51. An Atheist Responds

Comment #56357 by IQHQ on July 15, 2007 at 9:12 am

ksskidude

With respect, my question is still begging. I am at one with you in your assertion about the potential for morality to survive the Death of God. I, like you, am an atheist, and I recognise, like you, that my morality is not dependant upon the existence of a deity. That is not in dispute. What you, like others, have failed to address is the frequency (and urgency) with which we would approach the moral life. Even this sumary does not excapsulate my main point, because I accept that you and I may very well do so - because it's the right thing to do! - as you say. But not everyone is in our shoes, and there is more to Dostoevsky's point (namey that "If God is dead, everything is permitted") than is given credit on this forum.

52. An Atheist Responds

Comment #56355 by IQHQ on July 15, 2007 at 8:58 am

drichlin

With respect, I think you're getting a bit carried away with the cut and paste technique there! I did not mean to imply that all "uneducated" people are "bad" and visa versa. The fact that I was posting at nearly 4am, GMT, after a heavy saturday night out at a party may explain my carelessness in not making this clear. Yet there may yet be more force to even that argument than you give credit for. Consider Socrates' teaching that "The only evil is ignorance and the only good is knowledge". Forget for a second the implication that knowledge will inevitably lead to wisdom (which we know from experience is not always the case), and let's remember that rarely do people take an active interest in moral philosophy only to revert to an "everything goes" mentality. The fact is that for us, who "swap" theology for philosophy, we will never lose sight of the importance of living a moral life. Yet most do not read philosophy. Most people, i unfortunately must admit, Do simply do good because of the "celestial coercion" promulgated by their particular holy book. The fact that they have an innate moral attitude towards their kin is neither here nor there. I do not see that the Christian striving for "Agape", a self-serving love for humanity,is in any way "innate" in us (see the Pope Benedict XVI's latest encyclical - Deus Caritas Est - boy that reference will get some people's blood boiling!). Indeed, many post-modernist philosophers (e.g. Slavoj Zizek) balk at the notion, calling it an invented fiction. And it may well be, but the question is, is it a necssary fiction? Such striving "beyond the (innate) call of duty" is, I believe, very important.

And i'm sorry to press you on this, drichlin (because I see so much that we have in common) but I would appreciate your reply on a matter I already raised, namely... "Those who lose God may not lose their potential to do good, but may do it a lot less often". That is what I wanted you to consider in earnest, and I am still waiting . . .

SMART

I agree that religion is ineradicable. No matter how low church attendance gets (or mosque attendane, etc), even if they return to the catecombs for fear of persecution (as they once did), the fact that they answer (albeit blindly) the ultimate and unsolveable questions of our existence will mean that it is only ever a matter of time until they flourish once again. And for that very reason, I share your concern for wishing to eradicate it (if I have correctly understood your post). Since this would be ultimately self-defeating, we would be better investing all of our energies in trying to tame it and domesticate it.

p.s:~ No doubt that Hitchens probably would regret it if Religion disappeared. That man would argue with his shadow!

53. An Atheist Responds

Comment #56300 by IQHQ on July 14, 2007 at 8:16 pm

drichlin

LOL - nice ending, but your penultimate point accepts (but makes light of) one of my central points in the post above. For Bad People to do good things . . .

I hate to burst your bubble here. It's great news that you find, with reason, abundant motivation for living ethically. So do I; that is not in dispute. but the fact remains that our world is filled with "bad people". It always has been, and always will be. And we all live with the consequences of these people's actions. So I ask you again; do we really think that it would be better for them not to bother (and hence give into their naturally-dictated perverse instincts?

54. An Atheist Responds

Comment #56237 by IQHQ on July 14, 2007 at 3:09 pm

I have long been a follower of Hitchens' journalistic career, and have much praised him in many circles. His latest offering, obviously of particular interest to this website's contributors, did not disappoint, and was exactly the type of treatment I expected from him. It was a joy to read; bold, forthright, and uncompromising.

Yet this "challege" of his seems to be missing a crucial point. Of course there is no ethical "act" which is capable of performance only by the religious! Such ethical acts are the province of our humanity, and exist universally (at least in potential). The self-satisfaction which Hitchens seems to be enjoying from the lack of a "convincing reply" is odd for this very reason. The challenge is rhetorical in its essence, and lacking in any sort of substance. For this reason it is a bit lame, and counter-productive in the ears of his religious listeners.

But this seemingly clever rhetorical ploy misses out on something much more important, and that is that latent in each ethical act is a motivation, a reason for acting in that way. The religious would not claim that any particular act "could not" be performed by an atheist, but rather that it "probably wouldn't" or would be "less likely" to be performed. They would argue that the religious framework they advocate provides the aforementioned motivation. It provides fuel for the ethical engine, so to speak, and inspires people to do "more often" the good acts which they could easily avoid doing, for reasons of convenience, self-advantage, etc.

