Sam Harris Responds to Karen Armstrong

I agree with Armstrong.

It’s not that someone’s opinion of Islam is wrong, it’s just that their opinion of Islam is not consistent with what the historical record indicates the early founders of Islam had in mind. I think she has the right to point that out.

Polarized thinking in any form is what causes divisions in humanity. To say that one path is the only path to what we have called “transcendence” is what causes people to murder and condemn others with different ideas.

We are predetermined with these abstract images in our mind and that’s why we have so many mythologies. Mythology is a good thing! Image-ination is a good thing! But, to call it “real” or literalize it, to concretize it, this is what gets us into trouble.

I’ve read Karen Armstrong and I understand what she is writing about. That religion as a connective source to the Unconscious, is not something that people will give up so easily. Nor should they. People will always seek meaning through the invisible because it’s our curiosity that moves us forward and through.

I just hope that those who seek “god” as a literal idea, as one with “qualities,” will soon be a thing of the past. It’s, yes, dangerous, and ultimately meaningless.

I think it was Shakespeare who said “things are neither good nor bad, but thinking makes it so.”

I’d probably say the same thing about religion:

“Religion is neither good nor bad, but it is the practitioner who makes it so.”

If every religious person in the world tomorrow became a practitioner of Armstrongism (meaning Karen, not Herbert W. ;-)), I would cease to have any quarrel with religion except as a friendly debate over beers. It would be a controversy of no more import than the respective merits of rival sports teams.

But this ain’t that world. Russell Blackford lays out the reasons for continuing the debate — even with the moderates and liberals — in article linked to here:
http://metamagician3000.blogspot.com/2010/01/voicing-disbelief.html

It’s not that someone’s opinion of Islam is wrong, it’s just that their opinion of Islam is not consistent with what the historical record indicates the early founders of Islam had in mind. I think she has the right to point that out.

She surely can. But she should go there (to hoses Islamic environments) and tell them that. That is if she thinks she can get away with her life.

“Excuse me Mr. Islamist Jihadist, do you know that your interpretation of your holy book is wrong?”

Now that would be something to see.

I bet the reaction would be more in line with why Harris wrote his response.

But these abuses do not constitute the whole story. Religion is also about the quest for transcendence, the discipline of compassion, and the endless search for meaning;

Who cares about the whole story? When there are so many documented victims I want to get to the bottom of the crimes, go tell the whole story to someone else, I’m not interested. Ed Gein had a whole story, but somehow I think it was more appropriate to focus on his crimes than his whole story. You can’t just run around killing people and then say ” hey man, I’m also about transcendence, compassion, and the endless search for meaning” all the while still running around killing people. Desecration, and distortions my ass, and by the way, screw your transcendence.

far too many Muslims have in recent years distorted the traditional Islamic view of jihad, which originally referred to the “effort” required to implement the will of God in a violent world

Yeah, they took the word jihad and made it something violent and scary.

Jihad can refer to a personal struggle, sure, But, as far as I’ve been able to ascertain, combating “satan” in a personal temptation (Jihad against one’s self ) or cutting down an infidel (Jihad of the sword) are and always have been fully accepted as jihad.

Karen is really trying define the word in the most transcendental interpretation possible and say that all others definitions are “abuses” of the concept, which just isn’t so.

Truly passive people will most likely seek out a passive religion, and truly violent people will most likely seek out violent ones. But, this would have nothing to do with the religion and everything to do with their character. And this would assume people have the personal freedom to seek out their own religion, which many do not have. Religion in it’s present state is a freedom killer, especially to the hoi polloi that have better things to do than sit around and think about epistemology.

Thanks, Whore.

I like both of these authors as well. I have to say, though, that calling a strawman when you see one gives Karen the upper hand in this case.

In every kind of human institution we see a need filled and extremism at some point – governments, social movements, religions and even family structures. When you take a metaphor literally – you’re doomed. Jesus as myth? Bible as fable? Sure. Same with science. The more materialistic you make it, the more you demand some sort of physical proof of every detail of human life, the more you stray into extremist thinking. You also deny yourself the broad kind of thinking that keeps things in perspective:

The only true reality is the one that the current view of science reveals? If you are a true skeptic then how can you possibly be religious at all? Every religious thought or behavior is a “slippery slope?” Really?

