Confused / Achilles12604 debate : "The End of Faith&quo

[achilles12604]

Confused and I have decided to debate Sam Harris's book, "The End of Faith". I believe that we will be using a similar formate to the recent "The God Delusion" debate. As this is a one on one debate, no one else may post in this particular thread. However, I am creating a "comments" thread in general chat.

As I require some time to read this book, and I am going out of town for 5 days at the beginning of August, I would suggest that this particular debate begin on August 10th or later.

Is this acceptable Confused?

[Confused]

Confused and I have decided to debate Sam Harris's book, "The End of Faith". I believe that we will be using a similar formate to the recent "The God Delusion" debate. As this is a one on one debate, no one else may post in this particular thread. However, I am creating a "comments" thread in general chat.

As I require some time to read this book, and I am going out of town for 5 days at the beginning of August, I would suggest that this particular debate begin on August 10th or later.

Is this acceptable Confused?

Sounds like a perfect date. I will try to create an outline in the meantime since I have the book and have read it. I will PM it too you first and see what additions you would like to add or what alterations you would like made.

But the chapter by chapter format is a good one.

(Cheap shot, but anyone else reading this, feel free to say a prayer for me, then maybe I won't get my head handed to me on a silver platter!!!!!! )

[achilles12604]

Ok everyone, Confused and I are ready to restart our debate. We will be attempting to reconstruct the first part from our own personal archives and saved e-mails. Then we shall proceed from there.

[Confused]

Ok, I will be kicking this off with some broad concepts addressed in chapter one. Highlights from my view:


I) Reason in Exile.
A) What are "religious moderates"?
B) What critiques are offered about "religious moderates"?
C) Are "religious moderates" as equally dangerous as "extremists"?

[achilles12604]

First off let me say that I am excited to be able to debate without much of the static which often occurs in general debating threads. Also I have a great deal of respect for the knowledge and character of my counterpart. Thus I feel that I should learn a great deal during our playful banter.


With no further adieu, let's to it.

A) What are religious moderates?


Of course, to answer this question I would need to determine who's definition I was supposed to represent. Harris presents religious moderates as those who were likely born into religion, yet because of a deeper understanding of science and reality, have thrust off the totalitarian ideology of their fundamentalist counterparts and invented excuses which allow their ideas to fit both in the real world, and simultaneously in their fantasy world of religion.

I find Harris to be of two minds concerning these folks. First off he seems respectful of them.

("some draw solace and inpsiration from a specific religious tradition and yet remain fully committed to tolerance and diversity, while others would burn the earth to cinders to rid it of heresy." - Page 14)

"The only reason that anyone is "moderate" in matter of faith these days is that he has assimilated some of the fruits of the last two thousand years of human thought. The doors leading our of scriptural literalism do not open from the inside." - Page 18-19

In this statement he seems to give credit to the moderates. However, a few pages later he slaps them across the face. . .

"the benignity of most religious moderates does not suggest that religious faith is anything more sublime than a desperate marriage of hope and ignorance, nor does it guarentee that there is not a terrible price to be paid for limiting the scope of reason in our dealings with outer human beings." - page 21

I find his position on the intelligence of moderates confusing. Ambiguous perhaps because in one section he gives them credit for embracing modern thought over the literal views of their predecessors, but then turns around and calls the ignorant. I don't understand how he could mean that they both embrace modern thought and at the same time marry hope and ignorance. It seems to me that here, Harris is simply throwing out daggers at whatever they will stick to rather than taking a solid position.

Perhaps I am missing his point.

To answer the original question, I think that the religious moderates themselves are a group, but could still be broken down further. I would imagine that within the levels of tolerant religious people, there are those who trust the bible more so than others, and in different ways. I began a group called skeptical Christians. Basically this is what I would personally define the religious moderates to be, however my beliefs don't really fit with Harris's description of moderates, nor do my reasons for believing such.

Harris makes the point that moderates begin from a position of belief and have been "hammered" out of ignorance by facts.