No doubt following this post, I will be flooded with objections, such as:

"Such celestial coercion is hardly a good framework for morality. If the only reason you do good is to be rewarded (or avoid punishment) then you may as well not bother".

Such sentiment is noble in that recognises the importance of "intention" in determining the inherent morality of a given act. Yet would we really prefer people "not to bother"? Consider this long and hard, for your answer will determine a lot about how you proceed in this "God Debate". The simple fact is that many people DO act morally for these reasons, and may not act the same way otherwise. But we need not be just as skeptical about it as some have suggested.

Those of us who have become Atheists through introspection and analysis have not done so by chance, but rather because that is who we are. We hold reason higher than myth, and could not, in good conscience, do it any other way. We do not respond to the "Death of God" by having the free-for-all that Dostoevsky predicted, for precisely the very same reason we discarded him from our world-view in the first place! Reason affords us a glimpse into the Social Contract, and from there we will have our own motivations for acting responsibly and reasonably towards our fellow man.

Unfortunately, for the forseeable future (and beyond) there will always be less cerebrally-oriented members of our species to whom fuzzy feelings and an easy life will mean more than any proof or any rational theory based on solid evidential foundations. It is too simplistic to expect these people (who, need I remind you, out-number us in nearly every part of the globe), with their attendant emotional attachments, to respond to God's death in the same way we do. Reasons for irrational belief in the divine are myriad, and the reactions to removing Him would be equally as varied. But it is naive to suggest that nihilism would not form a certain part of the result, simply because it has not been so for us. These people "believe" because they have a need, a deep longing need, which we evidently do not have. To remove from them their solace may just open the floodgates of a very evil part of our humanity. Would such a straight-thinking, cruel world be preferrable to the one we already inhabit?

p.s:~ And I mean this, please do not respond with some Harris-esque "What about Suicide Bombers???" The vast majority of religious people condemn such atrocities, just as we do. It is a plea of desperation to resort to such an argument, especially when the issue I have raised is so important.

55. Facts and fairy dust

Comment #55294 by IQHQ on July 10, 2007 at 1:22 pm

Isn't trying to convince such narrow-minded fools that ad hominem attacks are no way to conduct oneself in debate akin to banging our heads off the wall? If we merely abided by the sensible rule of ignoring them (and let their ignorance speak for itself) then we would free up more time for pursuing rational debate ourselves. "Those who have ears, listen!"

Unfortunately, for the forseeable future (and beyond) there will always be less cerebrally-oriented members of our species to whom fuzzy feelings and an easy life will mean more than any proof or any rational theory based on solid evidential foundations. The arrangement of modern society affords such people an even footing (perhaps, in a broadly anti-intellectual culture, even an advantage) and this is unlikely to change any time soon.

Also, and I speak as an atheist, it is a bit rich to ridicule religious beliefs themselves just because many holders of those beliefs conduct themselves in an undignified way. Perhaps there is, indeed, a notable hypocrisy when self-professed Christians verbally attack another for merely holding a belief. Yet, the hostility of one whose identity has been attacked is instinctual for human beings. This is no less pronounced when one (hypothetically) atheist person attacks another's strongly-held convictions on Marxist theory, etc. If we are, indeed, willing to expend the time and effort necessary to reason with such people, the least we can do is charitably overlook the initial hostility rather than condescendingly point out the doctrinal contradictions of their tone.

To sum up, the impermanence and anonymity afforded to internet forum contributors means that eradicating trolls, etc, is futile. These protean trouble-makers will always find ways to infect threads with their trash opinions. Fortunately, unlike biological viruses, we can choose to dwell elsewhere. We can choose whether or not to be hosts to these viruses. We should have enough faith in those who do have ears that they do not need our guidance to discover the rotting core of these people's beliefs.

p.s:~ On a lighter note, I must take issue with Professor Grayling and Professor Dawkins' blanket dismissal of fairies as cutesy little fictitional fragments of a bygone culture. When I was 8 years old, I lost a tooth. The next day, I discovered one shiny gold pound under my pillow. ERGO - fairies must be real!

(as posted earlier on Slugger O'Toole)

56. Lecture on Neo-Darwinism

Comment #52973 by IQHQ on June 28, 2007 at 8:30 pm

The concluding "performance" of "He Remains an Englishman" from HMS Pinafore is absolutely cringeworthy :P

57. His word: Attacking religion can seem like breaking a butterfly on a wheel

Comment #51832 by IQHQ on June 25, 2007 at 7:51 am

I would argue that the need for eternal life is subsumed within the need for explanations - i.e. the doctrines of "eternal life" explains how our lives (and moral choices) are not insignificant, why we need not fear death, etc. Do you disagree?