It’s not that someone’s opinion of Islam is wrong, it’s just that their opinion of Islam is not consistent with what the historical record indicates the early founders of Islam had in mind. I think she has the right to point that out.

Are we talking about the same early founders of Islam that devolved into a murderous blood feud over who was the true inheritor of the faith before rigor had even set into Mohammad’s limbs? The ones responsible for the Sunni/Shiite schism that still exists to this day? Yeah, they were such enlightened, transcendent people.

I agree with the others who have pointed out that Armstrong’s concept of the divine is vague to the point of meaninglessness. I think she’s missing the essential point that there is no evidence to support the idea that god is anything more than a concept, and that the vast majority of believers have a much more concrete, anthropomorphic concept of god than she does.

The “us vs. them” mentality prevalent amongst humans has always been with us; its certainly arguable that it was vital to our survival in ancient times. We’ve demonstrated our capacity as a species to override that tendency with logic and compassion, but we have a long way to go. Religion is just one example of a social construct that provides an platform for superiority complexes and dehumanizing wordlviews to manifest in peoples’ thoughts and actions. Armstrong’s approach to religion is a step up from the standard approach, I’ll grant that, but again, if you’re going to relegate it to nebulous vagaries, why ultimately bother with it at all?

Iztok wrote:

I do not have a problem with religion as “it should be”. Issue is that “it should be” is not reflected in reality. In reality we deal with religious that not only threaten our civil liberties but threaten our physical existence as well. There is idea of what religion is supposed to be as Armstrong says then there is this pesky thing called reality (and this is what Harris refers to).

Nicely said:) I was having a similar conversation with a friend once (who classifies herself as a pantheist) who said “but religion isn’t about certainty, a central part of it is about asking questions” to which I responded: “that sounds good on paper, unfortunately many believers (and what ‘makes up’ religion but the people who practice to it?) exhibit the opposite approach/attitude and are all about certainty and having ‘the’ Truth“.

Sidenote: on another message board yesterday, a believer literally said: ‘when you have ALL the answers, wouldn’t you want to share it with others?’

“Communism is good in theory too. All those people working together to better each other, no one being left cold or hungry. Oops, but it seems that pesky Human Nature gets in the way. Oh well! Go Communal Utopia! ”

Something being good ‘in theory’ doesn’t always translate very well to reality, as has been mentioned already. Poor Karen Armstrong’s idea of religion is right alongside that Communal Utopian Illusion where everyone gets along, populated by unicorns and faeries.

Here is the crazy part that folks like Karen Armstrong seem to miss. I know quite a few muslims who most of us would not consider radical on any scale. if you ask them, they will tell you that they are “liberal.” But mention Ayaan Ali’s name, and you will hear the worst vitriol froth from their mouths.

Yesterday, I encountered an older woman who happened to be a Jehovah’s Witness. When I pointed out the genocide found in the book of Joshua, she stood there and justified it.

So I pulled out my dictionary and had her read the definition of genocide. She continued to justify it.

That’s what I am afraid of: no critical thinking skills and blind allegiance.

Armstrong defines religion as supernatural beliefs that are benign or neutral in their consequence, and non-contradictory to science (albeit incoherent alongside it). Apart from being irrational, unnecessary, and counter to scientific attempts to understand the unknown (as documented in Neil Degrasse Tyson’s talk at Beyond Belief 2006) there’s nothing really objectionable about it. Of course she doesn’t tell anyone she’s doing this, I think Socrates would take issue with Armstrong’s lack of honesty.

K. A’s arguments are quite simple to follow, they amount to: literal belief is false, metaphorical belief is true, if people don’t accept that it’s all Richard Dawkins’ fault. Sophisticated stuff.

