Searching for GOD...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Did you actually bother to read the whole article - or just quote mine?

I find this quite often from apologists for the new atheists and their excesses. Harris shows dilletanteism in the fields of religion, moderation and international politics

So firstly in the article Harris is absolutely clear that he doesn't see an equivalence between moderate and extreme religious believers - hence:

People of faith fall on a continuum: some draw solace and inspiration from a specific spiritual tradition, and yet remain fully committed to tolerance and diversity, while others would burn the earth to cinders if it would put an end to heresy. There are, in other words, religious moderates and religious extremists, and their various passions and projects should not be confused'

His argument is that if you justify your actions on the basis of your perception of what your god thinks you should do, and do this without evidence, then it is extremely difficult to argue with someone who is using exactly the same approach but comes to a different conclusion based on their perception of what their god thinks they should do. And often times it is the same god and the same religious texts that the moderate interprets (without evidence) means one thing while the religious extremist interprets (again without evidence) means something entirely different.

Thats is the 'terrible dogma' he speaks of - not that moderates and extremists are the same, but that they adopt the same unsubstantiated approaches to reach highly differing conclusions.

You are quote hiding. For instance he is on record as saying religious moderates ''provide cover'' for extremists. Deliberately inflammatory militant language like his other misinformed macho guff about ''necessary first strike''. I think he thinks he's General Custer.

Secondly, Are you trying to defend Harris's extreme conclusions by appealing to the standard antitheistic dogma of empiricism and scientism?

if you justify your actions on the basis of your perception of what your god thinks you should do, and do this without evidence, then it is extremely difficult to argue with someone who is using exactly the same approach but comes to a different conclusion based on their perception of what their god thinks they should do.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Did you actually bother to read the whole article - or just quote mine?

That's rich coming from you, given all the quote-mining you have done on here in defence of Harris.

So firstly in the article Harris is absolutely clear that he doesn't see an equivalence between moderate and extreme religious believers - hence:

People of faith fall on a continuum: some draw solace and inspiration from a specific spiritual tradition, and yet remain fully committed to tolerance and diversity, while others would burn the earth to cinders if it would put an end to heresy. There are, in other words, religious moderates and religious extremists, and their various passions and projects should not be confused'

His argument is that if you justify your actions on the basis of your perception of what your god thinks you should do, and do this without evidence, then it is extremely difficult to argue with someone who is using exactly the same approach but comes to a different conclusion based on their perception of what their god thinks they should do. And often times it is the same god and the same religious texts that the moderate interprets (without evidence) means one thing while the religious extremist interprets (again without evidence) means something entirely different.

Thats is the 'terrible dogma' he speaks of - not that moderates and extremists are the same, but that they adopt the same unsubstantiated approaches to reach highly differing conclusions.

Please go ahead and explain the difference between doing something because you think a god wants you to do it or doing it because you believe it's morally the right thing to do. People can't demonstrate that morals are objectively right or wrong so using morals to choose a course of action seems to be an unsubstantiated approach that leads to people reaching highly differing conclusions.

Hence it leads to Harris contemplating carrying out the mass murder of innocent civilians as "it may be the only course of action available to us".

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

No it isn't. It's a real possibility.

Many things are a possibility - including gods. You just happen to have a desire to entertain this particular possibility for no good reason while dismissing many other possibilities.

 

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

That is irrelevant to the point. It's just a giant piece of whataboutery. Stick to the subject.

Nope pointing out your selective paranoia is not irrelevant

Because they are religious nutters. They might even choose to seize control of a country with nuclear weapons just so they can end the World. That is what makes them dangerous.

More paranoia

If you have the mentality that it's to your benefit to fly an airliner into a tower block, anything is possible.

Meaningless assertion. It's like saying if you have the mentality to drop a nuclear bomb on a densely populated civilian city in Japan anything is possible.

Depends howe you are defining degree but I'd be more comfortable if the moderates weren't enabling the extremists.

