  |
|
| |
|
|
|
 Religion, Politics and the End of the WorldPosted on Jun 17, 2007
For readers who weren’t able to attend the Truthdig debate between Sam Harris and Chris Hedges, we now have full coverage. So sit back, relax and enjoy the fireworks. Essays:Read Chris Hedges’ opening statement and Sam Harris’ response. Audio:Note: The audio recording has not been edited. For a slightly condensed version of the debate, check out the video below.
Video:
Videography by Sherwin Maglanoc / LA36
Part 1:
Part 2:
Part 3:
Part 4:
Previous item: Colbert: Gays Should Come With a Warning Label Next item: Clinton Campaign Parodies 'Sopranos' Elsewhere: . CommentsAre you a Truthdig member yet? Login now, or register with Truthdig.
Comment Pages:
«1
2
»
By GP, February 21 at 10:18 am # Re:BFSkinnerPunk: Thank you. I agree that Harris’s bold. But I also think that honesty starts at home. As long as American weapons continue to kill more than religion, his message will be lost. For instance, most small weapons sold around the world come from here. Most dictators who kill more people than “terrorists” have been supported by the US (It was funny to see Bush calling for openness in Cuba while congratulating Rwandan dictator Paul Kagame!). I just think Harris’s way is not the best approach to solve the problem of organized religion. His message gets lost in what is called hypocrisy. I think he should start by cleaning his own house before trying to clean others’. He should read the definition of a hypocrite given in the Bible. You know . . . my alarm goes off when he starts to offer policy recommendations such as his approval of and proposal for what I call modernization by force. I start to see a person using an anti-religion ideology to advance imperialism. And his science is a little bit of extreme positivism by the way. He seems not to see the recent advance in complexity studies, which, to a certain extent, may help sharpen his arguments. And that may be one of his major problem: it seems that he uses certain scientific concepts he hasn’t mastered yet. Alright, that may not be a major problem, but it’s something that he has to work on. I must say that I enjoy this and his discussions! Best, GP
By GP, February 20 at 2:53 am # Thank you to BFskinnerPunk and Linda for your response to my response. Allow me to say that I am confused a little bit because I thought the main objective of the debate between Sam Harris and Chris Hedges was to discuss the most serious danger to peace in the world. I am sorry if I misunderstood the purpose of the debate. I am assuming that I did not because I think both sides of the debate agree that religion is a problem (as I do). I think the difference between you and me, and Harris and Hedges is on what is more dangerous. I maintain that religion is not and that a certain certainty, which certain hawks tend to steal from religion while thinking that they are propagating ideas from secular freedom, makes their side (that is, the self-proclaimed side of reason) more dangerous. If religion was THE problem, the president of the United States wouldn’t be calling Saudi Arabia its main ally. If religion was THE problem, the United States wouldn’t have helped recruit and encourage fundamentalist young Muslims who had nothing in common with the beliefs espoused by many in the United States. If religion was THE problem, 5.6 million people who share Christianity in the Congo and at least 300,000 people who share Islam in Sudan wouldn’t have died for nothing. Could it be that religion is becoming a serious threat because some young fundamentalists, some of whom Christian money helped train, managed to penetrated the US and killed about 3,500 people? I certainly agree that religion has sometimes been a problem opposing progress but I don’t think it’s what someone who claims to be heroic should make a priority (In fact religion helped progress, perhaps more progress than secularism). I just think it’s easy to attack the weak evils while leaving out the more powerful evils. There is a great story I heard about Alexander where, to quote one version, “Alexander the Great [356-323 BC] admonished a pirate who responded that because he uses only a small ship he is called a robber [terrorist?] while Alexander commands a fleet and so is called emperor [of civilization!].” Don’t we know that the most atrocious killings have happened in the age of reason where race rather than religion was used and in relatively less religious countries? In my opinion, those who are saying that religion is THE problem are like those who go against the weak robber while forgetting the most dangerous robber. Perhaps in 3 years, this (http://www.physorg.com/news122663575.html) study will help us. As to the problem of celebrating war heroes (whether “terrorists” or “non-terrorists") . . . I don’t see a difference between one who believes in religious lies and because of it celebrates the death of his son for it and one who believes in national lies and celebrate the death of his son for it. Only the latter does it by reason (or so she/he thinks), and it does not help knowing the result. GP
