The Washington Post’s “On Faith” section from September 8 contains a number of people addressing the issue of “What we have learned about religion post-9/11.” Contributors range from the Dalai Lama, Karen Armstrong, and Deepak Chopra through Sam Harris and Daniel Dennett. Many of the pieces are trite, more or less what you can expect from such a thing, but others are well worth reading. I was impressed by Sam Harris’s call for reason in “9/11 demands intellectual honesty”, a piece worth reading in its entirety (it’s not long). An excerpt (I love the first sentence of the second paragraph below):
Whatever else may be wrong with our world, it remains a fact that some of the most terrifying instances of human conflict and stupidity would be unthinkable without religion. And the other ideologies that inspire people to behave like monsters—Stalinism, fascism, etc.—are dangerous precisely because they so resemble religions. Sacrifice for the Dear Leader, however secular, is an act of cultic conformity and worship. Whenever human obsession is channeled in these ways, we can see the ancient framework upon which every religion was built. In our ignorance, fear, and craving for order, we created the gods. And ignorance, fear, and craving keep them with us.
What defenders of religion cannot say is that anyone has ever gone berserk, or that a society ever failed, because people became too reasonable, intellectually honest, or unwilling to be duped by the dogmatism of their neighbors. This skeptical attitude, born of equal parts care and curiosity, is all that “atheists” recommend—and it is typical of nearly every intellectual pursuit apart from theology. Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under.
Ten years have passed since a group of mostly educated and middle-class men decided to obliterate themselves, along with three thousand innocents, to gain entrance to an imaginary paradise. This problem was always deeper than the threat of terrorism—and our waging an interminable “war on terror” is no answer to it. Yes, we must destroy al Qaeda. But humanity has a larger project—to become sane. If September 11, 2001, should have taught us anything, it is that we must find honest consolation in our capacity for love, creativity, and understanding. This remains possible. It is also necessary. And the alternatives are bleak.
9/11 is one of the three discrete experiences/events that shepherded me away from religion, for many of the reasons implicit in Harris’ piece.
Great article! Equally enjoyable is a more recent piece by Harris called “Silent Crowd ” available on his blog at samharris.org I highly recommend it, especially to those who are horrified by the prospect of speaking in public.
I don’t mind speaking to a large group of people, although it helps if they’re at the ends of multiple conference call lines. When I was younger I found it to be most uncomfortable playing solo music in public, away from the safety of an orchestra.
Just about every word of that was good…
Thanks for putting part of Harris’s remark here. His first paragraph states more effectively than I could why I consider fundamentalist religion (and I agree with him about state “religions” with the Leader as god) one of humanity’s two greatest enemies.
Since I’m now doing a new segment on Sidebar, I must do a tiny dissertation about what I’m doing and why. Harris just saved me the trouble of writing half of it.
But I don’t think he’s entirely accurate about the character of the 19 “assassins.” While Atta was indeed educated and middle-class, I don’t remember that all the others were. And as I’ve mentioned before here, much more important to any sort of thorough evaluation would be an analysis of their degree of mental illness.
I still believe that you can’t talk young people into committing suicide without perceiving and manipulating their psychoses.
If I recall correctly, they were a mix of socio-economic and education background. I think more than one of them had college degrees, however. At least four of them were competent enough to go through flight schools and learn all the technology required to fly 767s. Where would you draw the line for mental illness? In other words, how much ideological difference is there between a fundamentalist Muslim who is willing to orchestrate a suicide attack and one who is not quite willing to strap on a bomb or hijack a plane?
“Anyone who can make you believe absurdities can also make you commit injustices” – Voltaire (approximate quote)
oops. Steersman already covered the Voltaire quote.
while Harris’ points are spot on and refreshing, i am still so sick and tired of hearing and reading about it. National scab-picking day is over, it been 10 long years, can we please wipe our tears and noses and get on with life? or are we forever cursed with the annual crying, flag waving, usa chanting and somber posturing for the tv cameras? let the wounds heal already, as best they can.
“People who don’t learn from the mistakes of the past ….”
This is one subject where I have to disagree with Harris.
Yes, religion is what makes it possible to attack innocent people for ideological goals. But so too is nationalism.
And what started bin Laden out was the US response to Soviet war in Afghanistan, as US taught him the ropes of warfare, and the problems of nationalism, in their support of the now criticized militant religious groups.
While we have to remember the 3000 innocent dead, we have also to remember the more than 200,000-1 000,000 killed in the 1st Afghanistan war, the more than 40 000 – 1 400 000 (!) killed in the Iraq war, and the more than 50 000 killed in the current Afghanistan war. Most of them innocent too, as in all modern warfare.