"the moderation we see among non-fundimentalists is not some sign that faith itself has evolved, it is, rather, the product of the many hammer blows of modernity that have exposed certain tenets of faith to doubt." - page 19

However, this is not how I have arrived at my faith. I began with faith, then I began a totally agnostic almost atheistic view of religion. Only after existing in agnosticism for some time, did I examine facts and I was compelled to rejoin faith based on what I found.

This is almost the opposite of what Harris suggests must be the progression. Therefore, I know for a fact that his generalization of "moderates" is not completely accurate. He may have a point and he may not. However, to make the claim that any sort of religious scientist who must create a block between sunday and monday,

"A person can be God fearing on Sunday and a working scientist come Monday morning, without ever having to account for the partition that seems to have erected itself in his head while he slept.. He can, as it were, have his reason and eat it too." - page 16

is nothing more that expressing an opinion rather than supporting a fact.

He does follow this with a decent point however,

"it is only because the church has been hobbled in the West that anyone can afford to think this way." - page 16

With regard to the fundamentalist church, I agree. The "hobbling" of the fundamentalist views does allow for better understanding.



I guess the overall problem I have with his position is it is based on the assumption that faith is totally incompatible with reason. I find this assumption to be invalid. To use an idea as the fundamental cornerstone of a position, that idea must be fairly well beyond reproach. However, the idea that reason and faith are totally incompatible is far from a given and proven fact. If it were, then we should not have "moderates" at all. If reason and faith are totally incompatible then there should not be the religious scientists of the world at all. We do not see people who are anti-abortion and yet pro-choice on sunday. These two ideas are truly incompatible. However, so long as there are people who are,

1) Sain
2) Intelligent
3) Educated
4) working in respectable fields
5) Religious

his fundamental idea, that which he is basing the entirechapterr on, can not be used as the factual starting point as he is doing. At least not in fairconsciouss. But as I have said many times before, no one can approach a subject totally without bias as each of us have our own pre-conceptions.

I would approach this same subject a little differently. Harris approaches the subject with the following mindset:

premise) Religion is totally incompatible with reason

Premise) anyone investigating facts will be tainted by their beliefs

Conclusion) Therefore, anyone who truly believes in religion, can not entertain both these religious beliefs and reason about the same subject, at the same time.

I would broach this subject in the following manner.

Premise) There are facts to be investigated

Premise) These facts form themselves to a variety of conclusions and interpretations

Conclusion) We should examine the facts, apply logic and reason, and chose to accept the best fitting conclusion.



The place where my approach becomes sticky is with the application of logic and reason. However, when I can get an atheist to agree with me that point A is A and B is B but then have them disagree that C is the logical conclusion simply because it is also the same conclusion that religion adheres to, this shows not a failure in logic or analysis, but in the openmindedness of my atheist counterpart as he is approaching the subject with a bias, where as I am simply choosing the best option. As sherlock holmes suggests, "When you have eliminated all other options, whatever is left, however improbable, must be right."


Something else I found interesting in this section which is slightly off subject is his acceptance that almost everyone has a "hole" in them which is only filled with religion. It can not be filled with science.

This is not to say that the deepest concerns of the faithful whether moderate of extreme, are trivial or even misguided. There is no denying that most of us have emotional and spiritual needs that are now addressed - however obliquely and at a terrible price - by mainstream religion. And these are needs that a mere understanding of our world, scientific or otherwise, will never fulfill. There is clearly a sacred dimension to our existence, and coming to terms with it could well be the highest purpose of human life. - page 16

In this sections he sounds almost religious. If these are indeed his views, then surely he can not fault those of us who seek both knowledge and understanding. How can he complain about moderates who crave knowledge of the world around us, and understanding of the spirit within?

Of course then his next sentence made me smile.

But we will find that it requires no faith in untestable propositions - Jesus was born of a virgin, the Koran is the word of God - For us to do this.

I smiled because within one sentence he showed the same "un-testable propositions" as the religionists. He offers no evidence that this sentence is correct. Yet he is convinced of its truth. He shows tremendous faith, in his beliefs concerning no faith despite the entire paragraph above it expressing that all humans must come to terms with their "spiritual" side, a side which by definition can "never be fulfilled" by science and knowledge.

