Additional Thoughts on ‘Letter to a Christian Nation’
I have received some thoughtful comments on my book review of Letter to A Christian Nation by Sam Harris. This post is in response to those comments.
First, pascalsview is all about Pascal’s view– it is a personal blog driven by "feelings" and "opinions". That is why I started this blog two years ago and why I write it. Everything I have to say in this Internet forum, by design, is driven by my feelings.
Second, I do believe Sam Harris is insightful, and, as a rational human being myself, I agree with much of what he writes. But, unlike Sam, I do believe in God. This does not disqualify me from rational discourse, nor does atheism disqualify Sam Harris from participating in a discussion on religion. But I believe Harris overreaches because, in my view, he could make his points effectively without being disrespectful and insulting to people who believe in God and religion but aren’t religious fundamentalists. What do I mean by this?
For example, I do not think it is necessary for Harris to describe the Catholic Church as "..the very institution that has produced and sheltered an elite army of child-molesters…" That doesn’t mean that I don’t recognize that there are many priests who are child molesters. In fact, the Church has been plagued with plenty of other ethical problems for centuries– read William Manchester’s outstanding A World Lit Only by Fire to learn of papal sponsored orgies at the Vatican with the participation of nuns and priests during the Middle Ages.
In my opinion, Harris makes the same point over and over again, which feels like "shrieking" to me, without moving toward a solution that could work in the real world. The underlying issue that links religion with fanaticism and dogmatic denial of the obvious has everything to do with the use of ideology by elites to wield power over the masses. The works of philosophers from Machiavelli to Nietzsche to Marx clearly link religious dogma to the wielding of power. Religion has been used for subjugation for thousands of years. Even a casual observer can recognize that innumerable crimes against humanity have been done in God’s name.
I believe that it is worth encouraging people of faith who are not fanatics to take the center of power away from fanatics within their own faith. I believe that, though very challenging, this may be more feasible and less of a stretch than asking people to renounce their religions, which are an important source of values and identity for most human beings, in the name of reconciling the many contradictions of faith.
By stirring the pot with his own fiery rhetoric, this may be exactly what Sam Harris is doing. It certainly has gotten an interesting dialogue going, and my posts on Sam Harris have been the most widely read posts in the history of my blog to date.
For that, I thank Sam and my readers, and I thank the commenters for their thoughtful opinions.
Related posts:
3 Responses to “Additional Thoughts on ‘Letter to a Christian Nation’”
Leave a Reply
Connect with Pascal
About Pascal
I am a venture capitalist focused on investing in Security, Cleantech, and Digital Media. I have a strong interest in public policy issues and advocate public-private collaboration to protect our nation's critical infrastructure.
-
Or subscribe via email:
October 11th, 2006 at 10:45 pm
I find it interesting that Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins save their choicest vitriol for parents who choose to raise their children in a religious environment. (Indeed, in “The God Delusion”, Dawkins suggests that raising a child in such an environment is as reprehensible as kicking out his/her teeth.) When my eldest son was two, I had some ethical qualms about speaking to him in “absolutist” terms about faith. I reasoned that if I were to tell him that Donald Duck was God, he would believe me; therefore, it was manipulative and abusing of my power as an adult to teach him anything at all. However, after reflection, I came to the conclusion that if I chose not to articulate my deepest-held convictions to my child, someone else would soon move in to fill the vacuum. (Harris and Dawkins, for instance.) In fact, I now think it’s a kind of misplaced ethical perversity that refuses to “train up a child in the way he should go” for fear of closing him/her to the rigor of independent thought. Surely the very least we owe our children – that is, our moral imperative – is to lay before them an impassioned account of the things that move us. I would expect no less of Harris and Dawkins.
November 1st, 2006 at 9:31 am
This comment is directed to Melinda, but also to all parents who struggle with the issue of religious training of children. I think the thing you have to ask yourself is what you hope to gain by indoctrinating your children into a particular religious dogma. If you are hoping it will “take,” and your children will grow up embracing your religion with something approaching your level of conviction, you are most likely engaging in wishful thinking. Ask yourself this question: Did you reach this level of conviction because your parents wanted you to, or did you arrive there after a long, personal journey?
To me, training your children in the “way they should go” has nothing to do with religious indoctrination, and more to do with teaching your children to be kind, giving, respectful of others, and above all – seekers after truth. If there is an absolute truth in this life, and if they seek it with a kind and open heart, they will find it. Stuffing them full of religion doesn’t have this result. Often, children will put on a “show” of religious fervor to please their parents (or at least, get them off their backs), and this performance ultimately makes it more difficult for children to examine their own hearts to find the truth. We have, in my opinion, a nation full of people who say they believe in God, and go through the motions of attending church, but in everyday dealings with one another don’t exhibit the values Jesus taught. Is this what parents want to raise their children up to be?
The only spiritual walk that bears real fruit is one that a person takes himself. Give your children the tools to examine the world around them objectively, and to relate to other people with tolerance and compassion, and they will find their way. It may not be your way, but it will be the right way for them.
My 2 cents.
April 28th, 2007 at 2:50 pm
Thank you for your very good thoughts.
I am sure that atheists want their children to follow them for the exact reason theists wants theirs to: they both believe their way is, if not just right, then both right and best.
So if for an athest raising a child in a faith environment is analogous to “kicking out his/her teeth”, then just let him/her imagine if they can what raising a child to be atheist is like for someone of faith.
This kind of exchange really does no one any good. It is absolutely lacking in practicality and in the end therefore fruitless.
Eradicating religion from the world is almost as possible as getting rid of irrreligion – and just as pointless.
I find it interestimg how people of “reason” will in an all out effort to prove their case eschew that same reason which is supposed to be the one thing that seperates “them” from “us”.
And indeed, that may be the very point. That as long as one enbraces faith, that one is no longer to be treated as a real person but as an inferior to be first pitied, then castigated, and who knows what else later as opportunity and ability merge.
Someone said that the first step towards treating people inhumanely is to first regard them as different. And who better to regard others as such than those who consider themselves rational.
History has shown us only too clearly of what people are capable who first dehumanise others. What then may the future hold for rationally inferior and dangerous theists?
I believe the discusssion between both sides must continue, and I sincerely hope that “Letter to a Christian Nation” is not an indication that rational persons are running out of “good-will”. Or is that something only for the “religious”?
Thanks for your post.