DiscussMormonism.com

Trevor,

I don't need to read her book. I don't have weeks or months to dedicate to Armstrong. I don't have that amount of time to dedicate to Hitchens or Harris. Or at least, I don't have the attention span for it. I think the gist of things can be communicated in short papers and essays. In fact, you yourself ratified the quote from the online article EA linked to. That was enough for me to comment on.

Marg,

Hitchens is a jerk. There is no debating it. Of course, I find him hilarious, but he's still a jerk. Dawkins is kind of a jerk, though less than Hitchens. Dennett isn't really a jerk, he just comes across as arrogant. Harris, can't say.

I've been under the impression that what Dawkins and Harris have been saying with respect to moderates being complicit is that by not allowing people to criticize religion, or thinking that the topic is off-limits because those beliefs are somehow "sacred," we end up with a situation where fundamentalists are free to think whatever they want unchallenged.

I believe that's really all they're getting at. It's not like they expect moderates to take up some crusade against fundamentalists. They just want to see everyone be able to openly criticize any subject and not exclude religion for any reason (especially a subject so incredibly in need of criticism).

Trevor wrote:

PZ Meyers wrote:"In some ways, I'm always flattered by this argument that we need to define humans as a species by their religious beliefs, because I don't have them…which means I get to claim that I, and my fellow atheists, are a new species. Let us go forth, my fellow Homo smartiepantsius, and take over the hominid niche."

Puerile dribble from beginning to end, as well as sophistry. You are following Meyers' lead in overreading Armstrong, and for the disingenuous purpose of suggesting that Armstrong is being intolerant in making a legitimate historical observation. Then, this stupidity is compounded by the usual ego masturbation of saying, "in fact, I am more evolved than you homines religiosi because I don't need that stupid religion s***."

Hmph. I didn't interpret it as him saying he was "more evolved" at all (although rereading the quote, I see why you did). A new species doesn't necessarily mean something better than its ancestors, just different. I thought he was only trying to be funny in the process of criticizing the original argument. It's not like "Homo smartiepantsius" is all that flattering.

You must really not like him.

What they are also saying is that there is no criteria to separate out within each sacred text which parts should be taken literally and which symbolically. So it's not the fault of fundamentalists, it's not that they are interpreting the texts incorrectly, in fact they are interpreting them as they are presented since there is no indication any of it should be viewed symbolically. It is the moderate views though which give respect to religion and by association fundamentalist views get respect. Dawkins' et al. don't think the more moderate religious leaders make it clear that the sacred texts should or can be viewed symbolically, even if that may be their personal view. They think they use a literal interpretation of religious texts in their sermons.

In addition Schmo as you say, religions have created a culture which makes it unacceptable to openly criticize religion. There is just no nice way of doing it.

Yeah, PZ was just making fun of the original argument. Remember, he has specific expertise in evolutionary biology. He wasn't even jokingly saying atheists are "more evolved" or whatever. He was saying they should take over the hominid niche. In otherwords, he's equating winning the war on ideas to interspecies competition in order to make fun of Armstrong's misapplied rhetoric.

Anyway, I think one of Dawkins more trenchant criticisms, and something that allows him a little pass on being a jerk, is in how things that successfully get labeled religious have a inappropriate bubble protecting them from criticism, no matter how wrong or dangerous they might be. It is true that plenty people with more moderate beliefs reinforce this by treating the religious as inappropriate to criticize and demanding deferential respect. For instance, I'm amazed at the amount of people I encounter who are willing to give a pass to treatment of children they otherwise would describe as abusive or neglectful if that treatment is motivated by religious belief.

So Trevor when you say you are a cultural Mormon and also a deist, I take it everyone you associate with in real life has no idea you don't believe in the church, that you still attend. I'm assuming you think the church was entirely man created, the Book of Mormon completely fictional. If not correct me where I'm wrong.

Trevor wrote:

Morrissey wrote:I have no problem with this assertion by Harris. I think he is more or less dead on. Moderates have enabled the fundamentalists via their relative silence and by allowing the fundamentalists to capture public attention, dominate politics, etc. absent any significant, notable counter initiative.