I would be more comfortable if Sam Harris was not contemplating mass murder and then deciding "it may be the only available course of action" but I still wouldn't contemplate launching a pre-emptive nuclear strike against the US just in case the US government may decide to put his looney idea into action.

[Outrider]

Please go ahead and explain the difference between doing something because you think a god wants you to do it or doing it because you believe it's morally the right thing to do.

You can debate individual people's moral decisions, you can question the presumptions and the assumptions, the precepts and the cultural influences - some people are not inclined to listen, but it's difficult for them to put up an absolute argument about why they're definitively right. There is a significant subset of the religious, though, for whom the 'god-given directives' are not open to question, they may not be debated or addressed, they are to be accepted without thought. A number of these absolutists are, almost by definition, at the more extreme ends of the spectrum.

The problem is that there's no basis to argue the individual tenets of someone's religious belief, because there's no solid basis for any of it - hence why the moderate religious view, although not in itself necessarily dangerous, provides a form of defence (unwittingly) for the more extreme ideologies because you can either refute the validity of religion or not, but there's no validity in the argument about individual tenets when much of religion is based upon one person or another's 'inspired belief'.

O.

[ProfessorDavey]

Please go ahead and explain the difference between doing something because you think a god wants you to do it or doing it because you believe it's morally the right thing to do.

The appeal to an absolute authority - e.g. god. It makes a huge difference.

If I am making the case that some thing is morally right I cannot and do not claim it to be objectively true or the obligations of a divine absolute moral authority revealed through some holy scriptures. No I have to argue through reasoned and rational debate why my moral interpretation should be accepted.

If on the other hand you hold to religious divine authority no such argument is necessary - your argument ends at 'because god says it is so' - end of story. That's is why it is completely different.

And Harris' argument (I think) and if so I agree with, is that once you use the justification of absolute moral authority of god then it becomes pretty well impossible to argue against someone else also using the absolute moral authority of god justification, because you use the same argument. Sure the religious moderate who thinks that scripture obliged them to be kind and charitable will claim that the extremist who thinks that scripture obliged them to murder 'infidels' and gay people is wrong. But the extremist will be just as convinced that they are right and feel they need to go no further than their faith in the absolute moral authority of god.

So in answer to your question - they are completely different.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

You can debate individual people's moral decisions, you can question the presumptions and the assumptions, the precepts and the cultural influences - some people are not inclined to listen, but it's difficult for them to put up an absolute argument about why they're definitively right. There is a significant subset of the religious, though, for whom the 'god-given directives' are not open to question, they may not be debated or addressed, they are to be accepted without thought. A number of these absolutists are, almost by definition, at the more extreme ends of the spectrum.

The problem is that there's no basis to argue the individual tenets of someone's religious belief, because there's no solid basis for any of it - hence why the moderate religious view, although not in itself necessarily dangerous, provides a form of defence (unwittingly) for the more extreme ideologies because you can either refute the validity of religion or not, but there's no validity in the argument about individual tenets when much of religion is based upon one person or another's 'inspired belief'.

O.

You got that wrong for a start. Some basic research into how moderates think before posting your assertions would have revealed that the moderate view (in Islam at least) is that being absolutist in actions is not following the tradition of Prophet Mohamed.

Moderates therefore do not provide a defence for extremists unwittingly or otherwise since moderates accept they could be wrong. Moderates say they think this is what god wants based on their interpretation of the Quran and Hadith but they also say they are human and therefore fallible and they could have got it wrong, and there is room for different interpretations and that a literal interpretation vs a non-literal interpretation would give different views and that only god knows what god wants. Which is why there are so many different schools of thought in Islam.

[Outrider]

You got that wrong for a start. Some basic research into how moderates think before posting your assertions would have revealed that the moderate view (in Islam at least) is that being absolutist in actions is not following the tradition of Prophet Mohamed.

