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]

Ok. I think the topic of moderates has been hashed to death. In reality, I think we really do agree on much of the biggies. So, if it is ok, I am going to try to move this along.

I want to return to an early issue we had that is now more appropriate. Starting on page 25, Harris discusses the "Burden of Paradise". In this portion, he addresses the price we continue to pay because of what he calls "ancient myths". He cites many recent conflicts:

Pg 26: The recent conflicts in Palestine (Jews v. Muslims), the Balkans (Orthodox Serbians v. Catholic Croatians; Orthodox Serbians v. Bosnian and Albanian Muslims), Northern Ireland (Protestants v. Catholics, Kashmir (Muslims v. Hindus), Sudan (Muslims v. Christians and animals), Nigeria (Muslims v. Christians), Ethiopia and Eritrea (Muslims v. Christians), Sri Lanka (Sinhalese Buddists v. Tamil Hindus), Indonesia (Muslims v. Timorese Christians), and the Caucasus (Orthodox Russians v. Chechen Muslims; Muslim Azerbaijanis v. Catholic and Orthodox Armenians) are just a few cases in point.

He claims religion has been the explicit cause of literally millions of deaths in the last ten years. It is an unending cycle of murder and cease fire. He goes on with

Over one million people died in the orgy of religious killing that attended the partitioning of India and Pakistan. The 2 countries have since fought 3 official wars, suffered continuous bloodletting...... and are now poised to exterminate one another with nuclear weapons.

These lands are ancient lands. They have been fighting the same wars over religious differences, not land disputes, forever.

Adding weapons of mass destruction to countries riddled with religious violence is paramount to the self fulfilling prophecy of the end of the world, would you not agree?

[Confused]

He carries his discussion over to Muslim Extremism. For the sake of this book, unfortunately, we can't simply say "Well, that only applies to Muslims, not Christians". While Harris uses Muslim extremists to prove a point, one can also apply such case studies to the extreme fundamentalists of Christianity. Recall, this book is an assessment of faith. One of all religious faith. Perhaps this is the most prevalent weakness in his book. The average person cannot see putting the actions of Muslim extremists in the same category as what one might call a Christian moderate (though Harris denounces the existence of a true moderate). It is easy to say "well, that is extremists, not passive moderates". But I think here is where Harris was the most clever. By lumping them all together, he holds all of religion accountable. It is terror done by religion and in the absence of religion, such terror wouldn't exist.

(darn, I lost my train of thought but if I wait to much longer, I will lose the entire post, will have to come back to this )

[achilles12604]

Ok. I think the topic of moderates has been hashed to death. In reality, I think we really do agree on much of the biggies. So, if it is ok, I am going to try to move this along.

I want to return to an early issue we had that is now more appropriate. Starting on page 25, Harris discusses the "Burden of Paradise". In this portion, he addresses the price we continue to pay because of what he calls "ancient myths". He cites many recent conflicts:

Pg 26: The recent conflicts in Palestine (Jews v. Muslims), the Balkans (Orthodox Serbians v. Catholic Croatians; Orthodox Serbians v. Bosnian and Albanian Muslims), Northern Ireland (Protestants v. Catholics, Kashmir (Muslims v. Hindus), Sudan (Muslims v. Christians and animals), Nigeria (Muslims v. Christians), Ethiopia and Eritrea (Muslims v. Christians), Sri Lanka (Sinhalese Buddists v. Tamil Hindus), Indonesia (Muslims v. Timorese Christians), and the uCaucasus (Orthodox Russians v. Chechen Muslims; Muslim Azerbaijanis v. Catholic and Orthodox Armenians) are just a few cases in point.

He claims religion has been the explicit cause of literally millions of deaths in the last ten years. It is an unending cycle of murder and cease fire. He goes on with

Over one million people died in the orgy of religious killing that attended the partitioning of India and Pakistan. The 2 countries have since fought 3 official wars, suffered continuous bloodletting...... and are now poised to exterminate one another with nuclear weapons.

