Moderates give cover to religious fanatics

[lilithu]

Once people read the name, they won't consider any points made because his very name discredits any point he has and the thread will commence into a Sam Harris (or Richard Dawkins) *****-slapping.

Wouldn't his tone also contribute to discrediting any point he makes?

 

[lunamoth]

No, I honestly thought it was very witty.

I just... am sad that science has become a tool to divide people.

But I don't think science has anything to do with Harris' tantrums.

 

[standing_alone]

Wouldn't his tone also contribute to discrediting any point he makes?

It could, but not necessarily. The tone he takes only contributes to people not giving it any serious consideration and ignoring his points (an understandable reaction), hence why I have a problem with how he presents things - as it (at least on this forum) rarely leads to any fruitful discussions about the issues he brings up while furthuring negative conceptions about atheists/nontheists.

 

[lunamoth]

It could, but not necessarily. The tone he takes only contributes to people not giving it any serious consideration and ignoring his points, hence why I have a problem with how he presents things - as it (at least on this forum) rarely leads to any fruitful discussions about the issues he brings up while furthuring negative conceptions about atheists/nontheists.

SA, his position is essentially intolerant of any form of religion, of any form of faith. By his slippery slope logic he reserves his greatest contempt for the liberal and progressive members of religions, those most in tune with a scientific worldview, most supportive of gay rights, most open to making bridges with people of other faiths and denominations.

It's what he says and how he says it.

 

[MaddLlama]

It could, but not necessarily. The tone he takes only contributes to people not giving it any serious consideration and ignoring his points (an understandable reaction), hence why I have a problem with how he presents things - as it (at least on this forum) rarely leads to any fruitful discussions about the issues he brings up while furthuring negative conceptions about atheists/nontheists.

I'm sorry, but I don't think the idea that religion is useless and detrimental to society is a subject worth debating. That would be like debating the question "should we make atheism illegal".

 

[standing_alone]

SA, his position is essentially intolerant of any form of religion, of any form of faith. By his slippery slope logic he reserves his greatest contempt for the liberal and progressive members of religions, those most in tune with a scientific worldview, most supportive of gay rights, most open to making bridges with people of other faiths and denominations.

It's what he says and how he says it.

I understand that he is intolerant of any form of religion - that's where I differ from him. I just think he may have some points worth considering (I admit I have yet to read his book End of Faith though it is at the top of my list, so I don't know his view point as well as some of you guys do). It's just that maybe some of his points are worth discussing and aren't completely unfounded even if he may be a jerk, you know?

 

[Stairs In My House]

But I don't think science has anything to do with Harris' tantrums.

Well, I think it does in the sense that, just as with reason, some of science's most ardent supporters have become its worst abusers. It is sad, but after enough time has passed it will probably be pretty funny for future scholars to look back on this quasi-medieval discourse, so astonishingly unaware of its own irony.

 

[Scuba Pete]

I don't know who Harris is, and his name surely does not add or subtract to his vapid hate speech. It makes me want to spew all by itself.

It hurts to think that some may actually buy into this man's delusional drivel.

 

[standing_alone]

I'm sorry, but I don't think the idea that religion is useless and detrimental to society is a subject worth debating. That would be like debating the question "should we make atheism illegal".

Maybe that isn't, but perhaps debating whether religious moderates do provide "cover" for extremists (you know, what's in the title of this thread) or potentially stand in the way of some societal progress would be... But if people are going to take any view point that questions religion/s as a call to eradicate it (while I understand Harris does, but someone can get a discussion going with the points he makes without ascribing to his view) then maybe none of it is worth debating...

 

[lunamoth]

I understand that he is intolerant of any form of religion - that's where I differ from him. I just think he may have some points worth considering (I admit I have yet to read his book End of Faith though it is at the top of my list, so I don't know his view point as well as some of you guys do). It's just that maybe some of his points are worth discussing and aren't completely unfounded even if he may be a jerk, you know?

Which points do you think are worth discussing? I'm sure there are, but I would also bet there are other people out there making those points in a less polarizing way.

What do you think is going to happen if moderate believers start to feel that they are being threatened by 'science?' Do you think they will give up religion, or dig in their heels and start to reject the very things Harris represents? Do you think this will open communication or hinder it? When the teaching of evolution in schools is being associated with Harris, how will that affect the school board decisions?

