weapon is the enlightenment of science dispelling the darkness of faith from the minds of the god-befogged. Not the killing of believers. Other Comments by jeepyjay
4. Comment #17932 by Logicel on January 17, 2007 at 3:36 pm
jeepyjay, excellent suggestion. Other Comments by Logicel
5. Comment #17974 by iamb_spartacus on January 17, 2007 at 7:56 pm
Harris had an opportunity, as an intelligent person, to at least try to engage the ideas he finds so "in need of deflation." Instead he resorts to name calling and misrepresentation and leaves it at that. The speakers at the Beyond Belief conference that Sam derides present complex, intelligent, and thoughtful arguments, all of which appeal to real science (which is more than you can say for Harris when he makes unsupported contentions such as "there is a direct link" between Islam and terrorism, or ""Some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them." ) and none of which rely on the defense of superstition or faith to forward their arguments.I encourage to commenters above to familiarize themselves with the findings of Scott Atran, who has done significant research on jihadi "martyrs" which casts doubt on many of our widely held assumptions on what their motivations are. At the conference (which you can see for yourself on video), Harris is unable to provide anything more than anecdotal rebuttal. Contrary to the way he presents it in this essay, Harris argued from "common sense," and Atran responded with actual data.
Likewise, Harris mocks the idea, put forward at the conference by Philosopher Loyal Rue, that humans require narrative structures to maintain sanity both as individuals and social groups. Rue is hardly the first to present this idea, which he supports with serious scholarly attention, never resorting to faith or even a priori logic, and rather than engage the idea on its own terms, Harris reponds, in essence, Nanny Nanny Boo Boo.
Is this who you want representing the forces of "reason?" I think it's time more people asked Sam Harris to put his money where his mouth is. Where is the data?
Other Comments by iamb_spartacus
6. Comment #18116 by Chris Davis on January 18, 2007 at 12:02 pm
@iamb_spartacusYour points are very interesting. I seem to be becoming less of a Harris fan the more I see of him. Can I press you on a few items in your posting?
o It seems to me that accusing Islam of having a unique tendency toward 'terrorism' - nasty word - is to be both partisan and short-sighted - any religion has such a tendency, as best summed up in the line about good people doing evil things: a weltanschauung based on supernatural fantasy will do that to ya, almost inevitably.
o I can envisage a belief system so horrible that killing its adherents would be not just an ethical act, but perhaps the only response.
o Do you have a detailed view on the idea that 'humans require narrative structures to maintain sanity both as individuals and social groups'? I assume this is arguing for the Noble Lie, on the basis that without their opium, the masses will go nuts. This may turn out to be true, though I suspect that given enough bread and circuses they might settle down eventually. Whatever the case, I really can't square it with my own scrawny atheist's morality to support lying to the public, no matter how comforting, no matter what the alternatives.
It's not, after all, a neutral matter: without religion perhaps the public will kill themselves; but with it they tend to kill others. If those who can't handle the truth are moved to thin themselves out a little I can't say I'll mourn overmuch.
CD
Other Comments by Chris Davis
7. Comment #18117 by mintcheerios on January 18, 2007 at 12:05 pm
People like Atran are the reason why religion will continue to trample reason. It's amazing how many people will point out his research and area of study and follow up with an appeal to authority fallacy never stating why they think Atran is right. Where is the data? What data does Atran have that makes it so likely that deliriously happy mothers of their sons' deaths have nothing to do with Islam when those mothers will gladly recite verses from the Koran for you if you asked? I don't see why it is so difficult for people to call a spade a spade. When Dawkins asked Atran "what about those people whose own testimony talks about paradise?", Atran avoided answering the question with a straw man (no one does it for the virgins) and said that paradise is about love and terrorists in general are not filled with hate. This is continuous throughout his stay there. Pseudo-arguments and showing off lots of knowledge coupled with pronouncing foreign names authentically don't refute anything.Other Comments by mintcheerios
8. Comment #18119 by Jez on January 18, 2007 at 12:17 pm
1. Atheists are often told atheism is a religion, I believe I would be wrong not to criticise religion, are you criticizing my faith?2. The Jehovah Witnesses or {insert religon here} followers I have met were motivated by their religion. Their religious doctrine/bishop/rabii/book told them to so they did. If my religious doctrine/book/teacher told me to kill unbelievers would it be wrong of you to question that?
Religion is a rationale of religious doctrine.
3. How deeply do you want to push this? Would it not be better to say 'some religious people are not making claims about reality'? 'They' believe their claims have real context hence they challenge the truth that science represents.
4. Which religion? You are following a fad not a fact. If you wish to accuse me of being 'delusional' then I will first throw the same ball back into your court…
Other Comments by Jez
9. Comment #18128 by NoLongerHaveBelief on January 18, 2007 at 1:14 pm
1. God has given us 'free-will'; Thus criticism of Faith is allowed, so sayeth the Lord!2. People should be motivated by religious doctrines; The Lord instructed Muslims, Christians & Jews that only their social, economic society is the right one, So Sayeth the Lord!
3. Metaphorically the Lord believes in the Flying Spaghetti Monster and Father Christmas; there is no conflict between Religion and Science, because I created them both in opposition, so sayeth the Lord!
4. Religion will not always be with us; Because,I, the good Lord, have created super-intelligent Humans, like Professor Dawkins; eventually his selfish Genes will be able to disprove my existence, so sayeth the Lord!
Other Comments by NoLongerHaveBelief
10. Comment #18139 by iamb_spartacus on January 18, 2007 at 2:53 pm
Chris,Thanks for your thoughtful response.
...any religion has such a tendency [toward terrorism], as best summed up in the line about good people doing evil things: a weltanschauung based on supernatural fantasy will do that to ya, almost inevitably.
As I've written elsewhere, this is an unsupported, if not unsupportable, claim. Weinstein's line is clever, but it is a circularity. On what grounds can we define people as good or bad besides their actions? (I'm not suggesting we even should define people in manichean fashion; I'm merely responding to the terms of Weinstein's statement.) Do we look into thier souls? Failing that, why assume that a religious person doing evil would otherwise be "good"?
It seems to me if people want to defend science and logic as superior modes of experience, they should not resort to anecdote and commonsense in that defense. Saying things like "any religion has a violent tendency" or "religion leads good people to do evil" as though this were more than cicumstantially demonstrable does not do the rationalist view any favors.
I would like to know through what experiment Dawkins and Harris have isolated religion as the secret ingredient in cultural violence. I think excellent cases have been made for other social and political factors being at least as influential, if not more so. Perhaps it can never be decided with any authority, but let's not talk as though the matter has been settled.
I can envisage a belief system so horrible that killing its adherents would be not just an ethical act, but perhaps the only response.
You are welcome to your own ethics, but we are a nation of laws. How do you square this principle with the constitution, especially the 1st, 5th, and 14th amendments?
Do you have a detailed view on the idea that 'humans require narrative structures to maintain sanity both as individuals and social groups'? I assume this is arguing for the Noble Lie, on the basis that without their opium, the masses will go nuts.
I do not argue for the Noble Lie, and I don't consider religion (necessarily) as an opiate, though it does often function that way. Please note that I did not say that "religion" was required, but narrative structures, of which what we call religion is a notable example. For the detailed view I would consult any number of sources from Whitehead, to Plato, to Muriel Rukeyser, to Karen Armstrong, to Alan Watts.
To me it seems patently obvious (though I am open to argument) that we humans cannot know or experience anything without narratizing it. That includes history, science, law, in addition to religion. All are based on a kind of 'myth,' not in the sense of lie, but in the sense of story. The fact that Darwin's story of natural selection is a "true" story doesn't make it less of a story. No amount of language can actually re-create objective reality; our understanding will always be an approximation. And of course our sense array has its limits, so even if could speak with utter precision about our world, how could we know what we still didn't know? No scientific theory, and no religion will ever get it "right." That doesn't mean either is of no value. But it does mean we should watch our tendancies towards dogmatism, both scientific and religious.
I think science is a marvel, and we would be a much less happy species without it. But when it takes that extra step and declares, like the turtle in Charles Fort's phrase, that "its shell contains all things" we begin to create a problem.
Other Comments by iamb_spartacus
11. Comment #18145 by iamb_spartacus on January 18, 2007 at 3:13 pm
Mintcheerios,Just for clarity, I don't advocate anything "trampling" reason, and I haven't read Atran extensively but I doubt he does either.
I do not have Atran's research at hand, but I'd be curious to see it, and decide for myself if it meets a standard of credibility. His summary of it made sense to me, but I confess I don't have any proof of its truth.
