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

Religion

Showing Original Post only (View all)

cleanhippie

(19,705 posts)
Wed Nov 21, 2012, 01:51 PM Nov 2012

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




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?
119 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
"religious moderate" is an oxymoran. aletier_v Nov 2012 #1
Perhaps, but that does not open dialogue with moderates here on DU. cleanhippie Nov 2012 #2
sometimes there is no point in "dialog" aletier_v Nov 2012 #10
So what would be point in commenting at all then? cleanhippie Nov 2012 #19
Excerpt from "The End of Faith" longship Nov 2012 #3
I recently read The Moral Landscape. cleanhippie Nov 2012 #4
IMHO, this is one of the most important points to discuss. trotsky Nov 2012 #5
I do know that, trotsky, but I will continue to try. cleanhippie Nov 2012 #6
If you legitimize these "other ways of knowing," there's no mechanism to determine which "other way" humblebum Nov 2012 #17
Your posts are always great for a laugh. cleanhippie Nov 2012 #20
Post removed Post removed Dec 2012 #76
I think it has already been acknowledged that you and I disagree on what constitutes knowledge. humblebum Dec 2012 #85
Why Stop At Religion? Lacipyt Dec 2012 #73
Hopefully your post will be food for thought. Leontius Dec 2012 #74
Because only religion seeks to justify claims using "other ways of knowing." trotsky Dec 2012 #98
No. Actually law, art, entertainment, psychology, cooking, etc. utilize other ways of knowing. humblebum Dec 2012 #99
What does that mean? prefunk Dec 2012 #100
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
Sorry man, you are participating in an exercise in futility. cleanhippie Dec 2012 #103
Sure. I'll try. Generally the only disciplines that are considered any produce knowledge to the humblebum Dec 2012 #106
No. Not Only Religion Lacipyt Dec 2012 #107
I see the point you're missing. trotsky Dec 2012 #108
Not So Simple Lacipyt Dec 2012 #109
I see that Baxter didn't bring god into the equation either. trotsky Dec 2012 #110
You Are Welcome Lacipyt Dec 2012 #112
I'm not really interested in playing a game with you. trotsky Dec 2012 #113
Three Things Lacipyt Dec 2012 #114
Three replies, and a challenge. trotsky Dec 2012 #115
Okay Lacipyt Dec 2012 #117
Since you have proven yourself unwilling (or unable) to give up the straw men, trotsky Dec 2012 #118
Ay Caramba Lacipyt Dec 2012 #119
"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
Great way to start the discussion, where to first Leontius Nov 2012 #8
The problem is and has always been humanity, as is evidenced by the massive numbers killed humblebum Nov 2012 #9
Lie, misleading and self-contradictory skepticscott Nov 2012 #11
The usual smokescreen and spin. humblebum Nov 2012 #16
Well let's be fair, Leontius Nov 2012 #12
It would have been useful if Mr. Harris told the reader LARED Nov 2012 #13
Amazing how anyone can think starting with, Leontius Nov 2012 #66
Sam Harris, the torture apologist? CrawlingChaos Nov 2012 #14
Dr. Harris presents a persuasive case. Sure to be well received here. dimbear Nov 2012 #15
Perhaps you can tell me why this is such a persuasive and well wrought argument LARED Nov 2012 #18
Harris' arguments are always framed within a very narrow epistemology humblebum Nov 2012 #21
And what is that skepticscott Nov 2012 #24
It's pretty evident that you already know the answer. By your response humblebum Nov 2012 #26
No, I'll respond by pointing out yet again skepticscott Nov 2012 #34
Um, Yeh. other ways of knowing has been discussed and referenced here for a very long time. humblebum Nov 2012 #35
Every time you repeat the same empty claim skepticscott Nov 2012 #36
I asked you a very direct question, and you only evade. humblebum Nov 2012 #37
No link, no evidence skepticscott Nov 2012 #38
That what I thought. You are well aware that we have had these discussions before and humblebum Nov 2012 #40
Post removed Post removed Dec 2012 #77
Pleading ignorance tama Dec 2012 #80
I've stated the kinds of discussions I've taken part in skepticscott Dec 2012 #87
