Sam Harris: The Audacity of Reason
Date: March 27, 2008 | Author: Jon BlumenfeldCategory: Skepticism | Comments: 16 » |
All right, we’re not supposed to be political here, and this post isn’t going to take a position politically – though for full disclosure let me say that I am registered as an independent, my thinking is pretty libertarian, I often think bad thoughts about George W. Bush, I lean democratic in this election, and I have actually donated a few bucks to the Obama campaign.
By now, everyone knows about Barack Obama’s recent speech about race in America. Personally, I thought it was pretty remarkable and inspiring, though I understand the criticism that both he and his speech – and his former pastor, Jeremiah Wright – have come under recently. To finally get to the point, though, Sam Harris has a great entry on the Huffington Post – http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-harris/what-barack-obama-could-n_b_92771.html - taking a view that few others, especially politicians, want to discuss.
Harris points out that it is religion that poisons politics in this country, with every candidate needing to establish and constantly maintain their religious – and especially mainstream Christian – bona fides. Mitt Romney? Too Mormon. John McCain? Under scrutiny.
The stultifying effect of religion is everywhere to be seen in the 2008 Presidential campaign. The faith of the candidates has been a constant concern in the Republican contest, of course–where John McCain, lacking the expected aura of born-again bamboozlement, has been struggling to entice some proper religious maniacs to his cause. He now finds himself in the compassionate embrace of Pastor John Hagee, a man who claims to know that a global war will soon precipitate the Rapture and the Second Coming of Jesus Christ (problem solved). Prior to McCain’s ascendancy, we saw Governor Mitt Romney driven from the field by a Creationist yokel and his sectarian hordes. And this, despite the fact that the governor had been wearing consecrated Mormon underpants all the while, whose powers of protection are as yet unrecognized by Evangelicals.
I’d love to put in some more clips from the piece, but I’d wind up excerpting the entire thing, so click on the link and go read it. You won’t be sorry. I’ll throw in two of my favorites:
Like every candidate, Obama must appeal to millions of voters who believe that without religion, most of us would spend our days raping and killing our neighbors and stealing their pornography.
…
But Obama’s candidacy is also depressing, for it demonstrates that even a person of the greatest candor and eloquence must still claim to believe the unbelievable in order to have a political career in this country. We may be ready for the audacity of hope. Will we ever be ready for the audacity of reason?
Will we ever be ready for the Audacity of Reason? That would be my rapture folks. I’m waiting…
16 Responses to “Sam Harris: The Audacity of Reason”
By PD on Mar 27, 2008 | Reply
There’s no doubt about it, Harris is one of the premier voices on atheism and religion. As usual, he’s right on target…mostly. Sections of the essay, especially parts of the second-to-the-last paragraph, expose some of Harris’ shortcomings: “…Obama’s candidacy is genuinely thrilling: his heart is clearly in the right place…His election in November really would be a triumph of hope.” First, why is it so “thrilling” and how do we know where “his heart” really is? Hope about what? Where’s the evidence? First and foremost, as is clear by Obama’s religious references, he’s another politician. The public needs to stop putting pols on pedestals; they’re supposed to be our representatives, not tiny gods (Obama is to liberals as Reagan is to conservatives?). Speeches, even enticing ones, don’t solve problems. After all, Dollar makes great speeches, which is why he can pick peoples’ pockets; candidates call them “campaign contributions.” The public, and Harris, need to chill out on the idol worship. Harris may be a an eminent voice for atheism, but a skeptic he’s not.
By Jon Blumenfeld on Mar 27, 2008 | Reply
PD,
I agree with you… up to a point. Especially with your last sentence, that Harris is an eminent voice for atheism, but is not so hot as a skeptic.
On the other hand, I can understand why someone could feel that Obama’s candidacy is thrilling – I feel it personally. On the other other hand, I agree that its going a bit far to state as fact that his election in November would be a triumph of hope. I mean, I hope so, but is it a fact?
On the other other other hand, the main point is still one that needs to be stressed – the level, the NECESSITY, of religion in politics is depressing. Maybe the public needs to chill out on the idol worship vis a vis candidates, but oh how I wish they could chill out on requiring the candidates to worship idols.
By PD on Mar 27, 2008 | Reply
We certainly agree on that point, Jon. If the day ever gets here when the voting public stops requiring the candidates to proclaim their belief in false idols — which won’t freaking happen in my lifetime — in the words of Louis Armstrong, “What a wonderful world.” Well, maybe I’m being a bit Osmond-ish about it. How about, in my own words, “What a much-improved world.”
By James Fox on Mar 27, 2008 | Reply
My take on the Obama speech was that while religion may have been part of the mix the real issue was about race and contemporary attitudes regarding historical situations. And I wholeheartedly agree that less, a great whopping dump truck load less, religion would be nice in politics. Religion aside the issues of race dod need to be addressed. I do not think that Obama did that great of job dealing with the topic or in answering questions raised regarding religious issues.
Harris states” But Obama’s candidacy is also depressing, for it demonstrates that even a person of the greatest candor and eloquence must still claim to believe the unbelievable in order to have a political career in this country”. Is Harris asserting that Obama is disingenuous and calculating in his proclamations of faith? Or is the flip side of the coin; that Obama is credulous, deluded or lacking in rational and reasonable thought processes. It doesn’t seem like you can have it both ways from Harris’s point of view.