These lands are ancient lands. They have been fighting the same wars over religious differences, not land disputes, forever.

Adding weapons of mass destruction to countries riddled with religious violence is paramount to the self fulfilling prophecy of the end of the world, would you not agree?

I would agree. Religion has indeed been the cause of millions of deaths. But his argument could be applied equally to politics, water rights, or lust for wealth. His argument is 100% true. When someone commits themselves wholly to an idea, it becomes a situation where those ideas begin to control the actions of the person.

I however, would point out that Harris's lumping all religions together is faulty. Harris is correct that if someone commits their lives entirely to the idea of Fundimentalist Islam, including the passages on killing infidels, that person is likely to become a terrorist. This is equally true if the person commits themselves to the ideas of the OT where it declares we should burn the witches.

But, under each of these ideas are causes which are not at all linked to religion. In the case of the Salem Witch Trials, there was a clash of the classes in that town and the preacher who started the whole ordeal did so to rid the town of undesirables. His daughters even later recanted their stories about being haunted by the images of the witches. While the passage "kill the witches" was probably quoted a lot, it appears to me to be more of an excuse than an actual CAUSE.

I would say the same is likely true about Islam. There are certain passages in the Koran which do demand bloodshed. However, I doubt that Harris claim that these are the primary cause for violence is true. But then again, perhaps he is. The only people who know for sure are the terrorists.

There are indications that in the harshness of the middle east, many suicide bombers do it for money for their families.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/spi ... 38,00.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,48822,00.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/04/ ... 5316.shtml


I have to wonder, if the bombers only commit their crimes after being paid, how likely is it that Harris is totally correct about their religion being their primary motivation?

There are other underlying causes, and religion, as it has so many times before, becomes justification for an act which otherwise would not have had social support.

[Confused]

Ok. I think the topic of moderates has been hashed to death. In reality, I think we really do agree on much of the biggies. So, if it is ok, I am going to try to move this along.

I want to return to an early issue we had that is now more appropriate. Starting on page 25, Harris discusses the "Burden of Paradise". In this portion, he addresses the price we continue to pay because of what he calls "ancient myths". He cites many recent conflicts:

Pg 26: The recent conflicts in Palestine (Jews v. Muslims), the Balkans (Orthodox Serbians v. Catholic Croatians; Orthodox Serbians v. Bosnian and Albanian Muslims), Northern Ireland (Protestants v. Catholics, Kashmir (Muslims v. Hindus), Sudan (Muslims v. Christians and animals), Nigeria (Muslims v. Christians), Ethiopia and Eritrea (Muslims v. Christians), Sri Lanka (Sinhalese Buddists v. Tamil Hindus), Indonesia (Muslims v. Timorese Christians), and the uCaucasus (Orthodox Russians v. Chechen Muslims; Muslim Azerbaijanis v. Catholic and Orthodox Armenians) are just a few cases in point.

He claims religion has been the explicit cause of literally millions of deaths in the last ten years. It is an unending cycle of murder and cease fire. He goes on with

Over one million people died in the orgy of religious killing that attended the partitioning of India and Pakistan. The 2 countries have since fought 3 official wars, suffered continuous bloodletting...... and are now poised to exterminate one another with nuclear weapons.

These lands are ancient lands. They have been fighting the same wars over religious differences, not land disputes, forever.

Adding weapons of mass destruction to countries riddled with religious violence is paramount to the self fulfilling prophecy of the end of the world, would you not agree?

I would agree. Religion has indeed been the cause of millions of deaths. But his argument could be applied equally to politics, water rights, or lust for wealth. His argument is 100% true. When someone commits themselves wholly to an idea, it becomes a situation where those ideas begin to control the actions of the person.

Politics for freedom is a noble cause. Water for survival is a noble cause. Wealth for survival is a noble cause. Religious beliefs that contribute nothing to the earthly world are not a noble cause. Now, I am not saying beliefs that contribute to the "afterlife". Only the here and now.

