AlterNet has an interview with Sam Harris on the reason(s) why religion must end. Read the full text of the article here. I've not read Harris's The End of Faith, so I'm not entirely familiar with his work. If this interview is any indication though, it would appear that he's making some assumptions about morality based on some assumptions about religion. (reblogged via Kottke)
flip the pig
don’t be a hobo
I tweet.
- is dismayed, maybe a little sad, at the speed with which this week has passed.-21 hours ago
- AV: We have a bottle of Woodford Reserve that would make a nice silver bath, but it's really full. BV: I'll get started on that right away.-1 day ago
- I like my work in general. It's the particulars that are a problem.-1 day ago
- says BOOOOOOOOO to the *regular* mail carrier who seems to have stopped delivering our mail. #incompetence-1 day ago
- adios, Dahntay Jones. Get thee to IND.-1 day ago
along the way
- 12,812 stops
Recent Posts
Recent Comments
Tags
365 project av basketball cleaning up Complaint Department dogs doubt eastenders eating errol morris existentialism faceless teaching film friends funny God heidegger Inanimate Titanium Rods interdisc jazz jeopardy kierkegaard learning mccain music nerdery obama phenomenology Philosophy politics read reading research Sartre seen spiritual formation Teaching television telly thesis toronto travelogue Trivia work writingInternets = Not Tubes
- Academic Hack
- Beulah Sorensen
- Dooce
- EcoPunk Photography & Design
- Experimental Philosophy (X-Phi)
- Geeks Who Drink – The Irish Snug
- Greek Geek – Mariam Kamell
- Gwen Kubec
- Harold McGee
- Jesus Community – Ted Gossard
- Jesus Creed – Scot McKnight
- Michael Ruhlman
- The Philosophical Pastor
- Vanguard Church
- Walk Slowly, Live Wildly
Respect the Pig
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License.
365 Project
Blog at WordPress.com • Freshy theme by Jide.
Thanks for pointing out this link. Pretty interesting. I’ve read the book and you’re welcome to borrow it – it’s a pretty quick read.
Nice new look to your blog!
-Susan
Becky,
Have you read anything about Reformed Epistemology? Particularly, anything by Alvin Plantinga and Nicolas Wolterstorff?
I’m finishing reading a book by Kelly Clark (Calvin College prof of Philosophy) called “Return to Reason.” In it, Clark outlines the Reformed Epistemological crtique of Evidentialism and Classic Foundationalism. VERY interesting stuff.
I wanted to hear your take on this.
Hey Bob. I have read just a little bit about reformed epstemology (speficially, Plantinga’s alternatives to justification of warrant and proper function). I want to talk about this. Where should we start? As you might imagine, I am not in the warrant camp, but this is an interesting topic and might re-start the discussion back to epistemology.
I appreciate Tillich’s attempts to navigate around the problems that Harris raises, especially our relationship to religious claims. I don’t think Harris seriously addressed the issue of meaningfulness by comparing the meaningfulness in traditional religious life to making up the belief there’s a diamond in the backyard. The conventional symbols of religious traditions help humans express our spiritual depth, according to Tillich. But expressions are distinct from claims. When I say, “I am in pain.” Am I expressing being in pain or describing a state of affairs objectively? Since language can be both expressive and declarative, I don’t see why Harris cannot make room in his system for religious symbols as conventions of expressing certain things about humanity that could not otherwise be expressed articulately.
Nedric: Having followed Harris’ work for some time, I think that he is, to an extent, open to this possibility. One thing he calls for in the final chapter of “The End of Faith” is a “rational” approach to spirituality via the examination of the shared aspects of religious and spiritual experiences and a consideration of what these represent with regards to the landscape of the mind. While Harris seems to feel that the Buddhist approach to this question is currently the most advanced (and while he makes a strong case for this, I’d stop short of calling it “compelling”), I’m not sure that there’s anything in this approach that precludes similar efforts within the context of other spiritual traditions (such as Christianity).
In General: As a non-believer, I find myself often nodding at many of the points Harris makes… And shaking my head at an almost equal number of other points. The impression I’ve gradually developed of the man is that he’s a pretty hard-line atheist… And he has a tendency to try to cast all of his observations within this framework, which sometimes requires truly spectacular feats of mental gymnastics.
If I may offer my own humble opinion, the problem about debating the concepts of God and religion is that people tend to be much more confident in their positions than is warranted by either logic or the evidence at hand. I’m not even going to speculate on why this seems to be the case, but I often wonder if the discussion would be better served by adopting the more provisional language found in the sciences. Perhaps we should say that “I believe that the Christian God *probably* exists, for reasons X, Y, and Z”, or that “I believe that gods do not exist, for reasons U, V, and W.” It may seem like a minor change, but it goes a long way towards acknowledging the underlying uncertainty of the world (or at least our human perceptions of it).