I've obviously not been clear enough in what I was trying to get across - I don't think that the moderate view openly accepts the extremist interpretation. However, what they both have in common is that they are not reasoned interpretations of verified information, they are faith positions. As such, acceptance of the validity of one implies validity of the other - that we don't like the consequences of the extremist view is not an argument that they are definitively wrong, but if we don't accept their faith position we have no basis to accept the faith position of the moderates. In pressing for acceptance of their own - of itself inoffensive - faith position,  the moderates provide support for the idea that faith positions are valid and acceptable, which provides THAT defence to the extremists.

If there were only religious moderates, the world would be a calmer, safer place, in exactly the same way as if the world did not have the political extremists like the American Republicans or the Russian nationalists the world would be a calmer, safer place.

O.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

The appeal to an absolute authority - e.g. god. It makes a huge difference.

If I am making the case that some thing is morally right I cannot and do not claim it to be objectively true or the obligations of a divine absolute moral authority revealed through some holy scriptures. No I have to argue through reasoned and rational debate why my moral interpretation should be accepted.

If on the other hand you hold to religious divine authority no such argument is necessary - your argument ends at 'because god says it is so' - end of story. That's is why it is completely different.

See my reply to Outrider above.

I don't know about moderate Christians but moderate Muslims and Hindus do not claim that they have been in touch with a religious divine authority who has checked and approved their interpretation of morality or religious rules. Moderate Muslims (which seems to be all the Muslims I know or have encountered) always end their religious interpretations and opinions with "and Allah knows best". It's a well-known, well-used Muslim saying meaning their own interpretation could be in error as they acknowledge that they have no hotline to God.     

And Harris' argument (I think) and if so I agree with, is that once you use the justification of absolute moral authority of god then it becomes pretty well impossible to argue against someone else also using the absolute moral authority of god justification, because you use the same argument. Sure the religious moderate who thinks that scripture obliged them to be kind and charitable will claim that the extremist who thinks that scripture obliged them to murder 'infidels' and gay people is wrong. But the extremist will be just as convinced that they are right and feel they need to go no further than their faith in the absolute moral authority of god.

So in answer to your question - they are completely different.

Only in the minds of atheists, including Harris, who make very simplistic, ignorant , uniformed generalisations about theists.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I've obviously not been clear enough in what I was trying to get across - I don't think that the moderate view openly accepts the extremist interpretation. However, what they both have in common is that they are not reasoned interpretations of verified information, they are faith positions. As such, acceptance of the validity of one implies validity of the other - that we don't like the consequences of the extremist view is not an argument that they are definitively wrong, but if we don't accept their faith position we have no basis to accept the faith position of the moderates. In pressing for acceptance of their own - of itself inoffensive - faith position,  the moderates provide support for the idea that faith positions are valid and acceptable, which provides THAT defence to the extremists.

If there were only religious moderates, the world would be a calmer, safer place, in exactly the same way as if the world did not have the political extremists like the American Republicans or the Russian nationalists the world would be a calmer, safer place.

O.

I've obviously not been clear enough in what I was trying to get across either. The only faith position is a belief in god. That is all moderate theists have in common with extremist theists.

The morals of moderate theists are reasoned out positions and are not faith positions. Hence moderate theists and moderate atheists often hold similar moral opinions and extremist theists and extremist atheists often hold similar moral positions e.g. let's nuke millions of innocent people even though it's a horrible thing to do as "it may be the only course of action available to us".

[ProfessorDavey]

... always end their religious interpretations and opinions with "and Allah knows best".

Which rather proves my point - that they are adhering to an absolute moral authority. Within secular moral philosophy you won't find the equivalent - in other word some appeal to "Kant knows best" or "Bentham knows best" etc. While some may not be sure their interpretations are correct, what you are saying is that they think that there is a correct interpretation which becomes beyond challenge, as it is the divine authority of god. Now I don't know that many moderate muslims to the extent that I am able to discuss such matters (that said I know and work with many, many moderate muslims, but they are professional colleagues so this type of conversation tends not to come up). However I do know plenty of moderate christians, and while these people tend not to be tub-thumping absolutist bible-literalists, there are certainly elements of 'accepted' moral truth which isn't really questioned even though they might claim that "Jesus knows best".

