July 15, 2012
Religions are failed sciences
Sam Harris at Big Think:
Question: What is religion?
Sam 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...
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