The PDF link doesn't work. :(

It's fixed now.

Thanks for posting the link -- very interesting interview. I am glad that rational thought still exists in some pockets.

Sam Harris is great. According to an interview in Truthdig.org he's working on a new book and possibly starting up an organization.

Ahhh, good link.

I have this on my computer actually.

Sam Harris is amazing, if any of you haven't read the end of faith, you definitly should.

Taylor

Sorry, but I am not impressed. I think the danger in religion is not in simply believing, but in fundamentalism. His argument on religion focuses on the statements and beliefs of fundamentalists.

His statement on the eucharist itself is pretty ridiculous and shows he doesn't even understand religion. On the left we have this fundamentalism that centers around an anti-religious attitude. I think that is dangerous and Harris strikes me as being a part of that. His attitude that he knows that religious folks are wrong (and attempts to use empirical language to do so), when in fact most religious beliefs cannot be proven right or wrong are not empirically true or false.

Don't get me wrong. He makes a good case against fundamentalism. But doesn't distinguish very well. Nor does he address the fact that there are both religious and humanist fundamentalists.

In the Power of Myth interviews with Joseph Campbell; Campbell mentions 2 things of note: 1st, many primitave faiths had a 'trickster' god, something to remind people that these are all just metephores for understanding the human condition. 2nd, Campbell doesn't see any need for faith. Experience, the experience of being alive is all that you need.

I think Harris is fundamently right. What's hard for many people to hear is that he is not advocating throwing out the baby (5000+ years of serious study of the human condition) with the bathwater (the language & symbolism, i.e. God, Devil, Heaven, etc.) used to conduct that study. He is pointing out that the water is bad and getting worse, fundamentalism is just the scum at the bottom.

His statement on the eucharist itself is pretty ridiculous and shows he doesn't even understand religion. On the left we have this fundamentalism that centers around an anti-religious attitude. I think that is dangerous and Harris strikes me as being a part of that. His attitude that he knows that religious folks are wrong (and attempts to use empirical language to do so), when in fact most religious beliefs cannot be proven right or wrong are not empirically true or false.

Don't get me wrong. He makes a good case against fundamentalism. But doesn't distinguish very well. Nor does he address the fact that there are both religious and humanist fundamentalists. I agree. This is the most troubling aspect of Harris' presentation. His larger message is very important but his fundamentalism hurts his argument.

I think Harris distinguishes between fundies and moderates explicitly and accurately, and has different beefs with both.

He accuses moderates of intellectual dishonesty, as well as being the enablers of fundamentalism.

My $0.02.

"...the task for us vis-a-vis the Muslim world is find some way of moderating it..."

I guess that was the purpose of killing orders of magnitude more innocent civilians in Iraq than died on 9/11?

I am of the opinion that the brand of atheism presented by scholars like Dawkins and Harris tends to be one of the most unattractive aspects of unbelief. In fact, most of their statements about religion seem only to preach to the converted, so to speak; to many believers it sounds nearly as unfair and even bigoted as the hateful vitriol fundamentalists all over the world spew daily. Nobody likes to be told 'you are the disease' or that their beliefs are the biggest problem facing the world. True or not, this is not the way to approach believers. Even aided with powerful logic, an argument such as this is not going to sway many. By approaching the subject in this way, atheists often ape the religions they argue against by saying, essentially, "OURS is the only truth." People are used to hearing this. And in my case, terribly weary of it. My own opinion on the subject of religion and lack thereof is thus: Ultimately, nothing is going to magically confer morality upon a group of people. Not religion or its absence. Humankind's faults are a defining feature of our species- and both the history and future of Homo Sapiens will testify that neither faith nor atheism can rid us of them. Without religion we would still have reasons to kill each other, and we would develop a new set of pretenses with which to control the masses. Which is not to say that it is pointless to confront a particularly corrupt, empty or destructive incarnation of religion. Rather, I think it is foolish to pursue the eradication of religion. To use the disease metaphor for a moment, you can eradicate a disease, but new species will arise indefinitely. And if you were to eradicate disease altogether, overpopulation, hunger and war would step forward to fill its place.

