General Discussions

**Learning Newbie** · 11-30-2007, 06:21 PM

Do you know of Sam Harris? Yesterday I didn't, but a friend made me watch a video of the guy delivering a speech at lunch today, so now I know about the guy. I don't really know what I think of him.

On the one hand, I have the sense I'm being made fun of, maybe even put down. And it's because I am. But on the other, dude makes a lot of sense on a lot of issues, and, well, if you want to call them that, he's issued some challenges that I don't really have an answer for. So I'm hoping all of you can help me figure out where to stand. In case you hadn't noticed, I really like using debate, not to change other people's mind and pull them over to my way of thinking, but to explore different points and get help brainstorming from other smart people. If someone else can bring up a good well reasoned point that I don't have an answer to, it makes me stop and examine my beliefs. But if that doesn't happen, it helps to cement my faith.

And Sam Harris is raising points I don't have an answer to. Especially about religious extremism and religious moderation. Because I'm a moderate. Like Abstract Rude said, "I have knowledge of self, and I still believe in Jesus." Mr Harris (a self appointed heretic) says that while moderates are better than extremists because we don't fly planes into buildings, we give cover to extremists. He says being a religious moderate is intellectually and theologically bankrupt. I hope people can help me reason through some of his arguments, because I'm sort of in a gray area.

It's theologically wrong to be a religious moderate, he says, because the extremists have read the books, and they're right about them. He goes into more detail than I'm going to about how the New Testament confirms more of the Old Testament than it repudiates. I'm not a Biblical scholar, just someone who can feel God's love, so I don't know if that's actually true? I don't think science and religion are "mutually exclusive" at all. I believe in evolution, actually if you read Genesis it sure sounds like God delegated the task of bringing most life forms about to the Earth. ("001:011 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so." + "001:020 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.")

Now the Bible is a beautiful piece of literature. it's filled with all types. Everything from song and hymn to parables. I think a lot of it isn't meant to be taken literally. But now I'm kind of doubting myself, is that a cop out? Is it always clear what's allegory and what's history?

**joder** · 11-30-2007, 06:33 PM

There weren't too many people debating what should be taken literally and what should not until the last century. It's only because science, history, etc. has caused religion to retreat that it has started making allegory out of many parts of the bible including the book of Genesis.

What is allegorical to one, is not to others. People and groups just pick and choose.

**serandfae** · 11-30-2007, 09:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Learning Newbie

Mr Harris (a self appointed heretic) says that while moderates are better than extremists because we don't fly planes into buildings, we give cover to extremists. He says being a religious moderate is intellectually and theologically bankrupt. I hope people can help me reason through some of his arguments, because I'm sort of in a gray area.

Extremists of all kinds *always* attack moderates, else they wouldn't have any new recruits. Recruiting is something they do very well. But here's an example of why being a religious moderate is anything but intellectually and morally bankrupt: In the abortion debate, the far right-wingers bomb abortion clinics, harass and kill doctors and call women going to the clinics abominable names. The moderate, though you'll never see her, opens up an adoption service with counseling, because she really cares about women who have to make that hard choice. She'll also be the one lobbying to keep the government out of that decision, because we can't go back to back-alley abortions. The latter will persist, the former, though reprehensible, will be fewer in number and more fleeting, at the least in the historical sense. To face those kind of fools head on just gives them voice. You find anything intellectually, theologcally or morally bankrupt about that?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Learning Newbie

It's theologically wrong to be a religious moderate, he says, because the extremists have read the books, and they're right about them. He goes into more detail than I'm going to about how the New Testament confirms more of the Old Testament than it repudiates. I'm not a Biblical scholar, just someone who can feel God's love, so I don't know if that's actually true?

He's assuming that we moderates haven't read the books; I can assure you that I have, and I re-read them frequently. But no one can claim complete and true knowledge of Christianity; for one thing, it doesn't exist today in its original form and not one denomination today can truthfully claim it knows what that original form was. Most of it was passed down word of mouth and of what books there were, many were destroyed, and we're still translating some of what survived.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Learning Newbie

I don't think science and religion are "mutually exclusive" at all. I believe in evolution, actually if you read Genesis it sure sounds like God delegated the task of bringing most life forms about to the Earth. ("001:011 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so." + "001:020 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.")

I can relate to that. I also believe in evolution; not that I need to but I can justify it Biblically. Of course science and religion aren't mutually exclusive. There are those in both "camps" that like to try to make it seem that way, but then again here's where being a moderate is actually the more intelligent path....

