On 4/11/06, The Fool <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > If you ingore some minor gibberish about buddism: > > <<www.truthdig.com/report/item/20060403_sam_harris_interview>>
For anyone who is wondering, as I was, who the heck Sam Harris is... "With the publication of his 2004 New York Times bestseller, "The End of Faith," a full-throttle attack on religion, Sam Harris became the most prominent atheist in America." He also seems to fail to recognize the difference between irrational and non-rational beliefs. And this statement, " Religious moderation is just a cherry-picking of scripture, ultimately," is ridiculous. It implies that fundamentalism is the only *complete* form of Christianity. Nonsense, really. There's a lot of "blame their theology" in what he says. Aside from my objection to blaming in general, that sort of argument makes a terribly simplistic assumption about cause and effect. Group X acts the way they do because of their theology -- "there are people who are really willing and eager to blow themselves up because they think they're going to get to paradise," Harris argues. It's not that simple -- but how convenient to assume that the problem is just their theology. With that in mind, we no longer have to concern ourselves with any other issues. Social and economic injustice and no longer important because it's that damned theology that is causing the trouble. Harris argues that terrorists apparently aren't thinking about poverty and injustice. He'd have us assume that just because they focus on religion, their actions have nothing to do with poverty and injustice. Isn't it blindingly obvious that the bin Ladens of this world find followers because of the social and economic conditions where they recruit? For heaven's sake, demagogues are *never* are motivated by altruism! Even those who claim to be -- the SLA and its demands when Patty Hearst was kidnapped come to mind -- clearly are motivated by a desire for power as much as they might want to feed the hungry. Who knows what else motivates that sort of behavior -- genetics, toilet training, education... there are myriad factors. The idea that terrorists cannot be motivated by poverty because they personally are well-off is, well, stupid. Really stupid. It completely ignores the basic human characteristic of empathy. Probably more to the point, it ignores the basic human desire for power, which sees opportunity for personal power in the suffering of others. All we really know is that there is are correlations of varying degrees between certain beliefs and behaviors. It seems to me that there's a lot of evidence that other factors are driving both. In places that suffer from poverty and injustice, terrorism and fundamentalism often arise. But that's just a correlation, too. Maybe it is all driven by nutrition. Who knows? Do I vote the way I do because of my theology? Maybe sometimes. But there's no doubt in my mind that I also choose my theology because of my political and social beliefs. They are inseparable and intertwined, as I suspect is true for people all over the world. Harris says, "We should be fundamentally hostile to claims to certainty that are not backed up by evidence and argument." Now there, he's got something. I wish he'd take his own advice a bit more... and realize that the majority of Christians, if not the majority of humans, tend to agree. As David Brin points out, we live in a culture that routinely challenges authority. Nick -- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Messages: 408-904-7198 _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