A friend of mine once called this approach “militant moderation” — the idea that all conclusions are, in one way or another, provisional (and that behavioral extremes are consequently unwise, though this second point really doesn’t relate to the issue at hand). Currently I follow a good cross-section of blogs on all sides of the debate about religion and spirituality, and I have to say that I see more people talking past each other these days than actually exchanging ideas. I think this is because we’re often unwilling to grant our own ideas the same provisional status that we require of our opponents.
Harris often brings up important points about the failure of religion, but despite his protestations to the contrary, he also falls into this “trap of self-certainty” when expounding upon his own, areligious, viewpoint.
Thanks for the response, Nathan. I also sometimes find the self-certain attitude hinders further dialogue and I understand that Harris’ project is more complex than this article alone. However, the proposal about moderating the language of debate misses Tillich’s point. The symbolic statement “God is the creator” is not a claim about reality in the same sense as scientific or historical claims. And supposed “arguments” about the “existence” of God are symbolic expressions of ultimate concern for Tillich, not proofs – by his lights, if we were to consider them on the same level as other arguements then the only natural response is atheism. Not that anyone needs to pay attention to Tillich…
I have to admit that I’m not familiar with Tillich’s work, nor do I have a strong background in epistemology, so I’m arguing from something of a position of ignorance here. That said…
I’m curious how the statement “God is the creator” is not a scientific or historical claim, since the event of creation certainly seems to be part of the material universe both science and history concern themselves with. Of course, if creation represents a boundary condition to the system (universe/reality), then it may not necessarily be *explainable* from within the context of the system (though its properties are still amenable to analysis). So, depending on what you mean by “God the creator”, I may or may not agree with you here.
At least to a point… Ironically, I suspect that my disagreement with you (and possibly Tillich) is the same as my disagreement with Harris — that your definition of “God” is perhaps overly restrictive. I often call myself an atheist, mostly because when most people think of atheist, they think of someone who doesn’t believe in God (or gods) as normally conceived of in human mythology. But this really isn’t true in my case — I’m actually a materialist (at least in a loose sense), and I don’t necessarily see the problem with God (or God-like phenomena) within this context. So in that sense, I don’t disbelieve in God, I’m just currently undecided.
So I’m not sure that atheism is necessarily the “only natural response” to this sort of analysis.
Again, Nathan, thank you for furthering the dialogue and I would like to respond – Becky, apologies if this is off topic for the intention of the thread.
There is a valid distinction to be made between expressions and claims about reality. Does the phrase “I do” in a wedding describe reality? Is Cubist art a verifiable claim about an objective state of affairs? No, and so the same may go for other symbolic expressions. While there may be a logic within the symbol itself (e.g. Some portraiture methods defy the logic of cubism. Or, maybe, God cannot make a round-square.), that does not make the symbol function in the same way as a scientific-historical-philosophical claim.
Harris’ example about the diamond in the backyard neglects this symbolic aspect of religious expression. Symbolic or mythological expression is closer to saying “Ouch!” than to saying “This is the objective state of affairs.” And it is unfortunate to confuse the two domains of discourse.
The example about the diamond also neglects the cultural evolutions of symbolic forms. I can’t just point at a hamburger (or a diamond in the backyard) and say it’s holy or sacred and immediately be taken seriously by a religious community. Supposedly adequate holy or sacred symbols, myths and rituals (like God, Vishnu, meditation, etc.) develop over time within communities.
I think we are probably on similar pages about the concept of “God” and “atheism.” In usual conversations we know how to use the words, but from within a worldview like “materialism,” the issue of the existence of God just doesn’t obtain. This is actually in line with half of the trajectory of Tillich’s project, the philosophical side. He just also wants to stress that humans are symbolic animals as much as they are scientific animals.
Thanks for the enthusiastic discussion. It’s been very interesting to read. Some provocative ideas all ’round. After class tomorrow, hopefully I can weigh in epistemologically.
Thanks again.
Becky: Like Nedric, I’d like to apologize if I’ve hijacked your thread, though it doesn’t seem like you mind.
Nedric: Two thoughts, one that’s kind of nit-picking, and the other one more central.
To begin with the silly point first, from a strictly materialist perspective I’m not sure that symbolism is apart from reality, since it emerges from the mind, which in turn emerges from physical properties of the brain, which is in turn a material phenomenon. So at one level saying “ouch”, or even “I have experienced God” is an objective statement, at least so far as it is an expression of our own internal state.