Harris states that religion only brings false hope, replaces knowledge with superstition, has and still supports racism and allows religious leaders to manipulate and subjugate followers. (which I fully agree with) However Obama’s “style” seems much more religious and “faith” based in appearence and content than any presidential campaign I can remember. Obama constantly plays to emotion in exactly the same manner televangelists and preachers have for generations. This could be cultural but it does not appear terribly rational.
I’m with Jon in that I consider myself some what of a libertarian, a free market, fiscal conservative social libertarian that is. As such the choices for president are for me, somewhat depressing.
By Turner12345 on Mar 27, 2008 | Reply
Little off-topic… but am I the only one who doesn’t get this Obama-mania? I mean… Hot chicks singing about him on youtube, Stadiums of young people lined up out the door to hear him give a speech. Skeptics flocking to him despite his intimate longterm involvement in a crack-pot ethnic based church. I don’t get it. I’ve heard the guy speak… I know where he stands on pretty much everything.. what’s so exciting about him? I mean I’m not saying you can’t like the guy… but… honestly… WTF?
By PD on Mar 27, 2008 | Reply
I can’t quite figure out what “party” I belong to. Is there room for a rationalist party some day? Nevertheless, you’re right, James, the choices are beyond depressing, especially with what we’ve gone through for the last seven years. I’m assuming Obama is probably an honest man, but the last speech I saw, along with the unwarranted, overly enthusiastic reaction to it, left me with the image of a cross between Willie Stark (All The King’s Men) and Elmer Gantry. Is it possible I’m being too cynical?
By Steve Page on Mar 27, 2008 | Reply
To quote that legendary thinker, Arnold J. Rimmer, “The problem with democracy is that every bastard gets a vote.”
I’ve come to realise that politics is generally about voting for the realistic candidate that I dislike the least. When centre politics dominates the media, the candidate who pisses off the smallest number of people is the one who gets elected. It’s sad, but true.
It’s a shame that I’m so skeptical about the possibility of an extra-terrestrial invasion, as I think that the one thing that would be guaranteed to unite us (well, most of us) is the realisation that our species is more similar than it is different, and there’s no better way of illustrating that than having a nine-eyed, seven-legged silicon-based lifeform attacking the planet! Ah, a man can dream…
By MisterMarc on Mar 27, 2008 | Reply
I keep hearing that America cannot elect a President who is not openly and outwardly religious. The real question is whether this is actually true. Atheists and non-religious are a notoriously silent (though less so recently) group. While polls may show one thing, polls are not infallible. Is it possible that pollsters may ask non-religious persons what religion they are, and they may simply respond with their religious heritage rather than their true beliefs? My parents are Catholic and Protestant when pressed by questioning, but they could care less about the religious affiliation of a political candidate.
Sadly, no politician has come along yet that decided to court secular America, but does that mean that such a candidate would fail? Pundits and writers (even Atheist writers) seem convinced, but I won’t be convinced until a candidate with everything going for him proclaims his non-religious ideals publicly and it ruins his run. Perhaps it’s more accurate to say that no candidate is WILLING to risk running on a non-religious platform than to say that no candidate CAN risk it and succeed. I would wager that atheists are as large or larger in number as fanatical Christians, just not as visible. If a candidate went after their votes, and appealed to the fence-sitters on the basis of separation of church and state, they MIGHT have a fighting chance. Unfortunately, I think it’ll be some time before we see that happen.
By Nitpicking on Mar 28, 2008 | Reply
MisterMarc, our last non-Christian President would be Taft. Washington and Jefferson were Deists.
By Jon Blumenfeld on Mar 28, 2008 | Reply
According to wikipedia, Taft was a Unitarian who LATE in life publicly stated that he doubted the divinity of Christ. Hey, Nixon was a quaker. Don’t they doubt the divinity of Christ?
By MisterMarc on Mar 28, 2008 | Reply
Nitpicking, I don’t recall saying anything about non-Christian presidents. What’s your point?
By Nitpicking on Mar 28, 2008 | Reply
I certainly didn’t mean to offend, I was thinking of this when I wrote:
By MisterMarc on Mar 28, 2008 | Reply
Oh, I’m not offended, just trying to understand where you’re going with your comments. I confess, I’m even more confused considering what line you were responding to. Maybe you meant that the people you mentioned were examples of non-visible non-believers? Thanks for clarifying.
By Admut239 on Mar 28, 2008 | Reply
Sam Harris is great, and this is a fantastic article. That being said, is Hillary the better candidate when it comes to secularism and science policy?
By Jon Blumenfeld on Mar 28, 2008 | Reply
Personally, I think both Democrats would be far and away better than McCain on both secularism and science policy, despite his apparent lack of interest in religion.
Bill Clinton listened to his science advisors, and I think both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama would do the same.
By Irv on Apr 2, 2008 | Reply
Speaking of Rev. John Hagee and the “rapture” (the latter being the cosmic fantasy that fringe British in 1830 added to historical “second coming” doctrine), anyone interested in the history of the same fantasy can Google “Pretrib Rapture Diehards” by the leading “rapture” authority, historian David MacPherson. His full-length treatment of it, on 300 footnoted pages, is his bestselling work “The Rapture Plot” (see Armageddon Books online) which well documents the inherent dishonesty in both the doctrine and leadership of the same 178-year-old Christian fundamentalist fantasy which lately has become big business in American bookstores. Google “Scholars Weigh My Research” to see endorsements of his findings from leading scholars. Irv (PS – Further light on Christian Zionism is found in the same writer’s web piece entitled “Roots of (Warlike) Christian Zionism.”)