58. His word: Attacking religion can seem like breaking a butterfly on a wheel

Comment #51829 by IQHQ on June 25, 2007 at 7:20 am

Thor,

In your penultimate paragragh, you acknowledge some of the reasons why religion is so appealing (and valuable) to some people and also recognize that this is particularly the case for those who would find it hard to "replace" religion in their lives. These are points which I centred on in posts 36 and 37 of this thread, and I beg you to explain what you mean when you say... "I don't think these things are as relevant when people's faith is challenged".

59. His word: Attacking religion can seem like breaking a butterfly on a wheel

Comment #51804 by IQHQ on June 25, 2007 at 4:46 am

Charlou,

lol - no, no oversight. In most of my post, I was addressing Richard Dawkins. When I referred to "you and I", I was referring to him and I, both "relatively intelligent men".

Even if I was referring to humanity by the generic "men", I hardly think i'd need to apologise for it. I seem to remember RD himself agrue why this is so in the preface to "The Selfish Gene".


Downunder,

thank you for the compliment. Undeserved, I am sure.

p.s:~ Bach is the best :)

60. His word: Attacking religion can seem like breaking a butterfly on a wheel

Comment #51601 by IQHQ on June 23, 2007 at 5:12 pm

Almax,

with respect, that is a pretty lame and predictable response to my post.

61. His word: Attacking religion can seem like breaking a butterfly on a wheel

Comment #51594 by IQHQ on June 23, 2007 at 4:09 pm

I just realised that I must add this one additional note to my post:

When, in response to the "it feels good" argument, you respond "Ah yes, but that has absolutely nothing to do with whether it is true or not", you overlook the fact that after your scathing attack on religion's logical foundations, it may just not provide the comfort and solace it once did. Put differently, the solace it provides depends upon people being able to belive in its veracity.

62. His word: Attacking religion can seem like breaking a butterfly on a wheel

Comment #51593 by IQHQ on June 23, 2007 at 4:03 pm

The tone of this post correllates with a point i've been wanting to make on here for quite a while, and so allows me to finally make it.

Needless to say, the logical arguments against religion are really very facile, and evidence for this fact is provided by the extent of the frustration atheist contributors feel when faced with an unflinching faith-head.

As Baddiel remarks in this article, it is the contemplation of death (and the fear this invokes) which caused us to invent religion in the first place. This is a relatively uncontroversial point, and accords well with our common sense.

If indeed this is true, and humanity NEEDED religion, then what convinces you lot that we have shed such a need by this stage in our evolution? What makes you think we will ever be rid of it?

For a species which shares circa 97% of our DNA with chimps, there will always be those who veer towards the chimp side of the intelligence variant, and whose inferior intellect dispose them towards the fake securities and easy answers provided by religions. Since this is so, I bid Professor Dawkins (or, indeed, any of you) to explain the roots of his argument's vehemence. There is no doubt that you are CORRECT. Everyone on this site can see that this is so, but that is surely because we are collectively quite an intelligent bunch. Not everyone will be able or prepared to accept the consequences of your arguments.. do you just respond "so what"? shouldn't we be compassionate to those who NEED religion in a similar way that we are compassionate to less intelligent animals? (Apologies faith-heads!) Surely shouldn't the satisfaction gained from seeing the world through our refined and developed perspective be enough without us needing to have others see sense too?

Another related point refers to your dismissal of religion's "carrot and stick" approach to coercing people into behaving in conformity with a certain moral code. You say, "isn't that a pretty abyssmal reason to be moral? I accept this point and also agree that morality has an evolutionary origin. Yet, my point centres not on how you and I (relatively intelligent men) respond morally to shedding our religion, but rather upon how less educated men and women may. We live in an age where we are surrounded by an anti-intellectualism of philistine proportions. Can you not see how nihilism may be a natural reaction to such people losing faith? Your point about the despicable nature of the "I do good because, if I don't, God will punish me" position neglects the simple fact that, for many, this IS the only reason why they do good.

63. Kirk Cameron Proves That God Exists

Comment #40091 by IQHQ on May 13, 2007 at 4:34 am

Logicel,

My reference to "girl" was simply a casual reference to her gender, not meant to be taken as indicative of any perceived level of maturity, nor meant as a mark of disrespect. Apologies.

