I’ve mentioned “21st century conversations”, a
term Sam Harris coined. This talk is one of those. I’ll provide a few notes on
it.
Sam knows religion and has practiced Buddhism. In this video
he discusses, among other things, that many Buddhists are open to empirical
inquiry. The Dalai Lama has said that if principles of Buddhism are shown to be
incorrect, then he will accept that.
Sam contrasts this with the current debate going on within
Christianity about the use of contraception. If the Catholic Church makes it
official that a married couple can use a condom when one partner has AIDS, this
will not be an example of religion leading the way to a healthier world. The
same could be said about the controversy over homosexuality. Religion has not
led the way to accepting that two people are allowed to express their love for
one another, psychiatry and modern science have.
We can fixate ourselves in earlier centuries, as late as the
6th if you include Islam, or much earlier if you go back to the
Axial Age, or we can include all the wisdom of the world. We have effectively
jettisoned much of the old dogma. Very few people defend the 600 some laws in
Leviticus. The New Testament made a few improvements to slavery but did not
lead directly to abolition. We have slowly moved toward treating scripture
equally to modern philosophy but we have some big steps yet to take.
One of our big hang-ups seems to be the issue of respect.
People are deeply hurt when their religions are attacked or even questioned.
Even pointing out their central tenets, like the Golden Rule are equally
represented in other religions, can be a sore point. The problem is when
respecting a culture means respecting their abuse of women or their violence
toward other cultures. When that line of violence is crossed, there is more
agreement, but what lies and manipulation led up to that violence? Is there
something inherent in religion that allows for it?
As Sam says, when it comes to something like physics, we
don’t ask for beliefs to be respected, we ask for reasons to be evaluated. What
I like about Sam is that he is usually careful to state the other influences on
people and the degree to which each is important. He highlights the issue of
the double standard for religion. No other discipline would be accepted as
justification for the types of irrational behavior that are promoted by
religion. Somehow religion gets a pass.
Sam is very good at asking the right questions. He notes
that Tibetan Buddhists come out of years of torture in prison and do not turn into
suicidal terrorists. This can be explained partially by their approach to their
religious practice. The political considerations are very similar, so we need
to ask why Muslims choose the actions they do. Counter examples can be found on
either side, there are many peaceful Muslims and a few militant Buddhists, but
we need to focus on the real societal problems and their sources.
Scott Atran is shown in this video, but his parts are cut
off. He provides some counter balance. If I find it, I’ll do a part 2 for this.
Scott has studied influences on individual terrorists with some very
interesting results. But I’m not sure why he has so much trouble with what Sam
is saying.
A lot of hot air, here!
ReplyDeleteI think I'll take a walk and get some fresh air.