Stereotypes and more...
BEGIN RANT:
Let me begin with stereotypes. Stereotypes, by definition, are applied to an entire group (often people) unfairly. However, they became stereotypes for a reason...usually that there is some grain of truth in them. That doesn't mean they should be applied to everyone, but I've personally seen people acting out stereotypes without even realizing it while accusing other people of stereotyping. I'm just as guilty as the next person about knee jerk thoughts based on stereotypes, though I try to look through them and see the person in front of me instead of the stereotype.
The reason I bring this up is that there many stereotypes about Christians, and the media tends to highlight people that support these stereotypes. Not only that, but, in my opinion, several of the most outspoken "Christians" tend to play into stereotypes. God didn't call for us to make fools of ourselves and accuse others in hateful ways, yet often those are the kinds of people I see in the media. I don't often see the people who do things and don't ask for recognition. You know, the ones that are embarrassed to receive recognition when it finds them. Take televanglists...I'm sure there are good televanglists out there somewhere, but I can't stand the lot because there have been so many bad eggs. Of course, televanglists are stereotyped too...
The world views us through the outspoken (a.k.a. "Extreme") Christians that take the stage. Just as in politics, the media focuses on the divisive issues and candidates. The far-left or right share opinions that are inflammatory, and that's good for business.
Sam Harris apparently has a new book (which I haven't read) about the End of Faith. More specifically, how faith based religion should be stamped out because of it's divisive influence on the world. Below is a link to a talk Sam gave about his book and some of his ideas. There are a few things I agree need to be thought about, but predominately his comments express an ignorance of what Christians are called to do as compared to other religions. And while I wouldn't call myself an extremist on any level, I also wouldn't call myself a moderate as per his definition. And I feel like he twists parts of the Bible to support his views (but then again, many others do this too). If you listen, be prepared to take offense not because he is offensive, but because he is an extremist in his own right and just as guilty as looking at the issue from one side. Or at least presenting only one side.
I feel like Sam Harris is playing to some Christian (and general religion) stereotypes...applying his comments to Christianity/religion as a whole but using examples that represent a small section of believers. The problem is that there are people listening (the Amazon rating on his book averages 4 stars).
If you listen to the talk, let me know what you think. I didn't really go into what he talks about, and it's a LONG talk, but I think some ideas are presented that we should know about and defend against. Go here for Sam Harris' talk:
End of Faith talk
END RANT
posted by Jeff @ 10:55 AM
4 comments
4 Comments:
too long of a speech!! I started only half paying attention and therefore the small things that I heard I thought was true. But I did hear a few things I thought were sketchy, but I'm not in the mood to listen to a guy (who doesn't sound that smart) talk for an hour.
Sam Harris is definitely a smart guy, but he has his own blind spots. His speech is a scathing indictment of those who don't respect their religious beliefs enough to subject them to the same level of scrutiny that we demand of all other areas of human understanding, but he undercuts himself a bit by refusing to adequately deal with the fact of worldwide, ubiquitous religious experience.
Harris basically accuses religious fundamentalists (of all faiths) of being willfully stupid. He argues that people of faith don't really take their holy books seriously because they tend to disregard or "explain away" parts that society now find unpalatable. In other words, Harris argues that Jews, Christians, and Muslims should admit that the God written about in the Bible and Qur'an condones (sometimes even commands) a lot of unfortunate things, like genocide and slavery. He then asserts that these people should abandon their faiths because, taken seriously, the outcome of strictly followed religion is unending human conflict and tragedy.
Harris points out that fundamentalists are more likely to accept the harsher elements of their scriptures, but he bemoans the fact that taking the Western scriptures so seriously seems inevitably to lead to horrific results, like the Crusades, the Inquisition, the Holocaust, 9/11, and suicide bombing. Harris argues that the fundamentalist mindset is inherently absurd, as it requires an abandonment of the commonly-accepted standards of rational thought, and that those in society who are not religious should quit pretending that it is acceptable for people to hold beliefs that (he believes) are in no way supportable under the scrutiny of normal, rational thought.
Harris doesn't let religious moderates off the hook, either. He says that religious moderates actually contribute to the "problem" of religion in two ways. First, they adopt the same willful stupidity as fundamentalists in adhering to religious faith in the first place, not because they have a deep commitment to the fundamental Truth of their religion's beliefs, but because religion offers comfort and meaning that cannot be found in a purely rational assessment of the world and the human condition. Harris thoroughly ridicules this sort of "logic," pointing out that if someone held any sort of non-religious belief simply because they found the thought "comforting," no one in their right mind would take them seriously. He goes even further, however, and says that religious moderates pose a very real danger to society because they refuse to join secularists in their criticism of the fundamentalists whose blind fervor might prove to be the downfall of humanity. Harris believes that all rationally-minded people have a
>responsibility - for the good of all humanity - to challenge religious beliefs and, wherever possible, to persuade people to abandon those beliefs.
Harris makes some really solid points, of course. There is plenty in the Bible and the Qur'an, as well as in the history and developed theology of the monotheistic faiths, that people have to ignore to insist that these are inherently peaceful faiths. Further, if one was to take with literal seriousness many of the truth claims of the Bible and the Qur'an, they simply cannot be reconciled with modern rational thought. This is a sincere problem because people on either side of the rift created between a strictly religious worldview and a strictly scientific/rational worldview will effectively be speaking different languages when it comes to interpreting both world events, social problems in the world, and personal understandings and motivations. In Harris's view, conflict is inevitable - and I tend to agree.
Where Harris goes really wrong, however, is where he seems to end his consideration of religious belief with the charicatures of religious fundamentalists and moderates. I don't mean to say that he fails to accurately describe most people in those camps - in fact, I think he hits disturbingly close to the mark - but he neglects to discuss people who take God very seriously, yet reject the scriptures' more radical takes on what they perceive as the anti-social aspect of God's character. These are people who understand that God exists, functions in the world, and calls us to live in accordance with a moral code, yet they base their understanding of these facts on their own personal experience of God, rather than just on the scriptures' depiction.
The strange thing is that Harris plainly acknowledges the reality of religious experience. He remarks that all societies have had figures who encountered a reality or consciousness that transcends the normal human experience, and he complains that these encounters have always been explained in religious terms. He'd prefer that science would make an effort to understand and explain these experiences so that we could escape the trappings (and what he argues are the inevitable negative consequences) of religion.
I share some of Harris's frustrations with and concerns about organized religion, but his conclusion - that religion is simply a human fabrication whose usefulness is far outweighed by the danger it poses to society - is not warranted by the facts available to us. Whether or not we fully understand God, and whether or not reading the scriptures of the various world religions are a useful way of improving our understanding of God, the fact remains that people do experience God's presence in our lives, and that fact cannot be brushed aside so blithely as Harris seems to want to do.
I haven't listened to the speech yet, but I had a recent discussion of similar arguments, and I believe Dave hits the nail on the head.
As I see it, the major problem with argument against religion based on social results is what Jeff pointed out originally, people simply won't always fit the stereotype being attacked.
Furthermore, I'm not sure the causal connection is quite as strong as Harris might suggest. It's true, right now the most violent people (or at least the most publicized violent people) typically use religion as their justification, but in other eras things like economics, social equality, or tribalism have been the main drivers of violence, with religion actually acting as a mitigating factor.
Harris also ignores the long tradition of faith-based social justice initiatives, such as abolition and the role that (far too few) religious leaders in Germany played in standing against the Nazis during the 30s and 40s.
Post a Comment
<< Home