But hey...that's just my opinion on things.

Harris' belief that Muslim suicide bombing stems only from religious belief and not other factors (politics, economics, etc...) is fundamentally wrong. Muslim suicide bombing is a direct response to politics on the ground, and specifically the oppression and humiliation Muslims see everyday. Fuundamentalist interpretation of religion then becomes a convenient excuse for getting revenge in the easiest way since you can carry out your revenge act and be guaranteed a spot in "paradise".

It is highly possible that people in the Middle East (especially in Palestine) would still carry out suicide bombings, even if they suddenly stopped believing in Islam tommorow and became atheists. The removal of Islam from their lives does not get rid of the oppression and humiliation that they face. A good example of this type of situation are the Tamil Tigers who carry out suicide bombings against the Sri Lankan government, not for religious reasons, but as part of a "liberation" struggle against a perceived injustice.

A good example of this type of situation are the Tamil Tigers who carry out suicide bombings against the Sri Lankan government, not for religious reasons, but as part of a "liberation" struggle against a perceived injustice.

Actually, Harris talks about the Tamil Tigers in his book, as an apparent exception to the implication he is arguing. I think he argues that the Tamil Tigers share many essential characteristics with religious groups.

I don't remember how convinced I was; does anyone remembers what he said about the Tamil Tigers?

There is a long history of oppressed peoples, and the way they have overcome that opression has varried. Suicide bombings obviously are not creating political gains, except to allow those with power to concentrate more power. Violence has always been a tool of the strong against the weak. Their religion acts as a tool by wich power mongers in their social arangemnts convince 'good people' to do 'bad things' that increase their relitive power. Just as has happened in Christian communities, and other religions.

I guess that's just what I 'believe'.

:P

Muslim suicide bombings definitely require some other factor, such as politics. How many top clerics do you see strapping on explosive vests? They are utilizing religion for an end means. This brings me to the good points hisham and robin made in that, without religion people would still find reasons to kill each other. But I think the point Harris was making was that for the actual bomber, it requires some form of faith (in god, country, cause, ect) as a means of justification. The details of faith are something Harris smeels still to be grappling with, so much so that he is delving into the neurosciences.

Seamus, I disagree with your point: "he does not address the fact that there are both religious and humanist fundamentalists."

Such a distinction is religious sophistry as the teachings are the same for both.

Making such a distinction only spares the so-called humanists from the moral responsibility of making sure that the rest of their fellow believers behave in a proper and tolerant away, while disavowing ones' religion of the responsibility of the excesses created by religious fundamentalists.

If someone on a team screws up, the proper behaviour is for the team to admit group responsibility and try to work together to correct a mistake, rather than just find a scape goat in the team member and ostracise him.

The so-called religious fundamentalism that is rooted in Christianity has been there for a long time.

You can see anti-semitism even in the Crusaders who salughtered entire Jewish settlments along the Rhineland which later became the part of Germany where Hitler came to power. And it was a largely protestant region in the 1930s.

It's obvious that a religion which cann't admit its shortcomings is doomed to repeat them...

Hisham, good point. Although it is not in thye Koran, the teachings of the Prophet state clearly that suicide is prohibited and that there would be no killings of women and children and trangressors will go to hell or in the case of suicides, the person will be condemned to repeat his act for the rest of eternity.

The Palestinian suicide bombings is a political response inspired by Zionist terrorism which pioneered public bombings, destruction of civilain settlements etc.

What is truly religious in this conflict is the Jews belief that they have a right to set up a state based on religious writings, which iseems to give them a blank check to everything they do.

Humanist fundamentalism?

There's no such thing. There's no single "humanist" philosophy or text considered to be the "objective truth." Humanism isn't a doctrine (such as Christianity, Islam, Maoism, Stalinism, et al.) to be followed explicitly. Nor is humanism a set of rules or dogmatic principles. There are no absolutes in humanism to be accepted unequivocally. In fact, doubt is one of the central principles of humanism. Fundamentalists, on the other hand, have NO doubts and believe unequivocally in absolutes.

