.
[size=50]
…[/size]
.
If perfect faith cannot escape the I’m right, you’re wrong opposition, it is open to all atrocities. Harris does nor describe all men of faith; his fight is with the fundies, both Western and Middle Eastern.
[quote=“Bill Wiltrack”]
.
[size=50]
…[/size]
No. And, by all means.
Bill, there is a huge difference between faith and Brain-washing and Sam Harris got it all wrong.
This man does not understand how fundamentalists use to pick up children of 7-8 years and just keep on telling them 24/7 that how others are demeaning their race of religion, thus, deserved to be eliminated at any cost. And, that cost may be their own lives as well. They are told only one side of the story.
This is to say that jahadies are not so due to their own cogitations but all this is slowly infused in their subconscious over the years. It takes a child about 15 years to become a suicide-attacker.
It is not their faith as they even do not know what they are and how they become so.
It is neither their fault too because they do not unserstand what they are doing. Blaming them is just like blaming gun instead of shooter.
On the other hand, faith is one’s own derived beliefs as has access to all versions and also have the choice to choose one according to his thinking.
I am totally surprised that this man, who does not has the understanding even of basics, is considered as a philosopher!
Where are we heading to?
With love,
sanjay
.
[size=124]
Thank you Sanjay.
I totally respect your opinion & hope I did not offend you.
The post made you think enough that you participated.
Thanks again.
[/size]
.
Bill,
There was nothing against you but that man- Sam Harris.
Actually, which worries me is that elite class, which is supposed to direct the socity in the right direction, either lost its way or the general populace have been forgotten to disearn between foks or elite.
And, in both cases, it is dangerous situation to be in for the society.
with love,
sanjay
.
[size=124]Well stated.
Thank you Sanjay.[/size]
.
It was solid faith in my ability to walk into the basement that allowed me to walk into the basement- but the need to walk into the basement, nor the underlining motivations that had to be triggered in conjuction to walk into it, was generated by faith… it’s but a component in the overall behaviorism.
Likewise, seeing or hearing are also components to sets of actions- but the seeing or the hearing isn’t to blame. It would be absurd for Maia to blame the sighted for shooting sprees because you need sight to see, and that sight is perfect. It’s a component to doing competent work. It’s skeptical that ‘perfect sight’ is needed to get a good shot off, you can have less than perfect sight.
He’s talking in that quote in terms of absolutes- to a audience he deems receptible to absolutes. Faith is a abvious component here in the process. Are they going to start killing theists because of this?
Likely not. Some perhaps, side effects at most from policies they will push and pimp, but most are low risk believers in Harris’ message.
The 9-11 hijackers were less that 100 percent faith- they sure the hell didn’t follow the koran from the reconstruction of their last days hanging out in strip clubs. Faith was a aspect, but faith doesn’t pull the trigger. Faith isn’t what rationalizes and puts into action orders. You might wanna target aspects of logic and reasoning in relationship to faith. Did the arizona shooter exhibit a faith based reasoning? Did the unibomber?
What are we trying to reduce here, and what is our aim in the reduction? Are we trying to figure out what motivates men to kill? How many people did Ghandi kill? Did Jesus kill? Mother Teresa?
Faith shouldn’t get off scot free, it’s worthy of negative analysis, but let’s be rational and skeptical about this. The costs of fumbling this philosophically is the inability to detect such atrocities from occuring again and again- because we’ve fooled ourselves into looking elsewhere. Faith is on the table as a aspect to be examined, but I also ask what else should be on the table- and are men making such suggestions immune from the charge? He who smelt it delt it. a aspect of the mentality to violence in my opinion resides in men willing to make such suggestions. It allows us to seperate others as alien and treat them less than human.
I wouldn’t dismiss them as NOT BEING COWARDS either. They were not alpha males acting without consequence, they were a pact of men operating under psychological cohesion letting off alot of psychological stress and energy in the days prior to the attack- following other men’s orders. Fear and low self esteem is one of the few aspects I know of that can hold such a group of guys together when every other aspect is pushing them away. Think The Red Badge of Courage… most of the guys acted bad ass until push came to shove and they fled. Alot of the psychology of modern military tactics is making sure units are set up in such ways that the tactical applications they apply discourage the opprotunity to run favoring other psychological aspects. The very means this was carried out was to prevent people from getting cold feet and backing out- they never actually felt the danger until it happened, and by that point, it was easy, as they had no where else to go. Military Classics make this very clear it’s not bravery that keeps men in place, but fear. Worst thing that could of happened to the hijackers is them suddenly finding a pile of parachutes in the planes… chances are things would of gone quite a different direction once they realized a chance to survive opened up.
What’s the difference between people committing atrocities against men because they think God commanded them to, and people committing atrocities because men commanded them to, and they have no God to tell them otherwise? An absence of religious zeal would just mean that secular leaders control when people do horrible things instead of religious leaders. Does anything in world history suggest this would be an improvement?
For every example of a religiously-motivated person doing something horrible, there’s an example of a person refusing the orders of some godless sonofabitch because their religious convictions. Religious zealots are just a subset of ‘people who take life very seriously’. People who take life very seriously do dramatic things- good and bad. Saying ‘if only religion went away, violence would go away’ is like saying ‘if only nobody gave a shit about anything, violence would go away’. This is the most obvious thing in the world to me, I don’t even understand why there’s a debate here.
partisanship in our perceived beliefs
Cuz some haven’t caught on that it is humans that commit violence … and will use anything to do so … even religion and God …
Religion is like guns. It’s not religion that kills, it’s humans. It’s that trusty ol’ human nature.
But where the opportunity is given the chances are higher. Where there are more guns there are more deaths. Where there is more religion there are more zealots. I believe that Harris is pushing the point over the limit, but he has a point. The question is whether it changes anything because, as Ucc said, there are enough non-religious folk willing to kill people. It is just that the idea that religious people are automatically more ethical is just not true.
Yes they are men of faith…But not of their God…Rather of the
“HELL” And 'HEAVEN" provided to them by so called God. And this is
neither any faith nor any religion…It is simply a Trade----A kind of
business of gives and takes (conditional) and nothing else…!!
.
[size=124]
So true…[/size]
…
[size=124]Elmer Gantrys and confidence men who use a thin layer of entertainment and outdated texts.
[/size]
.
He has a bone to pick with religious moderates as well: beliefnet.com/Faiths/Secular … ates.aspx#
A good response.
Harris makes faith the problem. Whereas, apparently it was the object of the 911 terrorists’ faith that motivated them to do what they did. Their faith was in a particular form of Islamic ideology. So, it’s a matter of conflicting ideologies not faith necessarily. Faith can be defined as the level of zeal a believer has for an ideology. That’s a behavioral empirical definition that can be easily measured. If you agree with the ethics of a particular ideology then a high level of zeal for it is a good thing. By that definition, Harris has a high level of zeal for atheism. Is that a good or bad thing? It depends on your POV. But if you think that atheism is a good thing then Harris’ zeal for it i.e. his faith is a good thing. He is a man of faith too.
.
…
[size=124]
I respect and appreciate your point of view.
I believe you brought up the term conflicting ideologies.
That may have thrown you off a bit. I don’t think conflicting ideologies is a part of this framework.
In addition, you stated that Sam Harris has a significant zeal for atheism. That may not be the case. I don’t think Sam Harris’ faith, zeal, or beliefs are not part of the scope of this thread or focus of his quote.
I understand you though…
Thank you for contributing.[/size]
.