You have it exactly backwards. Fundamentalists are fundamentalists because of the success of moderates in moderating the churches and movements to which they belong. The Anglicans are in crisis because of the success of moderates at opening that church to things like a gay clergy. The problem with having the discussion here is that we are on a board that discusses a religion that has been fairly radical from its beginning. For the folks who wanted to be ruled by a prophet monarch and to marry multiple wives, I would say the opposition to gay marriage is moderate by comparison. Mormonism actually is a story of the triumph of moderates over radicals, but people here tend to judge it against a fairly radical (if laudable) agenda from the other end of the spectrum.

Well, yes and no. It is less the success of moderates within the churches than the moderating influences of general, secular society. Religious fanatics are responding to a variety of societal, political, economic forces, of which religious moderation appears to me to be a relatively minor one. Plus, it appears that religious fanatics tend to be bred more in countries that tend toward religious conservatism rather than religious moderation. I think one would be hard pressed to label countries such as Saudi Arabia, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, where a large percentage of fanatics come from religiously moderate. Pakistan has strong secular influences, but remains, from what I can see, pretty conservative religiously, as an example. America, which has one of the strongest evangelical movements also happens to be one of the most religiously conservative countries in the West.

I also question your conclusion viz Mormonism. What changes have occurred in Mormonism have occurred largely due to secular forces, not internal moderating forces. The conservatives still very much rule the roost--true they are not as fanatical as the FLDS, but they practice still a very conservative brand of religion. True, the Church has moderated some doctrines/practices, (e.g., it no longer harps so much on women working outside the home), but again, this is due almost entirely to pressure from secular society--a concession to economic reality, so to speak. But it remains a highly conservative religion.

In any case, this is all a lot to think about, and I appreciate your views. I still, however, think that your assertion that Harris is intolerant because he labels moderates as enablers of the fanatics is way off base. And the evidence I see convinces me that Harris has a valid point.

But, I must now bow out of this argument. Work intrudes. As always, Trevor, I appreciate your thoughtfulness.

Some Schmo wrote:I've been under the impression that what Dawkins and Harris have been saying with respect to moderates being complicit is that by not allowing people to criticize religion, or thinking that the topic is off-limits because those beliefs are somehow "sacred," we end up with a situation where fundamentalists are free to think whatever they want unchallenged.

Certainly, this is a major part of their argument. By making religion generally off grounds for criticism, it provides a safe harbour for the fanatics. That and the moderate voices have been and remain very muted relative to the fanatics.

Again, can anyone off the top of their head identify a single religious moderate group or movement working to steal the march from the fanatics?

Some Schmo wrote:I believe that's really all they're getting at. It's not like they expect moderates to take up some crusade against fundamentalists. They just want to see everyone be able to openly criticize any subject and not exclude religion for any reason (especially a subject so incredibly in need of criticism).

Actually, I believe your not quite right here. I think that they do expect the moderates to speak up and be more vocal and act as a counter to the loud voices of the fanatics. I think that their view is also that relative silence among the moderates enables the fanatics.

Morrissey wrote:

Some Schmo wrote:I believe that's really all they're getting at. It's not like they expect moderates to take up some crusade against fundamentalists. They just want to see everyone be able to openly criticize any subject and not exclude religion for any reason (especially a subject so incredibly in need of criticism).

Actually, I believe your not quite right here. I think that they do expect the moderates to speak up and be more vocal and act as a counter to the loud voices of the fanatics. I think that their view is also that relative silence among the moderates enables the fanatics.

Well, they aren't exactly specific about what action they'd like to see moderates take (at least that I've seen), but my impression is that all they really want is for moderates to be more mindful and critical about evaluating their own belief systems. It's in the very act of thinking through what they really believe and what makes sense that we'd see a shift in critical thought, and their own example would be enough without them having to go on some crusade (I suppose we could quibble over what we mean by a "crusade").

But like I said, I don't think it's clear what Dawkins and Harris expect. I believe they are only, in Dawkins' words, "trying to raise consciousness."