Moderates give cover to religious fanatics

[Scuba Pete]

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?

I don't think that anyone will feel that Harris has a solid grasp on science.

But look at what happened when extremists got a hold of evolution. They couched the debate in terms of science vs the Bible and Faith won the majority of the battles. So sad that they throw out the baby with the bath water.

 

[lunamoth]

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?).

Then I return to my post about science creating the bomb so we should get rid of science. Yes, I was joking in the way I made that post, but the point is valid. As long as humans are fallible, a side-effect of beneficial science such as the development of nuclear power will be things that are very detrimental, like nuclear waste and bombs.

Science is an endeavor that we undertake for the benefit of humans. However, as long as we continue to develop new technologies and gain new scientific information, we will also have new challenges that we may or may not be able to cope with because we can't forsee all potential outcomes. Thus, the endeavor of science necessarily provides cover for, actually enables, the development of dangerous technologies. No one can effectively criticize science because its methods are impervious to debate and depend soley upon the scientific method. Because science can be abused, it should be eradicated.

This is the case that Harris is making, substituting religion for science.

 

[standing_alone]

Then I return to my post about science creating the bomb so we should get rid of science. Yes, I was joking in the way I made that post, but the point is valid. As long as humans are fallible, a side-effect of beneficial science such as the development of nuclear power will be things that are very determental, like nuclear waste and bombs.

Science is an endeavor that we undertake for the benefit of humans. However, as long as we continue to develop new technologies and gain new scientific information, we will also have new challenges that we may or may not be able to cope with because we can't forsee all potential outcomes. Thus, the endeavor of science necessarily provides cover for, actually enables, the development of dangerous technologies. No one can effectively criticize science because its methods are impervious to debate and depend soley upon the scientific method. Because science can be abused, it should be eradicated.

This is the case that Harris is making, substituting religion for science.

Ugh, am I really making my point this unclear? You have a point when you substitute science for religion - I won't deny you that - what I am trying to say is that we could look at a point Sam Harris makes (for example, moderates cover fanatics) and discuss that without the whole "well, we should just eradicate religion" mentality. We could discuss it based on 1) Do moderates "cover" for fanatics, 2) If no, not much to discuss/If yes, what should be done (eradicatin religion idea dismissed as extreme and unnecessary). What I'm saying is we can use Harris' points as a springing point to discussion while dismissing his conclusion that religion should be eradicated. That's all I'm saying.

 

[Stairs In My House]

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.

Well, the thing that bugs me about this claim is that "moderate" and "extremist" are indexical terms, i.e., they are matters of perspective. From the perspective of either extreme (assuming some kind of linear configuration), the moderates can be said to shelter the "bad guys."

Having the debate at all requires buying into the idea that one extreme is good and the other extreme is bad and that moderates are somehow making some kind of wishy washy compromise between the two. Which, in my opinion, is just stupid. But you're also absolutely right that the assertion has no backing. The whole thing is just a screed with no redeeming value.

 

[lunamoth]

Ugh, am I really making my point this unclear? You have a point when you substitute science for religion - I won't deny you that - what I am trying to say is that we could look at a point Sam Harris makes (for example, moderates cover fanatics) and discuss that without the whole "well, we should just eradicate religion" mentality. We could discuss it based on 1) Do moderates "cover" for fanatics, 2) If no, not much to discuss/If yes, what should be done (eradicatin religion idea dismissed as extreme and unnecessary). What I'm saying is we can use Harris' points as a springing point to discussion while dismissing his conclusion that religion should be eradicated. That's all I'm saying.

I think you are clear. But this happens to be one of those rare occasions when I feel quite strongly that the question has no merit.

Moderates "cover" for fanatics the way that the development of disease-resistant crops "covers" for Frankenfoods.

 

[MaddLlama]

Ugh, am I really making my point this unclear? You have a point when you substitute science for religion - I won't deny you that - what I am trying to say is that we could look at a point Sam Harris makes (for example, moderates cover fanatics) and discuss that without the whole "well, we should just eradicate religion" mentality. We could discuss it based on 1) Do moderates "cover" for fanatics, 2) If no, not much to discuss/If yes, what should be done (eradicatin religion idea dismissed as extreme and unnecessary). What I'm saying is we can use Harris' points as a springing point to discussion while dismissing his conclusion that religion should be eradicated. That's all I'm saying.