So to call humanists “fundamentalists” is to contradict the very base intellectual ideals of humanism itself.

The only people who use the term "fundamentalist humanism" are, in fact, religious fundamentalists, who, for their own twisted reasoning, wish to attribute in others the intellectual myopia and extreme literalism from which they themselves suffer.

Simply Google the term and see who uses it. They're all Jesus freaks trying to cast aspersions on atheism or humanism by claiming atheists and humanists cling to these philosophies in the same rabidly literal and fanatical manner as Jesus freaks cling to Christianity.

And it's complete bullshit. It's their creepy fantasy and further proof of their childish and myopic intellects.

Atheists and humanists are, by their very nature, the most astute doubters on this planet. They are the least likely people to cling to any form of absolute beliefs. They are the least literal thinkers. They are the most flexible thinkers.

So let's not play this "I know I am, but so are you" kind of bullshit game.

Humanist fundamentalism?

There's no such thing. There's no single "humanist" philosophy or text considered to be the "objective truth." Humanism isn't a doctrine (such as Christianity, Islam, Maoism, Stalinism, et al.) to be followed explicitly. Nor is humanism a set of rules or dogmatic principles. There are no absolutes in humanism to be accepted unequivocally. In fact, doubt is one of the central principles of humanism. Fundamentalists, on the other hand, have NO doubts and believe unequivocally in absolutes.

So to call humanists “fundamentalists” is to contradict the very base intellectual ideals of humanism itself.

The only people who use the term "fundamentalist humanism" are, in fact, religious fundamentalists, who, for their own twisted reasoning, wish to attribute in others the intellectual myopia and extreme literalism from which they themselves suffer.

Simply Google the term and see who uses it. They're all Jesus freaks trying to cast aspersions on atheism or humanism by claiming atheists and humanists cling to these philosophies in the same rabidly literal and fanatical manner as Jesus freaks cling to Christianity.

And it's complete bullshit. It's their fantasy and further proof of their childish and myopic intellects.

Atheists and humanists are, by their very nature, the most astute doubters on this planet. They are the least likely people to cling to any form of absolute beliefs. They are the least literal thinkers. They are the most flexible thinkers.

So let's not play this "I know I am, but so are you" kind of bullshit game.

Hi Alex, well-put.

Humanism is a way of life, not a belief system that requires faith.

As a humanist, you either do or do not. There is no try.

kes,

I think it's appropriate to point out here that Zionism is only a Jewish cause in the sense that "Jewish" is an ethnicity that one can have. There's nothing particularly religious about it, unless you're talking about blowhards on the floor of the US House of Representatives.

alex -

to the fundamentalist, they always view themselves as somehow above the concept of "blind belief". Obviously, not all religious folks are fundamentalists and not all atheists are fundamentalists. But there are many fundamentalists within both groups.

It is interesting that you would claim that only fundamentalists would claim as I do. Yet, you don't even realize that I am as far from a fundamentalist on religion than anyone. If anything I am a recovered fundie humanist and a recovering catholic at the same time. Not sure exactly what that makes me.

You say, "So to call humanists “fundamentalists” is to contradict the very base intellectual ideals of humanism itself." You could replace "humanism" in that sentence with Catholicism or any other religious belief and you would ultimately be correct. The very base intellectual ideals of most faiths, secular, humanist, catholic, muslim, etc... are contradictory to fundamentalism. But faith, regardless of the merits underneath that faith, does lend itself to fundamentalism. Fundamentalism isn't about what you believe in, but how you express or utilize that belief.

Ed, Kes said "What is truly religious in this conflict is the Jews belief that they have a right to set up a state based on religious writings, which iseems to give them a blank check to everything they do."

Yes, Kes, you were clear in what you stated. ;)

So although "Jewish" is an ethnicity, they use religion, that is religious writings, as Kes stated, to justify their right to occupation of the territory.

Jo Ann,

In my experience, most Jewish Zionists don't cite religious texts in their attempts to justify Zionism.