With respect, your sarcastic references to cooking, drawing, etc. are really quite sad. In no way did I mean that those who fall below the expert level (in any given field) should give up and not bother trying. This is obviously not what I meant. Indeed, without allowing people to pass through the levels of amateurish mediocrity no one could ever rise to become an expert in the first place!

However, one must be allowed to have standards, and there is no point in restraining my freedom to criticise. If taken to its logical extent, your attitude would mean there would be a "race to the bottom" in terms of standards, because no one would ever dare criticise anything, lest they "hurt the feelings" of the guilty party. If this is the sort of society you want, then so be it, but it's not the sort I want.

64. Kirk Cameron Proves That God Exists

Comment #40025 by IQHQ on May 12, 2007 at 6:10 pm

Forgive me, but that girl Kelly is an intellectual lightweight. Not only that, but she is inarticulate to boot. Considering Martin Bashir is chairing this debate, it must be quite high-profile. This makes it especially regrettable that there wasn't a better team on the Atheist side (not that they needed to be a very good team, the other side were a disgrace!)

65. Christopher Hitchens - God is Not Great

Comment #39997 by IQHQ on May 12, 2007 at 3:18 pm

Flagellant,

"The Brits" are not choosing Gordon Brown; he is being foist upon them.

66. Anderson Cooper interviews Christopher Hitchens

Comment #39869 by IQHQ on May 12, 2007 at 6:39 am

FXR,

I am certainly willing to debate this issue further with you at a later date, but at a later date it must be, as I am very busy for the next few weeks and won't be able to afford the time. I'll look forward to it!

p.s:~ check out the Marcus Tanner book I referred to above. It's really excellent. Here's a link to its Amazon page, where you can read the Introduction...

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Irelands-Holy-Wars-Struggle-1500-2000/dp/0300092814/ref=sr_1_1/026-2746499-1602851?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1178977127&sr=1-1

67. Anderson Cooper interviews Christopher Hitchens

Comment #39830 by IQHQ on May 12, 2007 at 4:16 am

FXR,

it does a great disservice to your argument when you proceed to explain to an Irishman (like Ace Rimmer) what the "Battle of the Boyne" is. Give him a little credit, yeah?

And please don't be so dismissive of his argument - the issue you guys are discussing is by no means settled amongst Irish historical scholars. A great book on the subject that i'd recommend is "Ireland's Holy Wars" by Marcus Tanner.

You might think it obvious that the "Troubles" were caused by religion, but personally I disagree, and actually agree witht he gist of Ace's argument.

In 1798, when Wolfe Tone and the United Irishmen attempted to force out the British presence on the Island, they had both Catholics and Protestants amonst their supporters. Wolfe Tone, himself, was a Protestant. The United Irishmen owed their intellectual inspiration to the Enlightenment thinkers, and believed in an "Ireland of Equals".

After the failed Rebellion, the British created the Act of Union, thus cementing British sovereignty in Ireland. Later, in the 1820s, when Daniel O'Connell (the Liberator) tried to gain the vote for Catholics, the finances for the campaign were raised through what came to be known as the "Penny Rent" - by collecting a penny from every catholic each week at Sunday Mass. Of course, in the 1830s, when O'Connell moved on to a campaign for Repeal of the Act of Union, the connection was cemented between Catholicism and Nationalism. But note that the religious connection was not inevitable. Indeed, many of the Young Irelanders of the 1840s were Protestants, such as Thomas Davis. Later again, the leader of the Irish Parliamentary Party, Charles Stewart Parnell, was a Protestant of the landed gentry.

I'm waffling a bit, but my point should be clear. Whilst religion may have come to be the most notable distinction between the two tribes, it was not always so. This serves to remind us that the root causes of Ireland's divisions were social (then later adopting the symbolism of religion to accetuate the division), exactly as Ace Rimmer has said.

68. The Debate: Can We Live by Reason Alone?

Comment #39720 by IQHQ on May 11, 2007 at 6:11 pm

This guy is far too weak to be conducting hard-edged and provocative interviews. He's like a big kid with a microphone.

69. The Debate: Can We Live by Reason Alone?

Comment #39716 by IQHQ on May 11, 2007 at 6:00 pm

I've only watched the first ten minutes, but the interviewer here seems like an ignoramous.

70. World's most prominent atheist takes on the Biblical God (and other topics)

Comment #39681 by IQHQ on May 11, 2007 at 2:10 pm

You can't prove that it's not the inspired Word of God!!!