But it seems as though we are equally guilty of the appeal to authority. The difference is that the authority I am calling upon at least claims to be involved in actual scientific experiment investigating the issue of suicide bombers, whereas Harris and Dawkins presented as "evidence" that religion makes people violent only anecdote and so-called "common sense" (like "calling a spade a spade.") Atran may be mistaken about the motivation of jihadis, but I am going to suggest your reaction to it is not based on contrary data (since you did not present any), so much as on a pre-existing belief that Islam (or certain fundamentalist strains) make people crazy.
The point is not that I am right. I may not be. But I am not going on nationwide book tours preaching the evils of a certain mindset. In addition to being not very logically rigorous, the case against religion that I have seen made, to date, seems severely blinkered by a lack of understanding of social theory, and of recent philosophy. Atran's assertions, by contrast, seem to me complex and subtle, and most importantly, fairly humble when it comes to truth claims.
I will read his book when it comes out and see if my initial impression is confirmed. Will you do the same?
Other Comments by iamb_spartacus
12. Comment #18147 by jeff_n on January 18, 2007 at 3:23 pm
iamb_spartacus says:
"In addition to being not very logically rigorous, the case against religion that I have seen made, to date, seems severely blinkered by a lack of understanding of social theory, and of recent philosophy."
Unfortunately, Dawkins rejects much of the most relevant theoritcal work as "haute francophoneyism" (at the beginning of Ch. 10 of TGD).
Other Comments by jeff_n
13. Comment #18186 by roach on January 18, 2007 at 10:39 pm
This certainly isn't my favorite Harris article. Sam is criticized for often repeating his talking points and after hearing many of his interviews I would have to agree. But then again, he is often asked the exact same questions so I can understand why he gives the exact same answers. I actually think Sam shines brightest when involved in an actual debate. He's able to think quickly and come up with comprehensive answers to tough questions. I watched his debate with Atran and thought both presented interesting arguments (of course I side with Harris). I am keen on reading Atrans book "In Gods We Trust". No doubt it offers a compelling case for his stance. But already there are some things that make me weary of Atran. He stated at Salk that Dawkins, Harris, et al. need to "be scientists and do science" that they "have an n of 1". This strikes me as somewhat strange. I would concede that Harris' "The End of Faith" attacks religion on mainly philosophical grounds (this is a completely legitimate stance) and does it quite well. But to suggest that Dawkins and Weinberg and others need to do more science and research in order to hold make a valid criticism of religion is simply mind boggling. Now they may not have done Atran's anthropological/psychological scientific research (which is worthy of respect and evaluation) but that in no way makes Dawkins' biological arguments, Weinberg's physics based arguments, or Sam Harris' philosophical arguments any less valid. (I'll type more on this when people point out my shortcomings but for now i'm moving on)I must say that I am puzzled by Atran. I'm just not sure of his position (this is why i need to read his book). It seems that the biggest gripe Atran has is that Harris apparently misses the mark when he argues that terrorists and suicide bombers are driven by faith. Based on what i heard from the Salk conference Atran seems to argue that suicide bombers aren't killing themselves for the reasons Harris alleges i.e. the 72 virgins. Okay. Let's say that suicide bombers don't kill themselves for the virgins but do so out of "love" for their family (after all, families of martyrs are guaranteed paradise). How is this any less absurd and tragic? Perhaps no religious delusion is the case and it's true that no one (not even terrorists) are driven to madness because of his/her faith in some invisible moral superintelligence. Why then did Atran chose "In Gods We Trust" as the title of his book? I'm still confused.
Other Comments by roach
14. Comment #18200 by Sam on January 19, 2007 at 1:47 am
- "2. People are not really motivated by religion. Religion is used as a rationale for other aims—political, economic, and social. Consequently, the specific content of religious doctrines is beside the point."
I usually challenge people to tell me what hidden secular purpose is being served by:
- - Stoning people for breaking the sabbath.
- Ritual human or animal sacrifice.
- Celebrating the martyr death of your own son.
- Letting your children die rather than allowing any medical treatment.
Sure, you could come up with some far-fetched ad hoc explanation for each case, but see how easily everything falls into place by simply assuming that people tend to do what they think is best, whether or not they have good reasons to think this. Consider, again, the following set of beliefs:
- The one true creator of the universe wants those who believe in him to wage war on those who don't and wipe them of the face of the earth. Those who do God's work will have an eternity of bliss after death, while those who don't will have an eternity of suffering. All of this is both good and just for reasons that are only known to God and nothing for us to worry about.
Honestly: If this was definitely true, and you knew it to be true, what would you do? Would it even be reasonable not to fight the infidels given this set of premises? The problem with faith is that it allows people to think and act as if such claims were true even if they are not.
It is not just that the promise of heaven and the threat of hell makes the stakes infinitely high: whether you choose to obey or not decides whether you will have eternal bliss or eternal suffering. But perhaps even more important - at least in my experience - is the false certainty that there is a "hidden meaning" or a "secret plan" behind everything, that we are not meant to understand - the Lord's ways are inscrutinable, remember - but which is none the less righteous and good. Even many moderates i have debated have used this absolutely horrifying excuse not to think in order to rationalize even the worst examples of attrocities in the Bible. This idea that "no matter how cruel this may seem to us, it is all justified by the higher good that we are not meant to understand" may very well be the most dangerous idea ever.
As far as i can tell the only way to avoid the conclusion that faith is dangerous, is by assuming that the extremists don't actually believe what they say they belive. To think that they do believe it but don't care whether they go to heaven or hell is simply not reasonable.
- "It's as if a very high, impenetrable wall separated you from Paradise or Hell... Allah has promised one or the other to his creatures. So, by pressing the detonator, you can immediately open the door to Paradise — it is the shortest path to Heaven... In any case, we get to meet the Prophet and his companions, inshallah... We were floating, swimming, in the feeling that we were about to enter eternity. We had no doubts. We made an oath on the Koran, in the presence of Allah — a pledge not to waver. This jihad pledge is called bayt al-ridwan, after the garden in Paradise that is reserved for the prophets and the martyrs. I know that there are other ways to do jihad. But this one is sweet — the sweetest. All martyrdom operations, if done for Allah 's sake, hurt less than a gnat's bite... Tomorrow, we will be martyrs, ... Only the believers know what this means. I love martyrdom... Are you ready? Tomorrow, you will be in Paradise... the first drop of blood shed by a martyr during jihad washes away his sins instantaneously. On the Day of Judgment, he will face no reckoning. On the Day of Resurrection, he can intercede for 70 of his nearest and dearest to enter Heaven; and he will have at his disposal 72 houris, the beautiful virgins of Paradise... We focus his attention on Paradise, on being in the presence of Allah, on meeting the Prophet Muhammad, on interceding for his loved ones so that they, too, can be saved from the agonies of Hell, on the houris... It [the fear ] comes from his fervent desire for success, which will propel him into the presence of Allah... Inshallah, we will meet in Paradise..."
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,7-1692606,00.html
Now, i can't actually read these people's minds to see if they really belive this crap, but it sure explains their actions better than any other hypothesis that i am familiar with.
In the same article it sais that:
- "None of the suicide bombers — they ranged in age from 18 to 38 — conformed to the typical profile of the suicidal personality. None of them was uneducated, desperately poor, simple-minded, or depressed. Many were middle-class and held paying jobs. Two were the sons of millionaires. They all seemed entirely normal members of their families. They were polite and serious, and in their communities were considered to be model youths. Most were bearded. All were deeply religious.
I was told that to be accepted for a suicide mission the volunteers had to be convinced of the religious legitimacy of the acts they were contemplating, as sanctioned by the divinely revealed religion of Islam."
Other Comments by Sam
15. Comment #18268 by iamb_spartacus on January 19, 2007 at 8:07 am
Roach,I'm really not qualified to defend Atran, as I'm not that familiar with his work. I also haven't read End of Faith (perhaps I should) though I've read a number of Harris' articles, as well as Dawkins' God Delusion (and a few of his science books).
But I think when Atran says that "scientists should do science" what he means is they shouldn't make unsupported truth claims, especially when it comes to deciding whether or not people are entitled to thier beliefs. It may have been snide of Atran to respond to Harris during the debate, sarcastically, "How very empirical of you," but it was a point well taken. Harris had just finished a litany of assertions about Islam for which is there is no evidence.
That is not to say that Atran's theories are is correct--on that I am agnostic--but he is right to ask for more documentation of the idea that Islam or any religion causes people to become violent.