And obviously I should ride atop Harris’s demand of “intellectual honesty” while I am at it.
Agreed. This dovetails nicely with criticisms of Hitchens’ recent article calling for simplicity, when situations like these are rarely as simple as one might like them to be.
I don’t see the disagreement. Nationalism taken to this fanatical degree accords very nicely with Harris’s “other ideologies that inspire people to behave like monsters.”
My thought as well.
“Most of them innocent too, as in all modern warfare.”
If your point is that terrorism isn’t necessarily any more wrong than any other organized mass killing of human beings, such as warfare, I’d have to agree.
To be fair, Harris acknowledges that many other ideologies produce the same result.
This is beautifully lucid writing. He’s absolutely correct: “terrorism” is not the problem. It is a by-product of the real problem.
Quite right. Reminds me of a quote of T.H. Huxley and related ones from Voltaire and Bertrand Russell (respectively):
The deepest sin of the human mind is to believe things without evidence.
Those who make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.
Many people would sooner die than think. In fact they do.
“What defenders of religion cannot say is that anyone has ever gone berserk, or that a society ever failed, because people became too reasonable, intellectually honest, or unwilling to be duped by the dogmatism of their neighbors.”
An inapt remark by Harris, since apologists for religion don’t say that people should be less reasonable, less intellectually dishonest, or be duped by dogmatism. Can you say straw man?
less intellectually honest, I mean.
An example of what not a few do say is the prepared and conditioned response, “That book has nothing to say to me,” in response to the prospect of reading a book like, for example, Martin Gardner’s “The Whys of a Philosophical Scrivener.” If it’s not a Bible or an “approved” commentary on the Bible, forget it.
You don’t mean “straw man.”
Since religious people aren’t likely to grant that they are unreasonable, etc. this can be regarded as a case of treating as granted the very thing being argued, which is the argumentative fallacy of Begging the Question. Know your fallacies!
“apologists for religion don’t say that people should be less reasonable”
Actually, many of them do when they emphasize the importance of faith over reason.
This.
Of course theists wouldn’t actually say “you all need to be less reasonable.” They simply mistake relying on faith and adhering to dogma for being reasonable.
You are too literal minded. Of course they don’t typically say those things. But actions speak louder than words, and very many religious people, religious leaders even, demonstrate those behaviours on a regular basis. And while using the mantle of religion to proclaim the righteousness of their behaviour.
No strawmen here. What brand of axe do you have to grind?
I certainly agree with Harris. If any reader does not why?
Here’s one of the best pieces we’ve seen from Psychiatric Times:
9/11 10th Anniversary: A Mortality Salience Reminder
http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/blog/couchincrisis/content/article/10168/1946606
“So much misery and unhappiness in our lives is fear-based, most of which may be traced back to avoiding awareness and acceptance of the present: “We worry about tomorrow because we are afraid. . . . We run away from what is happening right in front of us. We try to find things that make us feel more solid, more safe and secure. . . . So we wait for the magical moment—sometime in the future—when everything will be . . . as we want it to be.””
Thanks for that link.
I really enjoy seeing TMT acknowledged. Ok, maybe the feeling is more like earnest sublime terror, but whatever.
“For example, recent TMT research has shown that “less mindful individuals showed higher worldview defense” when exposed to mortality salience reminders.”
folks check this out, when you read sam harris` article you`ll see titles/author names and links to other in the 9/11 series, but when you go to any article except harris’ his name and article is not listed. In every case sams name and article is ommitted,but the others are not. Someone please check my work 🙂
Chris
I’ve found the Harris article link in the Dennett, Jakes & Driscoll articles
Some articles have no links at all
Dennett, Blair & Harris (& others) are sometimes not linked in articles where other names are
Not having Blair linked is a good thing that I wish applied to all aspects of his miserable, lying, grasping & evil existence
Dawkins occasionally writes for the WaPo On Faith section, and his pieces can be the hardest of all to find handy links to.
Sam’s article is worth framing and giving as a gift to your friends and family. I forwarded it to several people. It is a gem.
I would put “becoming sane” at the top of my list.
Medicine will get to the bottom of it.
Harris is trying too hard to pin 9/11 on religion. Religion is just a symptom or manifestation, one of many, of the susceptibility of humans to dogma, to blind obedience of authority, and to delusions.
It would be as correct to say religion is dangerous precisely because it resembles Stalinism, and just as unhelpful a diagnosis.