Print
The Sacrifice of Reason
by Sam Harris, On Faith
Reposted from:
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/sam_harris/2007/08/the_sacrifice_of_reason.html
Humanity has had a long fascination with blood sacrifice. In fact, it has been by no means uncommon for a child to be born into this world only to be patiently and lovingly reared by religious maniacs who believe that the best way to keep the sun on its course or to ensure a rich harvest is to lead him by tender hand into a field or to a mountaintop and bury, butcher, or burn him alive as offering to an invisible (and almost certainly fictional) God.
In many ancient cultures whenever a nobleman died, other men and women allowed themselves to be buried alive so as to serve as his retainers in the next world. In ancient Rome, children were sometimes slaughtered so that the future could be read in their entrails. The Dyak women of Borneo would not even look at a suitor unless he came bearing a net full of human heads as a love offering. Some Fijian prodigy devised a powerful sacrament called "Vakatoga" which required that a victim's limbs be cut off and eaten while he watched. Among the Iroquois, captives from other tribes were often permitted to live for many years, and even to marry, all the while being doomed to be flayed alive as an oblation to the God of War; whatever children they produced while in captivity were disposed of in the same ritual. African tribes too numerous to name have a long history of murdering people to send as couriers in a one-way dialogue with their ancestors or to convert their body parts into magical charms. Ritual murders of this sort continue in many African societies to this day.
It is essential to realize that such impossibly stupid misuses of human life have always been explicitly religious. They are the product of what certain human beings think they know about invisible gods and goddesses, and of what they manifestly do not know about biology, meteorology, medicine, physics, and a dozen other specific sciences that have more than a little to say about the events in the world that concern them.
And it is astride this contemptible history of religious atrocity and scientific ignorance that Christianity now stands as an absurdly unselfconscious apotheosis. As John the Baptist is rumored to have said upon seeing Jesus for the first time, "Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world" (John 1:29). For most Christians, this bizarre opinion still stands, and it remains the core of their faith. Christianity amounts to the claim that we must love and be loved by a God who approves of the scapegoating, torture, and murder of one man—his son, incidentally—in compensation for the misbehavior and thought-crimes of all others.
Let the good news go forth: we live in a cosmos, the vastness of which we can scarcely even indicate in our thoughts, on a planet teeming with creatures we have only begun to understand, but the whole project was actually brought to a glorious fulfillment over twenty centuries ago, after one species of primate (our own) climbed down out of the trees, invented agriculture and iron tools, glimpsed (as through a glass, darkly) the possibility of keeping its excrement out of its food, and then singled out one among its number to be viciously flogged and nailed to a cross.
The notion that Jesus Christ died for our sins and that his death constitutes a successful propitiation of a "loving" God is a direct and undisguised inheritance of the scapegoating barbarism that has plagued bewildered people throughout history. Viewed in a modern context, it is an idea at once so depraved and fantastical that it is hard to know where to begin to criticize it. Add to the abject mythology surrounding one man's death by torture—Christ's passion—the symbolic cannibalism of the Eucharist. Did I say "symbolic"? Sorry, according to the Vatican it is most assuredly not symbolic. In fact, the opinion of the Council of Trent still stands:
Of course, Catholics have done some very strenuous and unconvincing theology in this area, in an effort to make sense of how they can really eat the body of Jesus, not mere crackers enrobed in metaphor, and really drink his blood without, in fact, being a cult of crazy cannibals. Suffice it to say, however, that a world view in which "propitiatory sacrifices on behalf of the living and the dead" figure prominently is rather difficult to defend in the year 2007. But this has not stopped otherwise intelligent and well-intentioned people from defending it.
And now we learn that even Mother Teresa, the most celebrated exponent of this dogmatism in a century, had her doubts about the whole story—the presence of Christ in the Eucharist, the existence of heaven, and even the existence of God:
Teresa's recently published letters reveal a mind riven by doubt (as it should have been). They also reveal a woman who was surely suffering from run-of-the-mill depression, though even secular commentators have begun to politely dress this fact in the colors of the saints and martyrs. Teresa's response to her own bewilderment and hypocrisy (her term) reveals just how like quicksand religious faith can be. Her doubts about God's existence were interpreted by her confessor as a sign that she was sharing Christ's torment upon the cross; this exaltation of her wavering faith allowed Teresa "to love the darkness" she experienced in God's apparent absence. Such is the genius of the unfalsifiable. We can see the same principle at work among her fellow Catholics: Teresa's doubts have only enhanced her stature in the eyes of the Church, having been interpreted as a further evidence of God's grace.