There is a pattern to religious thinking that underlies many arguments for god, and is also present in Armstrong’s argument.
There seems always to be an unstated assumption. About God, that he exists, or religion, that its beneficial. When faced with contradictory evidence, instead of abandoning the assumption, the thinker instead tries to redefine the original term at worst so that the assumption just fits, at best so it is undisprovable.. I’ve been seeing this pattern of thought all over lately. The classical arguments for god are based on it. The prime mover argument, Anselm’s ontological argument, Armstrong asserts all destructive expressions of religion as being abuses.

I suppose this is a trap everyone is capable of falling in, when they incapable of pondering a certain proposition may be false.

But who is she to tell millions of Muslims that their understanding of the Qur’an is simply wrong?

So, Karen Armstrong can’t argue that true religion is peaceful but Sam Harris can tell peaceful Christians and Muslims all the time that they’re not being true Christians and true Muslims unless they’re going around raping and murdering people and that they’re just enabling extremists? If we’re going to complain about non-Muslims speaking for Muslims on what “true” Islam is, then why don’t they interview actual Muslims, like Reza Aslan, who is a Muslim that probably would actually agree with Karen Armstrong?

Neon Genesis,

…Sam Harris can tell peaceful Christians and Muslims all the time that they’re not being true Christians and true Muslims unless they’re going around raping and murdering people…

That Sam Harris… all the time… talking about… not being… …True Christians(tm)… …unless you…

RAPE AND MURDER

If we’re going to complain about non-Muslims speaking for Muslims on what “true” Islam is, then why don’t they interview actual Muslims, like Reza Aslan, who is a Muslim that probably would actually agree with Karen Armstrong?

That’s called cherry picking. How about we just look at surveys taken in majority Muslim countries about what they think? Probably because you won’t like the results. Better just selectively pick one Muslim that’ll agree with Karen Armstrong.

That’s called cherry picking. How about we just look at surveys taken in majority Muslim countries about what they think? Probably because you won’t like the results. Better just selectively pick one Muslim that’ll agree with Karen Armstrong.

Here’s what a billion Muslims really think: http://www.upf.tv/upf06/portals/InsideIslamWhataBillionMuslimsReallyThink/tabid/319/Default.aspx

This woman is not peaceful. Her weapon of choice is words instead of the sword but she’s fairly violent with them. Everything she says is a put-down of the godless while she condemns the new Atheists for putting down the godly. It’s all putting on superior airs. And if you don’t play along, eat your salad with the wrong fork, slurp your soup, you are just to be shut out. This is not peaceful and all inclusive. It’s just trying to shut the undesirables (that would be us evil Atheists) out of society to begin with. What an elitist asshole.

So atheists can get upset when moderate believers argue for a more peaceful religion because “OMG, that’s elitist!” yet it’s not offensive when Sam Harris argues that all believers are either delusional or violent or at best they’re distrustful enablers of violence simply for existing? And wasn’t Sam Harris the guy who argued elitism in politics was a good thing? Yet I never heard any outrage from atheists over that article. So, elitism is ok, just only ok when atheists do it.

I stand by what I said over on the ForeignPolicy site: Karen Armstrong’s response-to-the-response is nothing but a wordy concern troll.

So atheists can get upset when moderate believers argue for a more peaceful religion because “OMG, that’s elitist!” yet it’s not offensive when Sam Harris argues that all believers are either delusional or violent or at best they’re distrustful enablers of violence simply for existing? And wasn’t Sam Harris the guy who argued elitism in politics was a good thing? Yet I never heard any outrage from atheists over that article. So, elitism is ok, just only ok when atheists do it.

Perhaps you should read Harris’ article. It was an attack on Sarah Palin and the celebration of mediocrity, quite distinct from Armstrong’s constant presumption that she needn’t form concrete positions, since any demand for clear arguments is a sign of intellectual simplicity.

I have a response to Armstrong’s article here, which I won’t reproduce due to its length. The main problem I have with Armstrong is that she frames herself as an opponent of Harris and Friends because it gets her magazines in like FP, but she avoids any real clash of ideas and simply chides the atheists for being too angry.

A lot of people on this thread seem to be missing one crucial piece of information: Karen Armstrong is NOT defending religion as it is currently practiced by the majority. She is a religious reformer, and quite an active one at that.

