Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
The Problem with Religious Moderates [View all]
The Problem with Religious Moderates
We can no longer afford the luxury of political correctness. When religion causes violence, its root claims must be challenged.
People of faith fall on a continuum: some draw solace and inspiration from a specific spiritual tradition, and yet remain fully committed to tolerance and diversity, while others would burn the earth to cinders if it would put an end to heresy. There are, in other words, religious moderates and religious extremists, and their various passions and projects should not be confused. However, religious moderates are themselves the bearers of a terrible dogma: they imagine that the path to peace will be paved once each of us has learned to respect the unjustified beliefs of others. I hope to show that the very ideal of religious tolerance-born of the notion that every human being should be free to believe whatever he wants about God-is one of the principal forces driving us toward the abyss.
We have been slow to recognize the degree to which religious faith perpetuates man's inhumanity to man. This is not surprising, since many of us still believe that faith is an essential component of human life. Two myths now keep faith beyond the fray of rational criticism, and they seem to foster religious extremism and religious moderation equally: (i) most of us believe that there are good things that people get from religious faith (e.g., strong communities, ethical behavior, spiritual experience) that cannot be had elsewhere; (2) many of us also believe that the terrible things that are sometimes done in the name of religion are the products not of faith per se but of our baser natures-forces like greed, hatred, and fear-for which religious beliefs are themselves the best (or even the only) remedy. Taken together, these myths seem to have granted us perfect immunity to outbreaks of reasonableness in our public discourse.
--snip--
With each passing year, do our religious beliefs conserve more and more of the data of human experience? If religion addresses a genuine sphere of understanding and human necessity, then it should be susceptible to progress; its doctrines should become more useful, rather than less. Progress in religion, as in other fields, would have to be a matter of present inquiry, not the mere reiteration of past doctrine. Whatever is true now should be discoverable now, and describable in terms that are not an outright affront to the rest of what we know about the world. By this measure, the entire project of religion seems perfectly backward. It cannot survive the changes that have come over us-culturally, technologically, and even ethically. Otherwise, there are few reasons to believe that we will survive it.
Moderates do not want to kill anyone in the name of God, but they want us to keep using the word "God" as though we knew what we were talking about. And they do not want anything too critical said about people who really believe in the God of their fathers, because tolerance, perhaps above all else, is sacred. To speak plainly and truthfully about the state of our world-to say, for instance, that the Bible and the Koran both contain mountains of life-destroying gibberish-is antithetical to tolerance as moderates currently conceive it. But we can no longer afford the luxury of such political correctness. We must finally recognize the price we are paying to maintain the iconography of our ignorance.
http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Secular-Philosophies/The-Problem-With-Religious-Moderates.aspx?p=1
We can no longer afford the luxury of political correctness. When religion causes violence, its root claims must be challenged.
People of faith fall on a continuum: some draw solace and inspiration from a specific spiritual tradition, and yet remain fully committed to tolerance and diversity, while others would burn the earth to cinders if it would put an end to heresy. There are, in other words, religious moderates and religious extremists, and their various passions and projects should not be confused. However, religious moderates are themselves the bearers of a terrible dogma: they imagine that the path to peace will be paved once each of us has learned to respect the unjustified beliefs of others. I hope to show that the very ideal of religious tolerance-born of the notion that every human being should be free to believe whatever he wants about God-is one of the principal forces driving us toward the abyss.
We have been slow to recognize the degree to which religious faith perpetuates man's inhumanity to man. This is not surprising, since many of us still believe that faith is an essential component of human life. Two myths now keep faith beyond the fray of rational criticism, and they seem to foster religious extremism and religious moderation equally: (i) most of us believe that there are good things that people get from religious faith (e.g., strong communities, ethical behavior, spiritual experience) that cannot be had elsewhere; (2) many of us also believe that the terrible things that are sometimes done in the name of religion are the products not of faith per se but of our baser natures-forces like greed, hatred, and fear-for which religious beliefs are themselves the best (or even the only) remedy. Taken together, these myths seem to have granted us perfect immunity to outbreaks of reasonableness in our public discourse.
--snip--
With each passing year, do our religious beliefs conserve more and more of the data of human experience? If religion addresses a genuine sphere of understanding and human necessity, then it should be susceptible to progress; its doctrines should become more useful, rather than less. Progress in religion, as in other fields, would have to be a matter of present inquiry, not the mere reiteration of past doctrine. Whatever is true now should be discoverable now, and describable in terms that are not an outright affront to the rest of what we know about the world. By this measure, the entire project of religion seems perfectly backward. It cannot survive the changes that have come over us-culturally, technologically, and even ethically. Otherwise, there are few reasons to believe that we will survive it.