To sum up -
1) I find his definition of "moderates" to be a bit narrow and generalizing, but plausible if you take the views of fundimentalists faced with facts.
2)I find his views concerning faith and reason to be incorrectly placed in the series of logical progression. I feel it is a conclusion which he is inserting as a premise.
3) I found his apparent bi-polar views about the ability of reason and necessity for spiritual understanding to be very interesting. Perhaps even a bit logically impossible given his argument.


As for your third question: are moderates dangerous? This entire premise is based on the assumption that religion itself is evil. Of course I don't hold this assumption, thus I don't hold his conclusion. However this is a debate which requires another post all together.

[Confused]

Realize, I am not countering your post here. I will do that later this evening. However, one concept keeps screaming out of your analysis. Your are analyzing Harris, not his information. Religious moderates fall more into the category of your progressive religious organizations. For example, not taking the bible literally, not saying it is inerrant, adapting the bible to fit society and rendering much of scripture moot because of it. Religoius moderates are almost like agnostics. They can't make up their mind on which side to follow. For the religious moderates, is it the extreme metaphorical side or the extreme literalist side.

Realize I am recalling most of this from my earlier reading and will pull out the book to validate it tonight. The only point I wanted to make here is that I have no intention of evaluating Sam Harris. Rather, I want to evaluate the ideas he puts forth to see what credence he presents. Your summary was quite hasty IMHO. Without even hearing both sides, you have laid a false foundation.

I only have one thing that I will address specifically here, from your post. As to #3, I would be interested in where you find Harris' claim that religion is evil. Dangerous, yes. Fantastical, yes. But evil? I dont' recall him ever making this claim.

Ok, enough ranting. I will be home by 8pm and be in more of a position to back some of what I said and to counter the majority of your claims.

[achilles12604]

I agree. We are going to need to go really slow. In my first reply I was just trying to briefly cover the topics you brought up. However, I believe that this might be a mistake. I am going to start over and go in much greater detail.My apologies.


I will start from page 12 and move on from there. Real quick I will respond to your over all impression of my first analysis. Then I will explain (going very slowly) why I responded in the first post like I did.

This I the impression I wanted to address real quick.

Confused wrote:
Realize, I am not countering your post here. I will do that later this evening. However, one concept keeps screaming out of your analysis. Your are analyzing Harris, not his information.

Granted to some extent. However I think this is mostly due to the fact that he doesn't present much information. He presents his opinions, not facts. Thus all I had to address was his opinions, or in essence himself.

Take the first few pages for example. He opens with an emotional plucking of the heartstrings. He then proceeds to express his opinion that beliefs lead people to murder each other.

These are mere words - until you believe them. Once believed they become part of the very apparatus of your mind, determining your desires, fears, expectations and subsequent behavior. [b:26941cdd29]There seems, however, to be a problem with some of our most cherished beliefs about the world: they are leading us, inexorably, to kill one another.[/b:26941cdd29] A glance at history, or at pages of any newspaper, reveals that ideas which divide one group of humans from another, [b:26941cdd29]only to unite them in slaughter,[/b:26941cdd29] generally have their roots in religion. - page 12

This is of course an opinion. He doesn't cite facts.

Here are some facts concerning wars and acts of violence in the 20th century (and a few before the 20th century). As you and I agree that FACTS are important, and he didn't offer any to back up this claim, I will do so now. I wish to examine Harris' claim that violent conflicts "generally have their roots in religion."

My next post will be an indepth examination of this first claim of Sam Harris. I will include evidence.

As this will take some time, I will post it as soon as possible, tonight I hope. In the meantime I look forward to your evalution of my first post. I recognize that it was brief and did not address specifics, however, I think this is due mostly to Harris citing opinions. Thus I responded with opinions.


I am truly excited to engage in this debate with you. I am going to enjoy going step by step for a change. My apologies for failing to do this my first go-round. Let me backtrack and we can indeed go step by step.

[achilles12604]

I will start from page 12 and move on from there. Real quick I will respond to your over all impression of my first analysis. Then I will explain (going very slowly) why I responded in the first post like I did.