Having said that, she is going to go into Muslim countries to tell them they’re doing Islam wrong. She’s encouraging Muslim leaders to do that instead.

A lot of people on this thread seem to be missing one crucial piece of information: Karen Armstrong is NOT defending religion as it is currently practiced by the majority. She is a religious reformer, and quite an active one at that.

..and it’s a fool’s errand. “You can’t reason someone out of something they didn’t use to reason to arrive at”. Sure, you could try to convince some people “to restore compassion to the centre of morality and religion ~ to return to the ancient principle that any interpretation of scripture that breeds violence, hatred or disdain is illegitimate”, but how exactly? The only way you’ll convince people across religions is through reason, and considering the core problem of religion is its defiance of reason, that’s a problem. Armstrong’s distracted by window dressing, looking at the symptoms and not the cause.

That’s what needs to be “expunged from human consciousness”, that unwarranted respect for irrationality. Compassion can not only be the center of morality for rational people, it already is the unstated view of virtually every atheist out there.

Not only that but rationality beats every other method, most people understand that, even if it’s sometimes unconsciously. That’s why creationists try to wrap themselves in the mantle of science. You’d never hear a scientist do the reverse, and say, “I’ve got this hypothesis about prions. But really it’s a religion! Please rise for the reading from the Journal of Molecular Biology. Ommmm.” That’s why you can only change the mind of someone of another religion. Reason is a rock. It’s the only solid basis around. Anything not based on reason is built on shifting sands. You successfully “reform” religion, yeah you’ll convince some people, through reason. Maybe some will just follow their religious leaders uncritically, whether it’s compassionate or not. The ones you can’t convince through reason, well religion not only doesn’t help you reach them, it insulates them.

From the original article and her reply, cases where Karen Armstrong suggests that anything negative is a misuse, perversion, or corruption of religion, i.e. not actually religion:

…often tragically abused…
…the desecration of religion…
…driven by political humiliation and alienation, far too many Muslims have in recent years distorted the traditional Islamic view of jihad…
…But these abuses do not constitute the whole story…
A truly Socratic dialogue with atheists could help to counter many of the abuses of faith that Harris so rightly deplores…
…In their anxiety, some fundamentalists distort the tradition they are trying to defend…

From the original article and her reply, cases where Karen Armstrong defends religion:

To identify religion with its worst manifestations, claim that they represent the whole…

“God Breeds Violence and Intolerance.”

No, humans do. For Hitchens in God Is Not Great, religion is inherently “violent … intolerant, allied to racism, tribalism and bigotry”; even so-called moderates are guilty by association. Yet it is not God or religion but violence itself — inherent in human nature — that breeds violence…

All fundamentalism — whether Jewish, Christian, or Muslim — is rooted in a profound fear of annihilation. Qutb developed his ideology in the concentration camps where Nasser interred thousands of the Muslim Brothers…

Religion is not simply a matter of subscribing to a set of obligatory beliefs; it is hard work, requiring a ceaseless effort to get beyond the selfishness that prevents us from achieving a more humane humanity…

But this anti-science bias is far less common in Judaism and Islam, where fundamentalist movements have been sparked more by political issues, such as the state of Israel, than doctrinal or scientific ones…

Lets be clear, Karen Armstrong willfully remains ignorant of the “whole of religion”, so she can live in her fantasy world where Dawkins and Harris aren’t right about religion. The analysis of religion she supports and conducts are full of ignorance, denial, and delusion. When Karen Armstrong speaks on religion, she comes out with widely held conventional “wisdom” statements, acceptable to the unquizzical, to reinforce the view that religious belief is good without and despite evidence.

Guilt by association? If she disagrees with the argument that moderates enable fundamentalists, there’s no need to misrepresent it in such an ignorant and stupid manner.

I particular liked the part when the so called “expert” on the history of religion blames political factors on fundamentalists fear of annihilation, when there’s clearly quite a bit of scriptural inspiration on the matter.

