Meditation on Religion by fixed845inc on Blogster

Can civilization survive contending religions each of which is convinced of it's own exceptional ism?

The wall of separation between church and state that worked so well among the Western democracies for such a long time is becoming ever more porous. Globalization, multiculturalism, immigration and weapons of mass destruction have unsettled and now threaten the former balanced equilibrium.

In his book "The End of Faith" Sam Harris questions even the possibility of religious tolerance: How can we be tolerant towards religions that seek to convert, diminish, subjugate or even destroy us? He cites line and verse from the Koran and from the Bible that exhort believers to violence against infidels or heretics. Non believers are not seen in neutral terms but as evil threats who must be dealt with.

He describes religion as one belief system among many, but the only one not subject to rules of evidence. Neither can believers challenge what is written.

He is advocating that if we want to survive, our future relationship to religion needs to be transformed.

7 comments on Meditation on Religion

fixed845inc said 1 years ago
I am reading the Harris book right now, and find his conclusions impeccable. He could use a bit of charity in dealing with nominal Christians (and perhaps other religious non-fundamentalists) who do not take literally their articles of religion, but I find his book arresting and full of appealing (if not comforting) argument. I can't wait to finish it!
Lost Soul commented Jan 19, 2007

There is a surprise ending that is entirely consistent with the books development. The dangers he sees in religious tolerance was for me unsettling, but hard to refute.
centurion said 1 years ago
I find the greatest intolerance in those who have no religion.
fixed845inc said 1 years ago
I understand your position fully but I don't think you meant to suggest that the intolerance of an athiest exceeds the intolerance of radical Islam. The authors main point is exemplified by Islamists. Should we bend over backwards extending religious tolerance to those people who represent an existential threat to all infidels. Isn't it suicidal to tolerate that?
centurion said 1 years ago
"I understand your position fully but I don't think you meant to suggest that the intolerance of an athiest exceeds the intolerance of radical Islam. The authors main point is exemplified by Islamists. Should we bend over backwards extending religious tolerance to those people who represent an existential threat to all infidels. Isn't it suicidal to tolerate that?"

Provocative thoughts. It needs more deepthink than I can handle anymore. Certainly no atheist I know is as intolerant as radical Islam, but I'm not sure that atheism doesn't have the same hateful capacity. On a small, every day scale, I find atheists consistently condescending to and intellectually repulsed by religious people. Moreso than I find with one religious person to another of different faith. When writ large, as in communist ideology, atheism has proven it can be brutally repressive of religion. I guess what it comes down to is whether and how evil is perceived. Evil should not be tolerated. And radical Islam, as I think both of us mean the term, is unequivocally evil and therefore wholly intolerable. But when the likes of Rosie O'Donnell equate radical Islam with radical Christianity, legitimate measures of good and evil are distorted.
fixed845inc said 1 years ago
Your response certainly does represent deepthink and is well taken. I fully agree that there are degrees of religious intolerance which have to be taken into consideration. As you force me to think further it occurs to me that agnostics would of necessity be more tolerant of religion than would atheists. Furthermore, a case could be made that each religious tradition has had time periods in it's history when it has been exceptioally intolerant and here we might include the "witch trials" and the crusades. So the formulation should be made time specific.
steeve said 1 years ago
I don't see how anyone could find the conclusions Harris reaches at once "impeccable" and "comforting." I agree with him totally but find his conclusions extremely discomforting. Even an atheist knows what Armageddon is and Harris makes it clear that we are headed for it unless we can shed the bonds of faith and see what's happening with a clear, logical, "unreligious" commitment to deal with the threat of Islam.
fixed845inc said 1 years ago
I agree, but from where I sit "meditation", although he sparked my interest in the subject, is not up to the task he formulates within the book.