Ask yourself, when even the doubts of experts are thought to confirm a doctrine, what could possibly disconfirm it?
www.samharris.org
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/sam_harris/2007/08/the_sacrifice_of_reason.html
Humanity has had a long fascination with blood sacrifice. In fact, it has been by no means uncommon for a child to be born into this world only to be patiently and lovingly reared by religious maniacs who believe that the best way to keep the sun on its course or to ensure a rich harvest is to lead him by tender hand into a field or to a mountaintop and bury, butcher, or burn him alive as offering to an invisible (and almost certainly fictional) God.
In many ancient cultures whenever a nobleman died, other men and women allowed themselves to be buried alive so as to serve as his retainers in the next world. In ancient Rome, children were sometimes slaughtered so that the future could be read in their entrails. The Dyak women of Borneo would not even look at a suitor unless he came bearing a net full of human heads as a love offering. Some Fijian prodigy devised a powerful sacrament called "Vakatoga" which required that a victim's limbs be cut off and eaten while he watched. Among the Iroquois, captives from other tribes were often permitted to live for many years, and even to marry, all the while being doomed to be flayed alive as an oblation to the God of War; whatever children they produced while in captivity were disposed of in the same ritual. African tribes too numerous to name have a long history of murdering people to send as couriers in a one-way dialogue with their ancestors or to convert their body parts into magical charms. Ritual murders of this sort continue in many African societies to this day.
It is essential to realize that such impossibly stupid misuses of human life have always been explicitly religious. They are the product of what certain human beings think they know about invisible gods and goddesses, and of what they manifestly do not know about biology, meteorology, medicine, physics, and a dozen other specific sciences that have more than a little to say about the events in the world that concern them.
And it is astride this contemptible history of religious atrocity and scientific ignorance that Christianity now stands as an absurdly unselfconscious apotheosis. As John the Baptist is rumored to have said upon seeing Jesus for the first time, "Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world" (John 1:29). For most Christians, this bizarre opinion still stands, and it remains the core of their faith. Christianity amounts to the claim that we must love and be loved by a God who approves of the scapegoating, torture, and murder of one man—his son, incidentally—in compensation for the misbehavior and thought-crimes of all others.
Let the good news go forth: we live in a cosmos, the vastness of which we can scarcely even indicate in our thoughts, on a planet teeming with creatures we have only begun to understand, but the whole project was actually brought to a glorious fulfillment over twenty centuries ago, after one species of primate (our own) climbed down out of the trees, invented agriculture and iron tools, glimpsed (as through a glass, darkly) the possibility of keeping its excrement out of its food, and then singled out one among its number to be viciously flogged and nailed to a cross.
The notion that Jesus Christ died for our sins and that his death constitutes a successful propitiation of a "loving" God is a direct and undisguised inheritance of the scapegoating barbarism that has plagued bewildered people throughout history. Viewed in a modern context, it is an idea at once so depraved and fantastical that it is hard to know where to begin to criticize it. Add to the abject mythology surrounding one man's death by torture—Christ's passion—the symbolic cannibalism of the Eucharist. Did I say "symbolic"? Sorry, according to the Vatican it is most assuredly not symbolic. In fact, the opinion of the Council of Trent still stands:
I likewise profess that in the Mass a true, proper and propitiatory sacrifice is offered to God on behalf of the living and the dead, and that the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ is truly, really, and substantially present in the most holy sacrament of the Eucharist, and that there is a change of the whole substance of the bread into the body, and of the whole substance of the wine into blood; and this change the Catholic Church calls transubstantiation. I also profess that the whole and entire Christ and a true sacrament is received under each separate species.