Thanks ED and Jo for drawing out the nuances of my sentences : >

Seamus, humanism is a broad open-ended embrace of universal values with no discrimination based on race, nationality and religion.

Religion is exclusivist, exceptionalist and ostracise/ marginalises other people and their beliefs.

I consider humanism imcompatible with faith, especially this edriven by dogma.

As for your own turmoil, my sympathies but I should expect you to rise above it if you are comfortable discussing the matter here with us.

If anything I am a recovered fundie humanist and a recovering catholic at the same time. Not sure exactly what that makes me.

I would say it makes you someone who doesn't fully understand the true nature of the ideas to which you cling. The fact you seem to vine swing from one belief system to another, and consider your turning from one to another "recovering," says more about your own lack of intellectual maturity than it does about the things to which you cling. It seems you blame your belief systems to which you frivolously cling for your own failures.

I have been an atheist since I have been able to think. I have been a humanist since I was able to grasp its simple concepts. By rational inquiry and the scientific method I am able to understand most of which surrounds me. I don't need to fill my intellectual voids with religious dogma or myths, nor do I need to be handed "the truth" from absolutist, authoritarian constructs. My confidence in my intellectual tools (and that is what humanism is, more or less, a tool, not a “belief”) does not make me a "fundamentalist humanist." Like I said, humanism has a great disdain for absolute answers and blind, literal faith in anything handed down from “above.”

You could replace "humanism" in that sentence with Catholicism or any other religious belief and you would ultimately be correct.

No offense, but do you REALLY understand what the terms "fundamentalist" and "humanist" mean?

Humanism is, at its core, a rejection of supernatural or authoritarian beliefs. It is the opposite of religious belief and shares nothing in common with religious thought. To compare humanism to religions like you do simply means you do not understand humanism at all.

While it is true that moderate/liberal religious faiths are somewhat different from fundamentalist ones, they both still believe in higher supernatural powers and the authoritarian dispensation of absolute truths.

You can replace the word "humanism" with Catholicism, especially whent he Church condoned slavery of the negroes and their policy of non-interference in anti-Semetic genocides during WW2 and the time of teh Crusades.

Catholicism is about the Church institution's glory and authority. It has never truly been about the people.

Otherwise, you wouldn't have hush-hush Chruch efforts to transfer paedophile priests to unsuspecting flocks as a Church policy.

Sorry typo: You CANNOT replace the word "humanism" with Catholicism

It's funny how someone can in one breath decry an ideology and in another defend one. Generally the first is the one with which they disagree, and the second the one they have printed on their t-shirt.

Humanism is no more a glorious end than any other "ism". Recall that in the early 20th century it was a popular 'humanist' belief that we shouldn't allow the 'lower classes' to reproduce. It was called eugenics. It was extremely popular among educated people of all areas of life, and had more to do with the extermination of the Jews than the geographic location of Hitler's rise to power or any religious belief.

Humanism is no more a glorious end than any other "ism". Recall that in the early 20th century it was a popular 'humanist' belief that we shouldn't allow the 'lower classes' to reproduce. It was called eugenics. It was extremely popular among educated people of all areas of life, and had more to do with the extermination of the Jews than the geographic location of Hitler's rise to power or any religious belief.

Once again, a commenter (in this case the laughably stupid and cartoonishly inept, knee-jerk "contrarian"--but always entertaining--"Average Joe") proves total ignorance about humanism.

Joe, both your epistemological and historical views of humanism are, like most of the views you express on here, so specious that it's not even fun to laugh at you for your stupidity and intellectual myopia.

Deconstructing Joe's idiotic views is tiresome and like shooting dead fish in a barrel, but the defense of true humanism is a worthy cause.

It's so boring to read such laughably incorrect definitions of humanism.

Humanism is a philosophy of reason and science in the pursuit of knowledge. Therefore, when it comes to the question of the most valid means for acquiring knowledge of the world, humanists reject arbitrary faith, authority, revelation, and altered states of consciousness.

Got it?