And of course the issue isn't with the moderate, but the extremist - the person who not only considers that there is a correct interpretation which becomes beyond challenge, but have absolute faith in what that interpretation is and that it is murderous. That is where the whole notion of there being a moral position that is the divine authority of god becomes deeply problematic. As soon as you buy into that notion you have lost any meaningful argument with someone who interprets what that devine moral authority thinks as different to you but believes it with absolute and unshakable faith. In their minds they are following diving purpose and obligation, just as you and other moderate muslims think you are following diving purpose and obligation. But what that leads you to do is massively different.

[ProfessorDavey]

Only in the minds of atheists, including Harris, who make very simplistic, ignorant , uniformed generalisations about theists.

Says the person making a simplistic, ignorant, uninformed generalisation about atheists. Yawn.

[jeremyp]

I've obviously not been clear enough in what I was trying to get across either. The only faith position is a belief in god. That is all moderate theists have in common with extremist theists.

The morals of moderate theists are reasoned out positions and are not faith positions. Hence moderate theists and moderate atheists often hold similar moral opinions and extremist theists and extremist atheists often hold similar moral positions e.g. let's nuke millions of innocent people even though it's a horrible thing to do as "it may be the only course of action available to us".

It seems lying for your faith is something you also have in common with religious extremists.

[ProfessorDavey]

The morals of moderate theists are reasoned out positions and are not faith positions.

I disagree - while I would accept that moral positions tend to arise from a bit of a smorgasbord of upbringing, culture, experiences etc etc there is no doubt that the moral teaching within a particular religion plays a strong part in the acceptance of moral positions.

Your implication that a person brought up as a catholic (as an example) and retaining that catholic faith in adulthood simply reasons out all their moral positions rather than using their faith as a starting point for their morality is absurd. If so there should be no difference in attitudes towards moral issues (e.g. homosexuality) between religious and non religious people and between people of different religions as they's all just 'reason out their position', so why would they come to different positions as a group. But of course attitudes towards homosexuality differ markedly between different religions, and non religious people - and guess what, those differences correlate very closely with what the religious interpretation of that the divine moral authority thinks on the matter.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Which rather proves my point - that they are adhering to an absolute moral authority.

You seem to have missed the point - it does not matter whether there is an absolute moral authority existing somewhere if we acknowledge that as humans not only are we are fallible in our interpretation of morals, but that there could be multiple interpretations that could all be acceptable or not and we would never know which ones are acceptable and which ones aren't.

This puts us in the same reasoning position as people who are reasoning morals without referencing what a god may or may not think about any issue. We form views based on the imperfect information we do have available to us and we will never know what the correct moral position is in any given scenario.

Within secular moral philosophy you won't find the equivalent - in other word some appeal to "Kant knows best" or "Bentham knows best" etc.

No but since the saying "Allah knows best" is used as an acknowledgement of human moral, emotional and intellectual imperfection, it would be a bit odd to claim any human knows best.

While some may not be sure their interpretations are correct, what you are saying is that they think that there is a correct interpretation which becomes beyond challenge, as it is the divine authority of god.

Nope - what I am saying is there could be multiple different "correct" interpretations in any given situation and it is not for humans to insist that their particular interpretation is the correct one.

Now I don't know that many moderate muslims to the extent that I am able to discuss such matters (that said I know and work with many, many moderate muslims, but they are professional colleagues so this type of conversation tends not to come up). However I do know plenty of moderate christians, and while these people tend not to be tub-thumping absolutist bible-literalists, there are certainly elements of 'accepted' moral truth which isn't really questioned even though they might claim that "Jesus knows best".

