Question: Collectively, what should we be doing?
Sam Harris: Well I think we … It’s really just a matter of conversation, and releasing these taboos that prevent us from applying pressure to people’s religious beliefs, particularly at the level of politics. You know we had this recent Republican debate where three presidents … or candidates for the presidency of the United States raised their hands to testify that they don’t believe in evolution. And there’s no follow-up question, and there’s no penalty paid by these guys endorsing the starkest ignorance about the state of our knowledge . . . about biology. And then worse than that, the New York TimesNew York Times and the Los Angeles Times that were starkly racist by today’s standards. And we have made real progress in a very short span, and I think we could make the same kind of progress in talking about religion. It’s just, you know, whether we’re likely to do that, I don’t know. publishes a further defense about intelligent design by one of these candidates, Sam Brownback, a week later. This has to change. I mean there has to be a price paid for being . . . You know, if one of the candidates said he thought the earth was flat, that would be synonymous with mental illness in that conte . . . We would just be worried about his health at that point, and his political life essentially would be over. And I think the same kind of . . . There’s a reason why people who are certain that Elvis is still alive don’t get promoted to positions of great power and responsibility in our society. And it’s not like we’ve passed a law against Elvis worship. We haven’t . . . We just cease to take these people seriously. And I think we have to just cease to take people’s religious certainties, metaphysical certainties, certainties about the divine origin of certain books seriously. And that can happen very, very, quickly. And I think we should not be . . . I don’t think we should doubt that a sea change in our discourse is possible, because it clearly is on that . . . Look how racism has undergone a . . . has fallen into disrepute in the last 40 years. Fifty years ago, 60 years ago there were editorials in the
Recorded on: Jul 4 2007
Discuss
sara crouch on February 7, 2008, 1:30 AM
Ok I agree, but slavery did not offer people psychological comfort, it did not promise people that their loved ones were safe in the arms of a god in an afterlife. You can't compare abolishing slavery with abolishing religious control over this country. I wish there was a way to open everyone's eyes. I do not see a rebirth of American consciousness occurring anytime soon.
sara crouch on February 7, 2008, 6:30 AM
Ok I agree, but slavery did not offer people psychological comfort, it did not promise people that their loved ones were safe in the arms of a god in an afterlife. You can’t compare abolishing slavery with abolishing religious control over this country. I wish there was a way to open everyone’s eyes. I do not see a rebirth of American consciousness occurring anytime soon.
Jeffrey Stingerstein on February 16, 2008, 8:53 AM
He's not talking about slavery. That was 140 years ago. He said 40. He means the civil rights movement.
www.disillusionedwords.com
Jeffrey Stingerstein on February 16, 2008, 1:53 PM
He’s not talking about slavery. That was 140 years ago. He said 40. He means the civil rights movement.
www.disillusionedwords.com
James Brown on March 2, 2008, 9:19 AM
Agnostics R Us,
Sam has made the point that common sense would have us avoid a political candidate if he/she thought the world was flat. The fact that debates are held over the existence of God is already affording it more respect than this. All he is saying is that if someone claims something on insufficient evidence that we should call them on it.
The fact that "they" see Sam's comments as "stifling" their views is an indication that we are not yet playing on a level field. So your suggestion that simply the act of engaging in debate should be enough to quieten the atheist voice seems to be a contradiction.
James Brown on March 2, 2008, 2:19 PM
Agnostics R Us,
Sam has made the point that common sense would have us avoid a political candidate if he/she thought the world was flat. The fact that debates are held over the existence of God is already affording it more respect than this. All he is saying is that if someone claims something on insufficient evidence that we should call them on it.
The fact that “they” see Sam’s comments as “stifling” their views is an indication that we are not yet playing on a level field. So your suggestion that simply the act of engaging in debate should be enough to quieten the atheist voice seems to be a contradiction.
Jacob B on March 23, 2008, 11:09 AM
"faust
Ok I agree, but slavery did not offer people psychological comfort, it did not promise people that their loved ones were safe in the arms of a god in an afterlife. You can't compare abolishing slavery with abolishing religious control over this country. I wish there was a way to open everyone's eyes. I do not see a rebirth of American consciousness occurring anytime soon. "
As someone else has pointed out, you have confused Harris' discussion of the civil rights movement with the abolishment of slavery, but it doesn't matter, because even if you had identified his argument, your response is still flagrantly incorrect.
You seem to be arguing that religion is consoling, and that racism is not. I beg to differ. Racism is certainly empowering to a racist- and was probably, for early humans, socially beneficial in a way similar to having unreasoned faith about religion. Just because racism happens to console some modern people, and letting go of the belief that the white(or black, or any other) race is genetically superior would be emotionally crushing for a racist individual, by no means makes it morally excusable. The same goes for any idea cultivated from the blighted fields of unreason.
You don't see any chance of an American shift in consciousness, but neither did any civil rights activists or the first proponents of Darwinian evolution.
Jacob B on March 23, 2008, 3:09 PM
“faust<br />Ok I agree, but slavery did not offer people psychological comfort, it did not promise people that their loved ones were safe in the arms of a god in an afterlife. You can’t compare abolishing slavery with abolishing religious control over this country. I wish there was a way to open everyone’s eyes. I do not see a rebirth of American consciousness occurring anytime soon. "
As someone else has pointed out, you have confused Harris’ discussion of the civil rights movement with the abolishment of slavery, but it doesn’t matter, because even if you had identified his argument, your response is still flagrantly incorrect.
You seem to be arguing that religion is consoling, and that racism is not. I beg to differ. Racism is certainly empowering to a racist- and was probably, for early humans, socially beneficial in a way similar to having unreasoned faith about religion. Just because racism happens to console some modern people, and letting go of the belief that the white(or black, or any other) race is genetically superior would be emotionally crushing for a racist individual, by no means makes it morally excusable. The same goes for any idea cultivated from the blighted fields of unreason.
You don’t see any chance of an American shift in consciousness, but neither did any civil rights activists or the first proponents of Darwinian evolution.
Larry Wright on March 23, 2008, 9:35 PM
If millions of Americans avowed that the Earth was flat or that Elvis frequented Wal-Mart then candidates could espouse such beliefs without fear. That's why we call them politicians. Those men raised their hands because that is what their constituents expected of them.
So how do we make this change? Sam has often made the point that religious belief is not born of ignorance as the advanced education of the average suicide bomber can attest. If the last several centuries of philosophical and scientific advancement cannot pull the average person away from barbaric and supernatural belief then what can?
Larry Wright on March 24, 2008, 1:35 AM
If millions of Americans avowed that the Earth was flat or that Elvis frequented Wal-Mart then candidates could espouse such beliefs without fear. That’s why we call them politicians. Those men raised their hands because that is what their constituents expected of them.
So how do we make this change? Sam has often made the point that religious belief is not born of ignorance as the advanced education of the average suicide bomber can attest. If the last several centuries of philosophical and scientific advancement cannot pull the average person away from barbaric and supernatural belief then what can?
Add a Comment
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or Register