Quote:

Originally Posted by Learning Newbie

Now the Bible is a beautiful piece of literature. it's filled with all types. Everything from song and hymn to parables. I think a lot of it isn't meant to be taken literally. But now I'm kind of doubting myself, is that a cop out? Is it always clear what's allegory and what's history?

Nope. But that's why God gave us the gifts of intelligence and prayer, one to temper the other. By having a relationship with Him we try to avoid sin (literally, separation) from Him or one another. When that relationship is like breathing we can see things we couldn't before, in others and the world around us. Those of us with that relationship, hopefully, can use our intelligence without blowing ourselves to teeny bits.

**fastreplies** · 11-30-2007, 10:45 PM

I give you something to think about.

Just imagine how different our life would and can be if there are no religions of any kind.

No extremists and fanatics who are killing themselves and others in the name of religion and God
(or its 72 virgins?)

No people with book in their hands are shoving in your throat their morals and are telling you that you must live your life in accordance with something that even less believable than fairytales.

Do you thing we would have 9/11 then?

fastreplies

**KML9870** · 11-30-2007, 10:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fastreplies

I give you something to think about.

Just imagine how different our life would and can be if there are no religions of any kind.

No extremists and fanatics who are killing themselves and others in the name of religion and God
(or its 72 virgins?)

No people with book in their hands are shoving in your throat their morals and are telling you that you must live your life in accordance with something that even less believable than fairytales.

Do you thing we would have 9/11 then?

fastreplies

Yes, we would. Not all wars and mass killings have been based in religious belief. Extremists, like the 9/11 terrorists and others, would find another reason to justify their actions even without their "book."

I think anyone who has been around WT for awhile knows that I am a Christian. I don't hide it, nor do I try to convert other people. I do, from time to time, ask people to help me help their fellow man. I am the definition of a moderate.

Tim stated it perfectly - the moderate is the one that will show both sides of the coin and let people make their own choices. I've read the Bible too, and I have yet to find a verse that says to convert anyone by force. If my actions improve the life of another and help them to feel God's love for even one moment, then I did my job as a Christian.

Science and Christianity go hand in hand - in fact science has gone a long way to proving some of the events depicted in the Bible. Genesis states evolution in days - but it doesn't define those days or give details as to how God created.

I do not think moderates are intellectually and theologically bankrupt. Moderates are people who live their lives and attempt to assist others. We respect life and other people. We are (most anyway) highly intelligent people who have considered their beliefs and don't blindly follow, or expect others to blindly follow.

**joder** · 11-30-2007, 11:29 PM

Harris and I would most likely agree on a lot of things and I am sure we would disagree on others. I haven't read his books. One thing from reading reviews like above that I see happens in the world is people (Harris seems to) like to characterize people with broad strokes. There is a broad spectrum of belief from far-left liberal to far-right fundamentalist with hundreds of different shades in between. People who call themselves liberal, conservative, or moderate can miss this point. Even moderates don't all agree. In my opinion moderates are the most DIVERSE group.

BTW, the head of Talk.Origins is a Catholic and there are many religious people here that are part of Oklahomans for Excellence in Science Education, Inc. http://www.biosurvey.ou.edu/oese/

**fastreplies** · 12-01-2007, 12:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KML9870

Yes, we would. Not all wars and mass killings have been based in religious belief. Extremists, like the 9/11 terrorists and others, would find another reason to justify their actions even without their "book

With all my respect, I have to disagree with you

Historically civilizations fought only 2 types of wars: Territorial and Religious

I don’t believe that people who own more Land and Oil then they can use would fly planes into TT to grab piece of Manhattan real estate but I do believe that their inspiration is direct expression of their religious beliefs.

fastreplies

**CSS4Life** · 12-01-2007, 07:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fastreplies

With all my respect, I have to disagree with you

Historically civilizations fought only 2 types of wars: Territorial and Religious

I don’t believe that people who own more Land and Oil then they can use would fly planes into TT to grab piece of Manhattan real estate but I do believe that their inspiration is direct expression of their religious beliefs.

fastreplies

Religion in itself is not evil at all. People tend to be naturally evil. Man is greedy, he is corrupt, he is selfish.