Of course, Catholics have done some very strenuous and unconvincing theology in this area, in an effort to make sense of how they can really eat the body of Jesus, not mere crackers enrobed in metaphor, and really drink his blood without, in fact, being a cult of crazy cannibals. Suffice it to say, however, that a world view in which "propitiatory sacrifices on behalf of the living and the dead" figure prominently is rather difficult to defend in the year 2007. But this has not stopped otherwise intelligent and well-intentioned people from defending it.
And now we learn that even Mother Teresa, the most celebrated exponent of this dogmatism in a century, had her doubts about the whole story—the presence of Christ in the Eucharist, the existence of heaven, and even the existence of God:
Lord, my God, who am I that You should forsake me? The Child of your Love — and now become as the most hated one — the one — You have thrown away as unwanted — unloved. I call, I cling, I want — and there is no One to answer — no One on Whom I can cling — no, No One. — Alone ... Where is my Faith — even deep down right in there is nothing, but emptiness & darkness — My God — how painful is this unknown pain — I have no Faith — I dare not utter the words & thoughts that crowd in my heart — & make me suffer untold agony.
So many unanswered questions live within me afraid to uncover them — because of the blasphemy — If there be God — please forgive me — When I try to raise my thoughts to Heaven — there is such convicting emptiness that those very thoughts return like sharp knives & hurt my very soul. — I am told God loves me — and yet the reality of darkness & coldness & emptiness is so great that nothing touches my soul. Did I make a mistake in surrendering blindly to the Call of the Sacred Heart?
— addressed to Jesus, at the suggestion of a confessor, undated
Teresa's recently published letters reveal a mind riven by doubt (as it should have been). They also reveal a woman who was surely suffering from run-of-the-mill depression, though even secular commentators have begun to politely dress this fact in the colors of the saints and martyrs. Teresa's response to her own bewilderment and hypocrisy (her term) reveals just how like quicksand religious faith can be. Her doubts about God's existence were interpreted by her confessor as a sign that she was sharing Christ's torment upon the cross; this exaltation of her wavering faith allowed Teresa "to love the darkness" she experienced in God's apparent absence. Such is the genius of the unfalsifiable. We can see the same principle at work among her fellow Catholics: Teresa's doubts have only enhanced her stature in the eyes of the Church, having been interpreted as a further evidence of God's grace.
Ask yourself, when even the doubts of experts are thought to confirm a doctrine, what could possibly disconfirm it?
www.samharris.org
Add to del.icio.us
Posted: Wednesday, August 29, 2007 | PermalinkComments 1 - 50 of 116 |
Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers2. Comment #66284 by dazzjazz on August 29, 2007 at 3:26 pm
Gosh, Sam's final sentence is so HEAVY! He really says it all right there.PS If you haven't checked out Penn and Teller dish the dirt on Mother Theresa - it's both enlightening and hilarious.
Other Comments by dazzjazz
3. Comment #66287 by Jiten on August 29, 2007 at 3:31 pm
Sam is just tireless! And I always learn something new. Other Comments by Jiten
4. Comment #66290 by Friend Giskard on August 29, 2007 at 3:42 pm
I fail to see how the mating habits of the Borneo headhunters relate to religion.That one quibble apart, this is a good piece.
Other Comments by Friend Giskard
5. Comment #66295 by robotaholic on August 29, 2007 at 3:58 pm
Sam Harris is cool. I was getting tired of hearing the same thing and he said something new and it was great.I have this certain respect for old people just because they seem sensitive and hurtable....and Theresa was a totally brainwashed person- so I'd go easy on her. Pitty instead of contempt
Other Comments by robotaholic
6. Comment #66296 by cryinryan on August 29, 2007 at 3:59 pm
also dazzjazz check out Christopher Hitchens' book "The Missionary Position - Mother Teresa in Theory and Practice ". It shows M.T. as she really was - an incredibly horrible human being with no concern at all for the poor and dying. Plus C. H. is such an amazing writer. Everyone should read it. Other Comments by cryinryan
7. Comment #66301 by Janus on August 29, 2007 at 4:33 pm
"Such is the genius of the unfalsifiable. We can see the same principle at work among her fellow Catholics: Teresa's doubts have only enhanced her stature in the eyes of the Church, having been interpreted as a further evidence of God's grace.Ask yourself, when even the doubts of experts are thought to confirm a doctrine, what could possibly disconfirm it?"
