| ABOUT US | ARCHIVES | LINKS | RSS FEED | MONDAYS | |

3quarksdaily

An Eclectic Digest of Science, Art and Literature

« Anatomy of a Successful Rape Joke | Main | Lake Life »

July 15, 2012

Religions are failed sciences

Sam Harris at Big Think:

Question: What is religion?

ScreenHunter_09 Jul. 15 23.33Sam Harris:  Well I think we are misled by this very term “religion”.  We use that word “religion” as though it meant a distinct thing....as though it meant one phenomenon in human discourse.  And there’s really a range of infatuations and practices that go by the name of religion.  And therefore many points on this continuum don’t have much in common with others.  So if you take a religion like “Jainism” – a religion in India – its core principle is non-violence.  Now there is where Gandhi got his conception of non-violence.  And the Jains are vegetarian.  They have no doctrine of holy war.  In fact, they don’t even have a doctrine – a proper doctrine of self-defense.  I mean they’re pacifists.  They don’t want to hurt a fly.  And then on the other end of the continuum, you have something like Islam where it has explicitly a doctrine of holy war, and a notion of....Combat and death, in certain contexts, is actually the highest obligation a religious person can fulfill.  So these are both religions.  And so religion is a word like “sport”.  You have a sport like badminton, and you have a sport like, you know, boxing.  They’re not....they’re both sports that, you know, one is much more dangerous.  So I’m concerned....I’m obviously more concerned about religions like Islam that....wherein you have this marriage of a variety of spiritual and ethical concerns; but also certain kinds of metaphysical certainties that inspire people to not only die, but to kill others in the process.  And you don’t have that in other religions.  So I think that we have to be clear about how this term religion can mislead us. 

More here.

Posted by S. Abbas Raza at 05:34 PM | Permalink

Comments

Wow. Just wow.

Posted by: big joe | Jul 15, 2012 6:30:35 PM

When are we going to consign this self-promoting "scientist"-cum-"philosopher" to his real niche among the likes of Geert Wilders, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and others who have found their métier as Kulturkampf warriors? Harris can hardly be called a practicing scientist. He's about as objective as the Dutch political showman, Geert Wilders:

http://mondoweiss.net/2012/06/sam-harris-uncovered.html

http://www.rnw.nl/english/article/wilders-a-fascist

His half-baked notions about philosophy are standard fare of sophomore term papers:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W8vYq6Xm2To

Posted by: slr | Jul 15, 2012 6:37:25 PM

I see the parasites are fighting back, as the hosts go wild.

Posted by: Dave Ranningdd | Jul 15, 2012 7:44:03 PM

slr, Thank you for the Theodore Sayeed article, which is excellent.

Here is David Luban refuting Harris's Defense of Torture:

http://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1163&context=facpub

Posted by: Louise Gordon | Jul 15, 2012 7:49:29 PM

"We didn’t know . . . We didn’t know the basis of anything. We didn’t know why we were here. We didn’t know how diseases spread, or what disease was. We didn’t know how people . . . why people died early, and why others flourished. We don’t know what’s causing thunderstorms, or what’s causing crops to fail. And we very naturally . . . As a cognitive and behavioral imperative, we formed descriptions of the world, and we tried to figure out what’s going on. We tell ourselves stories about our origins, and about where we’re going, and about causes in the world. And those stories, given our just pervasive ignorance and our disposition to see agency in the world . . . to see, you know . . . to feel ourselves in relationship to the world, these stories entail being in relation to invisible friends and enemies. "

If one can read this and not hear the deep rumbling of fantasy and prophecy, of deep reverence, I applaud their faith in Science.

Critical evaluation of ones own thought, language and the trajectory of the two expressed seem impossible for Sam to dwell with.

Posted by: William Goudy | Jul 15, 2012 10:18:19 PM

Science is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe (made up of matter and energy)
( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science )

Religion is a collection of cultural systems, belief systems, and worldviews that relate humanity to spirituality and, sometimes, to moral values
 ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion )

If science and religion have independent domains, how are "religions failed sciences"? If Harris was a scientist he would know better, but he is not. He is a liberal fascist.

Posted by: Raza | Jul 15, 2012 10:21:07 PM

I am a nonbeliever, but I do wonder which law of physics Sam Harris thinks the Sermon on the Mount "failed" to discover.

Posted by: E Kite | Jul 16, 2012 2:52:30 AM

George Orwell upon occasion created a "secular religion" or two, a famous one being the bully religion.

Others are using the description secular religion now and then to focus on one facet of this, that, and the other meme complex.

Sometimes a word change is a breath of fresh air, sometimes propaganda, and sometimes inevitable.

Posted by: Dredd | Jul 16, 2012 10:30:50 AM

It is a simple fact that for many centuries (dictionary definitions notwithstanding) plagues, crop failures and so on were thought to be the work of deities, or punishment for transgressions.
The Black Death is a historical example; AIDS is a modern one. It's seen as a punishment for homosexuality, among other things. Likewise some buddhists believe that people born with birth defects are suffering for crimes committed in a previous life.
Religious explanations for natural phenomena have been tested, falsified and replaced by scientific ones. To ignore this is to ignore a huge aspect of religion.
It is definitely true that religion has been used to create culture (music, architecture) and morality, but this is only part of the story.
Creationists and people praying for miracle healings prove one thing without any doubt: religions make statements about reality (The world is 6000 years old! This water will cure your cancer!) that fall under the same magisterium as science.
Not every faith does this, but many do.
Saying that religions are failed sciences is true, even if it's not the whole truth.
Even if we adhere to the dictionary definition, we can still cram in the 'scientific worldview'.