You mention Dawkins' biological arguments and Weinstein's physics arguments. What are they? I've read them both, and find no scientific basis for the idea that religion is a social danger. No scientific basis. The fact that both are distinguished scientists does not give them carte blanche to issue pronouncements on human psychology and social theory--fields in which they are not trained. And frankly the philosophical arguments seem to me squirrelly at best. We can talk about that more if you like.
Consider the gravity of what Dawkins, Harris, and Weinstein are suggesting: that we should, as a society, actively oppose the belief systems of other parts of the world (and segments of our own). Essentially, that we should engage in epistemological war. Then consider the standard of proof you would like to ensure before launching such an enterprise.
Other Comments by iamb_spartacus
16. Comment #18278 by Chris Davis on January 19, 2007 at 9:17 am
iamb_spartacus,On what grounds can we define people as good or bad besides their actions?
Bit utilitarian, what? Weinstein's final phrase was, you will recall, that 'to get good people to do evil things' requires religion. Meaning that people who are otherwise good - even extremely good adherents to universal moral principles - may be induced to do evil things by religion. Two points: a) Obviously, in doing evil things, they ipso fact cease to be good, and b) in their own minds they're still doing good, because they're faithfully following the dictates of their religion, perhaps sacrificing a great deal in the process.
The issue in all this is the disparity between religious morality and the more fundamental instinctive morality we all have. The former is often a superset of the latter, and may include items necessary for the propagation of the religion that run counter to instinctive morality.
The classic example being the 9/11 hijackers: these were certainly 'good' people according to their lights, but their faith (alone) told them that flying a plane into a building was a noble act.
Saying things like "any religion has a violent tendency" or "religion leads good people to do evil" as though this were more than cicumstantially demonstrable does not do the rationalist view any favors.
I'd like to prepend a 'may, unpredictably' to both the verbs in your quotes. The point is that religion, being a non-rational mental construct, can encompass pretty much any conceivable element. In many case they include a concept of an evil incarnate, which a follower is duty bound to fight and kill. As no such thing really exists, it has no defining physical referents, so the adherent is free to point to real things and people as a substitute manifestation.
Supposedly civilised US Christians in high positions call for the death of homosexuals. Several cases have recently been revealed in which women in Sharia countries face death by stoning for being pregnant and unmarried. And there's those hijackers again...
Religions are dangerous to the same extent that drunk or mad people are dangerous: their motivations and actions are logically unpredictable. That's scary.
You are welcome to your own ethics, but we are a nation of laws. How do you square this principle with the constitution, especially the 1st, 5th, and 14th amendments?
Wrong country, I'm afraid, cor blimey 'ow's yer father. Notwithstanding which: can you not imagine an individual or group so deranged by a loony belief system that their very existence is dangerous to life? Ignoring the propaganda that frequently seeks to make such people out of those who simply have a differing ideology, the reality is not all that inconceivable. If facilities for deprogramming them are not available, killing them may be the only option.
I'd like to come at the science question - especially the 'science doesn't have all the answers' question - from another angle. For me, capital-s-Science is nothing less than the search for (capital-T) Truth. The only truth, furthermore, that I consider worth having: subject to adversarial scrutiny, tests of repeatability and so on. Within that framework, if it's true, it's scientific; and if it's not scientific, it's not true. Dogmatic though that sounds even to me, I can't - sitting here - think of anything that is true but doesn't at least come within the compass of science.
'Hydrogen has an electron' is true. 'God is love' is bollocks, frankly.
CD
Other Comments by Chris Davis
17. Comment #18280 by iamb_spartacus on January 19, 2007 at 9:30 am
Sam,Your post covers a lot of ground and I will try to touch on most of it.
I usually challenge people to tell me what hidden secular purpose is being served by:
- Stoning people for breaking the sabbath.
- Ritual human or animal sacrifice.
- Celebrating the martyr death of your own son.
- Letting your children die rather than allowing any medical treatment.
Is it your understanding that there is a current practice anywhere in the world today of stoning people for breaking the sabbath? Or human sacrifice? In fact it was the arising, during the Axial Age, of the major religions we see today that displaced the practice of ritual sacrifice (mostly--you still see animal sacrifice in Santeria even here in Chicago, and it is not unknown in other animistic religions in Africa and the Far East).
Now, it's true, stoning people for adultery and other offenses persists in parts of the Arab world, but this is a pre-Islamic practice and has nothing to do with religious matters. That's not a defense of stoning, but merely a reminder that we cannot so easily separate single strands from a culture in order to push it in the direction we want.
As for the second two, as you say, we cannot know what is in another person's mind. The operative question would be, is the motivating factor pure subservience to "God's law" or is it something more self-serving? Or is it a mixture of the two? The only answer I can provide is that I'm sure it is not a simple matter. I wouldn't defend either practice--I think both are pernicious. But the existence of either one of these practices does not constitute a serious argument that religion is harmful.
see how easily everything falls into place by simply assuming that people tend to do what they think is best, whether or not they have good reasons to think this.
Setting aside the fact that you don't define in what sense things "fall in to place," I don't see how this statement advances the argument either way. People can do what they think is best in a religious context, or in a rationalist one.
Consider, again, the following set of beliefs:
The one true creator of the universe wants those who believe in him to wage war on those who don't and wipe them of the face of the earth. Those who do God's work will have an eternity of bliss after death, while those who don't will have an eternity of suffering. All of this is both good and just for reasons that are only known to God and nothing for us to worry about.
What religion does this pertain to? I understand that you are trying to reconstruct the reality tunnel of a jihadi, but "Jihadism" is not a religion in any meaningful sense. If we are going to judge any belief system by it's most extreme practitioners, then we'll have run through most of our "isms" right quick. That includes capitalism, socialism, and, yes rationalism.
Remember, what Harris, Dawkins and Weinberg (and to an extent, Dennett) argue against is not fundamentalism or extremism, but religious belief itself. And the method they propose is not "to each his own," but to actively agitate against religious belief as a social danger. And yet, to date, they have presented no compelling logical or empirical proof that religious belief is a social danger.
Dorothy Day, menace to society. Martin Luther King, dangerous ideologue. Mohandas Gandhi, public enemy number one. Is that the take-away?
One could just as easily say that devotion to rational thought sometimes leads to people being closed minded and ideological. Should we on those grounds ramp up the war on reason?
Your final point is about hidden meanings, and secret plans. Of course these words suggest a "hider" and "planner" that as an atheist I can't subscribe to in any literal way (though I enjoy some of the stories of the Hindu cosmology for thier metaphorical value).
However that does not meant that all truth and knowledge is humanly discernible. That's a long discussion of its own, but my response to Chris Davis begins to address it. Is it not a matter of "faith" that science and reason are capable of revealing all things, or that the objective world is exactly as we perceive it to be? On what grounds do we decide that our knowledge is, or can ever be complete? I would contend that it is on the grounds of hubris, the need for us to be an important part of the narrative of the universe, and that this belief itself is profoundly religious.
Other Comments by iamb_spartacus
18. Comment #18299 by iamb_spartacus on January 19, 2007 at 12:36 pm
Chris,Great post. I can see I'm not going to get much work done today.
Bit utilitarian, what? Weinstein's final phrase was, you will recall, that 'to get good people to do evil things' requires religion. Meaning that people who are otherwise good - even extremely good adherents to universal moral principles - may be induced to do evil things by religion. Two points: a) Obviously, in doing evil things, they ipso fact cease to be good, and b) in their own minds they're still doing good, because they're faithfully following the dictates of their religion, perhaps sacrificing a great deal in the process.
To clarify: I'm not making the utilitarian argument; merely trying to employ Weinberg's own terms as (presumably) intended. He contrasts "good" people with "evil" acts. Yet, he offers no basis for ascribing "goodness" to a person externally. The definition is self-defined. So you can either have a "good" or "bad" person, considered subjectively, who commits a "good" or "evil" act, considered subjectively, or you can apply the terms externally, in which case you need to state on what grounds you do so.
In this sense Weinberg's quip is a syllogism. It only makes sense if you agree with the believer's self-imposed definition of goodness, which sounds to me an awful lot like an endorsement of religion.
The point is that religion, being a non-rational mental construct, can encompass pretty much any conceivable element.
The first part of your statement is true enough. Religion, like love, lust, passion, and all of emotion, is largely non-rational. And it can encompass, in theory, most anything. But in reality it tends to stick to certain limited patterns, as mythographers have shown. My point is only that it seems to me alarmist to say religion "can encompass pretty much any conceivable element." That's the slippery slope argument, and it tends to reflect a disquiet with irrationality in general, making it into a bit of a boogey man. It is similar to phenomenon of repressing one's feelings because one is afraid of who one "really" is. The truth tends to be that this repressed self is far milder and more acceptable than was feared. It is, in fact, when we repress it that it becomes most "unpredictable."