71. World's most prominent atheist takes on the Biblical God (and other topics)

Comment #39676 by IQHQ on May 11, 2007 at 1:53 pm

LOL

Great minds, Baron ;-)

72. World's most prominent atheist takes on the Biblical God (and other topics)

Comment #39675 by IQHQ on May 11, 2007 at 1:52 pm

I don't think so, Roll. Check this out:

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

Wiki's not always right, but this page seems to suggest that he's legit. So does the home site of his Ministry:

http://www.jvim.com/home.htm

73. World's most prominent atheist takes on the Biblical God (and other topics)

Comment #39623 by IQHQ on May 11, 2007 at 10:41 am

Squirrel,

Apologies; I delibrately took it out of context - thought you'd understand why, given the sarcastic tone of my post.

74. World's most prominent atheist takes on the Biblical God (and other topics)

Comment #39505 by IQHQ on May 11, 2007 at 2:40 am

Shuggy,

like I was serious! I was simply pointing out that they seem genuinely happy. I would never be able to delude myself that much, no matter what the prize. Yet, he evidenty is able to, and my point was merely that there seems to be fruits for that ability.

75. World's most prominent atheist takes on the Biblical God (and other topics)

Comment #39328 by IQHQ on May 10, 2007 at 10:19 am

I'm not sure (obviously) of the historical veracity of this, but it has certainly gone down in folklore that Voltaire's last words followed him being given the opportunity to renounce Satan. He said...

"Now's no time to be making new enemies"

76. World's most prominent atheist takes on the Biblical God (and other topics)

Comment #39305 by IQHQ on May 10, 2007 at 9:39 am

LOL

Riley, I feel the same. It's so funny to watch them. They're such a spectacle. Some people above can't see the funny side, and reacted with frustration, e.g.

"I couldn't watch very much of that as it was making me too angry"

and

"That was so painful to listen to"

and

"*presses gun to head etc*"

Why bother getting all worked up? It's hilarious!

77. Anderson Cooper interviews Christopher Hitchens

Comment #39296 by IQHQ on May 10, 2007 at 9:22 am

Ranjani,

My sentiments exactly. Pinker really in one of the best, and of course an ardent advocate of a rationalistic worldview. He was notable by his absence last November, and I second your hope that he attends in the future.

78. World's most prominent atheist takes on the Biblical God (and other topics)

Comment #39251 by IQHQ on May 10, 2007 at 8:20 am

LOL

Obviously their beliefs are ludicrous, but doesn't it make any of you jealous that they are so happy? The guy especially so; he is fired up for the Lord!!!

79. Christopher Hitchens and Al Sharpton: A Debate God Is Not Great

Comment #39183 by IQHQ on May 10, 2007 at 6:23 am

You're reasoning really is preposterous, FilthyAtheist, and i'm too busy a man to keep puling you up on it. It's futile, not to mention boring.

The fact is, I obviously regret such carnage as much as you. I would not have decided to go to War myself had I been in the Oval Office. But now that we're there, we have to do our best to sort the situation out. Do you think less women and children will be be dying if the US pull out their troops? Why bother bringing that up, as if WE are responsible? It's ad hominem after ad hominem with you, filthyatheist, you don't seem to be able to play the ball in debate. Very regrettable.

p.s:~ It's intersting that for someone who so evidently cares about the plight of people around the globe, you make such an americo-centric assumption that I am also American.... i'm only vaguely familiar with Pat Robertson and Bill O'Reilly, and cannot comment as to the similarites between us. From what i've seen on Fox News, I don't mind O'Reilly, but he's hardly an intellect. I prefer the Hannity and Colmes show, giving as it does critique from both sides of the fence. You see, democrats like Colmes are fine. they are reasonable. That is not the left Thor and I are complaining about . . .

(P.S:~ Read "What's Left" by Nick Cohen - I dare you, I double dare you)

80. Christopher Hitchens and Al Sharpton: A Debate God Is Not Great

Comment #39177 by IQHQ on May 10, 2007 at 6:08 am

Filthy Atheist,

it's a good thing a coward like you can hide behind the impermanence and anonymity of the blogosphere, because you'd think twice about saying that to me in person (that 'brown children' comment was particularly disgusting). Not that I care a whole lot, I believe in Free Speech, but you quite obviously don't believe in exercising that freedom responsibly.

aren't you at least curious that there may lie more careful consideration behind our ideas than you conveniently suppose? What you don't seem to get is that I grew up reading Hegel, Marx, etc... Chomsky was a particular favourite, as i'm sure he is to you also. I was even partial to some sort of an anarcho-syndicalism at one point, highlighting how far to the left I had swung. This can all be excused, of course, considering the old quip:

"If you're not a socialist when you're 20 you have no heart. If you're not a conservative by the time you're 40 you have no brain".