I however, would point out that Harris's lumping all religions together is faulty. Harris is correct that if someone commits their lives entirely to the idea of Fundimentalist Islam, including the passages on killing infidels, that person is likely to become a terrorist. This is equally true if the person commits themselves to the ideas of the OT where it declares we should burn the witches.

I don't think his intention was to link all religions together. He is attacking faith in general.

However, I do agree that his focus on Islamic extremists diminishes his argument to a certain degree.

But, under each of these ideas are causes which are not at all linked to religion. In the case of the Salem Witch Trials, there was a clash of the classes in that town and the preacher who started the whole ordeal did so to rid the town of undesirables. His daughters even later recanted their stories about being haunted by the images of the witches. While the passage "kill the witches" was probably quoted a lot, it appears to me to be more of an excuse than an actual CAUSE.

Ok, now we are splitting hairs. Harris actually does a preemptive strike already when he makes his point that despite the "cause", without the "faith" the event most likely wouldn't have transpired because the underlying belief of witches being of satan (compliments of interpretive scripture) wouldn't have existed. Again, I may wish that Harris was a bit more specific, but the idea to remain general and attack "faith" rather than any particular religion gives him much more credence than Dawkins (IMHO).

I would say the same is likely true about Islam. There are certain passages in the Koran which do demand bloodshed. However, I doubt that Harris claim that these are the primary cause for violence is true. But then again, perhaps he is. The only people who know for sure are the terrorists.

There are indications that in the harshness of the middle east, many suicide bombers do it for money for their families.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/spi ... 38,00.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,48822,00.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/04/ ... 5316.shtml


I have to wonder, if the bombers only commit their crimes after being paid, how likely is it that Harris is totally correct about their religion being their primary motivation?

There are other underlying causes, and religion, as it has so many times before, becomes justification for an act which otherwise would not have had social support.

Islamic terrorists, Extremist Fundamental Christians, Moderate Christians who contribute to the funding of the destruction of the Mosque to rebuilt the Jewish Temple in an attempt to rush in the 2nd coming of Christ, etc..... Does it really matter which group we are talking about? The underlying cause is "faith".

The interpretive scripture of the Koran allows for only those who die as martyrs to ascend directly to heaven. What better way than while destroying the infidels?

Even if there were other underlying causes that contributed to some of the atrocities committed by the "faithful", without the faith, they wouldn't have had that justification. Maybe the atrocities would have found another justification. But right now, they don't need to. They have faith.

[achilles12604]

Ok. I think the topic of moderates has been hashed to death. In reality, I think we really do agree on much of the biggies. So, if it is ok, I am going to try to move this along.

I want to return to an early issue we had that is now more appropriate. Starting on page 25, Harris discusses the "Burden of Paradise". In this portion, he addresses the price we continue to pay because of what he calls "ancient myths". He cites many recent conflicts:

Pg 26: The recent conflicts in Palestine (Jews v. Muslims), the Balkans (Orthodox Serbians v. Catholic Croatians; Orthodox Serbians v. Bosnian and Albanian Muslims), Northern Ireland (Protestants v. Catholics, Kashmir (Muslims v. Hindus), Sudan (Muslims v. Christians and animals), Nigeria (Muslims v. Christians), Ethiopia and Eritrea (Muslims v. Christians), Sri Lanka (Sinhalese Buddists v. Tamil Hindus), Indonesia (Muslims v. Timorese Christians), and the uCaucasus (Orthodox Russians v. Chechen Muslims; Muslim Azerbaijanis v. Catholic and Orthodox Armenians) are just a few cases in point.

He claims religion has been the explicit cause of literally millions of deaths in the last ten years. It is an unending cycle of murder and cease fire. He goes on with

Over one million people died in the orgy of religious killing that attended the partitioning of India and Pakistan. The 2 countries have since fought 3 official wars, suffered continuous bloodletting...... and are now poised to exterminate one another with nuclear weapons.

These lands are ancient lands. They have been fighting the same wars over religious differences, not land disputes, forever.