In many case[s] they include a concept of an evil incarnate, which a follower is duty bound to fight and kill.
In what religion do you find this concept? I know of none. I grant you that a strict sharia intepretation of Islam is harsh and unforgiving in many ways, but it provides no grounds for a literal war to the death with all infidels, and it is certainly not a concept shared by the vast majority of Muslims.
Bin Laden and his crew appear to something like that, and point to the Quran and Hadith as guiding them to this conclusion. But it is an incredible stretch. We might as well blame Thoreau and Audobon for Ted ("The Unabomber") Kaczynski's string of environmentally motivated mailbombs, which killed 3 people and injured over 20 more.
Religions are dangerous to the same extent that drunk or mad people are dangerous: their motivations and actions are logically unpredictable. That's scary.
I agree, but only to the point that you extend your statement to include all humans. Do you really believe that rationalists are "predictable"? Would you really want them to be? Unpredictability is not the greatest of evils. There is such a thing as a pleasant surprise. As far as the impact of unpredictability on our security, well, life is scary. I don't oppose efforts to make civilization safer and more harmonious, but security is not my highest organizing principle, and I would suggest that it isn't yours either. I don't know you, but you seem like a decent person, and I expect you believe in basic human rights, the following nonwithstanding.
Can you not imagine an individual or group so deranged by a loony belief system that their very existence is dangerous to life?
Without question. However, that is a far different thing than saying that I have the right to kill them--or in fact penalize them in anyway--based strictly on what is in thier heads. Talk about your slippery slopes! How do you encode such a principle in law? At what degree of danger do you set the threshold? How do you align an individual's fredom from danger with the public interest? Orwell had a name for this concept: Thought Crimes. With or without a Bill of Rights, there's no way to square this with the essential principles of liberal democracy.
For me, capital-s-Science is nothing less than the search for (capital-T) Truth.
As I wrote earlier, I think anyone arguing in this day and age that any finite being can access Capital-T Truth has his work cut out for him. I wish you luck.
The only truth, furthermore, that I consider worth having: subject to adversarial scrutiny, tests of repeatability and so on. Within that framework, if it's true, it's scientific; and if it's not scientific, it's not true. Dogmatic though that sounds even to me, I can't - sitting here - think of anything that is true but doesn't at least come within the compass of science.
I don't think you really mean this. Are your feelings "true"? If you said you were angry with me, and I asked you to prove it, how would you proceed? Have you personally verified, scientifically, all of the scientific theories you hold to be true? Have you ever read a history text that didn't conflict in any factual way with another history text, but you felt had conveyed its subject more accurately? Have you ever thought, about two conflicting histories "well, they're both right"? Has someone ever referred to a person you revered as a wanker, prompting you to say (or think privately) "that's not true"? By what experiment do we determine that Labour is "right," or the Tories, or none of the above? Or that so-and-so is a "good" person, and such-and-such, not so much?
When the person of your deepest affection tells you "I love you" do you reply "that's nice, muffin, but as a truth not subject to scientific verification I must say I can't ascribe it much value"?
Of course not. Only an emotional cripple really wants to live in a completely reasonable world.
Other Comments by iamb_spartacus
19. Comment #18316 by Janus on January 19, 2007 at 3:53 pm
I must say I'm baffled that some people are giving any credence to Atran when it comes to religion and the danger it represents. Like most people I haven't read his book, but I've watched the Salk videos and read every article Atran has written in response to the conference, and practically everything he's said or written is riddled with logical fallacies, especially non sequiturs. Granted, they're not all easy to spot, but how can you not laugh out loud when you hear nonsense like:"core religious beliefs, like poetic metaphors, are literally senseless in that they altogether lack truth conditions."
or read a blatant non sequitur like:
[on the subject of how to deal with religious irrationality in general]
"(for example, in negotiations with Hamas and Israel to stop Qassam missile attacks, or in field investigations of beheadings in Azad Kahsmir – efforts reported in the last two issues of The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists).
If I employed Harris's recommendation for dealing with irrationality in such cases, by lambasting the conflicting parties with how preposterous are their core beliefs, I would probably be kicked out or killed (and in misjudging the ways reason is best advanced, I have on a few occasions been very nearly killed)."
Other Comments by Janus
20. Comment #18322 by iamb_spartacus on January 19, 2007 at 5:54 pm
How can you not laugh out loud when you hear nonsense like:
"core religious beliefs, like poetic metaphors, are literally senseless in that they altogether lack truth conditions."
or read a blatant non sequitur like:
"If I employed Harris's recommendation for dealing with irrationality in such cases, by lambasting the conflicting parties with how preposterous are their core beliefs, I would probably be kicked out or killed (and in misjudging the ways reason is best advanced, I have on a few occasions been very nearly killed)."
Janus, I must confess I don't follow your argument. Could you spell out for me the logical fallacies you find in these citations?
Other Comments by iamb_spartacus
21. Comment #18328 by Janus on January 19, 2007 at 6:54 pm
The first is just nonsense. How is is something like, "The creator of the universe sent his son to Earth to die for our sins" literally senseless in that it altogether lacks truth conditions? Yes, it's stupid, but no Christian except perhaps a handful of theologians and bishops thinks of it as a poetic metaphor. Anyone who's spent a few hours talking with a few Abrahamic believers knows their beliefs are statements about objective reality, regardless of how certain they are of them.As for the second, Atran's reasoning could be reworded like this: "In a hostage negotiation with Muslim fundamentalists, explaining how preposterous Islam is will get you and your hostage killed, therefore brutal honesty isn't a good way to deal with religious irrationality."
Pretty much a textbook example of non sequitur: the conclusion doesn't follow from the premise.
I remember that Atran made this argument at the Salk conference when he was engaged in a mini-debate with Richard Dawkins, to support his assertion that honesty isn't a good way to advance the secularist cause. IIRC, Dawkins pointed out that a hostage negotiation isn't a very representative case. Atran just ignored him and kept talking.
If you've watched the Salk videos, you might remember a few more of Atran's non sequiturs:
- Wars get progressively more horrible as time goes on, therefore Dawkins' theory of the shifting moral zeitgeist is wrong.
- Muslim suicide bombers have usually formed a sort of family-like bond between them, which seems to strengthen their desire to martyr themselves, therefore the doctrines of jihad, martyrdom, and eternal bliss for the families of martyrs contained in Islam have nothing to do with suicide bombings.
(after Dawkins points out that the bombers themselves admitted they were motivated by the promise of paradise and the ideal of martyrdom...)
- The concept of paradise ties with the love and affection these people have for each other, therefore Islam has nothing to do with suicide bombings.
Other Comments by Janus
22. Comment #18335 by iamb_spartacus on January 19, 2007 at 9:26 pm
How is is something like, "The creator of the universe sent his son to Earth to die for our sins" literally senseless in that it altogether lacks truth conditions? Yes, it's stupid, but no Christian except perhaps a handful of theologians and bishops thinks of it as a poetic metaphor. Anyone who's spent a few hours talking with a few Abrahamic believers knows their beliefs are statements about objective reality, regardless of how certain they are of them.
Janus,
You leave out the second part of the quote, where he re-states his idea: "that is, there are no logical or empirical criteria for judging whether such utterances are true or not." I think this renders your interpretation questionable. The point is not that religious people don't "really" believe their myths, or that they don't "literally" believe them, but that they aren't contestable the way scientific truth claims are. (Yes, you have people pointing to Mount Ararat and the Shroud of Turin, but that's just sensationalism. It runs against the current of the majority of religious thought and experience.
Before you dismiss the idea out of hand, I would propose that you do a little more research into the religious experience than "spending a few hours talking to Abrahamic believers."
As for the second, Atran's reasoning could be reworded like this: "In a hostage negotiation with Muslim fundamentalists, explaining how preposterous Islam is will get you and your hostage killed, therefore brutal honesty isn't a good way to deal with religious irrationality."
It wasn't a geometric proof for pete's sake, it was an concrete application of the idea that people don't take kindly to being mocked or dimsissed, and in fact it tends to make them more entrenched than when you started. Wouldn't you agree? Have you never found yourself becoming more attached to an idea because of pride? Even if you haven't, surely you've encountered it in others.
The point is that it is naive to demand that other people get with the program, and expect to have good results. It's not about the relative virtue of honesty or dishonesty, it's about basic human relations.
Dawkins pointed out that a hostage negotiation isn't a very representative case. Atran just ignored him and kept talking.