OK tama Dec 2012 #89
And he will go on making such claims. However there is evidence to the contrary that goes back humblebum Dec 2012 #90
From your link tama Dec 2012 #91
Little google tama Dec 2012 #92
As stated many times skepticscott Dec 2012 #94
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
Post removed Post removed Dec 2012 #93
Scott tama Dec 2012 #97
In all honesty, it's a matter of personal judgment. Those who approach with an open mind, dimbear Nov 2012 #22
Two things LARED Nov 2012 #23
For the same reason that I'm not penning a precis of the Gettysburg Address, I'm not rewriting dimbear Nov 2012 #27
No one asked you to provide a precis of the article or Harris LARED Nov 2012 #28
Thank you for your considered reply. dimbear Nov 2012 #29
So permit me to ask as you seem to LARED Nov 2012 #30
Harris is addressing liberal religionists, he is trying to convince them to stop dimbear Nov 2012 #31
I thought Harris was addressing religious moderates????? LARED Nov 2012 #32
Yes, better term. Just because I see them as the same thing doesn't mean dimbear Nov 2012 #33
Offending words(?) tama Dec 2012 #82
You make an interesting and deep point. dimbear Dec 2012 #83
No problem tama Dec 2012 #84
There are fora available right here on DU where Christians don't run into criticism from seculars. dimbear Dec 2012 #86
Is that all you do? tama Dec 2012 #88
A flawed and slanted view of the state of nonliteralist religious thought is not Leontius Nov 2012 #25
Interesting read. hrmjustin Nov 2012 #39
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
I'm sure Mr Harris is speaking of the common man, not.. JKingman Nov 2012 #43
Reread the quote: Harris imagines "a well-educated Christian of the fourteenth century" struggle4progress Nov 2012 #45
What constituted "well educated" in the fourteenth century? JKingman Nov 2012 #46
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
Then lets agree about exactly what we are discussing. cleanhippie Nov 2012 #72
Your tactic here is woefully predictable. trotsky Nov 2012 #50
Seven links so far from me, zero from you. Have a nice day! struggle4progress Nov 2012 #51
That's because this isn't a Google contest. trotsky Nov 2012 #52
It is a somewhat pointless comparision LARED Nov 2012 #54
No, I mean anything that could be considered progress or advancement. trotsky Nov 2012 #58
Our Christian might well have thought the earth round, but it would have been a matter of faith to dimbear Nov 2012 #53
St. Vergil of Salzburg struggle4progress Nov 2012 #55
"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
Explain to us the fourteenth century concept of .. JKingman Nov 2012 #47
One ought to begin with the facts and proceed thence to the analysis, whereas struggle4progress Nov 2012 #48
Mr. Harris' first mistake okasha Dec 2012 #116
Just for reference purposes, Dr. Harris received his Ph.D. in neuroscience from Stanford in 2009. dimbear Nov 2012 #59
For reference only; you posted a fallacious appeal to authority. nt LARED Nov 2012 #60
For further reference, dimbear didn't claim the argument was true BECAUSE of Harris' credentials. trotsky Nov 2012 #61
For even further reference, dimbear does hold the view that LARED Nov 2012 #62
And yet he still didn't claim that because of Harris' education, his argument is true. trotsky Nov 2012 #63
So why post his education then, LARED Nov 2012 #64
Why? Because some people are in favor of KNOWLEDGE about JKingman Nov 2012 #65
Well you might be right LARED Nov 2012 #67
I believe everything I read on the internet. JKingman Nov 2012 #68
I mention Dr. Harris' degrees because I believe in courtesy to living authors, in general. dimbear Nov 2012 #70
Drat that nasty old Constitution! okasha Dec 2012 #75
The problem of state apologists tama Dec 2012 #78
The thing is, though... LeftishBrit Dec 2012 #79
Indeed tama Dec 2012 #81
I'm a religious Liberal and not sure if this is aimed at me 4_TN_TITANS Dec 2012 #104
You are 100% correct about that. cleanhippie Dec 2012 #105
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Religion»The Problem with Religiou...»Reply #0