Pure brilliance. :D
Other Comments by Janus
8. Comment #66302 by Veronique on August 29, 2007 at 4:33 pm
This is a good article notwithstanding Giskard's qualification. I just posted a comment at the 'On Faith' board. I encourage all RD posters to do the same. The moderator is taking some time before posting comments, but I gather this is normal.We are very fortunate here that our postings are immediate with no moderation.
I love the way Sam is able to collate specific idiocies and present a good, tight article (except for the mating habits:-)). I think he is getting better and better at this.
Unfortunately, it seems that humanity displays an inability to grow into its frontal lobes (quite large) and develop the sort of consciousness and world-view that is needed to go forth. Instead it wallows in the adrenal glands (very small and with a stranglehold). So Sam's last observation is depressingly true. Nothing seems to be able to disconfirm the 'truths' of the true believer.
I find his comment that Catholic theologians have tried to spin the cannibalistic professed statement recorded in the Council of Trent documents to mitigate its meaning while still believing in the transubstantiation of the Eucharist absolutely spot on.
It would appear that many Catholics know their religion is based on BS (like Sweeney's mum) but that they still adhere to its tenets. Mind boggling. (shakes head and sighs).
1. Comment #66283 by mjwemdee
There's an article on this site that discusses Theresa's 40 year doubts about her religion. Check it out.
Cheers
V
Other Comments by Veronique
9. Comment #66310 by BAEOZ on August 29, 2007 at 4:56 pm
Sam is a seriously good article writer. Loved those last sentences, as Janus said, so do I. Other Comments by BAEOZ
10. Comment #66313 by BigJohn on August 29, 2007 at 5:06 pm
" I likewise profess that in the Mass a true, proper and propitiatory sacrifice is offered to God on behalf of the living and the dead, and that the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ is truly, really, and substantially present in the most holy sacrament of the Eucharist, and that there is a change of the whole substance of the bread into the body, and of the whole substance of the wine into blood; and this change the Catholic Church calls transubstantiation. I also profess that the whole and entire Christ and a true sacrament is received under each separate species."I remember being told by the nuns in school that some guy took a host home and hit it with a hammer and blood squirted out all over. That may influenced me to doubt a tiny bit even though I was only 7 or 8 years old. Well, I didn't laugh out loud anyway.
Other Comments by BigJohn
11. Comment #66317 by The_Stone on August 29, 2007 at 5:16 pm
I agree with Sam, of course. As a former Christian, I can recall the double-think going on in one's mind. At once, I could believe God to be merciful, because I never attributed the ill-goings on of the world to God but instead to Satan. Sort of like an elephant(god) might stamp out ants(satan and demons) due to either innumeracy or clever motility. (As if ants or elephants could ever comprehend the human notion of good and evil).Now, after receiving a thorough education of the nature of mathematical infinity and it's logical rigor, it is impossible to reasonably admit an infinite god as capable of admitting evil, without being party to the act of applying suffering even undeservededly and spitefully.
What I'm saying is that Christians, out of a lack of understanding of reason itself, and selective memorization, do not have a grasp of the nature of the infinite that is the foundation of their faith.
Other Comments by The_Stone
12. Comment #66321 by roach on August 29, 2007 at 5:26 pm
Sam is so cool. His writing style is so simple and powerful. He almost always delivers devestating one liners i.e. "Ask yourself, when even the doubts of experts are thought to confirm a doctrine, what could possibly disconfirm it?" Awesome.Other Comments by roach
13. Comment #66322 by Richard Morgan on August 29, 2007 at 5:27 pm
BAEOZ:Sam is a seriously good article writer. Loved those last sentences, as Janus said, so do I.
Jiten :
Sam is just tireless! And I always learn something new.
dazzjazz :
Gosh, Sam's final sentence is so HEAVY! He really says it all right there.
roach :
Sam is so cool. His writing style is so simple and powerful..... Awesome.
Do you remember how teen-age girls would shriek and weep and faint and wet themselves when they were able to catch a glimpse of The Beatles - The Fab Four - back in the sixties?
Frankly the asinine adulation that I find expressed in these columns for our "fab four" (D,D,H & H) strikes me as equally excessive and on the way to becoming just as hysterical.