The problem I think that most of us are saying is that even without his usual stuff, his idea has nothing to back it up. He just says something to the effect of "moderates allow extremeists to exist", but then he doesn't provide anything else on the subject. If you say something, and have nothing at all to back up your position, then what is there to debate?

 

[lunamoth]

The problem I think that most of us are saying is that even without his usual stuff, his idea has nothing to back it up. He just says something to the effect of "moderates allow extremeists to exist", but then he doesn't provide anything else on the subject. If you say something, and have nothing at all to back up your position, then what is there to debate?

I think this is part of it...it just seems like sensationalist garbage...probably making him a pretty penny too.

I apologize SA for being so blunt. Of all the dangerous trends I see in this country, the intentional flaming of polarized views is I think one of the worst. As others have said, I see no distinction between what he is doing and what Falwell does. I'll be quiet now.

 

[MaddLlama]

Let's take a look at the article, and focus on that single point. Here is the only thing I can find that is actually on the topic of comparing moderates to extremists:

Christian moderates, by their lingering attachment to the unique divinity of Jesus, protect the faith of fundamentalists from public scorn. Christian liberals — who aren't sure what they believe but just love the experience of going to church occasionally — deny the moderates a proper collision with scientific rationality. And in this way centuries have come and gone without an honest word being spoken about God in our society.

Basically, what I read is that religious "moderates" should not hold their views, because we should be allowed to publically say that Christianity, and especially Christian fundamentalists, are stupid. But, since these moderates exist, and they're not as wacky as fundamentalists, we can't be negative about either because we may hurt someone's feelings. He;s not saying that being a moderate is encouraging fundamentalists to exist, he's saying that the existance of moderates is limiting the "rational" person's ability to insult Christianity. What the heck kind of argument is that???

 

[Stairs In My House]

It's also a gross misunderstanding of what moderates and liberals believe and why they do what they do, but I have come to expect that from Harris and Dawkins.

 

[lilithu]

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?

Alyssa, I feel really bad for you trying to defend this position on your own with several people ganging up on you. All nice people who are ganging up politely, mind you. But still, it must feel a little overwhelming. I know that you are not alone in this. Phil has also voiced support for some of Harris' views, including this particular point, and I wish he were here.

But I honestly don't see a difference here between Harris' "point" and his radical position. He's saying that religious moderates cover for religious radicals. That's essentially saying that even religious moderates are dangerous. And therefore all religionists are dangerous and should be done away with. I don't see a way to interpret his point in a way that doesn't lead to his radical position.

Sorry.

 

[lilithu]

Is this a fact?

It's a fact that he's a Unitarian Universalist.
And it's a fact that Unitarian Universalism values tolerance of different religious views.

Beyond that, what do you expect, that I contact congressman Stark and ask him to put out a public statement regarding Sam Harris?

 

[standing_alone]

The problem I think that most of us are saying is that even without his usual stuff, his idea has nothing to back it up. He just says something to the effect of "moderates allow extremeists to exist", but then he doesn't provide anything else on the subject. If you say something, and have nothing at all to back up your position, then what is there to debate?

Point taken.

I apologize SA for being so blunt.

You have nothing to apologize for.

As others have said, I see no distinction between what he is doing and what Falwell does.

And I would tend to agree with you, though we can still have legitimate discussions using the rhetoric Falwell spurts as a springing point.

Of course, I guess I'm guilty of often times being automatically dismissive of what Falwell says. Me = hypocrite, I guess...

I'll be quiet now.

I should be, too. I wasn't even sure if I should have even responded to the thread to begin with. It's something I lack the knowledge to debate about, but something I'd like to maybe see a debate about so I could maybe learn something (and often times I want to say something based on what Harris says, but after such responses am afraid to for the chance of being associated as being just like him, but really, I'm just a dumb atheist guys, you got no reason to fear me ), but some other time perhaps. I need to learn to keep my mouth shut when I have nothing of substance to say. Sorry, guys.

 

[Stairs In My House]

Well, to take the heat of standing_alone for a bit, I think what bothers me the most about this piece is that angry teenage atheists post this exact same stuff to the internet every day (and I know this because I used to be one), often with better writing and more coherent argumentation, and yet Harris gets published in the L.A. Times like he's making some brilliant new point. I have heard this argument before, in fact I think I even made this argument before, and I have to wonder, is atheism so new to the media that anything a prominent atheist says gets treated as some novel insight?