I never said Atran wasn't rude. He's not my hero or anything.
But I disagree that it's not a representative case. Dialogue is better than war, if you have any cards to play at all (and we do), whether it's a hostage negotiation, or a so-called "Clash of Civiliations."
If you've watched the Salk videos, you might remember a few more of Atran's non sequiturs:
- Wars get progressively more horrible as time goes on, therefore Dawkins' theory of the shifting moral zeitgeist is wrong.
It wasn't a refutation, it was merely an observation that the notion of progress is far from patent.
- Muslim suicide bombers have usually formed a sort of family-like bond between them, which seems to strengthen their desire to martyr themselves, therefore the doctrines of jihad, martyrdom, and eternal bliss for the families of martyrs contained in Islam have nothing to do with suicide bombings.
Again, you are inserting "therefores" where there are none in the original. The point is not that religion has "nothing" to do with it, but rather it has been presented as the sole causative influence, when in fact there are a complex set of social factors involved, such as kinship bonds.
I will repeat my question from an earlier post: where is the evidence that of all the social and political factors at play, belief in god is the secret ingredient which makes people murderous?
Other Comments by iamb_spartacus
23. Comment #18342 by Janus on January 19, 2007 at 11:09 pm
You leave out the second part of the quote, where he re-states his idea: "that is, there are no logical or empirical criteria for judging whether such utterances are true or not." I think this renders your interpretation questionable. The point is not that religious people don't "really" believe their myths, or that they don't "literally" believe them, but that they aren't contestable the way scientific truth claims are. (Yes, you have people pointing to Mount Ararat and the Shroud of Turin, but that's just sensationalism. It runs against the current of the majority of religious thought and experience.
I would point out that more than half of American Christians (and certainly the vast majority of Muslims worldwide) are creationists, and creationism makes several testable claims, but this would be beside the point of this post, which is to show that Atran isn't a reliable authority.
The point that Atran originally made at the Salk conference was that religious believers aren't really that irrational (or at least, not more than someone who's in love), and the argument about religious beliefs being comparable to poetic metaphors was invoked to defend that point, which is why I interpreted the citation as I did.
Anyway, either I'm right and Atran is completely wrong, or you're right and the argument does nothing to support Atran's point. After all, that some claims can't be falsified empirically or logically doesn't mean that making such claims is justified and rational. I may not be able to show that immaterial, invisible imps don't exist, but I can certainly demonstrate logically that belief in these imps is insane.
It wasn't a geometric proof for pete's sake, it was an concrete application of the idea that people don't take kindly to being mocked or dimsissed, and in fact it tends to make them more entrenched than when you started. Wouldn't you agree? Have you never found yourself becoming more attached to an idea because of pride? Even if you haven't, surely you've encountered it in others.
The point is that it is naive to demand that other people get with the program, and expect to have good results. It's not about the relative virtue of honesty or dishonesty, it's about basic human relations.
The point is that Atran keeps using his example of hostage negotiation over and over again to support his opinion. Dawkins and Harris advocate brutal honesty in the West, in conferences, articles, books, etc, so as to promote secularism, science, and reason.
And the only example Atran can come up with is a situation where the religious believers are so nutty they're willing to kidnap people, in countries that often are theocracies, and where the secularist's purpose has nothing at all to do with promoting secularism or reason or science, but with saving people's lives. Whatever else you think Atran believes about this subject, I don't see how you can deny that you can't conclude anything from this particular case. As I said, it's the textbook example of a non sequitur.
To speak for myself, no, I think I'm much more likely to be convinced if my interlocutor speaks his mind without trying to soften the blows. I think part of the reason I like Richard Dawkins is that I'm incredibly tired of the sugary, placid approach used by many intellectuals.
I also need to point out that Dawkins' and Harris' objective isn't only to deconvert believers, it's also to destroy the taboo that keeps us from attacking religion freely and openly.
But I disagree that it's not a representative case. Dialogue is better than war, if you have any cards to play at all (and we do), whether it's a hostage negotiation, or a so-called "Clash of Civiliations."
Good thing no one's arguing for a war then, eh?
And as I've already said, hostage negotiations and the theism VS atheism 'debate' have nothing in common. It's rather obvious if you think about it; a debate is about truth, a negotiation is only concerned with truth if it happens to be a useful tool to achieve your goal.
It wasn't a refutation, it was merely an observation that the notion of progress is far from patent.
Hey, I think Dawkins' zeitgeist theory is BS, but once again my intent was only to show that Atran is using a non sequitur. The shifting moral zeitgeist is about change in the overall moral beliefs of a civilization's population. Atran's argument is about as relevant as pointing out that the murder rate has increased in the last 100 years, which is to say not at all. A relevant argument would have been to say that the population's concept of what is 'horrible' and 'cruel' in war has changed for the worse in the last century (which obviously isn't the case).
But what really bugged me is that Atran began his little speech by calling Dawkins' theory "quasi-theological", at which point everyone was holding their breaths, expecting him to tell us WHY... and the only argument he has is this one.
At first glance it's not a non sequitur, because the conclusion is placed before the argument, but it's a non sequitur nevertheless.
You've noticed that I inserted 'therefores' in my paraphrasing of Atran. I felt it was necessary to dispel the effect created by the kind of clever wording described above.
The point is not that religion has "nothing" to do with it, but rather it has been presented as the sole causative influence, when in fact there are a complex set of social factors involved, such as kinship bonds.
Ahh, this is without a doubt the religious apology which was most often used at Salk, and not only by Scott Atran. Too bad it's a complete misrepresentation. Dawkins and Harris have said again and again and again, both in their books and at the conference, that they don't think religion is the "root of all evil", and that they acknowledge the existence of non-believing suicide bombers such as the Tamil Tigers.
The thing about religion, however, is that despite what Scott Atran believes, it can be fought and eradicated relatively easily. People like you and I are clear evidence of that, as are countries like Sweden. I say "relatively easily", because while eradicating religion will be very, very difficult, it will be much easier to eradicate than the basic human tendency to divide the world into Us and Them, which unlike religion is probably an intrinsic part of human nature.
So while, as Dawkins and Harris admit, religion is only one of the problems that we're faced with, it's a very big problem, and most importantly it's a problem that can (at least in principle) be dealt with.
By the way, I'm sure that you've noticed that this is yet another point that Atran has gotten completely wrong: He believes that, like romantic love and false hope, religion is part of human nature, and to try to get rid of it is irrational. Isn't it obvious that if a sizeable part of humanity is rational and atheistic, it's at least theoretically possible for all (or almost all) of humanity to become rational and atheistic? Does Atran think that countries like Sweden are anomalies, that it's just an accident that so many atheists live over there?
Scott Atran is a perfect example of someone who, to use Dan Dennett's phrase, "believes in belief", despite being an atheist.
Other Comments by Janus
24. Comment #18360 by Chris Davis on January 20, 2007 at 3:31 am
Are your feelings "true"? If you said you were angry with me, and I asked you to prove it, how would you proceed?
Ooh, I am a bit naughty. I confess that I hoped you might adduce emotions as an example of a non-scientific True thing. I don't buy it, and neither, I've been pleased to note in recent times, does our Dr. Richard (PBUH).
Because emotional states are not entirely mental ones. And even if they were I fancy an EEG could pick them up. As it is, emotions can be measured by a host of somatic effects alone. In anger's case that would include hypertension, adrenergic effects, ACTH, and the rest of the fight/flight, etc.
Richard specifically mentioned less hard-science but no less conclusive forensics that can confirm the truth of someone saying 'I love you'. Countless visible, nonverbal clues that we are specifically evolved to read come to one's aid. We're good at detecting falsehood because we operate on trust much of the time. Extending that, we're good at reading and projecting emotions because we're social animals and no man is an island (except Fred Mauritius, of course).
Emotions themselves are Scientific (in the comic-book sense I defined previously). They're hard-wired survival behaviours that nature gives us, essentially from birth, to allow us to respond optimally to situations without having to reason them out. The downside is that they're inflexible, and many are no longer valid in the novel environment we've built. Hence RD's exhortation to disobey these and other genetic imperatives in favour of reasoned responses.
But that's enough of my personal hobby for now.
Spart, if you're finding this exchange as enjoyable as I am, we really should take it to the forum, where we can ponder at length and even - my favourite - exchange diagrams. Other persons of goodwill can join in on topic, and we don't have to hunt through an old, cooling thread to find the bits.
Would you like me to set this up?