Polarizing rhetoric is the problem...not the solution.

 

[LogDog]

he would not give creedence to the tripe that Harris puts forth.

Is this a fact?

 

[lilithu]

It could, but not necessarily. The tone he takes only contributes to people not giving it any serious consideration and ignoring his points (an understandable reaction), hence why I have a problem with how he presents things - as it (at least on this forum) rarely leads to any fruitful discussions about the issues he brings up while furthuring negative conceptions about atheists/nontheists.

Well for me, it's his tone and the radicalness of his views. It's not like I just heard the name "Sam Harris" and randomly decided that I didn't like him. I grew to dismiss him based on what he's said. Even so, I read the entire article that logdog posted and all it did was further confirm my antipathy.

I agree that there's plenty to criticize in religion, and I'm not automatically hostile to constructive criticism. In fact, part of being UU is to always be open to constructive criticism - suggestions on how to improve. (That's part of science too, which is probably why the two places that I've felt most at home have been academic science and UU. ) But my UU sensibilities have no place for destructive criticism - where something is condemned entirely. What Harris is saying is that practicing tolerance of beliefs different from his own is wrong. I honestly see no difference between that and the fundamentalist Christians.

 

[love]

Nevermind

 

[lilithu]

But I don't think science has anything to do with Harris' tantrums.

Not science directly, but his blind faith in science.

 

[standing_alone]

Which points do you think are worth discussing? I'm sure there are, but I would also bet there are other people out there making those points in a less polarizing way.

I already stated that the issue from which the title of the thread is on would be one that is perhaps worth discussing (do moderates provide "cover" for fanatics?). Perhaps there are others making those points in a less polarizing way, but as it stands, Harris is the one getting the press (unfortunately) and happened to be the writer of the piece in the OP.

What do you think is going to happen if moderate believers start to feel that they are being threatened by 'science?' Do you think they will give up religion, or dig in their heels and start to reject the very things Harris represents? Do you think this will open communication or hinder it? When the teaching of evolution in schools is being associated with Harris, how will that affect the school board decisions?

What I would hope to see is that Harris' controversial statements lead to some more fruitful discussion and eventially lead so that Harris is completely forgotten in the end.

Polarizing rhetoric is the problem...not the solution.

I understand that and I concur. I dislike polarizing rhetoric as well, but it doesn't mean that we can't use it as a springing point to a more legitimate discussion free of polarizing rhetoric.

 

[UnTheist]

Not science directly, but his blind faith in science.

I'm not sure what you mean by that. Science requires faith?

 

[standing_alone]

What Harris is saying is that practicing tolerance of beliefs different from his own is wrong. I honestly see no difference between that and the fundamentalist Christians.

And I would agree with you on that. My problem is not that people dislike Sam Harris or his radical views (I don't think religion should be eradicated, either - though I would call for an eradication of religious extremism that brings about distruction or serves as a barricade to progress - of course, I extend this sentiment to any ideology that does this as well, it's not just a religious thing for me). The only thing I kind of tire of seeing is that every time Sam Harris makes any point, it automatically gets lumped with his radical position ("he only says it because he wants religion eradicated) rather than people consider what he says and sees if it may apply to the world in which we live (while knowing there are other solutions than eradicating all religion). Am I making any sense?

 

[Stairs In My House]

I already stated that the issue from which the title of the thread is on would be one that is perhaps worth discussing (do moderates provide "cover" for fanatics?). Perhaps there are others making those points in a less polarizing way, but as it stands, Harris is the one getting the press (unfortunately) and happened to be the writer of the piece in the OP.

How could this point be made in a way that isn't polarizing? The point itself is polarizing!

Anyway, all moderates do is keep the extremists from having the fight that they are itching to have.

 

[MaddLlama]

Well, the problem I see is that the main point (that moderates somehow protect fanatics) is not really well thought out. He just sort of states it, and then pads it with his normal anti-religious rhetoric. There's no real reasoning, demonstration or proof behind the assertion. So, if someone can think of one, then I suppose that would make a good debate topic. But, it isn't there in the OP.

 

[standing_alone]

How could this point be made in a way that isn't polarizing? The point itself is polarizing!

Anyway, all moderates do is keep the extremists from having the fight that they are itching to have.

Ugh, I give up. I obviously am doing a terrible job trying to explain myself.