Showing posts with label 9/11. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 9/11. Show all posts

Monday, 4 July 2011

Prelude to an Essay on Sam Harris's 'The End of Faith'


Sam Harris is a very frightened man. So would you be, if you realised how perilously we are teetering on the edge of world destruction. And there is no mistaking how we arrived at this historical juncture. With weapons of mass destruction increasingly finding their way into the hands of people who hold irrational beliefs about God, morality and the afterlife, Harris points the finger of blame for the impending apocalypse squarely at religion.

The End of Faith (first published August 2004) was the first of the books around which the term ‘New Atheism’ crystallised. It is very much bears the imprint of its time, begun, according to Harris, on 12th September 2001 and developed during the height of the Bush era. Liberalism in America was being attacked by Islamic fundamentalism from without and by Christian fundamentalism from within. This raised a major question for political progressives who previously may have championed the equal validity of all cultures: how is it possible to be tolerant towards people who reject the very notion of our tolerance? Harris’s book signalled a possible new direction – a determination to stand up for the values of liberalism on its own terms, and to go on the attack against those alternative cultures which may have been afforded more respect in the postmodern era.

There was clearly a need to speak out about some of the more dangerous manifestations of religious belief, and this book performed a timely and important service in encouraging secularists, atheists and humanists to be openly critical of the excesses of religious irrationalism, be it Christian, Muslim or whatever. As an atheist who has very little sympathy for baseless religious beliefs, I read the book expecting to have my own attitudes confirmed. And yet there were many aspects of the book which I felt were just not right. None of my objections have anything to do with my non-belief in gods; the aspects of the book I had problems with were his depiction of the impacts of religion, and whether it was really possible to make a clear distinction between ‘irrational’ religious beliefs (more moderate ones, at least) and the beliefs of atheists – his claims were all over-simplified, over-generalised, and logically flawed. It was this initial reaction which has encouraged me to examine more closely the nature of religion, beliefs, values and how we make life meaningful.

In the ‘review’ that follows, I want to critically examine the claims that Harris makes – not the claims about whether or not God exists, or whether Jesus really was born of a virgin – but his claims about what religious belief means and its impacts in the real world. I’ll be looking at three aspects in turn: his understanding of religion itself, his attitude towards religious and cultural tolerance, and then Harris’s own belief system which he outlines toward the end of the book – and asking how it is possible to distinguish this from 'religion'.

Sunday, 19 June 2011

New Atheism Blog - Intro: Working Out What the Hell I'm Doing

Welcome to the latest of my many attempts to start blogging regularly!

This blog is mainly intended to be an outlet for ideas related to what will hopefully end up as a PhD project, though I will undoubtedly stray into other territory, be it personal, political or pointless. Feel free to post comments and I'll do my best to respond! Just an intro for now to help people (including myself) work out what I'm talking about.

I'm interested in taking a critical look at the public debate about atheism and the role of religion in contemporary society - not adopting a simplistic stance on whether religion is 'good' or 'bad', but, rather, to trace the roots of this debate and ask why it has become such an urgent issue in our culture. It is often seen as a straightforward response to Islamic and Christian fundamentalism, but I think there is a more complex and interesting story to tell about where it originates from - and it has its roots in a crisis of moral legitimacy within liberalism itself.

A point to make early on about my stance on Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens and others associated with 'New Atheism' - I am an atheist myself, and I have no time for for the crazier 'scientific' arguments supporting the existence of God. While I share this position with the New Atheists, I also understand that many people who believe in God don't base their belief on 'scientific' claims anyway, and not all religious people hold irrational moral positions based on dogma. I feel that there is much to be regretted about 'New Atheism', which has had an unnecessarily divisive impact on public debate and has created a crude and over-simplified picture of the role that religion plays in many people's lives.

I also think that there has been a failure on the part of the New Atheists and their supporters to reflect on the foundations of their own intellectual positions. For me, New Atheism is not only responding to an attack on secular liberal democracies by religious fundamentalism, but also to a crisis of moral legitimacy within liberalism itself. The flawed attempts by Harris and Dawkins in particular to claim a 'scientific' basis for their values reflect this, and I think that their focus on attacking religion distracts liberals from examining problems within their own ideologies.

That probably doesn't clarify very much but it will hopefully start to make sense as I slowly work out what the hell I'm talking about. Feel free to argue - I'm open to revising my ideas, though I won't necessarily admit that I was ever wrong about anything.

Follow me on Twitter @Steverini.