CD
Other Comments by Chris Davis
25. Comment #18376 by iamb_spartacus on January 20, 2007 at 7:18 am
Chris,Yes, let's take it to the forum. The others can come along too. See you there.
Other Comments by iamb_spartacus
26. Comment #18383 by iamb_spartacus on January 20, 2007 at 8:42 am
Janus,May I pause to note how much I love your username? I find it interesting not just that you chose the name of a god, but a god of inherent contradiction: the god of opening and closing, of forward and backward. He is, in an important sense, a god of perspective, representing the ability to view an object both as a thing in itself, and a component of a larger whole--what Koestler called the "holon."
Having said that, I think there are a few unsupported assumptions underlying your argument.
The point that Atran originally made at the Salk conference was that religious believers aren't really that irrational (or at least, not more than someone who's in love)
The assumption here is that life should be rational in its totality. Or that life that includes unreason is inherently flawed or dangerous. I contend neither.
After all, that some claims can't be falsified empirically or logically doesn't mean that making such claims is justified and rational. I may not be able to show that immaterial, invisible imps don't exist, but I can certainly demonstrate logically that belief in these imps is insane.
Again, your equation of sanity with reason seems to me premature, and a contradiction of a large portion of valuable human experience.
And the only example Atran can come up with is a situation where the religious believers are so nutty they're willing to kidnap people, in countries that often are theocracies, and where the secularist's purpose has nothing at all to do with promoting secularism or reason or science, but with saving people's lives.
I don't know if it's the only example he can come up with, so much as he sees it as an excellent illustrative model.
Also, Harris has already made the linkage between promotion of secularism as saving lives, so it's not quite the non-sequitur you suggest. If the stakes are as high as Harris claims (which I don't believe) then the whole globe is a hostage situation, and how we proceed does matter. In other words, Atran is just responding to Harris on his own terms.
It's rather obvious if you think about it; a debate is about truth, a negotiation is only concerned with truth if it happens to be a useful tool to achieve your goal.
Perhaps, but Harris and Dawkins use the word "debate" much like the creationists use the "teach the controversy" angle. The conjuring of a friendly collegial contest of ideas conceals a not-so-hidden agenda to, as you say, "deconvert." If you are out to deconvert, you've already made up your mind, and can't really be said to be "debating" anything.
The shifting moral zeitgeist is about change in the overall moral beliefs of a civilization's population. Atran's argument is about as relevant as pointing out that the murder rate has increased in the last 100 years, which is to say not at all. A relevant argument would have been to say that the population's concept of what is 'horrible' and 'cruel' in war has changed for the worse in the last century (which obviously isn't the case).
Point taken. Although the response could be made: what good is a progressive moral zeitgeist if you can't enforce it?
Dawkins and Harris have said again and again and again, both in their books and at the conference, that they don't think religion is the "root of all evil", and that they acknowledge the existence of non-believing suicide bombers such as the Tamil Tigers.
I've read TGD, and I disagree. "Root of all evil" is a red herring, and besides thier disavowal of it, the very clear subtext of the larger argument is that eradicating religion will not just dramatically increase the moral content of our civilization, but might just well "save" us. I think this idea might properly be called "quasi-theological."
The thing about religion, however, is that despite what Scott Atran believes, it can be fought and eradicated relatively easily. People like you and I are clear evidence of that, as are countries like Sweden.
You'll notice, though, that Scandinavia did not arrive at its present secular condition by external persuasion, which is an important point. I'm not saying, and I don't see Atran saying, "let's keep the world's theological quotient just where it is!" I think change and conceptual evolution are essential.
...the basic human tendency to divide the world into Us and Them, which unlike religion is probably an intrinsic part of human nature.
I would take the opposite view: that Us versus Them poses the greater danger. Religion without a "them" is fairly innocuous, even if "false"--no?
Isn't it obvious that if a sizeable part of humanity is rational and atheistic, it's at least theoretically possible for all (or almost all) of humanity to become rational and atheistic? Does Atran think that countries like Sweden are anomalies, that it's just an accident that so many atheists live over there?
You presume that secular atheism means "more rational" which I do not grant you, and furthermore that the more rational, the better, which I also do not concede. We are humans, not Vulcans.
Other Comments by iamb_spartacus
27. Comment #18405 by Janus on January 20, 2007 at 3:43 pm
This will be my last post here, so I won't bother switching to the 'real' forum.The assumption here is that life should be rational in its totality. Or that life that includes unreason is inherently flawed or dangerous. I contend neither.
Again, your equation of sanity with reason seems to me premature, and a contradiction of a large portion of valuable human experience.
You presume that secular atheism means "more rational" which I do not grant you, and furthermore that the more rational, the better, which I also do not concede. We are humans, not Vulcans.
Like Atran and the other religious apologists at the Salk conference, you're using a flawed definition of 'rational'. Being 100% rational doesn't mean you're a cold, emotionless calculating machine, it means you have a solid justification for everything you believe. Atran and others seem to believe that an emotion, or a simple desire, isn't a good justification for doing something, but it can be. Subjective feelings and desires are our most basic premises, after all, and they need no justification (although they may need occasional re-evaluation).
For example, I think there's nothing irrational (per se) about buying an extremely expensive piece of jewelry for a woman I love, even though I only make 25k a year and I've got practically no savings. After all, who's to say that I'm wrong to put my love for this woman ahead of my personal welfare? It may be stupid from their point of view, but because my actions are based on my subjective feelings, the only point of view which is relevant is my own.
In fact, I'm not even certain that it can be said that rationality and irrationality have anything to do with a situation like this. I'm tempted to say that emotions are a-rational, as opposed to irrational.
Real irrationality, which is what Dawkins and Harris are fighting against, is a belief about reality which isn't the result of a sincere desire to know the truth. Already the difference between what I've called a-rationality and irrationality is apparent: The former has nothing to do with the truth, but the latter does. To use a slightly different example, an irrational belief would be to believe that the woman I've mentioned above is in love with me purely because I love her. In other words, wishful thinking, thinking that has no basis in reality. My love for her wouldn't be irrational in and of itself, but it could lead me to have irrational beliefs.
Therefore, to say that the world is fundamentally irrational, as Atran does, or that irrationality is a valuable part of the human experience, as you do, is simply nonsense. Emotions are fundamental and valuable to human beings, but unjustified and/or false beliefs are not. To eradicate (or minimize) the human tendency towards the latter isn't only a desirable and achievable objective, it's an objective without a single downside.
As for my equating sanity with reason, I think I'll stand by it. A delusion is an unjustified belief held in spite of a lack of evidence or in spite of the evidence. An irrational person is a deluded person.
Perhaps, but Harris and Dawkins use the word "debate" much like the creationists use the "teach the controversy" angle. The conjuring of a friendly collegial contest of ideas conceals a not-so-hidden agenda to, as you say, "deconvert." If you are out to deconvert, you've already made up your mind, and can't really be said to be "debating" anything.
Good point, debate isn't the right word. Nevertheless, although there are certainly pragmatic, real-world consequences to religion, the fact remains that Dawkins and Harris want to make people realize that what they think is true is actually false. A hostage negotiation is something completely different, as I've said in my previous post. A negotiation where every uttered word is a lie can (and often is, from what I've read) be more successful than one where the negotiator cares about telling the truth. And despite his protestations of "you have to be honest with them", I think Atran would agree with me on this one.
You'll notice, though, that Scandinavia did not arrive at its present secular condition by external persuasion, which is an important point. I'm not saying, and I don't see Atran saying, "let's keep the world's theological quotient just where it is!" I think change and conceptual evolution are essential.
Actually, I don't think I've ever heard (or read) Atran saying that less religion would be a good thing. And most importantly, I've certainly never heard him say how we should proceed to "advance reason in an inherently unreasonable world", which is hilarious (or vomit-inducing, depending on my mood) considering his repeated declarations that Dawkins and Harris are so badly mistaken when it comes to their approach.
Other Comments by Janus
28. Comment #18554 by Chris Davis on January 21, 2007 at 5:08 pm
@iamb_spartacus,Forum topic now set up in the Philosophy section at
http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=90050#90050
Apologies for the delay.
CD
Other Comments by Chris Davis
29. Comment #18606 by Sam on January 22, 2007 at 2:39 am
iamb_spartacus:I think there are two questions that need to be answered separately:
1. Do religious extremists actually believe what they say they believe?
2. Is there a real conflict between really believing what religious extremists claim to believe and peaceful co-existence in a pluralistic society?