This I the impression I wanted to address real quick.

Confused wrote:

Realize, I am not countering your post here. I will do that later this evening. However, one concept keeps screaming out of your analysis. Your are analyzing Harris, not his information.

Granted to some extent. However I think this is mostly due to the fact that he doesn't present much information. He presents his opinions, not facts. Thus all I had to address was his opinions, or in essence himself.

Take the first few pages for example. He opens with an emotional plucking of the heartstrings. He then proceeds to express his opinion that beliefs lead people to murder each other.

These are mere words - until you believe them. Once believed they become part of the very apparatus of your mind, determining your desires, fears, expectations and subsequent behavior. There seems, however, to be a problem with some of our most cherished beliefs about the world: they are leading us, inexorably, to kill one another. A glance at history, or at pages of any newspaper, reveals that ideas which divide one group of humans from another, only to unite them in slaughter, generally have their roots in religion. - page 12

This is of course an opinion. He doesn't cite facts.

Here are some facts concerning wars and acts of violence in the 20th century (and a few before the 20th century). As you and I agree that FACTS are important, and he didn't offer any to back up this claim, I will do so now. I wish to examine Harris' claim that violent conflicts "generally have their roots in religion."

Sources of information is either wikipedia or the below link.

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstatx.htm

Now mind you my analysis is going straight down my reference page. I am not attempting to jump around at all. If one subject is actually part of a larger conflict (IE England casualites in WW2, vs all of ww2, I am going to skip over the smaller one and account for the larger.)

Wars attributed, directly or indirectly, to religion and their asociated casualties.

The Thirty Years War - 1618 - 1648 : Although it was from the outset a religious conflict between Protestants and Catholics, the rivalry between the Habsburg dynasty and other powers was also a central motive, as shown by the fact that Catholic France under the de facto rule of Cardinal Richelieu supported the Protestant side in order to weaken the Habsburgs, thereby furthering France's position as the pre-eminient continental power. This increased the France-Habsburg rivalry which led later to direct war between France and Spain. : TOTAL CASUALTIES : 7.5 million

9-11 - 2001 : Terrorists flew planes into several US buildings. TOTAL CASUALTIES: 3018

Wars NOT attributed to religion and associated casualties.

The Hundred Years War – 1337-1453 : It was fought primarily over claims by the English kings to the French throne and was punctuated by several brief and two lengthy periods of peace before it finally ended in the expulsion of the English from France, with the exception of the Calais Pale. TOTAL CASUALTIES : 6.3 million

The War of 1812 - 1812-1815 : The Americans declared war on Britain on June 18, 1812 for a combination of reasons: outrage at the impressment (seizure) of thousands of American sailors into the British navy, frustration at British restraints on neutral trade, and anger at British military support for Native Americans defending their tribal lands from encroaching American settlers. TOTAL CASUALTIES : at least 23,000

Revolutions of 1848 - 1848 : In politics, both bourgeois reformers and radical politicians were seeking change in their nations' governments. TOTAL CASUALTIES : 226,873

Six Day War - 1967 : In May 1967, Egypt expelled the United Nations Emergency Force (UNEF) from the Sinai Peninsula, which had been stationed there since 1957 (following the 1956 Sinai invasion by Israel), to provide a peace-keeping buffer zone. Egypt amassed 1000 tanks and 100,000 soldiers on the border, blockaded the Straits of Tiran (the entrance to the Gulf of Aquaba, a.k.a. the Gulf of Eilat) to Israeli ships, and called for unified Arab action against Israel.

Explaination of placement : I am placing this conflict into the Non-Religious fights because NONE of the direct, or indirect causes for the war have anything to do with religion. They are all economic or political. For more background go HERE. I recognize that these people hate ech other due to religion, but hating someone is not usually the primary cause for a war. The KKK hate all other races except whites, but they don't engage in active war with them simply because they hate them. Russia and the US hated each other in the fifties, but they avoided war. Hatred by itself doesn't start a war. Even in the case of Russia and US, hatred AND politics, combined didn't start a war.