When I read stuff like that, I find it so embarrassing I hardly dare recommend this site to other acquaintances.
How undignified!
Other Comments by Richard Morgan
14. Comment #66329 by Janus on August 29, 2007 at 5:41 pm
Oh dear oh dear oh dear, we're acting in an _undignified_ fashion, are we?I think there are worse crimes.
And of course, we don't act this way whenever we "catch a glimpse" of D, D, H, and H. We react to the things they say and write, and that makes all the difference.
Other Comments by Janus
15. Comment #66333 by Canuck#1 on August 29, 2007 at 5:54 pm
As a retired teacher (History and English) one of the things I enjoyed most was reading an essay...well organised, well written in terms of both style and structure, facts clearly stated and explained....and then to enjoy a student's reaaction to the mark......a very large smile.... A+ Sam
Other Comments by Canuck#1
16. Comment #66336 by Canuck#1 on August 29, 2007 at 5:58 pm
I am in the process of posting a new item on my blog....give me a few hours...than give a lookcanuck12.blog
Other Comments by Canuck#1
17. Comment #66339 by nothing on August 29, 2007 at 6:04 pm
I hope Sam's clear thinking and lucidity of thought is reaching some members of our species. I fear though that Christopher Hitchens is right and that religion is ineradicable because we are still such an infantile species. I don't see much reason for optimism. Other Comments by nothing
18. Comment #66343 by USA_Limey on August 29, 2007 at 6:08 pm
Comment #66322 by Richard Morgan:the asinine adulation that I find expressed in these columns for our "fab four" (D,D,H & H) strikes me as equally excessive and on the way to becoming just as hysterical.
When I read stuff like that, I find it so embarrassing I hardly dare recommend this site to other acquaintances.
How undignified!
..... Jerk.
Other Comments by USA_Limey
19. Comment #66354 by roach on August 29, 2007 at 6:53 pm
Richard Morgan,I see nothing wrong with communicating my admiration for someone because of his/her obvious talent. I wish I could write/debate like many people. Sam Harris just happens to be one of them and his style is particularly appealing to me (it reminds me of Mark Twain). Just as I admire Tiger Woods for his golf talent, or Zakk Wylde for his guitar playing abilities, or my mom for her patience, or my favorite teachers for actually making their classes/lectures interesting and fun, or many other humans (including members of this and other forums) for many different reasons, I admire Sam Harris for his razor sharp wit. Given your posts on this forum, I suppose it is possible that you have never marveled at anyone's artistic/technical/conversational expertise. You seem disgustingly self-assured.
Also, you appear to think that I want to be dignified. Ha! I gave up on that overrated bullshit years ago.
Other Comments by roach
20. Comment #66358 by Solarium Solaris on August 29, 2007 at 7:16 pm
Roach, don't you know anything! Compliments are for pussies!Now back to the topic. I find it hard to understand how a person can show so much passion and dedication to their faith while at the same time having so many internal doubts. If Mother Teresa was so unsure about Christianity how could she continue to follow its bizarre doctrines so fervently? I just don't get it.
Other Comments by Solarium Solaris
21. Comment #66361 by Bonzai on August 29, 2007 at 7:27 pm
If Mother Teresa was so unsure about Christianity how could she continue to follow its bizarre doctrines so fervently? I just don't get it
I think it was exactly because she had such serious doubt inside that she acted so fanatically. She thought she should believe and it was somehow wrong to lose faith. Unlike the cynical TV preachers who just put up a show she genuinely experienced a spiritual crisis. She tried hard to believe and overcompensated as a result.
Other Comments by Bonzai
22. Comment #66363 by Dr Benway on August 29, 2007 at 7:36 pm
Richard Morgan:How undignified!There's dignity in saying what you honestly feel. And so long as you take it on the chin if someone laughs or looks down a nose (i.e., no whining), you'll never lose your dignity.
The world would be a better place if people didn't feel obligated to keep up a false front so much of the time. Look at Theresa. Maybe she wouldn't have been so miserable if she could have openly shared her doubts with others.