Let me provide the central tenets of humanism:

• Need to test beliefs - A conviction that dogmas, ideologies and traditions, whether religious, political or social, must be weighed and tested by each individual and not simply accepted on faith.

*Reason, evidence, scientific method - Commitment to the use of critical reason, factual evidence, and scientific methods of inquiry, rather than faith and mysticism, in seeking solutions to human problems and answers to important human questions.

*Fulfillment, growth, creativity - A primary concern with fulfillment, growth, and creativity for both the individual and humankind in general.

*Search for truth - A constant search for objective truth, with the understanding that new knowledge and experience constantly alter our imperfect perception of it. [My emphasis]

*This life - A concern for this life and a commitment to making it meaningful through better understanding of ourselves, our history, our intellectual and artistic achievements, and the outlooks of those who differ from us.

*Ethics - A search for viable individual, social and political principles of ethical conduct, judging them on their ability to enhance human well-being and individual responsibility.

*Building a better world - A conviction that with reason, an open exchange of ideas, good will, and tolerance, progress can be made in building a better world for ourselves and our children.

As you can see, humanism, since its breakout in the 12th Century, hasn’t been about creating an authoritarian dogma bogged down by absolute certainty or religious adherence. It merely provides intellectual tools to better understand humanity and the physical universe. It promotes democracy and the rejection of authoritarian rule. It promotes tolerance and doubt.

Anything else attributed to humanism (Humanism is a religion! Humanism is an ideology! The Commies were humanists! The Nazis were humanists! Humanists worship man! Humanists worship Satan! Humanists want to rape your dog!) is done so by its detractors and critics, most of whom fear free thought and the primacy of human ideas over religious authority and absolute truths.

I reject the bullshit labels religious followers apply to rational thought. I don’t consider myself a humanist or an atheist simply because from those labels you can assume that they supply me with some sort of substitute for the superstitions I have never accepted. If you want to label me ,then call me a child of the Enlightenment. Everything good that has sprouted from modern society owes itself to this movement and not religion.

This post is getting interesting.

Hitler's beliefs about the Aryan Race and racial purity does not fall easily within eugenics which is a sociology, not a humanist school of thought unless you are referring to sociology as the study of human beings.

The geographic location of Hitler's rise to power or any religious belief are critical to the rise of Nazism as they form the well-spring of support for it as a national movement. If you have read Hitler's Mein Kamp, his Christian faith is very much part of his make-up along with his anti-semitic beliefs.

Btw, I live the lifestyle of a humanists but I cherish tradition conservative values and I voted for the conservative ruling party. However everything else about me is liberal.

So how would you label me then?

leftbanker, I feel the same way...

I would consider eugenics to be more about elitism than humanism. In the 1980s, our national’s founding father stated that graduates should marry graduates so that they can give birth to children who can be graduates. This was in keeping with our nation’s focus on meritocracy and fast track for civil scholars and other high flyers.

Since then, the ruling party has alienated many younger citizens. As a party supporter, I do not think I want to enter politics via the ruling party as the nation is built more on the sweat and blood of ordinary middle class people like my parents and grandparents.

kes - Focusing in on the crimes of the church heirarchy, and ignoring the revolutionary roles, for example, that Catholicism played in latin america is disingenuous and a perfect example of the fundamentalist anti-religious view being espoused above.

Alex - Whether or not technical humanism is genuinely good isn't the point. Fundamentalists don't practice true catholicism or true humanism. They stand behind the principles of humanism or the words of the Bible but what they practice is largely irrelevant. Your commentary on the christians herein is a good example of someone who is acting fundamentalist - drawing broad stereotypical views to support their views of others, while claiming generalities cannot apply to yourselves.

Your commentary on the christians herein is a good example of someone who is acting fundamentalist - drawing broad stereotypical views to support their views of others, while claiming generalities cannot apply to yourselves.

Once again, your failure to understnd what the term "fundamentalist" means in the context of this argument is causing you to make amusingly elliptical and illogical arguments.