I wish I subscribed to the L.A. Times so I could cancel my subscription, not for printing Harris' viewpoint, but for having such low standards of quality.

 

[lilithu]

and often times I want to say something based on what Harris says, but after such responses am afraid to for the chance of being associated as being just like him

Never, sweetness. :hug: Look, you may not believe it but a lot of our reaction really is to how he says things, the contempt he shows for theists, and I just can't imagine you doing that.

but really, I'm just a dumb atheist guys,... I need to learn to keep my mouth shut when I have nothing of substance to say. Sorry, guys.

Ack!! :tuna: Cut that out!

 

[MaddLlama]

Don't be sorry. I do understand what you're saying, and normally I would agree and try to pick stuff out (like I tried to do on the last page), but the problem with this particular instance is he's not really making a point that we can debate at all. Just like with Falwell - he says stuff often that is devisive, arguably just for the sake of being devisive. And, in those instances there really isn't much to talk about except for his fanatical position.

Sometimes, Harris does say stuff worth talking about. However, I don't think this is one of those times.

And, now I'm shutting up too :angel2:

 

[standing_alone]

Alyssa, I feel really bad for you trying to defend this position on your own with several people ganging up on you. All nice people who are ganging up politely, mind you.

You don't need to feel bad. Everyone has been polite and patient with me (which I appreciate), especially when I don't really know that much about what I'm talking about.

But I honestly don't see a difference here between Harris' "point" and his radical position. He's saying that religious moderates cover for religious radicals. That's essentially saying that even religious moderates are dangerous. And therefore all religionists are dangerous and should be done away with. I don't see a way to interpret his point in a way that doesn't lead to his radical position.

Ah, okay. Thanks for your explanation. I see where you're coming from.

Sorry.

Ack! Don't say sorry. I'm the one that should be apologizing.

 

[lilithu]

Well, to take the heat of standing_alone for a bit, I think what bothers me the most about this piece is that angry teenage atheists post this exact same stuff to the internet every day (and I know this because I used to be one), often with better writing and more coherent argumentation, and yet Harris gets published in the L.A. Times like he's making some brilliant new point. I have heard this argument before, in fact I think I even made this argument before, and I have to wonder, is atheism so new to the media that anything a prominent atheist says gets treated as some novel insight?

I wish I subscribed to the L.A. Times so I could cancel my subscription, not for printing Harris' viewpoint, but for having such low standards of quality.

For some reason, the media picks one or two people that they consider to be the spokespeople for an entire group or movement, and then whenever they need to present a view, they go to those particular people over and over again. And the media likes radicals. Moderates are boring. They don't sell newspapers or get people to tune in.

Harris and Dawkins have written books, they're outspoken, they're intelligent, they're radical.

 

[Stairs In My House]

Harris and Dawkins have written books, they're outspoken, they're intelligent, they're radical.

They can't be that intelligent if they're so willing to let themselves be made into Emmanuel Goldsteins for the religious right's Two Minutes Hate. But I suppose they're intelligent enough for the media.

 

[Scuba Pete]

For some reason, the media picks one or two people

This is the sensationalistic aspect of our news. They no longer worry about the truth as much as they worry about their precious ratings. This is why the left call it right wing and the right call it left wing.

The Falwells and the Harris' will always make the most headlines as they skirt extremes and seek to make moderates their unwilling pawns and even lieutenants. Don't think that this is only for the extreme theists, as extreme atheists use the same ploys to wage their war of hate.

The best we can do is to be glad that there are more tolerant moderates then intolerant extremists.

 

[lilithu]

They can't be that intelligent if they're so willing to let themselves be made into Emmanuel Goldsteins for the religious right's Two Minutes Hate. But I suppose they're intelligent enough for the media.

I'm not sure about Harris but Dawkins really is brilliant. He can explain the nuances of evolutionary theory to a lay public better than anyone else I've read.

One of the things I've learned in life is that intelligence alone does not protect you from becoming a hater. It seems like it should but it doesn't. A rational mind can find rational justifications for almost any kind of bias. Without the balancing force of love, intellect will value ideas over people.

I haven't thought of this quote in years:

"Hate has a reason for everything but love is unreasonable."
- V[SIZE=-1]. Raiuhes Ahaefvthe[/SIZE]