Science Must Destroy Religion
Sam Harris calls for the necessary intolerance to religion, suggesting we "find ways of meeting our emotional needs that do not require the abject embrace of the preposterous":
Most people believe that the Creator of the universe wrote (or dictated) one of their books. Unfortunately, there are many books that pretend to divine authorship, and each makes incompatible claims about how we all must live. Despite the ecumenical efforts of many well-intentioned people, these irreconcilable religious commitments still inspire an appalling amount of human conflict.In response to this situation, most sensible people advocate something called "religious tolerance." While religious tolerance is surely better than religious war, tolerance is not without its liabilities. Our fear of provoking religious hatred has rendered us incapable of criticizing ideas that are now patently absurd and increasingly maladaptive. It has also obliged us to lie to ourselves — repeatedly and at the highest levels — about the compatibility between religious faith and scientific rationality.
The conflict between religion and science is inherent and (very nearly) zero-sum. The success of science often comes at the expense of religious dogma; the maintenance of religious dogma always comes at the expense of science. It is time we conceded a basic fact of human discourse: either a person has good reasons for what he believes, or he does not. When a person has good reasons, his beliefs contribute to our growing understanding of the world. We need not distinguish between "hard" and "soft" science here, or between science and other evidence-based disciplines like history. There happen to be very good reasons to believe that the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor on December 7th, 1941. Consequently, the idea that the Egyptians actually did it lacks credibility. Every sane human being recognizes that to rely merely upon "faith" to decide specific questions of historical fact would be both idiotic and grotesque — that is, until the conversation turns to the origin of books like the bible and the Koran, to the resurrection of Jesus, to Muhammad's conversation with the angel Gabriel, or to any of the other hallowed travesties that still crowd the altar of human ignorance.
Science, in the broadest sense, includes all reasonable claims to knowledge about ourselves and the world. If there were good reasons to believe that Jesus was born of a virgin, or that Muhammad flew to heaven on a winged horse, these beliefs would necessarily form part of our rational description of the universe. Faith is nothing more than the license that religious people give one another to believe such propositions when reasons fail. The difference between science and religion is the difference between a willingness to dispassionately consider new evidence and new arguments, and a passionate unwillingness to do so. The distinction could not be more obvious, or more consequential, and yet it is everywhere elided, even in the ivory tower.
Religion is fast growing incompatible with the emergence of a global, civil society. Religious faith — faith that there is a God who cares what name he is called, that one of our books is infallible, that Jesus is coming back to earth to judge the living and the dead, that Muslim martyrs go straight to Paradise, etc. — is on the wrong side of an escalating war of ideas. The difference between science and religion is the difference between a genuine openness to fruits of human inquiry in the 21st century, and a premature closure to such inquiry as a matter of principle. I believe that the antagonism between reason and faith will only grow more pervasive and intractable in the coming years. Iron Age beliefs — about God, the soul, sin, free will, etc. — continue to impede medical research and distort public policy. The possibility that we could elect a U.S. President who takes biblical prophesy seriously is real and terrifying; the likelihood that we will one day confront Islamists armed with nuclear or biological weapons is also terrifying, and it is increasing by the day. We are doing very little, at the level of our intellectual discourse, to prevent such possibilities. In the spirit of religious tolerance, most scientists are keeping silent when they should be blasting the hideous fantasies of a prior age with all the facts at their disposal.
Buy Harris' brilliant book, The End Of Faith, now a bargain in paperback, here.
UPDATE: Meanwhile, back at the Stupid Factory...
do parents exist?
if so why do they let their childern get sick knowing the phyical pain and discomphort it can cause?
why do they let children learn how to stand and walk when they know at some point their children will fall and hurt themselves, and not just once but hundreds of times throughout their life?
why did they allow their children to date and fall into love knowing that their hearts would be broken time after time?
why did they let them learn speech knowing that people would say cruel and hurtful things to them?
if parents really exist how can they let such horrible things happen to their children if they truly love them?
john at January 3, 2006 7:32 AM
I agree, John. The "Why does he allow suffering?" argument against the existence of God never made much sense to me. If an invisible man really lived in the sky, there's no reason to think he is benevolent and caring or would interfere on behalf of people.
It's the whole ridiculous notion of an invisible man living in the sky in the first place that I can't get past.
Pirate Jo at January 3, 2006 8:57 AM
All those 100-level philosphy classes in college made it plain: The paradox of a God both omnicient and omnipotent can't be reconciled with a planet that suffers as ours does.