Other Comments by Dr Benway
23. Comment #66382 by Valadon on August 29, 2007 at 9:58 pm
Thank You Dr Benway...I think you've made a valid point without being offensive...And in fact what you've stated is the whole point of Sam and Christopher's assessment of the predicament in which Mother Teresa found herself. She could not be true to her own thoughts or even her doubt because to do so would be a denial of her very foundation. There was no way for her to rectify this except as a suffering "servant of god." And that ironically is what most religious people may mistakenly construe as her strongest point...and of course as a reason to suggest her for sainthood.I think you are absolutely correct in saying that as humans we are the most dignified when we are true to our thoughts and feelings...or as Sam suggests in his article when we do not sacrifice our reasoning for a less acceptable alternative.
Other Comments by Valadon
24. Comment #66392 by Richard Morgan on August 29, 2007 at 11:21 pm
Dr Benway :There's dignity in saying what you honestly feel. And so long as you take it on the chin if someone laughs or looks down a nose (i.e., no whining), you'll never lose your dignity.Absolutely right - again. Thank you for that observation.
However I should explain that I find gooey-eyed hero-worship demeaning to the debate itself, and that's what hurts and disappoints me. But maybe that's what discussion boards are for..also. Yep - maybe I need to learn that.
USA_Limey : thank you for giving people a second chance to read my comments! The "Jerk" at the end, I presume, is Modern American English at its best. Is it a noun here, or the imperative form of the verb?
Other Comments by Richard Morgan
25. Comment #66394 by Richard Dawkins on August 29, 2007 at 11:30 pm
What a terrific piece by Sam. Just a marvellous piece of writing.Richard
Other Comments by Richard Dawkins
26. Comment #66395 by BAEOZ on August 29, 2007 at 11:31 pm
Richard Morgan:However I should explain that I find gooey-eyed hero-worship demeaning to the debate itself
Seeing that you included me in your previous grouping, and continue to comment on it, I'll risk my dignity.
I take it you still think my comment about Sam's writing gooey eyed hero worship. I know text read on the net is easily misconstrued so I can understand how in your mind you might have thought I was like some beatlesque teenage girl sqealing. Didn't feel like that where I sit. I just reckon you give kudos where it's due and equally rip shit through someone where that's due too. Anything you've read into my comment isn't necessarily coincident with reality.
Other Comments by BAEOZ
27. Comment #66397 by BAEOZ on August 29, 2007 at 11:36 pm
Richard Dawkins:What a terrific piece by Sam. Just a marvellous piece of writing.
I wonder if Richard Morgan will accuse RD of being into gooey eyed hero worship....(ducks and runs away !)
Other Comments by BAEOZ
28. Comment #66401 by Valadon on August 29, 2007 at 11:44 pm
Richard Morgan,True, Though hero-worship might have to be distinguished from legitmate praise or credit for someones's accomplishment...but I do know of what you speak. Krishnamurti once said "do not even follow me." (in so many words) as a teacher that was a profound statement for him to have made. In the end if we simply "adore" someone (celebrity worship) for their thoughts at the expense of our own we will give up something valuable of ourselves to another. In the end it would seem if that is the case we would not have fidelity to our own thoughts or understanding. Credit where it is due is one thing - Hero worship quite another.
Other Comments by Valadon
29. Comment #66403 by Valadon on August 29, 2007 at 11:53 pm
Professor Dawkins:This is my favorite part of Sam's very well written article:
"Let the good news go forth: we live in a cosmos, the vastness of which we can scarcely even indicate in our thoughts, on a planet teeming with creatures we have only begun to understand, but the whole project was actually brought to a glorious fulfillment over twenty centuries ago, after one species of primate (our own) climbed down out of the trees, invented agriculture and iron tools, glimpsed (as through a glass, darkly) the possibility of keeping its excrement out of its food, and then singled out one among its number to be viciously flogged and nailed to a cross."
Other Comments by Valadon
30. Comment #66404 by Veronique on August 29, 2007 at 11:55 pm
Dear Richard Morgan you are such a lovely (albeit towy), man. Let be, my dear.You know, as well as I, that the written language can convey interpretative dissonance. No one is really fawning over Harris. Indeed, I find his writing style suits me admirably. So does RD's style. So does Dennett's. And I am, at the present, reading Stenger. I find his style quite delightful. Oooh, I like Hitchens as well.