TOTAL CASUALTIES: 16,600

The Seven Years War - 1754, 1756-1763: The Seven Year' War may be viewed as a continuation of the War of the Austrian Succession, in which King Frederick II of Prussia had gained the rich province of Silesia. TOTAL CASUALTIES: 1.4 million

North Yemen Civil War - 1948, 1962-1969: The North Yemen Civil War was a war fought in North Yemen between Royalists of the Mutawakkilite Kingdom of Yemen and Republican factions of the Yemen Arab Republic from 1962 to 1970. Eventually, the Republican faction gained control of the government. TOTAL CASUALTIES: 156,000

Maratha-Afghan War- 1760-1761: Maratha power had by then reached its zenith in North India. Maratha efforts to dominate the Mughal court were, however, stubbornly contested by the Afghans, newly risen in power under the leadership of Najib-ud-Daulah TOTAL CASUALTIES: 40,000

3rd Anglo-Afghan War - 1919 : TOTAL CASUALTIES: 3000

Afghanistan (1924-29) : TOTAL CASUALTIES: 10,000

Afghanistan soviet conflicts (1979-1989): Causes found in detail here. TOTAL CASUALTIES: about 1.8 million

Spanish Civil War (1936-1939): TOTAL CASUALTIES: 433,000


I have of course barely begun, but so far we are seeing that civil wars, and political conflicts are WAY in the lead over religion in causing wars and deaths. I will of course finish this list because I want a comprehensive evaluation of this subject. However, I may not be done until later this week as it is a HUGE list.

[Confused]

Ok, you are way ahead in the analysis for me. I want to start at point A.

First, Harris makes a comparison between belief and a lever that once pulled, moves almost everything in a persons life. Would you agree with this? He states your beliefs define your vision of this world. Being a racist, liberal, etc... are merely species of belief in action. Goes further to say that belief determines your vision of the world, they dictate your behavior and your emotional responses. Harris makes his point that things are mere words until you believe them. (all from page 12)

Would you disagree with his assertion here?

He furthers his reasoning in page 13 when he says people tend to organize themselves into factions according to which claims they believe rather than the color of their skin, language, etc..

But he hits it all on the head of the nail with this

Once a person believe, really believes, that certain ideas can lead to eternal happiness, he cannot tolerate the possibility that others might lead their loved ones astray.

Here is quite the message.

[Confused]

I will start from page 12 and move on from there. Real quick I will respond to your over all impression of my first analysis. Then I will explain (going very slowly) why I responded in the first post like I did.

This I the impression I wanted to address real quick.

Realize, I am not countering your post here. I will do that later this evening. However, one concept keeps screaming out of your analysis. Your are analyzing Harris, not his information.

Granted to some extent. However I think this is mostly due to the fact that he doesn't present much information. He presents his opinions, not facts. Thus all I had to address was his opinions, or in essence himself.

Take the first few pages for example. He opens with an emotional plucking of the heartstrings. He then proceeds to express his opinion that beliefs lead people to murder each other.

These are mere words - until you believe them. Once believed they become part of the very apparatus of your mind, determining your desires, fears, expectations and subsequent behavior. There seems, however, to be a problem with some of our most cherished beliefs about the world: they are leading us, inexorably, to kill one another. A glance at history, or at pages of any newspaper, reveals that ideas which divide one group of humans from another, only to unite them in slaughter, generally have their roots in religion. - page 12

This is of course an opinion. He doesn't cite facts.

Here are some facts concerning wars and acts of violence in the 20th century (and a few before the 20th century). As you and I agree that FACTS are important, and he didn't offer any to back up this claim, I will do so now. I wish to examine Harris' claim that violent conflicts "generally have their roots in religion."

Sources of information is either wikipedia or the below link.

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstatx.htm

Now mind you my analysis is going straight down my reference page. I am not attempting to jump around at all. If one subject is actually part of a larger conflict (IE England casualites in WW2, vs all of ww2, I am going to skip over the smaller one and account for the larger.)

Wars attributed, directly or indirectly, to religion and their asociated casualties.

