• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

The Case Against Faith

The article in question:
A Dissent: The Case Against Faith
Religion does untold damage to our politics. An atheist's lament.

By Sam Harris
Newsweek

Nov. 13, 2006 issue - Despite a full century of scientific insights attesting to the antiquity of life and the greater antiquity of the Earth, more than half the American population believes that the entire cosmos was created 6,000 years ago. This is, incidentally, about a thousand years after the Sumerians invented glue. Those with the power to elect presidents and congressmen—and many who themselves get elected—believe that dinosaurs lived two by two upon Noah's Ark, that light from distant galaxies was created en route to the Earth and that the first members of our species were fashioned out of dirt and divine breath, in a garden with a talking snake, by the hand of an invisible God.

This is embarrassing. But add to this comedy of false certainties the fact that 44 percent of Americans are confident that Jesus will return to Earth sometime in the next 50 years, and you will glimpse the terrible liability of this sort of thinking. Given the most common interpretation of Biblical prophecy, it is not an exaggeration to say that nearly half the American population is eagerly anticipating the end of the world. It should be clear that this faith-based nihilism provides its adherents with absolutely no incentive to build a sustainable civilization—economically, environmentally or geopolitically. Some of these people are lunatics, of course, but they are not the lunatic fringe. We are talking about the explicit views of Christian ministers who have congregations numbering in the tens of thousands. These are some of the most influential, politically connected and well-funded people in our society.

It is, of course, taboo to criticize a person's religious beliefs. The problem, however, is that much of what people believe in the name of religion is intrinsically divisive, unreasonable and incompatible with genuine morality. One of the worst things about religion is that it tends to separate questions of right and wrong from the living reality of human and animal suffering. Consequently, religious people will devote immense energy to so-called moral problems—such as gay marriage—where no real suffering is at issue, and they will happily contribute to the surplus of human misery if it serves their religious beliefs.

A case in point: embryonic-stem-cell research is one of the most promising developments in the last century of medicine. It could offer therapeutic breakthroughs for every human ailment (for the simple reason that stem cells can become any tissue in the human body), including diabetes, Parkinson's disease, severe burns, etc. In July, President George W. Bush used his first veto to deny federal funding to this research. He did this on the basis of his religious faith. Like millions of other Americans, President Bush believes that "human life starts at the moment of conception." Specifically, he believes that there is a soul in every 3-day-old human embryo, and the interests of one soul—the soul of a little girl with burns over 75 percent of her body, for instance—cannot trump the interests of another soul, even if that soul happens to live inside a petri dish. Here, as ever, religious dogmatism impedes genuine wisdom and compassion.

A 3-day-old human embryo is a collection of 150 cells called a blastocyst. There are, for the sake of comparison, more than 100,000 cells in the brain of a fly. The embryos that are destroyed in stem-cell research do not have brains, or even neurons. Consequently, there is no reason to believe they can suffer their destruction in any way at all. The truth is that President Bush's unjustified religious beliefs about the human soul are, at this very moment, prolonging the scarcely endurable misery of tens of millions of human beings.
 
Perhaps... although he seems to be focusing on North-American Protestant Evengelistic Christianity. Not 'religion' or 'faith' as a whole.

As for "Religion does untold damage to our politics". True. But so does rampant capitalism, global-warming deniers and invasive security forces eroding liberties. I'd be more worried about the latter, at least we KNOW that if they exist they'll harm us.
 
As for "Religion does untold damage to our politics". True. But so does rampant capitalism, global-warming deniers and invasive security forces eroding liberties. I'd be more worried about the latter, at least we KNOW that if they exist they'll harm us.[/quote]

What else can I say - but "amen"!

Also just have to say that the people who post to these forums have to be the best bunch of thinkers I've had the pleasure to interact with. No fear of hateful rhetoric, just good, good debate.

Glad we're all in this journey together. Hope I get to meet some of you someday.
 
rjmrjmrjm said:
Perhaps... although he seems to be focusing on North-American Protestant Evengelistic Christianity. Not 'religion' or 'faith' as a whole......

Well..that's not actually true. In The End Of Faith (his first book) as the title implies, he thinks all 'faith based religion' is 'irrational' and he goes on for 300 pages to explain why be believes this is the case. He does indeed place more blame on the fundies but clearly says that he thinks all 'faith based religion' is dangerous in the long run for the future of humanity.
 
Church and state.

Religion is an idea. So what this joker's talking about is ideas being dangerous. So I'd assume he's anti-freedom of speech too.
 
Religion is an idea that influences peoples lives. It makes people behave against their natural instincts. It brainwashes and causes friction where there needn't be any.
So this idea becomes real. I mean being a neo-nazi is only an idea unless you go out and commit race hate crimes.
Its all well and good to have an idea but when it influences the majority of humans on this planet to behave like lunatics, then it becomes something rather more.
Nobody wants to ban religion but it shouldn't take over or infiltrate politics.
 