You know, I couldn't understand the screaming of adolescents at the advent of The Beatles on our shores in June 1964. I was flummoxed. However, I did go on to a delighted appreciation of their music (took a couple of years after that time). I don't scream at 'stars'. I do understand, however, a vocal admiration with (possibly) intemperate language that favours one public figure over another (or many others).
We are old, Father William, let us not be censorious:-).
My best to you
V
Other Comments by Veronique
31. Comment #66409 by Richard Morgan on August 30, 2007 at 12:23 am
Veronique : you're right, of course. Thank you for being there. (It's just that coming down off my "high horse" seems like a long fall...)BAEOZ : Ducks and runs away? Not any more. I was a theist until the age of 40 and had to do a lot of ducking and running away. Atheism gives me solid ground to stand on so that I need never duck and run away again.
And why would Richard Dawkins' comment make gooey-eyed hero-worship any less demeaning?
If it matters, I just happen to concur that the sort of things that Dawkins, Dennet, Harris and Hitchens are saying and writing represent perhaps some of the most valuable and important ideas being expressed on planet EARTH today. And I believe history will remember their names. (Well, Richard Dawkins, at least.)
Other Comments by Richard Morgan
32. Comment #66410 by roach on August 30, 2007 at 12:33 am
I believe BAEOZ was referring to himself with the "ducks and runs away!" remark.Other Comments by roach
33. Comment #66416 by Richard Morgan on August 30, 2007 at 1:05 am
roach :I believe BAEOZ was referring to himself with the "ducks and runs away!" remark.Oh shit, I misunderstood again! Thank you for that clarification, roach!
Other Comments by Richard Morgan
34. Comment #66420 by BAEOZ on August 30, 2007 at 1:12 am
Yes, I was ducking and running away after my little jibe. Anyway, where were we? I concur with RD, Sam, Dan Dennet et al. too. Anyway..... Other Comments by BAEOZ
35. Comment #66421 by steveroot on August 30, 2007 at 1:12 am
Valadon's citation above (#29) for some inexplicable (to me, which doesn't mean it isn't true) reason made me recall the line from The Hitchhiker's Guide:This time it was right, it would work, and no one would have to get nailed to anything."
Ah, Douglas...
Veronique, you are truly the peacemaker. Bless you!
Steve
Other Comments by steveroot
36. Comment #66425 by stag on August 30, 2007 at 1:37 am
And it is astride this contemptible history of religious atrocity and scientific ignorance that Christianity now stands as an absurdly unselfconscious apotheosis.
Hardly. At least Christians aren't carrying out actual human sacrifices, that's a step in the right direction, surely? For my money, Harris' arguments have this unsettling tendancy to segue into hyperbole. Religion is a shit, we get the picture Sam!
Other Comments by stag
37. Comment #66426 by Prufrock on August 30, 2007 at 1:40 am
What a superb article! At once truthful and embodying my own thoughts and feelings about religion - a faith based, superstition nonsense, anyway. I can't speak for how other people relate to the content. I hope his last sentence was not rhetorical or ironic. My reply would be simple. Evidence, facts, reason and a respect for life, like that shown by virtually all of those people who contribute to this site. I'm not one for hyperbole or for hero-worshipping mere people like myself or yourself, but I have to say Sam Harris has said so much so well and so pleasantly! I have a high regard for the gang of four, simply because they speak up for the things I value. Pity, the people who need to listen aren't listening.Other Comments by Prufrock
38. Comment #66439 by Ole on August 30, 2007 at 2:15 am
And I believe history will remember their names.
It depends on the timeframe ;-)
100 years from now - sure. But what about the year 4007?
Ole
P.S. Good article by Sam!
Other Comments by Ole
39. Comment #66440 by Richard Morgan on August 30, 2007 at 2:19 am
stag : For my money, Harris' arguments have this unsettling tendency to segue into hyperbole. Religion is a shit, we get the picture Sam!
Hahahahahaha! Thank you, stag. There is hope for this board after all!!
Other Comments by Richard Morgan
40. Comment #66447 by pewkatchoo on August 30, 2007 at 2:46 am
This is quite a good article, borneo mating rituals notwithstanding, and the final statement is emminently quotable.However, I agree with Richard that the starsinyereyes groupies are faintly embarrasing and demonstrate a singular lack of emotional maturity. Come on guys, it is possible to praise an article without coming across as mindless fanatics. Try harder.
