For some reason I got talked into holding a discussion event here in Tulsa for a local humanist group. I plan to present Sam Harris' book End of Faith.
It has been a few months since I read it and was going to launch a discussion of it here. I'm looking for points good and bad so I can play devil's advocate during the discussion.
For those of you who have not read it, the topic matter is the dangers of religious beliefs in a world with weapons of mass destruction. If a believer of a religion thinks they are going to a better place after this world then the have nothing to lose by killing non-believers along with themselves.
Anyway I'm looking for discussion points mainly here.
http://www.samharris.org/
Aside: I'm going to be in a zombie movie: Please Don't Feed the Zombies.
One argument I would not expect to find in his book (haven't read it myself), is that religion is a major argument for disarmming. In response to the question: why disarm, religion answers, "Because you should." This argument holds quite a bit of weight in India, I understand from when I happened to read the Indian ICJ's opinion on the legality of the use of nuclear arms in conflict. This would include in a 'tactical' sense, which would otherwise be harder to argue against.
ReplyDeleteOn another hand, I would also argue that the presense of religious extremism doesn't significantly change the equation. The weapons could fall into the hands of an individual with a 'scorched earth' philosophy.
It is the availability of weapons that is the danger; the beliefs of the wielders can be 'extreme' and 'apocalyptic' with a wide variety of reasons. Ie, the unibomber.
I think a mix of religious fanaticism and nuclear weapons can be dangerous, but no more dangerous than any other fanaticism. Ted Kaczinski and the technophobes, Tim McVeigh and the gun-nuts both may have been Christians, but their killing was neither religiously motivated nor condoned.
ReplyDeleteThe real problem is two-fold: 1) base understanding of the religion allows the ignorant to be manipulated (Muslim terrorists). 2) those who understand the religion fully tend to be inflexible with other religions (Papal infallibility). Religious conflict tends to come from one of these two sources.
That being said, fundamentalism tends to come about in the harshest circumstances. It seems to be the fight of the "fight or flight" reflex, and will probably continue to flourish as long as poverty and rampant injustice continues. I therefore think our best defense against such groups is the Peace Corps, etc.
So those weren't really discussion points, really, were they?
ReplyDeleteIt would be easy to translate them into discussion topics, however:
How much does religious extremism contribute to terrorism, instability, and violence in the world?
How does religion motivate international security policy? Or does it?
Catholicism accepts the Book of Revelations as canon, in which the same apocalyptic vision as the fundementalist Christians' Rapture. What are the differences? How do those differences make the threat of fundamentalist Christians greater (or preceived as greater) than that of Catholics?
One argument by Harris that I like is when he argues that while thinking you have a diamond the size of your 'frig in your back yard might make you happy, it does not make it true (62). This example helps make his point that beliefs need to be connected to evidence. (This is his argument that I think is the strongest.)
ReplyDeleteThe weakest argument I think Harris has are his drawn out critiques of the various bad things religions have done in history as well as his comment on 9/11 (67). I don't think religous faith can be justified as true on the grounds that it has good effects in the world. (This is a point I think Harris would agree with.) I also don't think religious faith can be criticized as false on the grounds that it has bad effects in the world. (This is a point I think Harris misses b/c he is too willing to use whatever "weapon" he can find to criticize religious faith.)
I think his argument against faith would be better if he stuck to developing the idea that beliefs need to be connected to evidence.
One more point for discussion. If a person of faith should be open to new evidence that would undermine their faith (since faith should be based on evidence in the world) then shouldn't a person without faith be open to new evidence that would inspire them to have faith?
Omar Conrad
Assistant Professor of Philosophy
Johnson County Community College
Overland Park, KS
11/10/05