Whether a person is a fundamentalist or moderate or liberal practicioner of religion, they all agree they worship a higher power and submit to that authority. All their religious beliefs are passed down through what is known as a "dispensationalist" doctrine, that is, the ideas and beliefs (and wisdom, a term I use loosely here) are "dispensed" downward from a higher authority and must be accepted with blind faith in by the religious worshiper of that religion. So the only distinction between a fundmentalist worshiper of a faith and a more liberal one is the degree to which they literally interpret the dogma and how much more blind faith they employ to their ideas.

Fundamentalism is simply the most literal-minded religious practice, employing a much stricter adherence to the dogma of the religion than other sects. It rejects modernity, free thinking, liberalism, and even science and reason when they contradict the literal fundamentalist dogma.

Humanism is a rejection of all the above. Humanism rejects a higher authority, it rejects any idea that requires faith alone for proof, and MOST IMPORTANTLY, doubt and skepticism--the two HUGE no-no's of religios thinking--are humanism's greatest tools.

So exactly how you think a humanist can espouse a "fundamentalist" view, when humanism is the opposite of such thinking, is not only logically incorrect, it is plain silly and proves how little you understand it.

LOL...before someone rips me apart for my somewhat limited definition of a "dispensationalist," I understand there's much more to it than I have defined, but my point is that a dispensationalist is a fundamentalist first, and the "dipensations" of their prophesies refer to time eras in their prophesies, and therefore do not refer to the "dispensing" of anything exept these weird prohesies. I was making fun of the word dispensationalist.

Although, as I said, their beliefs ARE in fact "dispensed" from a higher authority and must be accepted unconditionally by the faithful.

Seamus, the Catholic Church plays a REACTIONARY and FUNDAMENTALIST role in latin america such as preaching against contraception and birth control, so much so that its priests had to clandestinely provide condoms to those who need it.

Throughout history, revolutionary and enlightenment hardly characterise the Church at any point in time.

Of all the majory faiths, the Church is the only one who saw a period of Dark ages when it held sway over a region.

For other religions, there were Golden Ages, even for Islam which supported science, arts and culture during a Golden Period which lasts nearly 500 years.

It's just an instituion filled with people who is hell-bent to strengthen their power and authority over believers and non-believers alike.

Sorry to burst your bubble seamus.

And nice try in trying to link humanism to the words of the Bible, which is a book that condones slavery and oppression of women.

Seriously, please stop doing the PR offensive for the Church. it would be a lot more believable if your defense of the Church is based on facts, history and the reality.

No offense intended but I see a need to set the record straight.

sam harris is inspired by god! thats an astounding interview!

is it really, truly, neccessary to demean people's understanding (or more specifically, your interpretation of their understanding) in order to sway them?

Are you directing that question to people who preach their faith to others, while denouncing and bleapheming the faiths and customs of other people?

In that case, that covers most Christian missionaries, especially those in Asia who created a lot of social friction and conflicts among local societies while destorying thousands-year old culture with their ignorance and deliberate misinformation.

So if a non-Christian uses the same tactics against such Christians, they obviously got it coming.

Sorry, no offense but the more you want to defend the Christian faith, the more skeletons in its closet falls out...

I interpreted this as an explanation of how liberal Christians are codependent enablers of fundamentalism.

liberal christian .. hurl

A public service announcement for your review.

Thank you for posting this.

There is no god! Its all in our heads.

Funny how christians use modern day reasoning and thought to defend their beliefs instead of using the advanced intellect, that "exceeds" Sam Harris' by light years, known as the word of god.

right you are mate .. the word of god slays all pretense

Modern day reasoning verses "lite" year advanced intellect aka word of god.

No wonder sober people have communicating with people drunk on something : >

Stipe, the word of god promotes fiction in the name of the greatest classic work of fiction in human history.

Surprisingly for its claims of absolute aauthencity, so little proof, outside of religious documents, exists to support the Biblical account of the world.

Sigh

testing

no evidence for biblical accuracy or authenticity? please follow the thread titled 'faith and reason'.

my first stop is archaeology...