The Thirty Years War - 1618 - 1648 : Although it was from the outset a religious conflict between Protestants and Catholics, the rivalry between the Habsburg dynasty and other powers was also a central motive, as shown by the fact that Catholic France under the de facto rule of Cardinal Richelieu supported the Protestant side in order to weaken the Habsburgs, thereby furthering France's position as the pre-eminient continental power. This increased the France-Habsburg rivalry which led later to direct war between France and Spain. : TOTAL CASUALTIES : 7.5 million

9-11 - 2001 : Terrorists flew planes into several US buildings. TOTAL CASUALTIES: 3018









Wars NOT attributed to religion and associated casualties.

The Hundred Years War – 1337-1453 : It was fought primarily over claims by the English kings to the French throne and was punctuated by several brief and two lengthy periods of peace before it finally ended in the expulsion of the English from France, with the exception of the Calais Pale. TOTAL CASUALTIES : 6.3 million

The War of 1812 - 1812-1815 : The Americans declared war on Britain on June 18, 1812 for a combination of reasons: outrage at the impressment (seizure) of thousands of American sailors into the British navy, frustration at British restraints on neutral trade, and anger at British military support for Native Americans defending their tribal lands from encroaching American settlers. TOTAL CASUALTIES : at least 23,000

Revolutions of 1848 - 1848 : In politics, both bourgeois reformers and radical politicians were seeking change in their nations' governments. TOTAL CASUALTIES : 226,873

Six Day War - 1967 : In May 1967, Egypt expelled the United Nations Emergency Force (UNEF) from the Sinai Peninsula, which had been stationed there since 1957 (following the 1956 Sinai invasion by Israel), to provide a peace-keeping buffer zone. Egypt amassed 1000 tanks and 100,000 soldiers on the border, blockaded the Straits of Tiran (the entrance to the Gulf of Aquaba, a.k.a. the Gulf of Eilat) to Israeli ships, and called for unified Arab action against Israel.

Explaination of placement : I am placing this conflict into the Non-Religious fights because NONE of the direct, or indirect causes for the war have anything to do with religion. They are all economic or political. For more background go HERE. I recognize that these people hate ech other due to religion, but hating someone is not usually the primary cause for a war. The KKK hate all other races except whites, but they don't engage in active war with them simply because they hate them. Russia and the US hated each other in the fifties, but they avoided war. Hatred by itself doesn't start a war. Even in the case of Russia and US, hatred AND politics, combined didn't start a war.

TOTAL CASUALTIES: 16,600

The Seven Years War - 1754, 1756-1763: The Seven Years' War may be viewed as a continuation of the War of the Austrian Succession, in which King Frederick II of Prussia had gained the rich province of Silesia. TOTAL CASUALTIES: 1.4 million



North Yemen Civil War - 1948, 1962-1969: The North Yemen Civil War was a war fought in North Yemen between Royalists of the Mutawakkilite Kingdom of Yemen and Republican factions of the Yemen Arab Republic from 1962 to 1970. Eventually, the Republican faction gained control of the government. TOTAL CASUALTIES: 156,000


Maratha-Afghan War- 1760-1761: Maratha power had by then reached its zenith in North India. Maratha efforts to dominate the Mughal court were, however, stubbornly contested by the Afghans, newly risen in power under the leadership of Najib-ud-Daulah TOTAL CASUALTIES: 40,000

3rd Anglo-Afghan War - 1919 : TOTAL CASUALTIES: 3000

Afghanistan (1924-29) : TOTAL CASUALTIES: 10,000

Afghanistan soviet conflicts (1979-1989): Causes found in detail here. TOTAL CASUALTIES: about 1.8 million

Spanish Civil War (1936-1939): TOTAL CASUALTIES: 433,000


I have of course barely begun, but so far we are seeing that civil wars, and political conflicts are WAY in the lead over religion in causing wars and deaths. I will of course finish this list because I want a comprehensive evaluation of this subject. However, I may not be done until later this week as it is a HUGE list.

Take no offense here, but I am going ot have to review your statistics. We both know they are usally 2 sided. So give me some time today to research this.