"Religion Moderation" And Other Jokes
Astonishingly, perhaps 230 million Americans, according to polls, "believe a book that shows neither unity of style nor internal consistency was created by an omniscient deity," writes Sam Harris in Playboy. He then explores what it means to be a “religious moderate,” an oxymoronic term many Americans would use to define their level of belief:
The problem, however, is that moderation in religion is completely without intellectual or theological support. It offers us no bulwark against the threat of religious extremism and religious violence.Religious moderation springs from the fact that even the least educated person knows more about certain matters than anyone did 2000 years ago, and much of this knowledge is incompatible with scripture. Most of us, for example, no longer equate disease with demonic possession. About half of us find it impossible to take seriously the idea that the universe was created 6000 years ago. But such concessions to modernity haven't made faith compatible with reason. It's just that the utility of ignoring (or "reinterpreting") articles of faith is now overwhelming. Anyone who has flown to a distant city for heart bypass surgery must concede that we have learned a few things about physics, geography, engineering and medicine since the time of Moses.
The problem with religious moderation is that it doesn't permit anything critical to be said about religious literalism. By failing to live by the letter of the texts--while tolerating the irrationality of those who do--we betray faith and reason equally. We can't say fundamentalists are crazy, because they are merely practicing their freedom of belief. We can't even say they are mistaken in religious terms, because their knowledge of scripture is generally unrivaled. All we can say as religious moderates is that we don't like the personal and social costs imposed on us by a full embrace of scripture.
Religious moderates have merely capitulated to a variety of all too human interests that have nothing in principle to do with God. Religious moderation is the product of secular knowledge and scriptural ignorance. It has no credibility, in religious terms, to put it on a par with fundamentalism. Each text is perfect in all its parts. By this light, moderation appears to be nothing more than an unwillingness to submit to the law of God. Unless the core dogmas of faith (ie:, there is a God, and we know what He wants from us) are questioned, religious moderation won't lead us out of the wilderness.
Insofar as it represents an atteot to hold on to what is still serviceable in orthodox religion, such moderation closes the door to more sophisticated approaches to human happiness. Rather than bring the force of creativity and rationality to bear on the problems of ethics, social cohesion and spiritual experience, moderates ask that we relax our standards of adherence to ancient superstitions while we otherwise maintain a belief system passed down from men and women whose lives were ravaged by ignorance. Not even politics suffers from such anachronisms.
Moderates don't want to kill anyone in the name of God, of course. But they do want us to keep using the word God as though we knew what we were talking about. And they don't want anything critical to be said about people who believe in the God of their fathers, because tolerance, perhaps above all else, is sacred. To speak truthfully about the state of our world--to say, for instance, that the Bible and the Koran both contains reams of life-destroying gibberish--is antithetical to tolerance as moderates currently conceive it.
And, in the days after our fundamentalist-in-chief noted that he couldn’t see how anybody but a believer in god could lead this, the most powerful and scientifically advanced nation in the world, Harris’ ending remarks carry even more weight:
Nothing is more sacred than facts. Where we have reason, we don't need faith. Where we have no reason, we have lost both our connection to this world and to one another. People who harbor strong convictions without evidence belong at the margins of our society, not in the halls of power. We should respect a person's desire for a better life in this world, not his certainty that one awaits him in the next.But religious moderates imagine that the path to peace will be paved once we learn to respect the unjustified beliefs of others. This ideal of religious tolerance now drives us to the abyss. As every fundamentalist knows, the contest between our religions is zero-sum. Religious violence is still with us because our religions are intrinsically hostile to one another.
Where they appear otherwise, it is because secular interests have restrained the most lethal improprieties of faith. It is time that moderates recognize that reason, not faith, is the glue that holds our civilization together.
Hmmm. I know many self-described religious moderates, and none of them would take the position that we must not disagree with or discredit what the fundamentalists believe. I also know a few fundamentalists who don't believe in forcing their views on others (none are American, though).