So while we're at it, let's go the extra mile and acknowledge one more bitter truth: Nature is COLD and HURTFUL. This includes the nature of the human heart.
> irreconcilable religious commitments
> still inspire an appalling amount of
> human conflict.
As do irreconcilable secular enthusiasms.
> fear of provoking religious hatred has
> rendered us incapable of criticizing
> ideas that are now patently absurd...
Why "now"? If a belief in God is absurd today, it was absurd millenia ago. My favorite scripture: "There is nothing new under the sun."
> ...and increasingly maladaptive.
Are you sure? More people than ever before are practicing religion in secular democratic states: This has been one of the great changes of our lifetime, as remarkable and far-reaching as telephone service. I think this war with radical Islam is a cleanup operation... These cultures aren't any more wretched than they've always been. The difference is that nowadays they can use our technologies to bring their wretchedness to Manhattan. Geographical containment no longer applies.
Harris has no persepective:
> that we could elect a U.S. President
> who takes biblical prophesy seriously
> is real and terrifying
How many Presidents didn't? Or at least, would claim not to have unashamedly? More than anything, Harris wants to look down on the little people (a powerful motive on both sides of this argument; see the coldness of the human heart, above).
> We are doing very little, at the level
> of our intellectual discourse, to
> prevent such possibilities.
Speak for yourself, Niblets!
Crid at January 3, 2006 10:05 AM
Pirate Jo-
I think you have the wrong end of John's stick. John's point is that just as we humans let our children do these things, so G lets us. Human suffering is part of G's plan, or something. This is the view of G as a great parent.
Of course we mere humans do what we can to eradicate things like polio, which John would say is part of the grand plan.
Am I right, John? If so, what is the point of polio? And if your answer is that we can't hope to understand G's mysterious purpose, then I'd have to ask how you can tell the difference between that and there being no overall purpose.
Norman at January 3, 2006 2:43 PM
"as we humans let our children do these things, so the desk lamp lets us. Human suffering is part of my toaster's plan, or something."
Just as there's zero evidence that there is a desk lamp presiding over all of us or that my toaster has a plan, there's zero evidence that there's a god or that the god is anthropomorphic (although that form tends to work best for the tenderheaded) or that god has a plan.
Amy Alkon at January 3, 2006 3:40 PM
my point is there may or may not be a god who put the universe together, and trying to figure it out is like trying to ask why parents dont stop the inevitable heartache thier children will face
its pointlss, serves no purpose and everyone can rationalize an answer that makes them feel comfortable
as for scince it was once a well know fact that the earth was flat and the center of the universe, and the atom was the smalles particle and could not be divided, it is amazing what a couple thousand years of rational thought have shown us about our universe, imagine what will be known in another hundered years
mabey the bible prophets were visted by intergalactic anthorpologists - who cares
personally i think a huge apocolyptic war might be just the thing to settle the question - it would force all the surviviors to reasses their belif systems
john at January 3, 2006 7:40 PM
Holy Götterdämmerungy! Anthropomorphic deities no longer permitted to guide us though our Darkest Hour? What's an Advice Goddess to do?
Paul Hrissikopoulos at January 3, 2006 10:23 PM
I'm a self-proclaimed diety. But, like all religions, I do take donations. Send me $10, and I'll send you a piece of my garbage in a Ziploc bag.
Amy Alkon at January 3, 2006 10:40 PM
Tempting, but I'll have to pass. My Muse might get pissy if she finds out I'm cavorting with other goddesses.
Paul Hrissikopoulos at January 3, 2006 11:33 PM
There is a huge difference between "religion" and "fundamentalist religion."
The latter is indeed most often incompatible with science. The former doesn't have to be -- not all religion features dogma or requires belief that metaphorical tales actually happened.
Quakers sit and meditate for an hour each week in order to feel their own "inner light" (which coudl very easily be the subconscious, or just the plain old relaxed mind). And they're pacifists who believe in living simply and not being judgmental.
That's a religion. And nothing about it is inherently incompatible with science.
LYT at January 4, 2006 12:00 AM
LYT! Dood!
Crid at January 4, 2006 12:42 AM
Just as there's zero evidence that there is a desk lamp presiding over all of us or that my toaster has a plan, there's zero evidence that there's a god or that the god is anthropomorphic (although that form tends to work best for the tenderheaded) or that god has a plan.
Actually there is evidence for your toaster or desk lamp ruling the universe. There's evidence for any idea you care to mention, which is why it's more useful to try to find evidence against hypotheses than for them - though this leads to charges of cynicism.
Norman at January 4, 2006 2:58 AM
Leave a comment