Leaving the first question aside for the moment, i would like to challenge you once more to tell me - honestly - what you would do if it was definitely true that:
- The one true creator of the universe wants those who believe in him to wage war on those who don't and wipe them of the face of the earth. Those who do God's work will have an eternity of bliss after death, while those who don't will have an eternity of suffering. All of this is both good and just for reasons that are only known to God and nothing for us to worry about.
This is not a complete strawman. This is a pretty accurate representation of what millions of people in this world claim to actually believe.It is also a pretty accurate representation of what it actually sais in the Bible and the Quran. In fact you really have to ressort to cherrypicking and the most tortured re-interpretations, to avoid reading these books as an invitation to intolerance and violence. In a sence, the only way for a christian, muslim or jew to get along with other people in a pluralistic society is by betraying the central doctines of their religion. If you really believe, this is probably not an option. Once you seriously believe what the Bible sais, you think and act as if it was true. Extremism is simply what follows - quite naturally - from that. To think that belivers just don't care whether they will have an eternity of bliss or an eternity of suffering is simply not a reasonable option.
In conclusion, i think the answer to the 2nd question has to be yes. If you disagree, then please don't hesitate to educate me, but i'm going to need some serious convincing.
As far as the 1st question is concerned, i don't think you fully appreciate how one simple hypothesis - the extremists really belive what they say they believe - actually predicts the kind of actions we have seen from jihadists, deathcults, the inquisition, crusaders etc. This is pretty much what we would expect if we simply assume that they really believe what they claim to believe (see my previous post for examples). One might even argue that it would be the only reasonable thing to do, given what they believe about God, Satan, sin and salvation, Heaven and Hell etc. I have yet to hear any other explanation that accounts for the facts equally well.
Other Comments by Sam
30. Comment #18613 by Sam on January 22, 2007 at 3:17 am
iamb_spartacus said:- Remember, what Harris, Dawkins and Weinberg (and to an extent, Dennett) argue against is not fundamentalism or extremism, but religious belief itself. And the method they propose is not "to each his own," but to actively agitate against religious belief as a social danger. And yet, to date, they have presented no compelling logical or empirical proof that religious belief is a social danger.
I definitely agree that the root of the problem is faith itself. To quote some of my previous posts:
- I would have less of a problem with a religion that had no destructive doctrines, but my main grievance is with faith itself. If we could have a "religion" without faith, i would probably be far less hostile. What i am mostly against is not individual doctines, but false certainties or belief for the wrong reasons.
Quite apart from the fact that i care about the truth, i think faith is inherently dangerous because it allows people to think and act as if something was true whether it is true or not. It is not that believing things for the wrong reasons invariably leads people to accept destructive beliefs. But because such reasons don't discriminate properly between true or false claims, it is more or less "by accident" what doctrines you end up accepting.
http://www.richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=86108&highlight=#86108
- Faith is just another word for "belief in the absence of evidence" or "belief for the wrong reasons". The same kind of wrong reasons that motivate some believers to dedicate their life to helping the poor motivate others to fly planes into buildings or blow themselves up on a bus. [...] The main evil that we have to fight is above all faith.
The conflict between faith and reason [...] is in no way limited to specific issues like evolution or stem cell research, not even the (non) existence of God or the supernatural, but more generally: why we believe things in the first place. I see the damage inflicted on science by creationists etc. as little more than random side-effects or symptoms. The real "disase" in my view is believing things for the wrong reasons. What the compatibilists are in fact saying is: "Just keep the wrong reasons as long as it doesn't have any undesirable side-effects."
http://www.richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=49838&highlight=#49838
- I am not saying that religion is the only thing that motivates people to do bad things, neither am i claiming that religion always motivates people to do bad things. However, i have no doubt that believing in certain religious doctrines dramatically increases the likelyhood of commiting certain attrocities and i think that in itself imakes religion dangerous. If your faith tells you that something is the will of God and the highest of all ideals, that is a very strong motivation to act. If you read what the Bible actually sais, and not just cherrypick for the nice parts, it is obvious that, as Sam Harris puts it:
"God has given us far many more reasons to kill one another than to turn the other cheek."
Religious moderates and some non-religious "believers in belief" tend to systematically downplay the role of religion in motivating violence, intolerance, antiscience etc. According to them it is more or less by accident that islamic suicide bombers happen to believe in the doctrines of jihad and martyrdom (contrary to what the suicide bombers themselves are in fact saying). The same goes for the practice of stoning, hating homosexuals, letting your children die rather than allowing any medical treatment etc. In each case we are lead to believe that these people have some hidden secular motive for their actions that just happens to correspond exactly to the doctrines of their religions.
Others are willing to admit that literal belief in the doctines of jihad, martydom, the mosaic and sharia laws, original sin, the apocalypse, hell, the sinfulness of medicine or contraceptions etc. may be problematic, but fail to recognize what i take to be the greater evil, namely the acceptance of bad reasons to believe. Prof. Dawkins has dealt very eloquently with three of them - tradition, authority and revelation:
http://www.fortunecity.com/emachines/e11/86/dawkins2.html
I suppose one might add "intuition" (if taken to mean something like a "gut feeling" or "hunch" etc.), wishful thinking and other such flawed reasons. In short: anything that can lead you to accept something as true even if it is not, because that will also lead someone to accept doctrines that will in turn motivate them to do bad things.
http://www.richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=53092&highlight=#53092
- It is of course true that faith also motivates some people to do "good" deeds. Still, i don't think this makes faith itself a good thing. If the only thing that causes you treat other people well is the belief that "God said so" and will reward you for doing it - or punish you if you don't - i don't think there is anything really noble or praiseworthy about your behaviour, even if it may have some desirable consequenses. If this is all that keeps you from treating others badly, you are not moral, and all the faith in the world is never going to change that.
Another problem with religion is, as Sam Harris has pointed out, that it gives people bad reasons to be good, when better reasons are in fact available, and prevents people from recognizing the good reasons. If all religions were abandoned today, then all the good reasons to be good would still be avalable, but some of the bad reasons to be bad would not.
http://www.richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=83136&highlight=#83136
One more thing:
It is rather ironic that the same people who deny any causal link between believing in violent religious doctrines and practicing the very same doctrines, are often more than willing to credit religion for any good deed by religious individuals. It is another example of the double standard Sam Harris is criticizing.
Other Comments by Sam
31. Comment #18663 by iamb_spartacus on January 22, 2007 at 9:21 am
Sam,I am cross-posting this to the forum (see the link above in Chris Davis' post). Please feel welcome to respond there.
1. Do religious extremists actually believe what they say they believe?
2. Is there a real conflict between really believing what religious extremists claim to believe and peaceful co-existence in a pluralistic society?
Leaving the first question aside for the moment, i would like to challenge you once more to tell me - honestly - what you would do if it was definitely true that:
The one true creator of the universe wants those who believe in him to wage war on those who don't and wipe them of the face of the earth. Those who do God's work will have an eternity of bliss after death, while those who don't will have an eternity of suffering. All of this is both good and just for reasons that are only known to God and nothing for us to worry about.
This proposition is so radically different than the conditions of the world I live in that I don't know how I would respond. I grant there's a very good chance that I would observe this divine law.
Have said that, I think you enormously overstate the pervasiveness of this particular myth. I'm not a Quranic scholar, but I don't believe it actually contains a doctrine of extermination of non-believers. If you can cite the book to the contrary, please do.
And I know the bible does not advocate the extermination of all non-Christians (or non-Jews, for the books of Moses.) The Crusades were not a mission to wipe out the "Saracens," just to expel them from the "holy lands" (or more accurately to keep them out of power in the holy lands). Not that I'm defending the Crusades by any means! But I merely want to suggest that the idea that Abrahamic religions are at war to the death is baseless.
So I do not agree with you that "millions of people" share the worldview you describe, wherein God commands the genocide of false religions, and rewards those who obey with heaven, and those wh refuse with hell. Again, if you can cite evidence that these beliefs are held on this scale, please do.
Now let me go to the matter of the centrality of religious texts, since this is one of Harris's major points. In many places (for example his article Bombing our Illusions), Harris argues that religious belief derives directly from religious texts, and therefore, if a text says something palpably hateful, it is proof that this is the belief held by practitioners of that religion. For example, if it says in the Quran that unbelievers are the scourge of Allah, this demonstrates that this is a "mainstream" religious belief. Anyone who ignores a particular citation from the text is "cherry picking."
This is not how religion actually functions in the world. The Bible, Torah and Quran are not like the owner's manual for your DVD player. I realize that even religious people (American fundamentalists, notably) use this metaphor, but it is inapt. Religion is--and has always been--mediated by a priestly class. There is no tradition of Abrahamic faith that does not involve a congregation, whose readings of their texts are commonly shared.