Let's take a typical example that an atheist might bring up when trying to say religion causes wars: the Norman conquest of England. Harold Godwinson (the nephew of the reigning King) was captured in France and swore on a Bible that he would give the country to William the Conqueror when his uncle, Edward, died. He lied about this and as soon as Edwards passed on, he claimed the throne for himself. William now declares a Holy war on Harold. He invades England, manages to win the Battle of Hastings and claims the country for himself.

There are 2 religious parts to this conflict:
1) Harold swears on a Bible, then breaks his promise
2) England does not currently have the Catholic church, but a decentralised Saxon church.

Now let's remove religion. Harold gets captured in France, but HE STILL promises to give England to William. The Saxon England still has a number of differences to Norman France both in language and culture. England is still a very wealthy country.

While religion was involved in this conflict, it was blatantly manipulated to justify an invasion that was really just about greed. England was one of the wealthiest countries in the known world and was a prize that any dark age monarch would love to have. The Vikings invaded England in 1066 as well and had been doing so for centuries.

The world would be a better place without EXTREMISTS, not without religion. If everyone was atheist, there would still be people who were particularly susceptible to getting swept up with extremists beliefs.

Dan

**serandfae** · 12-01-2007, 09:35 AM

Do you know what group was one of the largest against prayer in schools? Moderate ministers. Know why? Because they consider prayer to be robust and don't want some watered-down led prayer by some school official. Most Christians don't want to force their religion down someone else's throat. I don't even talk about mine here unless specifically asked, as is the case here. I do let my faith show in my day to day life, which is testimony enough. But in the case of school prayer, a great many reactionaries have pushed to have even personal prayer eliminated from schools, but that, too, is unconstitutional. And many of those extremists aren't religious at all, they're atheists. Like Kandi said, extremism is not the sole baliwick of religion.

**joder** · 12-01-2007, 01:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by serandfae

Do you know what group was one of the largest against prayer in schools? Moderate ministers. Know why? Because they consider prayer to be robust and don't want some watered-down led prayer by some school official. Most Christians don't want to force their religion down someone else's throat. I don't even talk about mine here unless specifically asked, as is the case here. I do let my faith show in my day to day life, which is testimony enough. But in the case of school prayer, a great many reactionaries have pushed to have even personal prayer eliminated from schools, but that, too, is unconstitutional. And many of those extremists aren't religious at all, they're atheists. Like Kandi said, extremism is not the sole baliwick of religion.

I am sure we could disagree on some issues Tim

But I think we agree, and seems to be the sentiment from others on this thread, that no one should shove any belief down any one else's throat. Personal prayer is constitutional. That is Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Wiccan, and any other religions prayers.

I also agree with Dan that it is extremists, religious or not, that cause wars and terrorism. There are people who want power and using religion to stir up hatred is widely used as is evident in the Middle East.

BTW, not all atheists are extremists. Lack of superstition doesn't equal extremism.

**CSS4Life** · 12-01-2007, 01:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by joder

BTW, not all atheists are extremists. Lack of superstition doesn't equal extremism.

Woah! What ever made you think that? I hope I didn't imply that with my comments. There are some very forceful atheists who (as my Dad would say), would "argue that black is white". Then there are others who just don't have a belief in God so are atheist. Then there are agnostics. It's probably true that there are extremists in all 3 of these categories and a number of the subcategories.

If you think about it, several notable atheists (or general unbelievers) throughout history were extremists. For example, take Stalin. He's relatively extremist in his beliefs; then take Hitler - certainly not a strong Christian. Both were extremists in their beliefs, therefore proving that religion doesn't cause extremism. It is often just used by extremists to justify their actions.

(While writing that, it came to my mind that Hitler did identify as a Christian and claimed he was finishing what Jesus had started. He wasn't a strong practising Christian and his actions certainly weren't mainstream, yet he used religion to justify his cause.)

**joder** · 12-01-2007, 01:40 PM

Dan, I wasn't accusing anyone on WT with believing that

I know you are in Britain. I was just making a comment because here in the U.S., many people believe all atheists as extremists.

**ForrestCroce** · 12-01-2007, 04:05 PM

I've read one of Harris's books, actually. For the most part, I like what the man has to say. He's articulate, and addresses issues that aren't part of the public debate, but should be. The guy also paints with a very broad brush. And makes a few shoot yourself in the foot mistakes, like calling for 'conversational intolerance' toward religion. What he means by that phrase is surprisingly reasonable - and being practiced in this thread, particularly by Tim - but choosing to call reflection and critical thinking 'intolerance' is an amazing gaffe. Harris thinks religion is dangerous because he calls it "a conversation stopper;" we're seeing exactly the opposite here.

