Socially Sanctioned Lunacy

[April]

A slightly older, but good, article and book review from the NY Times:

It's not often that I see my florid strain of atheism expressed in any document this side of the Seine, but ''The End of Faith'' articulates the dangers and absurdities of organized religion so fiercely and so fearlessly that I felt relieved as I read it, vindicated, almost personally understood. Sam Harris presents major religious systems like Judaism, Christianity and Islam as forms of socially sanctioned lunacy, their fundamental tenets and rituals irrational, archaic and, important when it comes to matters of humanity's long-term survival, mutually incompatible. A doctoral candidate in neuroscience at the University of California, Los Angeles, Harris writes what a sizable number of us think, but few are willing to say in contemporary America: ''We have names for people who have many beliefs for which there is no rational justification. When their beliefs are extremely common, we call them 'religious'; otherwise, they are likely to be called 'mad,' 'psychotic' or 'delusional.' '' To cite but one example: ''Jesus Christ -- who, as it turns out, was born of a virgin, cheated death and rose bodily into the heavens -- can now be eaten in the form of a cracker. A few Latin words spoken over your favorite Burgundy, and you can drink his blood as well. Is there any doubt that a lone subscriber to these beliefs would be considered mad?'' The danger of religious faith, he continues, ''is that it allows otherwise normal human beings to reap the fruits of madness and consider them holy.''

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/05/books ... &position=

[Vladd44]

lol, the quote reminded me of the Russel's Celestial Teapot

If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.

[Mando]

As we are being opened minded here, it’s always good to read the critiques of Sam Harris in order to keep free thinking at its maximum. Take a look at the links below.

It’s worth the read simply to follow up on some of the commentary, such as William Vallicella’s comment that "His (Sam Harris) book is not very good judged by professional standards, but it did make quite a splash.”

Or, Chris Lehman’s "Harris' stolid--dare one say dogmatic?--failure to see anything in contemporary religion other than the exclusive, world-conquering fantasizing of monotheism at its worst keeps his book mired squarely in a painfully anachronistic atheist's bill of indictments, cribbed in most particulars from the heyday of Enlightenment skepticism."

And don’t miss the commentary by Joel McDurman, the author of “The Return of the Village Atheist”, where he talks about Harris’ method of inductive reasoning and lazy atheism.

And, don’t forget Chris Hedges, who debated Harris, and in his opening statements said, “The danger of Sam's simplistic worldview is that it does what fundamentalists do: It creates the illusion of a binary world of us and them, of reason versus irrationality, of the forces of light battling the forces of darkness. And once you set up this world you are permitted to view as justified military intervention, brutal occupation and even torture, anything, in short, that will subdue what is defined as irrational and dangerous. All this is done in the name of reason, in the name of his god, which looks, like all idols, an awful lot like Sam Harris.” Hedges goes further to state, “Sam Harris has conflated faith with tribalism. His book is an attack not on faith but on a system of being and believing that is dangerous and incompatible with the open society. He attacks superstition, a belief in magic and the childish notion of an anthropomorphic God that is characteristic of the tribe, of the closed society. He calls this religion. I do not. “

And think about this…this is how Harris reasons…”If the Bible is written by an omniscient being, he taunts, why does it not 'say anything about electricity, or about DNA, or about the actual age and size of the universe? What about a cure for cancer?'” Is he serious? Isn't this more whining, demanding rhetoric, and juvenile babbling! Man truly wants a god of his own design…and I suppose that’s what frustrates many…you can’t have it both ways and God be God.

So, read a little more, and take Kenan Malik’s commentary to heart that “bigotry and irrationalism can take more than one form (ala Harris).”

Dogmatic atheism is rather faddish now. I expect atheist crusades in the remote future. Hopefully, I won’t see their vests and spears emblazoned with a big “V” on the front…but who knows. But as long as one is being materialist...its a great time for atheistic entrepreneural projects. It's certainly the atheist's "time in the sun"...there is little fear of burning at the stake. And, putting your reprobate ideas to pen and paper = money. So, why stay hid in the alcoves of the internet. Publish. Taking your atheistic ideas to the bank makes logical sense in a materialistic world where nothing is sacred but the moment. Let your ideas out, and see, as noted in the links below, if they are as "wanting" as Harris.

http://christiancadre.blogspot.com/2006 ... arris.html
http://www.equip.org/atf/cf/%7B9C4EE03A ... JAH222.pdf
http://blog01.kintera.com/christianalli ... es_on.html
http://www.truthdig.com/report/print/20 ... _atheists/
http://www.christianfaithandreason.com/mcdurmon.html
http://www.kenanmalik.com/reviews/harris_letter.html

[Vladd44]

To Mando the Catholic Boy,

Start with open mindedness comment..then include a reference to atheists with a "V" reference to me.

Yeah, I know anyone that does not believe in your particular turd is close enough to call atheist to you.

Pretty funny seeing a christian talk about materialism, that is a trait that most non theists I know lack, to find the rampant consumerism and materialists just google mega church.

I have told people in the past, and I will tell you as well.

Don't forget my us or them mentality was learned at a very young age in a church. Using terms like

You are either for god...or against.

Be ye a separate people....

Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness

If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed

I understand that it is either us...or them, christians will allow it no other way. It has never been non theists burning theists at the stake, that was left for the theists to do to each other and non theists.

But perhaps next time.......

I wonder how openminded you are when you apologize for theists who spew hatred without a second thought.

And don't complain when the favor is returned.

If any man preach fairy tales of invisible beings and lie to the people.....let them be damned. :D:D

Don't whine because I learned the lesson and apply it to the superstitious believers.