Um there seem to be a few tub-thumping atheists on here who try to give the impression that their morality is an 'accepted' moral truth. People's style of communication can come across as absolutist - it depends on their personality https://www.psychologyjunkie.com/2019/08/17/heres-your-arguing-style-based-on-your-personality-type/

And of course the issue isn't with the moderate, but the extremist - the person who not only considers that there is a correct interpretation which becomes beyond challenge, but have absolute faith in what that interpretation is and that it is murderous. That is where the whole notion of there being a moral position that is the divine authority of god becomes deeply problematic. As soon as you buy into that notion you have lost any meaningful argument with someone who interprets what that devine moral authority thinks as different to you but believes it with absolute and unshakable faith. In their minds they are following diving purpose and obligation, just as you and other moderate muslims think you are following diving purpose and obligation. But what that leads you to do is massively different.

Sounds like the problem is people having an absolute unshakable belief that what they think is right. I and the moderate Muslims I know don't think we are following divine purpose and obligation, but we do think we are trying to follow our interpretations of religious traditions that have been transmitted through the centuries by oral tradition from a man in 7th century Arabia and therefore our interpretation could be in error. 

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Says the person making a simplistic, ignorant, uninformed generalisation about atheists. Yawn.

Except I am not making a generalisation about all atheists. Pay attention.

I am making a statement about atheists who make very simplistic, ignorant , uniformed generalisations about theists.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

It seems lying for your faith is something you also have in common with religious extremists.

What an intellectual response - said no one ever. You just seem to want to keep on proving on here just how unintelligent you really are.

[ProfessorDavey]

I am making a statement about atheists who make very simplistic, ignorant , uniformed generalisations about theists.

So you are saying that atheists you make very simplistic, ignorant , uniformed generalisations about theists should be criticised for making very simplistic, ignorant , uniformed generalisations about theists. No shit Sherlock.

Thanks for providing the most perfect example of a 'truism':

truism
/ˈtruːɪz(ə)m/
 Learn to pronounce
noun
noun: truism; plural noun: truisms
a statement that is obviously true and says nothing new or interesting.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I disagree - while I would accept that moral positions tend to arise from a bit of a smorgasbord of upbringing, culture, experiences etc etc there is no doubt that the moral teaching within a particular religion plays a strong part in the acceptance of moral positions.

Your implication that a person brought up as a catholic (as an example) and retaining that catholic faith in adulthood simply reasons out all their moral positions rather than using their faith as a starting point for their morality is absurd. If so there should be no difference in attitudes towards moral issues (e.g. homosexuality) between religious and non religious people and between people of different religions as they's all just 'reason out their position', so why would they come to different positions as a group. But of course attitudes towards homosexuality differ markedly between different religions, and non religious people - and guess what, those differences correlate very closely with what the religious interpretation of that the divine moral authority thinks on the matter.

I thought you were the one saying there are lots of Catholics who retain their Catholic faith while not practising the moral teachings of the Catholic church on various moral issues relating to pre-marital sex, contraception, marriage, divorce, abortion, homosexuality etc etc 

Presumably they reasoned out that they disagree with some of the moral teachings of the Catholic church but still believed in God -Catholic flavour.

[ProfessorDavey]

Except I am not making a generalisation about all atheists. Pay attention.

Yes you were as you didn't make it clear that you were only talking about some atheists - wonder why you failed to make that clear. But anyhow I can fix it for you:

You said

"Only in the minds of atheists, including Harris, who make very simplistic, ignorant , uniformed generalisations about theists."

Perhaps you meant:

"Only in the minds of some atheists, including Harris, who make very simplistic, ignorant , uniformed generalisations about theists."

At least Harris makes it clear that he isn't talking about all muslims (let alone all theists) in his piece - you on the other hand make sweeping simplistic generalised statement about atheists without indicating that you only mean a small sub-set of atheists, while complaining about atheists making sweeping simplistic generalised statement about theists.

Get a grip VG.

[ProfessorDavey]

I thought you were the one saying there are lots of Catholics who retain their Catholic faith while not practising the moral teachings of the Catholic church on various moral issues relating to pre-marital sex, contraception, marriage, divorce, abortion, homosexuality etc etc

True - but their position on such matters isn't the same as those from a non religious background, which surely it would be if everyone was just reasoning stuff out from scratch. It is almost as if these people have an overarching moral framework as the starting point for their moral position - hmmm, I wonder what that might be? 