Religion isn’t just about beliefs, it’s about all the good stuff, you know, charity, unselfishness, and puppies. It’s also about art, music, and education. These things couldn’t possibly exist without religion. See: God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything.

Considering the rejection of evolution is stronger in Muslim majority countries than the United States I think perhaps Karen Armstrong is deeply ignorant of contemporary religion. Also to blame rejection of science on fundamentalism just shows that she hasn’t looked at any opinion polls on the subject, many more people rejecting evolution than there are fundamentalists, biased towards membership of one of the monotheisms.

Lets be clear, Karen Armstrong willfully remains ignorant of the “whole of religion”, so she can live in her fantasy world where Dawkins and Harris aren’t right about religion.

So, you know more about religion than historians do? Even the agnostic biblical scholar Bart D Ehrman has argued fundamentalist Christianity is a later invention. Why is it that there was no moral outrage from atheists when Ehrman argued that fundamentalist Christianity is a later invention yet if Armstrong does the same thing, it’s outrage? Is it because Ehrman is a non-believer and Armstrong isn’t and non-believers are automatically more trustworthy than believers by default? All believers are liars, is that it but if a non-believer says the same thing, there’s no outrage? This view that religious fundamentalism is a later invention is not simply the view of one obscure religious historian but it is the consensus view among historians and scholars, but hey, if you think you know more about history than historians and scholars do, that’s your prerogative I guess.

Neon Genesis, your reformed Christianity is, I take it, that of the likes of Luther and Calvin, the anti-semite and the leader of an intolerant theocracy. The only reformation that actually produced something worth having was the Enlightenment, an essentially anti-religious movement which was so successful that religion was forced to submit for the first time to truly secular society. I’m not interested in cooperating with religious “moderates” and “reformers”, or in giving the time of day to Anderson and her kind.

Casimir,

The problem is the “territory the assailants regard as their national homeland” is in part influenced by their religion, at least in the case of Islam. Islam is somewhat unique in its emphasis on what lands belong to Muslims. Jihad not only refers to self-defense of Muslims themselves, but Muslim territory as well. There’s a reason OBL talks about “the tragedy of al-Andalus”, and it doesn’t have a lot to do with politics.

Karen Armstrong would only emphasize the positive relationship between religion and politics, therefore if someone attributes unselfishness of a political action to religion then she use that as an example of how great religion is. However, if after reading of Islamic conquest and establishment of a caliphate, an Islamist were to attribute a political act to religion then Karen Armstrong would just say it’s a distortion.

Another trick they’ll use is after someone has demonstrated that indeed religion in part influenced a terrible act, then they’ll say it doesn’t matter because there’s a “root cause” not related religion. However their designation of a “root cause” is established by whether they would like it to be so. Can a religion be the “root cause” of something terrible? Never.

Karen Armstrong would only emphasize the positive relationship between religion and politics, therefore if someone attributes unselfishness of a political action to religion then she use that as an example of how great religion is.

Have you even actually read any of Armstrong’s books to know what she says about religion or do you just read random quotes of her on the Internet? I suggest starting with her book, The Bible-A Biography.

Neon Genesis: for cripe’s sake, I was specificially talking about the quotes above. I haven’t read either Armstrong or Harris and, all joshing aside about Harris’ indeed amusing sarcasm above, I don’t really have any plans on reading either.

My offense was taken at the implication that Atheists are less than human because:

they are wrong about human nature. Homo sapiens is also Homo religiosus. As soon as we became recognizably human, men and women started to create religions. We are meaning-seeking creatures. While dogs, as far as we know, do not worry about the canine condition or agonize about their mortality, humans fall very easily into despair if we don’t find some significance in our lives. Theological ideas come and go, but the quest for meaning continues. So God isn’t going anywhere. And when we treat religion as something to be derided, dismissed, or destroyed, we risk amplifying its worst faults. Whether we like it or not, God is here to stay, and it’s time we found a way to live with him in a balanced, compassionate manner.

All that above boils down to you’re something less than human if you don’t buy into religiousity since she’s claiming it’s inherent to human nature. Look, I may say a lot about religion, but I do stop short of calling believers subhuman.