That said, I think that reducing symbolism to brain chemistry in the manner I’ve just done entirely misses the point.
Looking at religious experiences as symbolic — and religion as an attempt to create a shared symbolic language (among many other things) — is a potentially powerful perspective on the matter. In this light, I think I misunderstood some of your earlier statements.
You’ve also hit the nail on the head about what bothered me about Harris’ diamond analogy — it reduces religion to a social caricature. Now, we’ve all met people to whom it applies, in the sense that they never critically examine their own beliefs, reducing religion (or even the lack of religion!) to a series of automatic responses and comforting actions. And while I don’t necessarily have anything against comforting actions, leaving our beliefs as a society unexamined is a recipe for disaster.
Harris’ mistake then is to apply the same stereotypes to theists as much of our society applies to atheists. Which is unfortunate, because it really weakens the call he makes in the final chapter of The End of Faith for a more logical, reasoned exploration of spirituality. Depending upon your other beliefs, this can be thought of as either the process of discussing God, or the process of finding a shared symbolic language.
The problem and the power of religion is that if it didn’t exist, we’d have to invent it. We all have these symbolic experiences, and we all crave this sort of symbolic expression. Whether they arise from a need to know God or simply a need to know ourselves hardly seems to matter. At the moment it is more important that we begin having this discussion as a society than worrying about the different perspectives that are brought to the table.
Nedric: Totally off-topic, but I’d be curious to hear you expand on the concept of “the symbolic vs. the scientific” you allude to in the last sentence of your last comment. I’m just not sure I see the dichotomy here. (I suppose I’ve always seen science as something of a subset of symbolism, albeit a subset that I — rather radically — believe will ultimately grown to be equivalent to its parent.)
Cool.
I appreciate the point about how we crave symbolic expression for some of our knowledge, of God or of self. I think I would prefer the word experience here, though, since traditional epistemology usually presupposes a conception of language as merely a tool for representation which seems incompatible with language as symbolic in the sense I am trying to emphasize.
And this is where we probably disagree, on the nature of “symbolism,” if I read your comment on the objectivity of “ouch”
as expressing a state of the brain. I want to stick to a distinction (as artificial as it may be) between “expression” and “description.” A description can be true or false relative to its accuracy (or inaccuracy) in representing a state of affairs. A symbolic expression or ritual is measured in terms of its adequacy – meditation just doesn’t cut it for some people; for them prayer is more adequate. But is it accurate? Accurate to what? I am hesitant to say it is or is not accurate to a state of the brain.
Now that I have written this, it seems a bit hair-splitting, but I would like to nominate it for critique, so I will leave it. And it does seem to indicate the direction from which I would approach the distinction between “scientific” and “symbolic.” For Tillich, although logicians use the word “symbol” they really just mean “sign.” For him, signs point beyond themselves (represent) and are merely conventional and arbitrary. Symbols, on the other hand, participate in the reality to which they point (like a nation’s flag), and are not merely arbitrary, but inherited.
Oh, and I forgot to add that, for Tillich, symbols can die – which to me is the most telling feature of the distinction. I don’t think we ordinarily think of descriptions as things that can die, but we do sometimes say this about languages… Not sure what to infer from this, but it seems like it could be fruitful to think it through.
“A leading atheist says people must embrace rationalism, not faith — or they will never overcome their differences. ”
This seems gnostic in a certain way, in its premise. Certainly seems to exalt education or knowing the right thing to the highest place. So that one or people will think and do the right thing. Too bad it doesn’t happen that way.
Jesus’ teaching and vision of the kingdom, planted in our hearts by the Spirit through the Word/Scripture, and increasingly lived out by us in the community of faith, is what this world needs.
Though a battleground will certainly continue until God puts an end to it, in the end.
Thanks for sharing this. I really didn’t read the article. Glanced at it. Later I may. I read something similar to that recently (maybe the same article?).
Nathan, I also wanted to mention that Lakoff and Johnson have a decent book about metaphors (that I take as paralleling the sentiment of Tillich on “symbols”), Metaphors We Live By, and how metaphors are so “bound up” with the “way” we conceptualize our experience that we are often “blind” to them.
They claim metaphors help highlight and downplay features of the phenomena we are hoping to understand, but this seems to be a far cry from making descriptive claims about the objective world. For instance, oftentimes we conceive of arguments as “battles” where we “win” or “lose” the argument. But argumentation is a mode of coversation where people reach agreement, and the “battle” metaphor down-plays that feature.
It seems to me that religions are steeped in this symbolic/metaphorical mode of discourse.