I listen to what he has to say, but run it through my filter of what's reasonable and what isn't. I do the same with Steven Hawkins, though; we've come to the point where it's impossible to tell when physicists are joking and when they're not.

Quote:

Originally Posted by serandfae

In the abortion debate, the far right-wingers bomb abortion clinics, harass and kill doctors and call women going to the clinics abominable names. The moderate, though you'll never see her, opens up an adoption service with counseling, because she really cares about women who have to make that hard choice.

I really hate to invoke politics ... but it seems appropriate. No one will ever be elected president who isn't a Christian of some type. Republicans tend to base their policy decisions on religious grounds - stem cells are a great example - and democrats tend to keep their personal religious beliefs out of their policy making. That's an over generalization, with enough exceptions to prove the rule, and I'm not saying either is a better approach. Just pointing out the range of religious belief and how it can inform people's behavior in the here and now. In any case, I'm sure non religious people deserve some credit here, too...

Quote:

Originally Posted by serandfae

I can relate to that. I also believe in evolution; not that I need to but I can justify it Biblically. Of course science and religion aren't mutually exclusive. There are those in both "camps" that like to try to make it seem that way, but then again here's where being a moderate is actually the more intelligent path....

I hate the idea that every question has two sides. With the title of this thread, there are at least there: literalism, moderation, atheism. I'd toss out agnosticism, and suggest that Buddhism is halfway between a religion and a philosophy. There's a broad range, and if we're asking questions to find their answers, then only looking at two sides doesn't help anyone. There's no reason it has to be a question of science or religion. Personally, I think religions are a type of science ... they make claims and predictions about the nature of the world that are meant to help their audience.

Quote:

Originally Posted by KML9870

Yes, we would. Not all wars and mass killings have been based in religious belief. Extremists, like the 9/11 terrorists and others, would find another reason to justify their actions even without their "book."

I don't think that's the case. Remember that 15 of the 19 hijackers had master or doctorate level degrees. AQ Khan is intelligent and well educated enough to have built a nuclear weapon with his bare hands, and undoubtedly believes his 72 virgins await.

Tibetan monks aren't driving bombs into public buildings, even though their country is occupied by China. Half of the human race lives on less than $2 a day, but terrorism is unheard of in many of the poorest regions. Alcohol is probably a more common way people cope with poverty. I don't generally like Bill Maher - he's divisive for the sake of being divisive - but by process of elimination, he's right on this: "9/11 was a faith based initiative."

Of course when we talk about people being 'bankrupt' in some way, it's the people who kill at random to make a point. That's morally bankrupt. Whether or not people who aren't extremist are 'theologically bankrupt' is irrelevant. If John Doe thinks his spirituality is in crisis, then it's up to him to deal with it ... but that's not anyone else's business. I don't have any problem saying Jim Jones's death cult was a terrible thing, because it had severe real world consequences. If it's religion that makes you believe in doing unto others as you would have them do unto you, that's a good thing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by whym

therefore proving that religion doesn't cause extremism. It is often just used by extremists to justify their actions.

I don't have a time machine, but I would guess what we'd call extremism has been around longer than religion. There's no way what we think of as religion today could have existed before language; a person could have a spiritual experience, but couldn't communicate their revelation to others. We see barbarism that makes sense through a particular lens in animals, like when the alpha dog kills or nearly kills a challenger. Apes have been observed killing other groups of their own species, apparently for land and the food that comes with it. If they believe on small place is the only on the planet they can find food, it's worth killing for your own survival ... I'd call that extreme, and there's no way that could be blamed on the notion of god.

The Soviet Union and North Korea are two more examples. They're both very much like extremist religion in many ways. That seems to have more to do with human nature than anything else; a lot of us are eager to be lead.

**CSS4Life** · 12-01-2007, 04:31 PM

Interesting what you said about the republicans, democrats, their policy making and their religious beliefs. It mostly makes sense.

I think I'm an exception to your rule though - personal religious beliefs guide most of what I think is right and wrong, even though I consider myself to be at least centre-left in the political spectrum.

Let's take drugs - many left wing people (here we go, another generalisation...) tend to believe that if you legalise drugs, you'll actually fight the problem. I'm not one of them (John's bound to come back at me on this). The Bible says that the body is a temple of the Holy Spirit and drugs inevitably damage the body.