Adding weapons of mass destruction to countries riddled with religious violence is paramount to the self fulfilling prophecy of the end of the world, would you not agree?

I would agree. Religion has indeed been the cause of millions of deaths. But his argument could be applied equally to politics, water rights, or lust for wealth. His argument is 100% true. When someone commits themselves wholly to an idea, it becomes a situation where those ideas begin to control the actions of the person.

Politics for freedom is a noble cause. Water for survival is a noble cause. Wealth for survival is a noble cause. Religious beliefs that contribute nothing to the earthly world are not a noble cause. Now, I am not saying beliefs that contribute to the "afterlife". Only the here and now.

Are politics for POWER a noble cause? (Hitler, Lenin, etc).

Water may be a noble cause, but wouldn't it have been better to work as a community rather than murder your neighbor as happened in the dustbowl during the push West? Don't get me started on the Native Americans who were Robbed.
How noble does it look if you consider them? And Wealth for survival?

I am afraid that surviving and being wealthy are to very different things. However, this aside I think you get my point. Greed is a common outcome in the accumulation of wealth and this leads to violence, crime and many not so noble things.

Religious beliefs that contribute nothing to the earthly world are not a noble cause.

This I must disagree with. How many organizations have been started because of the Christian belief in loving and helping those less fortunate? I have a thread which compares Atheist to Christian organizations because Jamesearl put forth the idea that Atheist giving outweighs religious. It is simply not true, as is your statement above. Religious beliefs have lead DIRECTLY to some of the most noble causes the earth has ever seen.

But, under each of these ideas are causes which are not at all linked to religion. In the case of the Salem Witch Trials, there was a clash of the classes in that town and the preacher who started the whole ordeal did so to rid the town of undesirables. His daughters even later recanted their stories about being haunted by the images of the witches. While the passage "kill the witches" was probably quoted a lot, it appears to me to be more of an excuse than an actual CAUSE.

Ok, now we are splitting hairs. Harris actually does a preemptive strike already when he makes his point that despite the "cause", without the "faith" the event most likely wouldn't have transpired because the underlying belief of witches being of satan (compliments of interpretive scripture) wouldn't have existed. Again, I may wish that Harris was a bit more specific, but the idea to remain general and attack "faith" rather than any particular religion gives him much more credence than Dawkins (IMHO).

Perhaps. My point below addresses this in detail.

I would say the same is likely true about Islam. There are certain passages in the Koran which do demand bloodshed. However, I doubt that Harris claim that these are the primary cause for violence is true. But then again, perhaps he is. The only people who know for sure are the terrorists.

There are indications that in the harshness of the middle east, many suicide bombers do it for money for their families.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/spi ... 38,00.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,48822,00.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/04/ ... 5316.shtml


I have to wonder, if the bombers only commit their crimes after being paid, how likely is it that Harris is totally correct about their religion being their primary motivation?

There are other underlying causes, and religion, as it has so many times before, becomes justification for an act which otherwise would not have had social support.

Islamic terrorists, Extremist Fundamental Christians, Moderate Christians who contribute to the funding of the destruction of the Mosque to rebuilt the Jewish Temple in an attempt to rush in the 2nd coming of Christ, etc..... Does it really matter which group we are talking about? The underlying cause is "faith".

The interpretive scripture of the Koran allows for only those who die as martyrs to ascend directly to heaven. What better way than while destroying the infidels?

Even if there were other underlying causes that contributed to some of the atrocities committed by the "faithful", without the faith, they wouldn't have had that justification. Maybe the atrocities would have found another justification. But right now, they don't need to. They have faith.[

In some cases this may very well be true. However, faith is not enough or else these groups wouldn't be offering thousands of dollars for people to act as they do.

Tell me, if these people were not paid, would they have still committed the acts they did? I say no and I reason this because the actions did not occur until AFTER the added incentive was established.

Sure some may have acted entirely on faith. But I think many many more acted for MONEY and used faith as an excuse.

I think it would be interesting to see just how many "religious" wars were fought for religion exclusively.