Presumably they reasoned out that they disagree with some of the moral teachings of the Catholic church but still believed in God -Catholic flavour.

Which confirms what I said - rather than starting from scratch they have an overarching moral framework. And actually for the catholics I know (and I know a lot, very well) the issue isn't really the absolute moral authority of god (most think that is a given) but that they aren't convinced that the interpretation by the church (that isn't god) is quite right.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

So you are saying that atheists you make very simplistic, ignorant , uniformed generalisations about theists should be criticised for making very simplistic, ignorant , uniformed generalisations about theists. No shit Sherlock.

Thanks for providing the most perfect example of a 'truism':

truism
/ˈtruːɪz(ə)m/
 Learn to pronounce
noun
noun: truism; plural noun: truisms
a statement that is obviously true and says nothing new or interesting.

You really are on a roll today with your lack of comprehension.

Your statement was "So in answer to your question - they are completely different."
My response was that they are completely different "Only in the minds of atheists, including Harris, who make very simplistic, ignorant , uniformed generalisations about theists."

I was disagreeing with your claim that they were completely different.

Do you have anything more to offer than just simplistic assertions?

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Yes you were as you didn't make it clear that you were only talking about some atheists - wonder why you failed to make that clear. But anyhow I can fix it for you:

"Only in the minds of some atheists, including Harris, who make very simplistic, ignorant , uniformed generalisations about theists."

What are you on about? You don't need the word "some" because I used the word "who" to make a defining relative clause to define the atheists I was talking about i.e. to show I was not referring to all atheists.

At least Harris makes it clear that he isn't talking about all muslims (let alone all theists) in his piece - you on the other hand make sweeping simplistic generalised statement about atheists without indicating that you only mean a small sub-set of atheists, while compelling about atheists making sweeping simplistic generalised statement about theists.

Get a grip VG.

See above. Did you skip the English grammar lessons in school?

[ProfessorDavey]

You really are on a roll today with your lack of comprehension.

Your statement was "So in answer to your question - they are completely different."
My response was that they are completely different "Only in the minds of atheists, including Harris, who make very simplistic, ignorant , uniformed generalisations about theists."

I was disagreeing with your claim that they were completely different.

Do you have anything more to offer than just simplistic assertions?

Nope - if you want to seem credible in being afforted by the comments of Harris (you know the lunatic - not very pc language in our world of increasing concern for mental health) for making what you perceive as simplistic arguments about not just all theists, not just all of one sub-set of theists (muslims) but a small sub-set of one sub-set of theists, namely islamists who believe that suicide and martyrdom is a noble cause, then perhaps you should be a little more careful when coming out with a statement that doesn't make it clear whatsoever that (apparently) you are talking about a sub-set of atheists.

And for the record it isn't just atheists who make sweeping, simplistic, generalisations about theists - some theists are perfectly adept at doing it about other theists. But perhaps you don't want to hear that VG as it doesn't fit with your rather simplistic view of the work - in which an atheist who actually (I think) has the same conclusion as you on the matter - namely that we must do absolutely everything we can to avoid islamic extremists who believe that suicide and martyrdom is a noble cause from getting WMD - is actually some kind of equivalent to a person whose call to action was for all muslims to murder all americans (and their allies) and deliberately murders thousands of innocent people.

[ProfessorDavey]

What are you on about? You don't need the word "some" because I used the word "who" to make a defining relative clause to define the atheists I was talking about i.e. to show I was not referring to all atheists.

In which case there is absolutely no need to include the word athiest is there VG - the word you might want to use instead is people. Note that I've already pointed out that some theists are also perfectly adept at making simplest, generalised comments about other theists. So why not just make it clear that you have gripe with in the minds of people, including Harris, who make very simplistic, ignorant , uniformed generalisations about theists. Ah but that would mean you'd have to admit that your simplistic theist=good, athiest=bad mantra begins to fall apart.