The term is relative, however, when you consider that Luke Ford's role model Dennis Prager calls himself a religious moderate, yet refuses to criticize scripture in any obvious way.
Fundamentalists have guilt-tripped liberals using buzzwords like "tolerance" into not judging them, which is folly. Give 'em an inch and they'll take a mile. If they wanna slap stickers on science textbooks saying evolution is only a theory, I say we strike back by putting stickers on the Bible that say it's outdated and incompatible with science.
And in pre-emption to the inevitable Crid comment, of course fundamentalist Christians are not as bad as fundamentalist Muslims. But that doesn't make them good either.
LYT at January 15, 2005 10:27 AM
That was great, Amy. Thanks for the link.
"Moderates [...] want us to keep using the word God as though we knew what we were talking about."
I liked this line a lot. It suggests that atheism isn't a stubborn refusal to believe, but rather that atheists take the idea of "God" a lot more seriously than believers do. Religious faith is just embarrassingly self-assured about things that are essentially unknown. Crid will try to shame me for this, but it reminded me of a lyric by Joni Mitchell:
"Good or bad, we think we know
As if thinking makes things so
All convictions drawn along a borderline"
One question: In his book, does Sam Harris address the idea of religion not as a belief system, but as a set of cultural practices? I know a few religious academics who would claim that religious rituals are valuable because they makes groups of people feel like they belong to a community, and that feelings of "community" promote the material and psychological well-being of individuals.
Lena at January 15, 2005 5:56 PM
Brilliant marketing by Playboy: fake tits and fake logic all in the same magazine. What more could any idiot want?
For an honest, intellectual exploration of the nature of myth and its relation to the question of whether God exists, start with the works of Joseph Campbell:
http://www.jcf.org/
Peter Fisk at January 15, 2005 7:47 PM
The trouble with ascribing all these attributes to a wide spectrum of believers he wants to call moderates, is that within that spectrum are people who go to church when they feel like it. And people who never go to church, but can't get away from the need to believe in some kind of big guy in the sky. Especially when something big and bad is happening to them. Then there are those who are in that pew every Sunday because that's been their routine forever. Handed down over generations.
There is little use in trying to pin down the moderate stance if there are a myriad of stances within the spectrum, each with its own uniqueness. Now if the intent is meant to show that the moderates are to blame for keeping the extremists in business, that's like saying if it wasn't for all these damn middle of the road voters, we wouldn't be seeing all these radical leftists and rightists.
Look, if people don't get something of value out of it, they'll eventually quit doing it. Trying to appeal to their logic on this is ridiculous. How many people marry based on logic, have kids based on logic, pick a lover with logic? Bet the author has his own bouts with non-logicical decisions in his own life. Moderates like some parts of believing in a supernatural being. They don't like other parts. Guess what? You get to do that if you want to around here. Somethings logic just can't touch...
I will hand this to moderates, at least they don't come around moderating in my face.
allan at January 15, 2005 10:28 PM
"that's like saying if it wasn't for all these damn middle of the road voters, we wouldn't be seeing all these radical leftists and rightists."
Why does that seem so outlandish, Allan? Don't you think that a lot of registered Democrats are mighty sick of the flip-floppy middle of the road -- and are leaning to the left as a response?
And it's funny you bring up voting, because earlier today when I read this bit by Harris, for some reason, Ralph Nader came to mind. Maybe that was because I think that Harris sees moderates and extremists as nothing more than tweedledum and tweedledee.
Here's a new question for the GRE:
Moderate is to Extremist as Democrat is to _____________ [Republican].
Or maybe we're mad at the moderates just because they seem so unable or unwilling to commit. Sort of like all the bisexual men who've gone down on me.
Sometimes when I drive by a Unitarian Church, I just wanna stick my head out the window and scream "Get a religion, you losers!"