Do you think the number would be high as Harris suggests? I think not. I think with almost EVERY war, murder or other atrocity, there was other reasons in place well BEFORE, religion was brought in and thus religion became the scapegoat for the political (crusades), economic (Salem witch trials) or otherwise oppressive (British India) conflicts.

[Confused]

Are politics for POWER a noble cause? (Hitler, Lenin, etc).

No.

I am afraid that surviving and being wealthy are to very different things. However, this aside I think you get my point. Greed is a common outcome in the accumulation of wealth and this leads to violence, crime and many not so noble things.

Yes I get your point.

Religious beliefs that contribute nothing to the earthly world are not a noble cause.

This I must disagree with. How many organizations have been started because of the Christian belief in loving and helping those less fortunate? I have a thread which compares Atheist to Christian organizations because Jamesearl put forth the idea that Atheist giving outweighs religious. It is simply not true, as is your statement above. Religious beliefs have lead DIRECTLY to some of the most noble causes the earth has ever seen.

The reasons for their existence have nothing to do with noble causes. It is done because those who run them believe that some great entity in the sky is watching them and He directs them to do it. When you are being dictated to do something because this grand creator says you should, it isn't noble. It is following directions.

But, under each of these ideas are causes which are not at all linked to religion. In the case of the Salem Witch Trials, there was a clash of the classes in that town and the preacher who started the whole ordeal did so to rid the town of undesirables. His daughters even later recanted their stories about being haunted by the images of the witches. While the passage "kill the witches" was probably quoted a lot, it appears to me to be more of an excuse than an actual CAUSE.

Ok, now we are splitting hairs. Harris actually does a preemptive strike already when he makes his point that despite the "cause", without the "faith" the event most likely wouldn't have transpired because the underlying belief of witches being of satan (compliments of interpretive scripture) wouldn't have existed. Again, I may wish that Harris was a bit more specific, but the idea to remain general and attack "faith" rather than any particular religion gives him much more credence than Dawkins (IMHO).

Perhaps. My point below addresses this in detail.

Ok.

I would say the same is likely true about Islam. There are certain passages in the Koran which do demand bloodshed. However, I doubt that Harris claim that these are the primary cause for violence is true. But then again, perhaps he is. The only people who know for sure are the terrorists.

There are indications that in the harshness of the middle east, many suicide bombers do it for money for their families.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/spi ... 38,00.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,48822,00.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/04/ ... 5316.shtml


I have to wonder, if the bombers only commit their crimes after being paid, how likely is it that Harris is totally correct about their religion being their primary motivation?

There are other underlying causes, and religion, as it has so many times before, becomes justification for an act which otherwise would not have had social support.

Islamic terrorists, Extremist Fundamental Christians, Moderate Christians who contribute to the funding of the destruction of the Mosque to rebuilt the Jewish Temple in an attempt to rush in the 2nd coming of Christ, etc..... Does it really matter which group we are talking about? The underlying cause is "faith".

The interpretive scripture of the Koran allows for only those who die as martyrs to ascend directly to heaven. What better way than while destroying the infidels?

Even if there were other underlying causes that contributed to some of the atrocities committed by the "faithful", without the faith, they wouldn't have had that justification. Maybe the atrocities would have found another justification. But right now, they don't need to. They have faith.

In some cases this may very well be true. However, faith is not enough or else these groups wouldn't be offering thousands of dollars for people to act as they do.

For the Islamic extremist, the only reward given is their belief that by dying for the cause of God, they get access immediately to heaven. They don't have to wait for their Gods return and the final battle to occur. They get to go directly to God as reward for their sacrifice.