Yet I am not much of a conservative, only slightly right of centre. I am, at heart, a Libertarian. For you to describe me as a 'moral imbecile' pays little credit to the human rights advocacy I have been involved in for years. You see I actually do care bout the downtrodden minorities of this world, and so does Thor, and so does Hitchens. I know it suits your convenient worldview to slot us in as "the bad guys". It saves you having to think. But it is not reality you are dealing with, and you're not being fair to our valid arguments.

81. Sam Harris in conversation with Oliver McTernan

Comment #39106 by IQHQ on May 10, 2007 at 2:28 am

mbcraig11,

If you compare Harris with the other writer you have mentioned, Scott Atran, the comparison will illuminate this discussion. Atran has conducted and reviewed masses of evidence on these issues, and his book is a welcome addition to the literature. He has contributed to the collected wisdom of our species and has a sober outlook on the issues, one born out of thought, reflection and experience.

Harris, on the other hand, has simply codified what many would see as mere common sense (albeit with several glaring displays of narrow-mindedness, which may prove counter-produtive in the fight against fundamentalists). He's not, to my mind, even a particularly special writer (Hitch's book blows it out of the water in this regard).

Now this would all be fine if he was to be respected on other grounds. Then he would have earned his right to speak. Perhaps the fruits of this much-lauded intellect will come to bear after he completes his post-doctoral studies in neuroscience. Who knows. If that happens, it will be great. Dawkins is an evolutionary biologist, and comes to the advocacy of atheistic and rational causes from that angle. Stenger is a physicist of reknown and comes from that perspective (shedding a slightly different light on the topic). Hitchens is one of the most prolific literary and political commentators in the Western World, and he comes at the fight against religion from that perspective. BUT WHAT EXACTLY HAS HARRIS DONE? Is he to be famous for pointing out the lack of evidence for religious doctrines, and that alone?

82. Christopher Hitchens and Al Sharpton: A Debate God Is Not Great

Comment #38945 by IQHQ on May 9, 2007 at 3:44 pm

lol the fact that you ever thought such a party MAY be possible is a disturbing portent into your intellect...

83. Sam Harris in conversation with Oliver McTernan

Comment #38933 by IQHQ on May 9, 2007 at 2:37 pm

Great Teapot,

I have never denied that Harris is articulate. Neither have I denied that he is remarkably good at keeping his cool. In fact, I have repeatedly praised him for these qualities.

84. Christopher Hitchens and Al Sharpton: A Debate God Is Not Great

Comment #38890 by IQHQ on May 9, 2007 at 12:08 pm

Thor said:

"while you live in a self-made hellhole of never-ending unsucessful struggle against an imaginary foe"

Priceless. I couldn't have said it better myself . . . . ( though I could definitely have said it as well ! )

;-)

85. Sam Harris in conversation with Oliver McTernan

Comment #38885 by IQHQ on May 9, 2007 at 11:57 am

It is indeed curious that moderate muslims have not mobilised themselves in opposition to Jihadists they have they may have been expected to. Yet we need to walk before we can run. Dealing with the extreme elements through lumping the moderates in with them will only exaccerbate our problems.

86. Sam Harris in conversation with Oliver McTernan

Comment #38878 by IQHQ on May 9, 2007 at 11:26 am

FAO Eirik

LOL Good thing you put in that postscript, or else I would be cyber-breathing down your neck right now ;-)

Look, I take your point. You speak sense, and so did the other commentators above who felt moved to advocate on Harris's behalf. Yet, I said that the "complicitly guilty moderates" argument was of average force becuase, in experiential terms, the moderate's experience is qualitatively different than that of the extremist. One is sane, the other is insane (using those terms broadly). That which separates the two camps is pathology, and it will exist regardless of what handy justification or cue is relevant to the specific case. Therfore, I said: "If it's not religion, it will be something else" (Agent Orange: not sure if your sentence makes sense or not, but I can't understand your point)

87. Sam Harris in conversation with Oliver McTernan

Comment #38873 by IQHQ on May 9, 2007 at 11:19 am

FAO Carter Maxwell

But, the absence of religious extremism isn't going to rid the world of extremism (nor its undesirable manifestations). If this is so, then why is it so urgent to eradicate it?

88. Sam Harris in conversation with Oliver McTernan

Comment #38860 by IQHQ on May 9, 2007 at 10:49 am

Agent Orange

With respect, i've heard it all before. Granted, his open-mindedness to questions of consciousness is to be welcomed. Yet on the question of the "culpability of the moderates" you have yet to convince me. If it wasn't religion, it would be something else. Are you still labouring under the misapprehension that some beautiful intellectual utopia lies just beyond the "2023 Final Triumph of Atheism over Superstition" . . . ? . . .