Dingo667 said:
Religion is an idea that influences peoples lives. It makes people behave against their natural instincts. It brainwashes and causes friction where there needn't be any.
It is actually a 'person' who interprets the 'idea', usually to their own advantage, that does this.
Dingo667 said:
Nobody wants to ban religion but it shouldn't take over or infiltrate politics.
Hence why I said "church and state".
 
Nobody wants to ban religion but it shouldn't take over or infiltrate politics.

Surely it is impossible to have politics completely free from religion? When making decisions you are inevitably influenced by your beliefs be they religious or otherwise. Completely separating church and state still couldn’t stop this.
 
dr_wu said:
In The End Of Faith (his first book) as the title implies, he thinks all 'faith based religion' is 'irrational' and he goes on for 300 pages to explain why be believes this is the case.

Of course, Religion is "irrational"!

This is supposed to be a new discovery? I seem to recall that a 19th Century Christian named Kierkegaard made an entire career out of proclaiming it.
 
It should be clear that this faith-based nihilism provides its adherents with absolutely no incentive to build a sustainable civilization—economically, environmentally or geopolitically.... These are some of the most influential, politically connected and well-funded people in our society.

Is it just me, or do those statements seem to contradict each other a bit? If they are involved in politics and are influential - wouldn't you say that they are interesting in building a sustainable civilization? Not as nihlist as it seems, I think.

And I'm not saying that I feel that politicians should try to politicise spiritual issues - ie/intelligent design. However, as human beings we all subscribe to some belief system and I guess that I don't find Christianity to be prohibitive to morality - as the author asserts.
 
A very large 20th Century civilization, officially atheist, couldn't survive for even 75 years. And it's likely it wouldn't have lasted so long as it did had it not spent the final 35 years of its life by gradually downplaying the atheism.
 
The Epistle to the Hebrews defines faith as "the substance of things hoped for."

That's either complete superstitious gibberish or one of the most profound statements ever put to paper.

I'll doubtless go to my Fortean/Paranormal grave without ever fully understanding that phrase, but I'm still going to go with the latter.
 
OldTimeRadio said:
A very large 20th Century civilization, officially atheist, couldn't survive for even 75 years. And it's likely it wouldn't have lasted so long as it did had it not spent the final 35 years of its life by gradually downplaying the atheism.

Meaning of course, communism?
 
i'm ignorant, and have a bad memory, but i seem to remember that saint paul does nothing but say "i have huge problems, therefore you guys must feel disgusted that you have a body and jam out to humiliate yourselves and possibly your wives"
 
jouweleen said:
Meaning of course, communism?

Yes. Although strictly speaking the Soviet Union and its satellites never were fully "Communist," at least not by their own definition of the term. They were Socialists, they said, and "Communism" was an ideal goal towards which they were continually striving.
 
OldTimeRadio said:
The Epistle to the Hebrews defines faith as "the substance of things hoped for."........
.

Of course it was no doubt translated incorrectly from the original Hebrew into 'English' by the King James 'scholars'.
;)
 
dr_wu said:
Of course it was no doubt translated incorrectly from the original Hebrew into 'English' by the King James 'scholars'. ;)

If they were attempting to translate the New Testament writings from Hebrew, they must have had real problems, since those documents were written and circulated in the "lingua Franca" of the ancient eastern Mediterranean, GREEK.

There is NO Hebrew or Aramaic "original" for the New Testament. What we today refer to as an "Aramaic" New Testament was translated back into Aramaic from Greek several centuries after the manuscripts had already been in wide circulation. [Without checking, I believe that the Latin Vulgate, later than the Greek, is also older than the Aramaic re-translation..

With all respect, it is you who put the apostrophes around the word "scholars" to describe the members of this immediately-post-Elizabethan committee. History, even secular history, does not do that.
 
ginoide said:
....i seem to remember that saint paul does nothing but say "i have huge problems, therefore you guys must feel disgusted that you have a body and jam out to humiliate yourselves and possibly your wives"

Can't say that I see it that way myself. Paul was superbly trained in both Jewish and Roman philosophy and he's worth reading on that account alone.

A friend who possesses a strong Master's Degree in Philosophy informed me years ago that "if we could prove tomorrow morning that God absolutely does not exist and never has existed, Paul would still remain one of the most important moral philosophers of his era."
 
Oldtime - regarding communism - you seems to be implying that Russian communism (in the sense that they practised a totalitarian form of socialism) failed because it was officially atheist. So are you saying that the kind of political system as set up by Russia would have survived if only it had been a bit more religious?
 
barfing_pumpkin said:
Oldtime - regarding communism - you seems to be implying that Russian communism (in the sense that they practised a totalitarian form of socialism) failed because it was officially atheist. So are you saying that the kind of political system as set up by Russia would have survived if only it had been a bit more religious?