My left wing beliefs aren't guided that much by popular college/university culture where it's cool to be radically left wing - far from it. Many left wing beliefs (at least on the economic scale) tend to tie in very well with what Jesus taught. For example, caring for the poor. I recently debated on Bebo with some right wing Christian (he started it!) about this and said that right wing Christians often gave a lot to charity. I believe charity only fills in the holes that are left by neglect of the government. Charity, certainly in the developed world, shouldn't be necessary - governments should do more efficient jobs and take care of the poor anyway, without individuals to have to do it directly.

To draw it back to the original point by Forrest, I believe the left wing politicians should be fairly public with their beliefs, or at least let it involve their policy making. I know if I was in politics, I certainly would. My Christian beliefs go hand in hand with my political beliefs and sense of morality

**DaveMo~** · 12-01-2007, 05:21 PM

Quote:

Mr Harris (a self appointed heretic) says that while moderates are better than extremists because we don't fly planes into buildings, we give cover to extremists. He says being a religious moderate is intellectually and theologically bankrupt.

So does that mean that you're not using your intellect nor your theology if you're not bombing some institution or doing something extreme? Gee!

Quote:

Originally Posted by joder

BTW, not all atheists are extremists. Lack of superstition doesn't equal extremism.

Quote:

Originally Posted by joder

I was just making a comment because here in the U.S., many people believe all atheists as extremists.

Interesting point, that many people believe that atheists are extremists. I think many people take it that way, though I don't see that as extreme. However, the way it was stated in the top quote was that everyone that is a theist believes in superstition. You can tell me if I took that wrong.

I think most of the comments would be "taken better", if that's the proper way of saying it, if people didn't add editorial comments like that about their opposition (opposition meaning that they have opposing views, not battling). The thing about it is, both sides to any discussion will say things like that. And it doesn't help in a discussion; it may help if this were a debate to encourage people to change sides.

I agree with many that stated there's more uniqueness to people than to stick them in just a few categories (for example, either being a theist, an atheist, or an agnostic). I'm too unique with my beliefs to say I totally fit in one category, unless those are substantiated like a genus and the rest of the classifications break it down even more.

Dave

**joder** · 12-01-2007, 05:41 PM

Your misinterpreting what I said. I certainly didn't mean to say or imply that all theists think that. I don't think anyone should take it to mean that. No need to read things into what others say.

Look at the title of this thread. It implies atheists are extremists as opposed to moderates.

**DaveMo~** · 12-01-2007, 05:56 PM

If you didn't mean that, my apologies for taking it that way. I really can't conceive of another way people would take it with the context.

I don't think the title implies atheism is extremism since there are 3 categories with one of them being a "religious extremism".

But, with moderation sandwiched between religious extremism and atheism, then maybe it could be taken that the middle is exactly that, the middle, and the ones to both sides are extreme on their side. That is interesting, because I didn't take the title that way, but while thinking through it, I guess it could be taken that the outsides are the extremes.

Would that title equate atheism as a "non-religious" extremism?

Dave

**clink** · 12-01-2007, 06:01 PM

I think whatever you believe is fine but keep it to yourself. I hate people preaching about anything, be it belief or lack thereof.

**joder** · 12-01-2007, 06:18 PM

No problem David Mo

I think you were right to question it as Dan did. If someone has a concern they should ask

I certainly didn't mean to imply "all" or that anyone here had that idea but can see in retrospect how my statement can be taken that way.

The title as written could be taken that atheists are extremists since moderates are vs. atheists. But from reading Learning Newbie on this forum, I take it he didn't mean it that way. I think everyone that has posted to this thread are good people.

**DaveMo~** · 12-01-2007, 07:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by clink

I think whatever you believe is fine but keep it to yourself. I hate people preaching about anything, be it belief or lack thereof.

When you say preaching, are you equating that with "trying to shove it down your throat"? If you are, then I agree with you.

If you mean that people should not try to persuade other people to their side, like preaching from a pulpit or a lectern or whatever, then I must disagree. If I have something that I think is beneficial to someone, shouldn't I tell that person about it?

I think that when it comes to most religions, people are not told to be silent, but to win converts, even if those are only his/her family. It's hard to do that when you're silent about your beliefs, or lack thereof.

So, what did y'all think about this:

Quote:

Would that title equate atheism as a "non-religious" extremism?

Dave