Don't make me laugh. You expect too much from a bunch of apes. the least you could do would be to show compassion, and accept that most people NEED their cherished delusions.

What i've said should be greeted as relatively uncontroversial. The real argument is about religious literalism and extremism (as pointed out by Oliver McTernan). The moderates are (and will be) on our side of that argument, where they belong, i.e. unless you tell them they aren't welcome?

89. Christopher Hitchens and Al Sharpton: A Debate God Is Not Great

Comment #38851 by IQHQ on May 9, 2007 at 10:18 am

FAO Romin_Devourin

It most certainly should. Indeed, I have such concerns, and that is why I have stated on many occasions that I cannot warm to Harris and his ideas, however in this instance I still believe Harris is talking about the behaviours motivated by such beliefs rather than the holding of the belief in itself (remember, no one could seriously argue that a thought can hurt anyone, but acting upon it, say with a word or an act, most certainly could.

I guess what we have in mind would be "incitement to hatred" type legislative provisions, recently codified in many wester countries as "criminal". But I do not believe in the death penalty as an acceptable punishment for any crime, let alone one such as this. I'm not even sure that I believe in prison - it may well be counter productive in the sense that most restrictions of freedom of expression drive such beliefs underground, where they can be less easily difused with reason and logic.

Now, what's this about you being a theist? ;-)

90. Christopher Hitchens and Al Sharpton: A Debate God Is Not Great

Comment #38817 by IQHQ on May 9, 2007 at 8:34 am

Thor,

Bring the thunder! I am in complete agreement with your post. Well said. I have read the book you mentioned, and I agree that it's worth a read. Definitely a cure for the sort of malignant and apocalyptic trip passing as political discourse post-9/11. I guess people just want to understand, and when such things happen they find it hard to process. In this regard, have you read either of the following?

Evil in Modern Thought - Susam Neiman

Anti-Americanism - Jean-Francois Revel

91. Christopher Hitchens and Al Sharpton: A Debate God Is Not Great

Comment #38813 by IQHQ on May 9, 2007 at 8:27 am

What was the context? As i've said elsewhere, I am no fan of Harris. Yet, fair is fair, and I must say that any time I have heard him speak such words it has always been in the contest of suicide bombers. This brings a new dimension to the discussion. For the substance of the claim no longer centres around the "holding of an innocuous belief" but rather the threat posed to civil society by someone holding such beliefs.

On the whole, I adopt a utilitarian approach to such moral questions, and would have to say that it may well be the "right" thing to kill someone who you knew planned to commit a suicide mass-murder. What other cause of action is there to follow? I know the Vatican would disagree with me, not to mention Catholic moral theorists such as John Finnis, etc . . . nevertheless, that's how I feel. Isn't it self-evident? What do you think about such a situation?

92. Christopher Hitchens and Al Sharpton: A Debate God Is Not Great

Comment #38793 by IQHQ on May 9, 2007 at 7:50 am

I am in favour of combatting the terrorists. In the final analysis, there really cannot be any other solution. By cutting and running, we renege on our responsibilities, as created by making the error of going to war in the first place. Things have changed, my friend. There is no easy solution. But one thing that is certain is that, by leaving Iraq today, the carnage and slaughter will most certainly not abate.

You claim that a majority of the American people want the troops to be pulled out. It stands to reason that this would be so, but it doesn't make it the right option.

(You don't live in a democracy, my friend. You live in a representative democracy. The little democratic prerogative you have was already exercised in the 2004 Election - and we both know who won that contest)

93. Sam Harris in conversation with Oliver McTernan

Comment #38790 by IQHQ on May 9, 2007 at 7:40 am

lol @ MrEmpirical . . . The difference is Ben Stiller actually IS cool.

Sam Harris is just a youngster who thinks he's got it all worked out. This is evidently far from the case.

94. Sam Harris in conversation with Oliver McTernan

Comment #38787 by IQHQ on May 9, 2007 at 7:35 am

OK, let me rephrase - I do not respect him intellectually. I'm hardly under the impression that my personal feelings towards the man have the slightest consequence. You ask for evidence, well the fact that I can't point directly to much is precisely the reason why I couched it in terms of not being able to "warm to him". It's just a feeling I get, that he's not being intellectually 100% honest. His criticisms of religious fundamentalisms are, as you have said, to be praised and respected. But this is quite aside from the main issue of debate, i.e. religion. His arguments of moderates providing cover for the extremists are of average force, in my estimation.

95. Christopher Hitchens and Al Sharpton: A Debate God Is Not Great

Comment #38772 by IQHQ on May 9, 2007 at 6:55 am

You're confusing the issue here, filthy atheist. My point is that, regardless of the merits and demerits of the original decision to go to war, now that we're there, pragmatism is the only policy option. DO YOU BELIEVE THAT THE US SHOULD PULL OUT OF IRAQ TODAY? IF SO WHAT DO YOU THINK WILL BE THE RESULT?