I think it's likely that it would have managed to survive longer than it did.
 
barfing_pumpkin said:
Oldtime - regarding communism - you seems to be implying that Russian communism (in the sense that they practised a totalitarian form of socialism) failed because it was officially atheist. So are you saying that the kind of political system as set up by Russia would have survived if only it had been a bit more religious?

Yeah, the failure of the regime had more to do with politics and economics than religion. Religion was a relatively minor factor (yes, there was a resurgence of Catholicism in Poland thanks to the Polish pope, but elsewhere it was all pretty muted).
 
Mythopoeika said:
Yeah, the failure of the regime had more to do with politics and economics than religion. Religion was a relatively minor factor (yes, there was a resurgence of Catholicism in Poland thanks to the Polish pope, but elsewhere it was all pretty muted).

I'm not denying any of this. I merely opined that it was likely that the Soviet Union would have survived longer had it not been officially atheist.

I remember watching a television interview with anthropologist Margaret Mead back during in the mid-1960s. She pointed out that no atheistic government had ever survived throughout known history.

"But," she was asked, "what about the exception of the Soviet Union?"

Her response: "I said survived."
 
Mythopoeika said:
Yeah, the failure of the regime had more to do with politics and economics than religion. Religion was a relatively minor factor (yes, there was a resurgence of Catholicism in Poland thanks to the Polish pope, but elsewhere it was all pretty muted).
Sorry but that's wrong. Very wrong.

Poland has been a predominantly Roman Catholic country since 966 AD. And when I say predominantly, I'm talking for example 96% of the entire country as last estimated by the office of Polish statistics (and it's not faltered a great deal historically). It's an aspect of national identity. Communism wasn't able to suppress the Catholic Church and as a result the election of a Polish Pope heralded what would be the fall of communism. So it had a great deal to do with religion and it's impact on politics because it held and strengthened a national identity and was far from a 'minor factor' as you put it. When communism came about it had little effect on the beliefs and religious practices of Poland's people (here in it's predominance plays an important factor so this idea of a 'slight surge' is way off the mark' it already had a predominant following.) Religion in this instance was the essential 'glue' as it were, glue that no political perspective could have sustained without division.

Credit where credit is due.
 
Even during the ironest days of the Iron Curtain Poland had the reputation of being the country where the Communist leaders could be found attending Mass on Sundays and where crucifixes hung upon high school, college and university classroom walls even as Marxist doctrines were being expounded.

Pope John-Paul II didn't create that tradition. Rather, he came out of it.
 
I'm not denying any of this. I merely opined that it was likely that the Soviet Union would have survived longer had it not been officially atheist.

The Soviet Union was destroyed as we know it due to constant pressure in multiple forms from the west/America.
 
dr_wu said:
The Soviet Union was destroyed as we know it due to constant pressure in multiple forms from the west/America.

Western objections to Soviet persecutions of religious thought and freedom were very much part of that pressure. In the United States probably the largest part.
 
I remember watching a television interview with anthropologist Margaret Mead back during in the mid-1960s. She pointed out that no atheistic government had ever survived throughout known history.

Yeah, but what, exactly, does one mean by 'survival'? Technically speaking, no government, be it atheist or otherwise, has survived throughout history. Despotisms were overthrown, democracies supplanted by despotisms, theocracies knocked away by secular regimes - and vice-versa - and even on a smaller scale, within the secular democracies we know and love, we often get a change of government every four or five years or so.

How long does a regime have to stay in power before we can consider it as having survived? And how do you actually judge if a regime is atheistic or not? After all, the political set-up in both the UK and USA requires a separation of church and state - so couldn't that also be considered an atheistic (or at least non-theistic) political system?
 
barfing pumpkin: How long does a regime have to stay in power before we can consider it as having survived? And how do you actually judge if a regime is atheistic or not? After all, the political set-up in both the UK and USA requires a separation of church and state - so couldn't that also be considered an atheistic (or at least non-theistic) political system?

That's an excellent point. The political systems are supposed to be free of overt religious bias but the individual members are free to believe whatever they wish.
It's probably more accurate to speak of the atheism or theism of the society at large. And I know of no society that has been primarily 'atheist' depending on how you define that term. All that I can think of either had 'gods' or a 'God'.
Most Russians in the past believed in orthodox religion even though the state had officially 'outlawed' it. The Soviet Union was not truly an atheist society but that was the approach of the communist party even though the public in many cases (perhaps even the majority of people) continued to worship in private and publicly at times. (IMO, regarding the fall of that particular govt, religion certainly played a part but it was not the main reason.)

As far as Harris and his 'case against faith', I think he makes some excellent points ,but I am not for abolishing all faith based spirituality simply because it's 'faith based'.
 
Back
Top