This is an important distinction, because it breaks the causal chain from words to action. The Abrahamic books are not a set of instructions; they are a starting point. They provide a basis for religious belief and practice, but they are just the first of several cultural vessels that transmit those beliefs and practices.
Harris can claim otherwise, but he needs to familiarize himself with the way Islam is actually preached and practiced throughout the world. Millions, if not billions, of Muslims feel no need to take literally (or even heed at all) the passages about fighting the infidels.
To use a more familiar example, even the most literal-minded bible thumpers in America do not subscribe literally to the strictures of Leviticus and Deuteronomy. The same people that believe the earth is 6,000 years old and that Darwin was a charaltan do not show any sign of believing it is acceptable for them to own slaves, or murder their neighbor for not keeping the sabbath. On the whole, fundamentalist Christians are law abiding, restricting their attempts to affect the mainstream culture by more or less legal means--electoral politics, school boards, etc. This doesn't mean thier ideas should not be challenged as a matter of policy. But to say these beliefs can't peacefully co-exist in a pluralistic society is just not true.
Finally, do the extremist believe what they say they believe? I think they do. However this is not the same as saying that their religious beliefs, specifically, motivate thier behavior. I wrote in a comment on another site:
That people account for their actions in certain ways is no kind of evidence of thier actual motivation. To suggest otherwise would imply an accuracy and purity of motive in self-reporting that does not square with any modern understanding of human psychology. We are all unreliable witnessness of our own lives.
Furthermore, that an act is supposedly justified in some way or another does not explain it. If someone breaks into my home, I might be justified in beating them with golf clubs, but I might also lock myself in my room and call 911, or I might sneak out the back, or I might try to rationally persuade the intruder to leave. The fact that I have the legal right to subdue the intruder does not compel me to do so. My motivation is something else entirely, and may be influenced by any number of things. (In fact I could eschew justification entirely and kill the intruder, then find his house and murder his whole family. Justification and motivation are two separate things, and the latter is in a black box we can never see directly.)
Other Comments by iamb_spartacus
32. Comment #18688 by iamb_spartacus on January 22, 2007 at 12:23 pm
I definitely agree that the root of the problem is faith itself.
Quite apart from the fact that i care about the truth, i think faith is inherently dangerous because it allows people to think and act as if something was true whether it is true or not. It is not that believing things for the wrong reasons invariably leads people to accept destructive beliefs. But because such reasons don't discriminate properly between true or false claims, it is more or less "by accident" what doctrines you end up accepting.
Sam,
As I am alleging in my discussion with Chris Davis, there is an enormous burden on you to demonstrate that the aggregate of your belief systems are based on an empirical truth. I think that when someone asserts that "only science matters," they have done a very incomplete inventory of thier own beliefs and how they arrived at them.
As Popper and Kuhn have argued (not to mention a myriad of philosophers), the power of science to adjudicate truth claims is far more limited than one might have claimed a half century ago. Furthermore, we do not personally appeal to scientific method in the normal course of our lives, and we are nonetheless filled with certainties. There's nothing evil about that. There may be a difference of degree between believing that, for example, nobody has poisoned your water supply, and the belief that god or gods exist, but neither is scientific. The former may be subscribed to on the basis of probability, and on those grounds considered "reasonable," but reasonability is not certainty.
So I think it is utterly unfounded to claim that the "rationally" derived belief is based on "truth." Let's be honest about this. In most cases, certainty is a chimera. So on what grounds do we draw a line of separation between types of beliefs?
Faith is just another word for "belief in the absence of evidence" or "belief for the wrong reasons". The same kind of wrong reasons that motivate some believers to dedicate their life to helping the poor motivate others to fly planes into buildings or blow themselves up on a bus. [...] The main evil that we have to fight is above all faith.
This is not logical. If faith causes some people to blow up buildings, and some people to help the poor, that would make it effectively neutral, not evil.
Additionally, I think faith can act in a way exactly opposite to your definition. Not as a generator of certainty, but as an embrace of uncertainty. I don't pretend this is the way it is most often considered, but it is a real and valid model for many people in the world. Under this definition, one is not contradicting what is "known," but rather enabling themselves to act in the face of the unknown. In this sense it acts as a kind of synonym for "courage." So, for example, on the first Project Mercury mission, using new technology to exit the atmosphere at speeds never before attained, there was a reasonable assumption that the engineers had got it right, and the astronauts would return safely--but no certainty of that fact. It would diminish anyone who undertakes a scientific mission to say she or he only agree to participate when her or his safety is guaranteed, and that's certainly true of early space travel. I'm not saying these astronauts were explicitly religious; merely that you could call thier determination to act in the face of unknown outcome a type of "faith." I did not invent this definition; it is in wide use among the more esoteric branches of religion, and one that I think contributes to a communication breakdown on this subject.
I have no doubt that believing in certain religious doctrines dramatically increases the likelyhood of commiting certain attrocities and i think that in itself imakes religion dangerous.
So I gather. And here we have an assertion of total certainty ("no doubt") based upon what iron-clad data? Of all the arguments that have been put forward by the anti-religion crowd, some have been logical, and some have been rational, but none have been in any way conclusive. What is the source of your absence of doubt? Where is the science that compares atrocities committed by monotheists, polytheists, atheists, agnostics, and draws conclusions about probabilities? If it exists I'd like to see it!
I have some alternate explanations for the phenomena of religious violence. I don't claim them to be unassailable, but they seem to me to be as reasonable (if not moreso) as the ones offered by Dawkins and Harris. For one thing, the political element cannot be abstracted out of the jihadi movement. That's not to assert a simple 1:1 correlation, but I think to ignore the role of Western powers in the Middle East in the last 800 years, especially in the last 100, is to fail to see the complexity of the situation.
Another factor that I think is paramount is the dilemma posed by materialist science. There are a significant number of people who take no issue with the findings of modern science, but who are uncomfortable with the part of the package that delegitimizes any nonscientific thought. By making it an all or nothing proposition, and asking people to choose between "reason" and "faith," some portion is going to choose faith. I think the fundamentalist movement in America is partly a reaction to what they perceive as a significant part of thier identity being challenged by the cultural orthodoxy. Don't forget that 100 years ago, scientific materialism was in a much cruder form than it is now. It made bold claims of reducability about what it meant to be human. You would have to be incredibly naive not to think this would be profoundly unsettling to many people. Just like many animals are only viscious when threatened, the extreme acrimony directed toward science by the fundamentalists is an expression of their defensiveness. Dawkins' warm, dulcet explanations that they have nothing to fear from science are insufficient to alleviate this unease. The same applies, to a degree, with the jihadis. The clash is widely perceived as an attempt at domination.
If you want to call these "secular" motives, you are welcome to.
Another problem with religion is, as Sam Harris has pointed out, that it gives people bad reasons to be good, when better reasons are in fact available, and prevents people from recognizing the good reasons. If all religions were abandoned today, then all the good reasons to be good would still be avalable, but some of the bad reasons to be bad would not.
Undoubtedly. The question is, who gets to decide what they believe, and why?
One more thing:
It is rather ironic that the same people who deny any causal link between believing in violent religious doctrines and practicing the very same doctrines, are often more than willing to credit religion for any good deed by religious individuals. It is another example of the double standard Sam Harris is criticizing.
This criticism cuts both ways, which I way I wrote above that religion or faith is best thought of as culturally neutral. Perhaps someone is prepared to do a calculus of all the good and bad acts done in the name of religion, and come up with the correct valuation. Until such time, there is no defensible basis for claiming that the balance is on the "evil" side.
Clearly you oppose superstition, intellectual timidity, xenophobia, and closed mindedness, as do I. You have my full cooperation in anathemizing them. But to equate the totality of religious experience with these ills is to misunderstand that full totality.
Other Comments by iamb_spartacus
Comment Entry: Please Login
Register a new account
Upcoming Events:
DVDs
'The Genius of Charles Darwin: The Uncut Interviews' DVD
'The Genius of Charles Darwin' DVD
'The Enemies of Reason: The Uncut Interviews' DVD
'Richard Dawkins: Appearances & Events 2007-2008' DVD
'Enemies of Reason' DVD
'Root of All Evil?' DVD
'Root of All Evil? The Uncut Interviews' DVD
'Growing Up in the Universe' DVD
'Voices of Science' DVD
'The Four Horsemen' DVD
'Break the Science Barrier' DVD
1. Comment #17908 by john_eg on January 17, 2007 at 12:49 pm
If religion were not a motivating force for people (2) what would be the point of it anyway?Other Comments by john_eg