You have to answer these questions... you have to consider the tragic situation, and come up with the best of a bad bunch of "solutions". Do you even have any?

p.s:~ I am not an American, therefore cannot be proud to be one.

96. Christopher Hitchens and Al Sharpton: A Debate God Is Not Great

Comment #38765 by IQHQ on May 9, 2007 at 6:12 am

Filthyatheist

What you fail to acount for in your simple analysis (which seems to be predicated upon a merely sentimental morality) is that Hitchens is in support of US support for the ICC; indeed, in a resent book, he poured shame upon the US for not indicting Henry Kissinger as a war criminal. Leaving the simplistic analysis aside for a second, what exactly are you speculating may be the possible ulterior motivation for Hitchens' support for the War in Iraq? If an obvious one isn't at hand, you may be forced to consider the post 9/11 landscape a little more seriously.

You make statements such as "You and Hitchens can continue to support the carnage" - let's unpack that, shall we? The obvious rhetorical impact you desire is for us to imagine Hitchens greeting the deaths of Iraqi civilians and US/UK soldiers with glee. That is quite obviously preposterous, given his long-time advocacy for the rights of disgruntled minorities the world over (including his support for muslims in Bosnia, etc.). The term "collateral damage" is an unfortunate one, but it is a necessary evil. Innocent people will (and always have) died as a result of war, but this fact has little to do with the merits of any particular military action (rather it has to do with forming the "last resort" nature of war in the first place). Innocent people most certainly have died in this war (that is, of course, unfortunate). Yet that is hardly what Hitchens and others are supporting!

Perhaps you don't understand what is going on in Iraq today, but it is not the Iraqis v Americans (with the Americans as the big bad occupiers). It is not as simple as that. The US cannot be blamed for the actions of these terrorists, and terorists they are. Who's side are you actually on? Perhaps the decision to go to War was wrong, but now that we're there we've got to deal with things pragmatically. You have no solution (at least that's how it seems) to offer us here, except to "criticise the war effort" - I think there are a lot of Irqi people who would pour shame on you for saying this today.

97. Sam Harris in conversation with Oliver McTernan

Comment #38754 by IQHQ on May 9, 2007 at 5:43 am

Good point, TieInterceptor . . . And, following on from that point, if the Scriptures arewritten by man and inspired by God, who has the authority (as a man on earth) to distinguish between which books are inspired and which are not? The fact that there are many morally repugnant passages in the Bible supports this skepticism... on may legitimately ask, what other books exist out there that were inspired by God? War and Peace? The Brothers Karamazov? Moby Dick?

98. Sam Harris in conversation with Oliver McTernan

Comment #38743 by IQHQ on May 9, 2007 at 5:06 am

p.s:~ I think that the woman's comment (from the audience during questions) that Harris was one of the smartest people writing on the face of the earth today was laughable.

99. Sam Harris in conversation with Oliver McTernan

Comment #38742 by IQHQ on May 9, 2007 at 5:03 am

To some extent, I do, yet he doesn't seem to be intellectually honest in equating religion with literalism. Whilst I accept that, if relegated to an interpretive exercise, moderate Chritians should should call themselves Christians no more than they should call themselves Shakespearians or Dostoevskians, etc. Yet, he doesn't seem to appreciate the role of myth in human history and the fact that it's a futile exercise trying to get rid of it. Even if religion was wiped off the face of the earth, are western citizens going to stop idolizing the latest film star or pop star? Who dares call such things real or unreal? Such psychic phenomena cannot benefit from a materialist categorization. They are real, in the sense that they codify (in a spiritual sense) some urge, desire, or longing deep inside our subconscious selves. And the need (or existence) of such phenomena has little to do with whether or not such icons exist; it certainly doesn't depend upon them being real (in a material sense).

I believe McTernan made a valid point about Harris' "protestant atheism" - Harris would have less ammunition if he were to take a more catholic understanding of faith as typical, and it's clear that gathering ammunition is his objective.

So, in answer to your question, I do agree with Harris in so far as I believe that all religious stories are myths. I do not agree with him in his belief that ridding the world of such beliefs should be anywhere near the top of our priority list - his approach is not edifying - which was the thrust of McTernan's points - which is why I agree with him more than I do Harris.

100. Sam Harris in conversation with Oliver McTernan

Comment #38733 by IQHQ on May 9, 2007 at 4:35 am

I've said it before and i'll say it again. I just can't warm to Sam Harris.