Other Comments by pewkatchoo
41. Comment #66451 by pewkatchoo on August 30, 2007 at 2:56 am
VeroniqueMarry me and have my babies, I am sure my wife won't mind. You are one cool atheist chick!
Other Comments by pewkatchoo
42. Comment #66454 by Richard Morgan on August 30, 2007 at 3:03 am
pewkatchoo :VeroniqueShe won't. In fact, she told me last night she'd be quite relieved.
Marry me and have my babies, I am sure my wife won't mind.
Other Comments by Richard Morgan
43. Comment #66457 by USA_Limey on August 30, 2007 at 3:25 am
Comment #66392 by Richard Morgan:The "Jerk" at the end, I presume, is Modern American English at its best. Is it a noun here, or the imperative form of the verb?
... pejorative form works for me.
Other Comments by USA_Limey
44. Comment #66501 by pewkatchoo on August 30, 2007 at 6:26 am
Richard MorganGit! (^8
Other Comments by pewkatchoo
45. Comment #66512 by steve99 on August 30, 2007 at 7:23 am
When I read stuff like that, I find it so embarrassing I hardly dare recommend this site to other acquaintances.
I really do think this is being a bit silly. I see no evidence at all of wild fandom in this thread. Each of those statements you quoted were mild, dignified and reserved. They are also factual. Sam Harris does indeed come up with interesting and new thoughts, and has a fine writing style.
Other Comments by steve99
46. Comment #66523 by socratzsche on August 30, 2007 at 8:49 am
Richard Morgan quibbles about how the hero worship distracts from the debate when, in fact, it is his quibbling that is the actual culprit--and not a particle of criticism of Sam's essay.EDIT: Oh, I see the criterion of truth is determined if Richard Morgan agrees with it! Charming.
Other Comments by socratzsche
47. Comment #66524 by amanda marie on August 30, 2007 at 8:57 am
Comment #66290 by Friend Giskard:"I fail to see how the mating habits of the Borneo headhunters relate to religion."
I think Harris was referring to the sacrifice being intended for a god/godess of love or procreation. I can see how it seemed a propos of nothing but I'm assuming that's what he meant.
Other Comments by amanda marie
48. Comment #66554 by USA_Limey on August 30, 2007 at 11:57 am
Comment #66523 by socratzsche wrote:Richard Morgan quibbles about how the hero worship distracts from the debate when, in fact, it is his quibbling is the actual culprit--and not a particle of criticism of Sam's essay.
EDIT: Oh, I see the criterion of truth is determined if Richard Morgan agrees with it! Charming.
...Not bad socratzsche but I still think my respose (66343) was pithier and gets to the real heart of the matter.
Other Comments by USA_Limey
49. Comment #66560 by BicycleRepairMan on August 30, 2007 at 12:18 pm
One is almost tempted to accuse Harris of beating the dead horse, (with me cheering at the side), but only because after reading Sam's Books and previous articles, the horse ought to have been buried already. Unfortunately, someone's playing Weekend-at-Bernies with that horse like there is no tomorrow. Hopefully this article will make a few more people see the strings they use to drag its stiffening limbs around. Swing it, Sam. Other Comments by BicycleRepairMan
50. Comment #66562 by Fedler on August 30, 2007 at 12:26 pm
Unfortunately, someone's playing Weekend-at-Bernies with that horse like there is no tomorrow.HA! I love that! (the movie and the analogy)
Other Comments by Fedler
This article is reposted from a website that accepts comments.
Why not share your comment on the article there as well? CLICK HERE
Over 1.5 million copies sold
Books by Richard Dawkins
The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing
by Richard Dawkins
The Selfish Gene
by Richard Dawkins
The Blind Watchmaker
by Richard Dawkins
The Ancestor's Tale
by Richard Dawkins
Unweaving the Rainbow
by Richard Dawkins
1. Comment #66283 by mjwemdee on August 29, 2007 at 3:22 pm
...She couldn't lose, could she?
Other Comments by mjwemdee