Gigi, that’s pretty much what Stewart is saying above, and my response to that is that it’s an absurd request to ask people not to have sex with each other. A priest who cared about his congregation would be begging his congregation to use condoms, not admonishing them not to. It’s irresponsible, plain and simple.

commenting that the position of the priest/church is laughable is justified, but hey humans are rational, if you don’t like what xyz is saying, there is an abc out there who will say what you want to hear like planned parenthood or something.

what is beyond me is how people want to do whatever they want and then hold someone else accountable for their actions. you know the drill, if you can’t do what is being asked of you, then go all the way and protect yourself, don’t come crying ‘i’ve got AIDS and its all the fault of the priest’

> but the notion that Harris…
As Harris himself states around 90% of the US population may be considered religious so excluding the religious perspectives from any discourse is a ridiculous notion. Harris heaps his abuse upon ‘fundamentalists’ as equally as he does upon ‘religious moderates’. While Harris is entitled to reject religious perspectives he is not entitled to constrain the majority of the world. He sadly goes from a valid criticism that people won’t challenge Muslim behaviors and positions (outside of the fundamentalist community) to a rejection of all religious positions.

> Is there a religion that does not have…
Of course there are… most of Islam has no formal hierarchy, as well as Judaism and some Christian denominations.
However your greater point seems to confuse religious institutions with the adherents. ‘Pure spirituality’ is like an object class in that it is abstract and uninstantiated. Religion provides frameworks for people that are on a spiritual path. People are very dynamic embracing religion, adopting to facets of it, perhaps even changing or dropping their beliefs over time. Within Judaism there are two sides to prayer – a fixed liturgy and a ’spiritual’ or heart felt aspect. To those who haven’t experienced this effect it is hard to appreciate the difference or value of either. I have met many people of different faiths who are not fixated on the organizational aspects of their religion but see it as their best place for growing spiritually. Religion and religious experiences are likely to be more of an antidote to ‘group think’ than other experiences. Just because someone functions within a framework does not mean that you must lose your individuality anymore than competing in the Tour de France makes a competitor a lemming.

Being a free spirit and independent is at times a good and necessary thing. But as humans we are also social creatures that find important social meaning from within religious communities.

> Huh???? That came out of left field…
Actually I am giving Harris perhaps more credit than he deserves. He is an author and he is selling his books. Controversy is a great way to put food on his table and I won’t deny him that. If he wholly believes his own statements then I have less respect for him (see my recent post that offers a critique of his talk). His analysis just doesn’t hold up.

Can you name a religion that has succeeded in preventing (or even substantially limiting) adultery or homosexuality in its ranks? Sex is something humans do, whether a religious hammer hangs over their head or not.

but the notion that Harris has a viable proposal in rejection of religious views as a matter of conducting our business

Not sure I understand. What is not viable about the notion of religion-free public discourse or policy making?

although some become politicized along with some adherents.

Is there a religion that does not have a hierarchy of priests or similar? A religion that does not expect some sort of taxation or dues from adherents? A religion without a codex of some kind? Without positions on human behavior? Religion starts with a spiritual spark, but then tries to organize humans and human behavior. That organizational system is politics. “Pure” spirituality is the same spark, but unencumbered by group think, dogma, etc.

I simply think he is ranting in order to sell more books.

Huh???? That came out of left field. So you don’t think he’s sincere? Don’t think he’s brilliant? Don’t think that most of what he says is essentially correct? Why are you being dismissive of him?

I am not appealing to majority for acceptance of the ideas of religions but the notion that Harris has a viable proposal in rejection of religious views as a matter of conducting our business. (He really holds an ascetic’s view of how to relate to others he doesn’t agree with.)

I also respectfully disagree with your definition of religion. I see spirituality at the root of most religions – although some become politicized along with some adherents. I don’t equate emotional or vague nebulous experiences as being all that spiritual but rather those experiences that have a supernatural quality and defy reason.

I have listened to the IT Conversations version of Harris’ talk. Not sure if your link is substantially different – I doubt it as I have heard Harris in other venues as well and modulates his tone based upon audience. I simply think he is ranting in order to sell more books.

to not tolerate any faith view is to dismiss the majority of world (including scientists).

Harris knows that his insistence on reason and consensus discourse (science) is dismissive toward the majority of the world’s population. But appeal to majority doesn’t work on me.

Atheists have spiritual experiences too! But there’s a world of difference between a spiritual experience, which leads to awe and wonder, and religion, which is about politics and dogma (religion is spirituality codified and politicized). A spiritual experience does not need to lead to a life of irrational faith. Don’t know whether you’ve listened to the talk linked to in this post (I get the impression most of the commenters here have not), but he’s very open to the idea of personal mystical experiences. Life would be kind of empty without them.

(I suppose those) priests are saying ‘don’t have extramarital/gay sex and don’t use condoms’. If parishners obey they don’t get AIDS – if they disobey they may get AIDS but the priest in not culpable. (I also assume this is a consistent message that has not changed over the years.)

If you don’t tolerate a ’scientific view’ you challenge it in that arena according to those principles. To challenge a faith view via reason is common – to not tolerate any faith view is to dismiss the majority of world (including scientists). Most of us have had spiritual experiences that can not be adequately explained by science which often leads to a rational acceptance of faith (even if subject to change). Science and faith are not necessarily mutually exclusive but that is a personal call.

Barring your congregation from taking the simplest steps to prevent the spread of AIDS is just as bad as promoting behavior that fosters AIDS. You can’t stop people from having sex, but you certainly can stop disallowing them from protecting themselves. That’s insanity. In the name of religion.

When Harris talks about tolerance not making sense, this is what he means. Why in the world should we be tolerant of these priests? Being tolerant of a mystical view you don’t agree with is one thing (though scientists don’t “tolerate” other scientists saying the moon is made of cheese); being tolerant of behavior that’s harmful to humans is another.

re: What is it about religion that prompts us to “respect” others’ beliefs? It is called tolerance (something Harris rages against) and promotes peace between people that believe different things (most despite Harris’ wishes will continue to believe in irrational things). Many of us change our positions and beliefs as we mature so this beats the monoculture that Harris promotes.

Your point is well taken, but doesn’t quite hit the mark.

Up until recently environmentalists were able to prevent DDT from being considered an option to eradicate malaria in Africa (far more preventable and harmful than AIDS in Africa). Is this an indictment of environmentalists or just another example of stupidity?

They really aren’t in the same bucket at all.

BTW, Point taken, but the difference is that science/logic are inherently open to correction. If you’re a scientist and I prove to you that the opposite of what you believed is actually true, then you’re beholden to change the way you think about the universe (Copernican revolution, quantum mechanics, etc.) Fundamentalism derived from sacred texts does not include this built-in mutability.

As Harris says, if Jesus comes down from the clouds and proves he’s the son of God, all scientists will then be beholden to agree that Christianity is a science – an exploration of real phenomena.

But they’re very different in the important sense that fundamentalists rely on inherited dogma while atheists rely on pure science/philosophy. To me, that’s a critical distinction, and makes atheism and atheists much more palatable than fundamentalism.

So I can’t agree with putting atheists and fundamentalists in the same basket.

baald