Now, the problem with your sources above is the last two were done by Sadam. They didn't die for their religious cause. They died because even if they had refused Sadams "donation", they still would have likely been forced to be a suicide bomber. But both these sources are from 2002, long before suicide bombers took their aim at the "western world". But I have to wonder, had their interpretation of the Koran not given them justification for their martydom, would they have done it even under the threat of death by Sudam? Now for your first article, which is the most recent, sure, it is possible that some may do it for money. But the 9/11 bombers didn't. Nor did the ones in Brittain (or was it England, I can never get those straight damn it) who bombed their transportation system. The violence only gets worse when the belief is justified by faith. Look at some of the white supremesist groups in the US. They use the justification for slaves from scripture to dictate why we should still enslave african americans. They use the justification of the Jewish being responsible for killing Jesus as reason to persecute the Jews (not Romans, but Jews). Faith is distorted in so many ways that we can find justification for just about everything in it. Even stoning a woman to death.

Tell me, if these people were not paid, would they have still committed the acts they did? I say no and I reason this because the actions did not occur until AFTER the added incentive was established.

Yes, they would have. Harris even addresses this on page 31:

One failed Palestinian suicide bomber described being "pushed" to attack Israelis by "the loving martyrdom", he added "I didn't want revent for anything. I just wanted to be a martyr."

Sure some may have acted entirely on faith. But I think many many more acted for MONEY and used faith as an excuse.

Unless you can give me evidence of this, I will take it as an opinion.

I think it would be interesting to see just how many "religious" wars were fought for religion exclusively.

Not religion, but faith. One can believe in God and not be religious. But does it matter how many were fought for religion explicitly? Take away the faith component and even if society finds another reason, we have taken away one more.

Do you think the number would be high as Harris suggests?

I forget, does he give a number?

I think not. I think with almost EVERY war, murder or other atrocity, there was other reasons in place well BEFORE, religion was brought in and thus religion became the scapegoat for the political (crusades)

Come on now. Political so the Catholics could save the souls of the heretics, sure. Maybe some were out for power. But that would likely only include those who didn't actually do the murdering. Maybe those who ordered it, but doubtful those who actually carried it out. If they didn't believe their cause was just and for God, I doubt so many would have carried out the atrocities.

economic (Salem witch trials)

Economic? The Salem witch trials started out because some children were mad at certain women. The God fearing community then jumped on the bandwagon and had fun with their religiously justified sick fun.

Lets see, Harris gives some of the predominant recent conflicts on page 26:

The recent conflicts in Palestine (Jews vs Muslims), the Balkans (Orthodox Serbians vs. Cathoic Croatians; Orthodox Serbians vs. Bosnian and Albanian Muslims), Northern Ireland (Protestants vs Catholics), Kashmir (Muslims vs. Hindus), Sudan (Muslims vs. Christians and animists), Nigeria (Muslims vs Christians), Ethiopia and Eritrea (Muslims vs. Christians), Sri Lanka (Sinhalese Buddhists vs. Tamil Hindus), Indonesia (Muslims vs. Timorese Christians), and th Caucasus (Orthodox Russian vs. Chechen Muslims; Muslim Azerbaijanis vs. Catholic and Orthodox Armenians) are merely a few cases in point. In these cases, religion is the explicit cause of literally millions of deaths in the last ten years.

[Confused]

Harris continues on with the irrationality of belief on page 46:

Even apparently innocuous beliefs, when unjustified, can lead to intolerable consequences. Many Muslims, for instance, are convinced God takes an active interest in womens clothing. While it may seem harmless enough, the amount of suffering that this incredible idea has caused is astonishing. The rioting in Nigeria over the 2002 Miss World Pageant claimed over 200 lives. Innocent men and women were butchered with machetes or burned alive simply to keep that troubled place free of women in bikinis. Earlier in the year, the religious police in Mecca prevented paramedics and firefighters from rescuing scores of teenage girls trapped in a burning building. Why? Because the girls were not wearing the traditional head covering that Koranic law requires. Fourteen girls died in the fire; fifty were injured.

He also makes valid points on pages 47-48 when he says that considering the power of technology, the future cannot afford to tolerate martyrs.

[Confused]

I am not sure there isn't anything we haven't covered in Chapter one now. So though we may return to it for more comments, I think it is time we move on to chapter 2.