You know I have a love-hate relationship with Sam Harris. Well, in the following short video, he makes an excellent argument. While debating innumerate William Lane Craig, he asks the audience to imagine that Islam is true. He is speaking primarily to Christians. If Islam is true, and the Koran is the literal word of God and you don’t believe it, then you are going to hell. What kind of god would do that? What kind of god would make Dr. Craig go to hell, just because he happened to be born in a Christian country?
Harris brings this up to show that pretty much all of Craig’s arguments come down to special pleading. (It is interesting that from Craig’s standpoint, he has won all the debates against Harris, Carrier, and Price; to me, although I don’t think any of them were that great, he was without exception terrible; he lost all the debates.) In fact, Harris even brings up the concept of compassion. This is very interesting knowing Harris. He really has a soft spot for Tibetan Buddhism, which I totally understand. And this, I think gets to the heart of Harris’ argument in a broader context.
There aren’t any strong arguments against something like Tibetan Buddhism. The problem with the Abrahamic religions is that they say: do these things that God told you and get into heaven. In other words, they are dogmatic systems. And thus, they are not spiritual systems. They are the paint-by-numbers approach to religious insight. If there really is only one way to salvation, then God is evil. What’s more: we can’t have been made in his image. Moral thinking like that found in the Bible is anathema to us. If a man had two sons from different women, would we say the man was moral to spoil one of the boys and torture the other? Of course not! Yet that is exactly what the (for example) Christian God does to billions of people who made the mistake of not being born in the right place.
More thoughtful Christians are fond of telling me that they have given up trying to understand God. They just know that he has a plan and that it is all good and all makes sense. But if that’s the case: why all the stupid laws? Why is the basis of the Christian religion the ludicrous idea that all anyone has to do is believe in Jesus and all their sins will be washed away? This is childish nonsense. Remember in Peter Pan when Tinkerbell dies and we all have to say we believe in fairies and this brings her back to life? Does that sound familiar?
If God has a plan for us, surely it must be a little more personal and inscrutable than following a few culturally specific laws and believing in a demigod. The universe is a great contradiction. It allows for all kinds of thinking. But that just isn’t allowed when we limit ourselves to accept cutting edge spiritual thinking from the Iron Age. Why fill in numbered sections on a canvas when we can create our own Renoirs?
If only there were a "Create Your Own Renoir" set for filmmakers!
As an arguer against monotheism, Harris is really useful. But it’s odd how quickly these people were co-opted by the neocons. "Hey, we both hate Islam, let’s do lunch!" They all supported the Iraq war. If one is going to call for regime overthrow in the Mideast, certainly target #1 (or 1A, along with Israeli hard-liners) has to be Saudi Arabia, the worst human-rights offender imaginable. Fully half the population (the female half) are slaves. For Harris, Hitchens et. al. to be in bed with the Saudis’ biggest supporters was just sheer hypocrisy.
Just finished Jacoby’s biography of Robert Ingersoll, and it’s notable how Ingersoll did NOT win political influence in his day. If Harris/Hitchens had been alive then, they would have scored points with Protestants using their skills to lambaste Catholicism. Ingersoll offended religious Americans coast-to-coast, opposed our imperialist wars, and was hugely popular with audiences. He championed Whitman (and yes, everyone knew Walt was gay), supported women’s rights and abolition and labor and was a fierce opponent of cruelty to animals.
In an appendix, Jacoby writes an open letter to the New Atheists, all of whom cite influences and famous skeptics, but none of whom mention Ingersoll. Unsaid, but clearly implied, is that Ingersoll’s essential humanism is distasteful to these war supporters. (Their books don’t say much about Bertrand Russell, either — although I think they all make a passing reference to "Why I Am Not A Christian," it must be required by law.)
@JMF – You are correct. I’ve written about it, but I still don’t really see why atheism and libertarianism are linked. I am very much with Richard Carrier. To me the almost certain lack of anything beyond this life means we need to make it as good as possible for everyone. How you get from "this is all there is" to "how do I screw everyone else over" is unclear to me.
I think I’ve noticed a certain amount of regret from Harris in recent years. I don’t think he likes to be seen as a conservative. But I can’t say for sure. He certainly avoids talking about it. Hitchens, however, was just awful. And the amazing thing is that you almost can’t read an atheist or cosmological book without putting up with some tribute to him. There is no doubt in my mind that "Hitch" used his amazing intellect for evil. Sometimes great brilliance can be a trap because it allows you to have ridiculous levels of cognitive dissonance. Note that in most areas, he never changed his youthful socialist opinions. (BTW: early stuff he did is usually pretty good, although in hindsight I question its integrity.)
The book sounds really interesting. But as it is, I already have [i]The Punishment of Virtue[/i] waiting for me.
I think you’ll enjoy "Punishment Of Virtue." It’s a very sad story but the history is terrific and the author is certainly a strange, gutsy character.
I’m just a Jacoby whore, I love her to death. Her seminal work is "Freethinkers," about the history of secularism in America (no, we were NOT founded as a Christian nation, and the authors of the Constitution took quite a bit of heat for leaving God out.) Her new book on Ingersoll is kind of a follow-up, and it’s the first one where you can detect hints of slipping (her mind’s as lively as ever, but there are bits repeated which should have been caught in the proofreading stage.)
I really was a Hitchens fan 15 years ago or so. I’m not sure either why these guys got suckered into the neocon agenda so much (just the thrill of being listened to by power, perhaps?) If Harris could find it in his heart to have a come-to-Jesus moment and admit he was flattered, fooled, and utterly wrong, that might be very helpful. But I don’t see it happening.
@JMF – I already have [i]Freethinkers[/i] requested. Frankly, I’m more excited by it. The truth is, Afghanistan makes me very tired. I want to hide under the sheets.
Yeah, I’m not expecting an apology. Although in the years to come, I suspect we will see him trying to finesse his old views. That could be fun.
Just wanted to point out that the Koran does seem to say that followers of the Jewish Tanach don’t have anything to fear from Allah as long as they follow it faithfully. I don’t recall seeing anything like that in the Bible or in that silly thing the Romans appended to it.
@Capt. Fogg – How ecumenical of them! That’s great. And it is interesting that you refer to the New Testament as the Roman appendage to the Bible. There is a lot of research that suggests that the New Testament was the Hellenization of Judaism. (There was a lot of Hellenization of older religions going on at that time.) It makes a lot of sense. The Bible is fascinating. Too bad Christians only want to show me where it says that Jesus died for my sins…