Posted by: AW | Jul 16, 2012 8:25:41 PM

Religions as failed science? I have a hard time with that. Rather than argue with it I will offer a couple of selections from a wonderful interview with theoretical physicist Carlo Rovelli...

Science is not about certainty. Science is about finding the most reliable way of thinking, at the present level of knowledge. Science is extremely reliable; it's not certain. In fact, not only it's not certain, but it's the lack of certainty that grounds it. Scientific ideas are credible not because they are sure, but because they are the ones that have survived all the possible past critiques, and they are the most credible because they were put on the table for everybody's criticism.

The very expression 'scientifically proven' is a contradiction in terms. There is nothing that is scientifically proven. The core of science is the deep awareness that we have wrong ideas, we have prejudices. We have ingrained prejudices. In our conceptual structure for grasping reality there might be something not appropriate, something we may have to revise to understand better. So at any moment, we have a vision of reality that is effective, it's good, it's the best we have found so far. It's the most credible we have found so far, its mostly correct.

But at the same time it's not taken for certain, and any element of it is a priori open for revision. Why do we have this continuous…? On the one hand, we have this brain, and it has evolved for millions of years. It has evolved for us, for basically running the savannah and run after and eat deer and try not to be eaten by the lions. We have a brain that is tuned to meters and hours, which is not particularly well-tuned to think about atoms and galaxies. So we have to get out of that.

.....

In religious thinking, often this is unacceptable. What is unacceptable is not a scientist that says I know, but it's a scientist that says I don't know, and how could you know? Based, at least in many religions, in some religions, or in some ways of being religious, an idea that there should be truth that one can hold and not be questioned. This way of thinking is naturally disturbed by a way of thinking which is based on continuous revision, not of the theories, of even the core ground of the way in which we think.

So summarizing, I think science is not about data; it's not about the empirical content, about our vision of the world. It's about overcoming our own ideas, and about going beyond common sense continuously. Science is a continuous challenge of common sense, and the core of science is not certainty, it's continuous uncertainty. I would even say the joy of taking what we think, being aware that in everything we think, there are probably still an enormous amount of prejudices and mistakes, and try to learn to look a little bit larger, knowing that there is always a larger point of view that we'll expect in the future.

video: http://edge.org/memberbio/carlo_rovelli

text of interview: http://www.edge.org/conversation.php?cid=a-philosophy-of-physics

Posted by: Angeleo Mysterioso | Jul 17, 2012 12:03:25 AM

Post a comment






Subscribe to this blog's feed  

PayAnywhere with iphone credit card swiper

Android Tablet

Bluetooth Headset

2013 New Style Dresses

Compare Car Rental Prices

DHgate.com Wholesale

3QD on Facebook

3QD on Kindle

3QD by Daily Email

Receive all blogposts at the same time every day.

Enter your Email:


Preview 3QD Email

3QD on Twitter

Miscellany

Lijit Search

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Add to Google

Recent Comments

Raza Husain on Getting Smarter

johnnyred on Getting Smarter

Lou on Throwing away ancient wisdom, painting with sound and staying awake: a conversation with radio dramatist and ZBS Foundation president Thomas Lopez

Sundar on If Only We Had A Leader Like Chavez, Who Solved Real Problems -- Instead Of Debating Fake Ones Like The Deficit

flowers rainbows on Lift up your voices: The century-long battle for women's freedom

mr.ed on wagner in new york?

mirel on Here’s how to change the world

mirel on If Only We Had A Leader Like Chavez, Who Solved Real Problems -- Instead Of Debating Fake Ones Like The Deficit

X on Getting Smarter

Ross Williams on Getting Smarter

oroboe on Lennon's "Imagine" and McCartney/Wings' "Band on the Run" overlaid: One way of reuniting (some of) the Beatles

Richard H. Randall on Obama must Make Fighting Climate Change National Project, or Die the death of a thousand Scandals

seth edenbaum on The First New Atheist? Kierkegaard

waqnis on Mortify Our Wolves

nogodrod on KFC smugglers bring buckets of chicken through Gaza tunnels

waqnis on Here’s how to change the world

Fernando on Mortify Our Wolves

seth edenbaum on The case against empathy

Dredd on Mortify Our Wolves

Max on Here’s how to change the world

Rohana on Mortify Our Wolves

Raza Husain on If Only We Had A Leader Like Chavez, Who Solved Real Problems -- Instead Of Debating Fake Ones Like The Deficit

mirel on If Only We Had A Leader Like Chavez, Who Solved Real Problems -- Instead Of Debating Fake Ones Like The Deficit

araldo on Here’s how to change the world

Elatia Harris on Here’s how to change the world

Acclaim For 3QD


"I couldn't tear myself away from 3 Quarks Daily, to the point of neglecting my work. Congratulations on this superb site."—Steven Pinker, Johnstone Professor of Psychology, Harvard University.

"I have placed 3 Quarks Daily at the head of my list of web bookmarks."—Richard Dawkins, Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University.

"Just wanted you to know I’m one of many who reads and enjoys 3 Quarks....almost daily."—David Byrne, musician, former lead-singer of the Talking Heads, artist, intellectual.

Read more here.

The 3QD Prizes

Subscribe to this blog's feed