By lindadugan, February 17 at 1:17 pm # part 2 of 2 to continue, GP: You state: “Let me say that you could apply the same racist statements to American mothers if you thought that American mothers were inferior. How would you otherwise justify the celebration (with flags) of the death of a soldier who died in Iraq for a war that was based on lies? ........” The celebration of flags, in America is not based on a religious ideology to justify war. The reason mothers in America will wave the flag when their sons have fallen has more to do with honoring the democratic ideals of the US, not any religious ideals (however I will argue that Christian beliefs about the world may indeed have been a factor in deciding to go to war. ) You may ask, what is the difference since both circumstances end in the death of young people? But the difference has to do with secular ideals (democracy) verses religious (Islam). And I would surely trust you would understand the difference between democratic ideals and Islamic fundamentalism. And the American mother can always speak out against the war as Cindy has done. This cannot and will not be occurring in Islamic states anytime soon. You state: “The statement that his criticism applies to all Muslim including White Muslim doesn’t prove racism. Demonization against Black people applied to those who marry them. Demonization of Tutsis in Rwanda included all Hutus who marry Tutsis.” I think you are confusing Sam’s criticism with Islam with being Arab. He has been very outspoken about the treatment of women in the Islamic religion with its stongings, female genital mutilations, forced marriages, burka, etc...Would a racist defend the right of Muslim women to not be treated like chattel? Sam is criticising religion, not a race of people. Just as he criticizes Christianity not blacks who are Christian or whites who are Christian or Asians who are Christian. There is a big difference here. You state: “ That is why I say that his arguments are non-rational because if they were rational, he wouldn’t be advocating something worse than what he is fighting against. He should see that Western hawks rejoice in fundamentalism and, in fact, always fuel it.” I don’t think he is advocating something worse than Islamic fundamentalism. I think he is weary and wary of how fundamentalism is being played out in the 21st century with the increasing use and development of WMD. I think he is forcing people to have conversations about these realities and he is saying “hawks” seem to be a little more aware of the situation more than the “liberals” who as he says “hide their heads in the sand.” There is nothing at all non-rational about any of this. You state: “By the way, I am not religious at all, and that’s probably why I see Sam Harris’s ideas as tending towards a certain unstated religion. The deadliest weapon of religion is absolutism, and I see Harris’s certainty tending towards absolutism. Perhaps the most dangerous part of Harris’s absolutism is that he thinks it’s not there.” I think Sam’s absolutism stems from his understanding that fundamental religions are a very potent and dangerous reality in the world we live today. I think he has a genuine fear that this movement could cause some great damage to the world and these ideologies needed to be harshly scrutinized. Sam is pretty subversive in some ways. But I argue adamantly that he is not a racist and he is not dogmatic. He is talking about ideas that challenge people to the core and such reactions to him are usually knee-jerky and the same labeling of racist and dogmatist that you are arguing.
By lindadugan, February 17 at 1:12 pm # Part one of 2 GP: Thanks for your detailed response to my question. You are not alone when you say you are non-religious but find Sam Harris offensive, racists, non-rational, etc.. First of all let me begin my response to you by saying that my views are very different than yours and I am often accused of “reading too much into Sam Harris” or trying to twist his words around or appearing to be able to read his mind. So my answer to that is---if you begin to look at it that way--- these are my own personal beliefs and understandings and I do not claim to have any inside knowledge, mind reading abilities, or any other nonsense. I just have my own interpretations and perspective as anyone else would. You state, that Harris thinks, “for instance, Arab mothers are so irrational to the point where they celebrate the death of their sons.” I think he is clearly trying to make a point here that once again it is the Islamic religion that is the culprit and not that Arab mothers don’t love their fallen sons. It is the religion that coerces these mothers into this role. Do you agree that religion can be used to justify the killings of the sons and the suicide bombings? If you can understand that, then why is it any more difficult to understand that religion condones the deaths as a celebration? And what would happen to an Islamic mother who defied any of this celebration and spoke out against the death of her son? What options does this mother really have? After all, there are no Cindy Sheehans in the Arab world, are there? You stated, “He also advocate policy recommendations such as modernization by force. This type of advocacy suggests a superiority (racist) attitude towards Arabs. It is as if the Arab world is reduced to fundamentalist Islam, and that what all Arab people spend time thinking about is, as E. Said said, how to destroy the West.....’ Whoa...slow down a minute. What modernization by force are you referring to? I am lost with that one....I need some examples here, please. You state: “He doesn’t think about the internal dialogue inside Islam led by people such as the late Benazir Bhutto.” I completely disagree with this statement and her death precisely proves Harris’ point about moderate Islam. He says that moderates cannot be moderates because they will be killed or threatened into silence. Bhutto is a perfect example of exactly what Harris is arguing. The Islam religion cannot tolerate people like Bhutto and that was made perfectly clear at the time of her death. You state: “...... His arguments are non-rational in that they are based on the “clash of civilizations” thesis which many academics have dismissed a long time ago. He seems not to realize that and thus he is unable to answer the question of where was Koran when people were voting for secular or “moderate” Arabs.” I think his point is that “secular or moderate” Arabs is an oxymoron. While there are a few “moderate” states, how moderate are they really? And many “moderate” states are still influenced greatly by Imans and other religious law. Do you really believe there is such a state as a moderate democratic state in the Arab world where our type of democratic rule of law is exercised? And where is he making any denial that Christianity is destroying the Middle East? I assume by “Christianity” you mean preemptive war with Iraq from a Christian nation. end of part one of 2
By lindadugan, February 15 at 2:57 pm # GP:
By GP, February 16 at 12:31 pm # Re:Lindadugan: I called Sam Harris’ comments’ “non-rational” for a lack of a better word. I wanted to point out the unstated assumptions on which he bases his arguments. One of the racist arguments he makes--in his book--as Chris Hedges has pointed out, is that Harris thinks He also advocate policy recommendations such as modernization by force. This type of advocacy suggests a superiority (racist) attitude towards Arabs. It is as if the Arab world is reduced to fundamentalist Islam, and that what all Arab people spend time thinking about is, as E. Said said, how to destroy the West. He doesn’t think about the internal dialogue inside Islam led by people such as the late Benazir Bhutto. Sam Harris dodges some questions about the use of religion. You certainly know that Christianity was used to destroy Native Americans, Africans, and that, although not stated, it’s being used to destroy the lives of people in the Middle East. His arguments are non-rational in that they are based on the “clash of civilizations” thesis which many academics have dismissed a long time ago. He seems not to realize that and thus he is unable to answer the question of where was Koran when people were voting for secular or “moderate” Arabs. Let me say that you could apply the same racist statements to American mothers if you thought that American mothers were inferior. How would you otherwise justify the celebration (with flags) of the death of a soldier who died in Iraq for a war that was based on lies? How would you celebrate the death of a soldier who died in Vietnam? How would you even call someone a hero when the person is fighting for the wrong reasons thinking that he is fighting for a right cause? Wouldn’t you say that many soldiers who are dying in Iraq are dying because they believe in America’s desire to spread democracy or some kind of American goodness? What’s the difference between that belief and religious beliefs? If people were rational enough in the case of, for instance, American wars, wouldn’t they be as brave as Cindy Sheehan and say “My son died for nothing?” But the power of the collective idea makes it impossible as it does for mothers in the Middle East. The statement that his criticism applies to all Muslim including White Muslim doesn’t prove racism. Demonization against Black people applied to those who marry them. Demonization of Tutsis in Rwanda included all Hutus who marry Tutsis. I see no difference between the destruction Sam Harris advocate through “securalism” (saying that there is “no alternative"--reminds me of Tatcher’s TINA!) and the religious destruction which he claims to criticize. That is why I say that his arguments are non-rational because if they were rational, he wouldn’t be advocating something worse than what he is fighting against. He should see that Western hawks rejoice in fundamentalism and, in fact, always fuel it. By the way, I am not religious at all, and that’s probably why I see Sam Harris’s ideas as tending towards a certain unstated religion. The deadliest weapon of religion is absolutism, and I see Harris’s certainty tending towards absolutism. Perhaps the most dangerous part of Harris’s absolutism is that he thinks it’s not there. GP
By GP, February 8 at 3:08 am # The problem with all the praise Sam receives is the inability to realize how non-rational the assumptions on which he bases his arguments are. His conclusions should make it obvious. And that he receives so many uncritical praises vis-a-vis what many anthropologists would agree are racist statements--his logic and rationality did not allow him to take into consideration the non-religious arguments offered by Edward Said in Orientalism--is surprising when it comes from so-called rational thinkers. I really see how so many things we do are not rational. It is sometimes ridiculous to reject what you call irrationality while at the same time offering policy recommendations that suggest something not so different from the irrationality you reject. That to me is the right definition of irrational actions!!