Our Lady of Lenalicious at January 16, 2005 2:12 AM
For an interesting review of Sam Harris' book "The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason" by Chris Lehmann at Reason.com, check out this link:
http://www.reason.com/0501/cr.cl.among.shtml
Jeff R at January 16, 2005 5:19 AM
I didn't think the Lehmann review was interesting at all. I find lines like "Harris writes in typical sputtering indignation" to be just a little too, well, sputteringly indignant.
I heard a radio interview with Harris a couple of weeks ago, and he is ANYTHING but indignant. It's refreshing to hear someone so calmly cut through the politically correct crap and just describe the Koran as the piece of small-minded, hateful piece of trash that it is. Halle-fuckin-luyah. Book-burning, anyone? While the fire's warming your toes, stay tuned for my upcoming work on Catholicism's number one contribution to civilization: Kinky sex.
Lena Cuisina: 768 abortions and counting at January 16, 2005 8:41 AM
> yet refuses to criticize scripture in any
> obvious way.
Must one be compelled, in order to demonstrate alliance with the decent? Prager, for all his faults (and they are legion and abysmal) has spent much of his life representing Judaism to Christians, and he likes a good fight. If any purpose were served by nickel-and-diming the modern Beliver, he'd be on it like a cheap suit.
> I say we strike back by putting stickers on the
> Bible that say it's outdated and incompatible
> with science.
Where taxpayers are compelled to pay for Bibles as Christians are for science books, I agree. But in the only meaningful realm of that sort --college-level comparative religion studies-- you can bet that competing cosmologies are well-argued.
> And in pre-emption to the inevitable Crid
> comment...
Love you too, Babe.
> it reminded me of a lyric by Joni...
Did you know that I once met Pastorius? I had him autograph a teletyped weather report for the night of his concert. I still have it.
> start with the works of Joseph Campbell
Seriously, did Campbell ever say anything interesting? To anybody, ever? I like his glenplaid sportcoats, but seriously: The mention of that name is like a gunshot warning of a sanctimonious, plodding, under-alcoholed dinner party on the horizon, peopled by sincere but witless public broadcasting enthusiasts.
> I will hand this to moderates, at least they
> don't come around moderating in my face.
Zactly! Dude!
Cridland at January 16, 2005 11:21 PM
Hi Crid! Nope, I didn't know you met Pastorius. I don't know a lot of his work, but I do think that his work on Hejira made the album EXTRA good. What did they call what he did... "singing bass"?
Non sequitor: I saw "Kinsey" tonight. See it if you like romanticized depictions of scientists. I do, so I liked it. Even got teary.
Lena-doodle-doo at January 17, 2005 5:52 AM
"But religious moderates imagine that the path to peace will be paved once we learn to respect the unjustified beliefs of others."
Sam Harris suggests what exactly? That we persecute religious fanatics? He sounds to me every bit as dangerous as the fanatic. The authors of the Bill of Rights would have known his type well.
Richard Ames at January 17, 2005 6:51 PM
Richard -- Harris isn't as inflammatory as the rest of us heathens. He argues really well. Check out his work and then decide. Leener the Weener
Lena at January 18, 2005 12:29 AM
Yes, read his book. Lehman's review was ridiculous. There was an agenda under it kicking and screaming to get out.
Amy Alkon at January 18, 2005 7:20 AM
"There was an agenda under it kicking and screaming to get out."
And I think the agenda was "let's make grandma happy!"
Lena Cuisina, Barren Adultress at January 18, 2005 9:44 AM
Amy, why isn't "The End of Faith" on your list of recommended books? Time to put that puppy front and center.
L
Lawaneke at January 18, 2005 5:42 PM
Thanks for reminding me. I believe there was a moratorium on me having anything to do with Dreamweaver (HTML program) so as not to cause the boyfriend long, sleepless nights correcting my technical errors...at about the time the book came out. Must put it up. In France now, but if it's not up by next week, please feel free to remind me if you're so inclined.
Amy Alkon at January 18, 2005 10:57 PM
"Time to put that puppy front and center."
The last time someone referred to "that puppy," the topic of the sentence was my penis.
Lena at January 21, 2005 5:32 AM