Moderates do not want to kill anyone in the name of God, but they want us to keep using the word "God" as though we knew what we were talking about. And they do not want anything too critical said about people who really believe in the God of their fathers, because tolerance, perhaps above all else, is sacred. To speak plainly and truthfully about the state of our world-to say, for instance, that the Bible and the Koran both contain mountains of life-destroying gibberish-is antithetical to tolerance as moderates currently conceive it. But we can no longer afford the luxury of such political correctness. We must finally recognize the price we are paying to maintain the iconography of our ignorance.
http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Secular-Philosophies/The-Problem-With-Religious-Moderates.aspx?p=1
IMO, THIS is where the conversation regarding religion needs to be taking place. Many of our moderate believers right here on DU claim that they want to find "common ground" where we can work together, and I agree with them. But in the way of finding that common ground is the obstacle that Sam is getting at in this article.
I urge you to read the entire article at the link, and then lets have that real discussion we all really want to have, and put an end to the snipe-fest that this Group has become. Any takers?
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
119 replies, 14456 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (9)
ReplyReply to this post
119 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
If you legitimize these "other ways of knowing," there's no mechanism to determine which "other way"
humblebum
Nov 2012
#17
I think it has already been acknowledged that you and I disagree on what constitutes knowledge.
humblebum
Dec 2012
#85
No. Actually law, art, entertainment, psychology, cooking, etc. utilize other ways of knowing.
humblebum
Dec 2012
#99
An epistemology that arrives at a conclusion utilizing evidence that is less than totally
humblebum
Dec 2012
#101
If something is not 100% objective, how can one be assured that the conclusion is correct?
prefunk
Dec 2012
#102
Sure. I'll try. Generally the only disciplines that are considered any produce knowledge to the
humblebum
Dec 2012
#106
Since you have proven yourself unwilling (or unable) to give up the straw men,
trotsky
Dec 2012
#118
"But god is still being used to support horrible atrocities - all the time."
humblebum
Dec 2012
#111
Is this the same Sam Harris that considers the elimination of religion more important than the
rug
Nov 2012
#7
The problem is and has always been humanity, as is evidenced by the massive numbers killed
humblebum
Nov 2012
#9
Um, Yeh. other ways of knowing has been discussed and referenced here for a very long time.
humblebum
Nov 2012
#35
That what I thought. You are well aware that we have had these discussions before and
humblebum
Nov 2012
#40
And he will go on making such claims. However there is evidence to the contrary that goes back
humblebum
Dec 2012
#90
And again, your concept of "knowing" is not shared by everyone, to say the least.
humblebum
Dec 2012
#95
AS I recall, you claimed that no examples of other ways of knowing had ever been demonstrated.
humblebum
Dec 2012
#96
In all honesty, it's a matter of personal judgment. Those who approach with an open mind,
dimbear
Nov 2012
#22
For the same reason that I'm not penning a precis of the Gettysburg Address, I'm not rewriting
dimbear
Nov 2012
#27
Harris is addressing liberal religionists, he is trying to convince them to stop
dimbear
Nov 2012
#31
There are fora available right here on DU where Christians don't run into criticism from seculars.
dimbear
Dec 2012
#86
A flawed and slanted view of the state of nonliteralist religious thought is not
Leontius
Nov 2012
#25
The mind of Mr Harris covers almost every topic, like a wide shallow puddle
struggle4progress
Nov 2012
#41
"Imagine" (says Mr Harris to us) "that we could revive a well-educated Christian
struggle4progress
Nov 2012
#42
Reread the quote: Harris imagines "a well-educated Christian of the fourteenth century"
struggle4progress
Nov 2012
#45
I personally do not consider it surprising that the knowledge available today
struggle4progress
Nov 2012
#49
"Perhaps we ought to be surprised instead where we do not find significant advances"
cleanhippie
Nov 2012
#69
You and I have so few productive conversations because we cannot even agree about exactly
struggle4progress
Nov 2012
#71
Our Christian might well have thought the earth round, but it would have been a matter of faith to
dimbear
Nov 2012
#53
"Cecco D'Ascoli, is the adopted name of Francis, or Francesco Stabili; a native of Ascoli,
struggle4progress
Nov 2012
#56
Of course, the execution of Cecco D'Ascoli is quite disgusting and pointless
struggle4progress
Nov 2012
#57
Mr Harris thinks a fourteenth century man today "would be considered a fool to think ...
struggle4progress
Nov 2012
#44
One ought to begin with the facts and proceed thence to the analysis, whereas
struggle4progress
Nov 2012
#48
Just for reference purposes, Dr. Harris received his Ph.D. in neuroscience from Stanford in 2009.
dimbear
Nov 2012
#59
For further reference, dimbear didn't claim the argument was true BECAUSE of Harris' credentials.
trotsky
Nov 2012
#61
And yet he still didn't claim that because of Harris' education, his argument is true.
trotsky
Nov 2012
#63