By lindadugan, December 12, 2007 at 6:04 pm # Jason: For some, apparently, life isJason:
By Jason, December 11, 2007 at 3:11 pm # Body-Spirit-Creator Expression-Loves-Source Dies-Eternal-Infinite Human=Body+Spirit (+Creator?) IsBody-Spirit-Creator Is life a great where’s waldo puzzle where we are all present, seeking the creator? Did we all just get lost somewhere by focusing so much on the body that in neglect we forgot about the spirit and therefore lost (or think we have) a connection to the creator?
By TomG, October 22, 2007 at 3:17 pm # Sam made such a great statement when he said to Chris “Happily we do not assess public opinion by having New York Times journalists go out and live in the Muslim world and make friends and get a vibe. A single well-run opinion poll would be worth a thousand years of you wandering around the middle east.” LOL!
By Alan, October 2, 2007 at 7:25 am # What I think is most frustrating about the debate between Harris and Hedges (at least insofar as religion goes) is that, unlike the debates between “atheists” and “believers” in the nineteenth century, it appears to be primarily a debate about language. Harris is no more a 19th century atheist than Hedges is, and Hedges is no more a 19th century liberal Christian than Harris is. That is, both Harris and Hedges acknowledge the incorrigibility of mystery, making both more humble than their counterparts of a couple of centuries ago. So the debate comes down to this, at least for Harris: does religious language serve any useful purpose, or should such language be jettisoned and replaced with more precise claims that can be subjected to empirical testing? Harris seems to insist that religious language - including that of Buddhism - serves no useful purpose and should be jettisoned. This is where his position is simplistic, in my opinion. Let me advance an analogy, which is really more than an analogy. Over the past couple of centuries, literary criticism has made a number of advances. We understand a lot more about poetry and how poetry achieves its effects on our consciousness. While literary criticism is far from being a hard science, its language is increasingly precise and while its claims cannot be tested in the same way as claims about gravity, for instance, they can be tested against our observations of changes in our inner states as poetry is being read. I would say that the relationship between literary crticism and poetry is akin to the relationship between philosophical theology and religious language and ritual. Religious language is, in fact, a kind of poetry of consciousness and because of this IT HAS ITS OWN VALIDITY QUITE APART FROM THE MORE PROSAIC LANGUAGE WE MAY USE TO “EXPLAIN” ITS EFFECTS. This is what Hedges seems to be saying when he says that the important question is not whether God does or does not exist but rather how we are responding to the mystery of the reality in which we find ourselves, which we did not ask to be a part of, and which we do not ultimately control. Religious language and ritual express our relating to this mystery, and in expressing it, can lead to changes in the way we relate to it. We can and should do our best to explain how this language and ritual achieve their effects (so I agree with Harris that scientific principles can and should be brought to bear on what have been regarded as religious phenomena), but doing this does not amount to a “better” way of doing the language and ritual even if it does lead to improvements in language and ritual (which we have every reason to believe it will). Having said this, I think that the religious “moderates” (a rather large catch-all category into which Harris incorrectly places Hedges) must take responsibility for having coddled fundamentalism for much too long. As Hedges himself argues in his American Fascists book (which Harris ironically appears not to have consulted before criticizing what he asserts is Hedges’ position), religious people who are not fundamentalists or supernaturalists must vigorously oppose supernaturalism and fundamentalism rather than defending what is really cowardice by imagining that those who are under the spell of these movements are their “brothers in the faith” or some such garbage. The truth is that sincere and honest Atheists like Harris and Dennet are much more our “brothers in belief” than people who blow themselves up in crowded markets or lob bombs into lesbian bars and abortion clinics in the name of their absurd and malicious Sky God. |
Newsroom Carnage Continues at The Washington Post
Email
Print
Share
Del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Ma.gnolia
Newsvine
Reddit
StumbleUpon
Yahoo
Jump to Comments
COMMENT TOOLS:
Hide comments
Show comments
Comment on this article