Faith drives a wedge between ethics and suffering. Where certain actions cause no suffering at all, religious dogmatists still maintain that they are evil and worthy of punishment (sodomy, marijuana use, homosexuality, the killing of blastocysts, etc.). And yet, where suffering and death are found in abundance their causes are often deemed to be good (withholding funds for family planning in the third world, prosecuting nonviolent drug offenders, preventing stem-cell research, etc.). This inversion of priorities not only victimizes innocent people and squanders scarce resources; it completely falsifies our ethics. It is time we found a more reasonable approach to answering questions of right and wrong.
Nobody, LOL! I honestly haven't run into that factoid before.
I’m sorry, what does this have to do with faith? There’s a very large logical leap between “religious dogmatists” and “faith in general.”
I think there’s a much stronger argument to be made that faith is what keeps people focused on suffering that isn’t their own. Not that only people with faith do that, but recognizing the divine image in all people and being concerned with the fates of everyone is a plank of all of the monotheistic traditions.
Oh look, another polemicist who thinks “faith” and “reactionary Christianity” are synonyms.
Before I got distracted by other issues, I was working my way through Marx’s Ecology: Materialism and Nature, by John Bellamy Foster. I’m eager to get back to it — it’s one of the most thought-provoking books I’ve read in a long time.
One section covered the Greek philosopher Epicurus, about whom Marx wrote his doctoral thesis. Epicurus’s materialist philosophy was overshadowed by the idealist philosophy of Plato and Aristotle, but Epicurus had an influence on late Renaissance and early modern philosophers of science — enough so that advocacy of Epicurus’s ideas was persecuted as heresy. Materialism denies metaphysical explanations, which is implicitly atheist, and many materialists are explicitly atheist.
While idealists tend to turn to metaphysics for questions of ethics, Epicurus and his successors see the basis of ethics as human desire. This doesn’t mean living in a perpetual party or overindulgence — among other things, my own happiness is contingent upon the happiness of those around me.
My understanding is that Immanuel Kant’s view of ethics was that the ideal person eschews their desires and always does their duty. If there’s no metaphysical authority to define duty, than it seems to me that this is a prescription for universal misery: people choosing to obey arbitrary ethical codes, and worse, expecting everyone else to obey the same ethical code (and be miserable).
I meet some religious thinkers of a left persuasion, who don’t seem to see matters of duty as so clear cut as conservatives see them, and who seem to believe that God (or whatever the metaphysical authority in question is) intended for us to be happy, so they support the freedom to seek happiness. So I do see some religious-minded people as trustworthy allies, although I remain an atheist.
I don’t think that religious thinkers who are more leftist see their duties as less clear cut – that way lies relativism. I think the bigger point is that pluralist religious thinkers recognize that their “duties” are not necessarily the duties of others, and that while some things are, and should be, universal, others are not.
Some very close friends of mine are religious, and as such, they are very giving, compassionate people. However, I always wonder how much of that was out of the sheer joy of helping others, and how much was out of fear from eternal hellfire.
I don’t like religion. I’m not going to say that you can’t have it, I’m just going to say you can’t legislate with it. If you want to have an argument for anything, do not use the Bible (Torah, Koran, Rig Veda) as your source.
wait… i agree. I think the ‘faith’ to ‘religious dogmaticist’ jump was a huge one. Since I don’t know the context of the quote, i’m not going to get into this too deeply…
but one of the _huge_ differences between legalistic fundamentalist denominations (when talking of Christianity, but others also) and the ‘non-legalistic’ (ucc, congregationalist, etc) faiths is the focus of suffering.
Fundamentalist strains seem to focus on their suffering and other’s sins, non-legalistic ones do the opposite (of course there are exceptions to both and in both). It’s the ‘great commission’ vs. the ‘great commandment’ dichotomy.
in fact, all the things he mentioned and more “withholding funds for family planning in the third world, prosecuting nonviolent drug offenders, preventing stem-cell research, etc.” are not supported, in fact opposed, but most non-fundamentalist churches.
I hope the author doesn’t make the same mistake so many seem to make (including fundamentalists) and consider fundamentalists a ‘real’ faith and mainstream/liberal denominations somehow a ‘watered-down’ or ‘faith-lite’. They are not.
(I meant, wait.. i disagree :)
What Harris is saying,I think, is that if history tells us anything, it is that the intractable and unsolvable tension between opposing meta-physical thought systems has reulted in untold millions of gallons of blood being spilled and that the only solution is to dump the whole project of knowledge through faith in favor of knowledge through reason. Reason can better help us define duty, create institutions to protect rights and avoid inquisitions, crusades etc.
Of course some blood has been spilled over the tension between faith and reason and theres bound to be more.
ADS, no one sees questions of duty as more clear cut than a diehard dogmatist. The leftist religious thinkers I’ve met are careful to avoid dogmatism. Does that make them relativists?
I have to agree, the original quote does sound like it’s assuming that all religious folks are right wingers, which just isn’t fair. But I don’t know the full context of the quote, either.
Mythago: Didn’t Bérubé get mentioned in TNH or PNH’s blog at some point?
See, I don’t think that’s true. I think you’re confusing “duty” with “forcing others to also do your duty.” Religious people, even religious leftists, still know what their duties are, religiously. They just a) may not agree with others about what those duties are, and b) know that others aren’t necessarily also obligated to their duties.
Its to bad guys. I had a brilliant post the eviscerated the above thinking.
It came with appropriate links showing that (sodomy, marijuana use, homosexuality, the killing of blastocysts, etc.). really do harm people. (of coarse they do…duh?)
But the moderator saw fit to stifle debate.
Its not unlike the modern academic atmosphere. Unpleasant truth is disallowed, if it impedes on liberal orthodoxy.
[The post in question consisted of nothing but links. The first link was to a site with nothing but photographs of post-abortion embryos and fetuses – the same stuff we’ve all seen a thousand times.
I think people know by now that I let real debate through, even when I disagree with it. But a post like that is not about rational debate, it’s about trying to gross people out. –Amp]
They just a) may not agree with others about what those duties are, and b) know that others aren’t necessarily also obligated to their duties.
People who aren’t dogmatic understand that sometimes you have to actually think about things and figure them out, which allows for the possibility of innocent error, of not being completely certain at all times what the right thing to do is. Dogmatists deny the need to actually figure anything out — you just obey the dogma. They deny any ambiguity. That’s what defines them as dogmatists.
Yes, Brian, but what does that have to do with duty?
A liberal, pluralistic religious person will try to figure out what their duty is, and will still not push it on others unless it’s one of those universal things like not murdering people. Liberal, pluralistic people can be dogmatic themselves. I know many very religious Jews who you would consider dogmatists, but who, while they feel their own duty is clear, will not push it on others.
And again, I’m still not sure what any of this has to do with faith in general.
No, liberal, pluralistic people CANNOT be dogmatic, by definition. People who live and let live are not dogmatists. Dogmatists believe there’s one right way to live, and to Hell with anyone who disagrees with them.
As for faith in general, my point was that not all religious-minded people are dogmatic or right wing. The quote Ampersand posted seemed unfairly biased against the religious.
However, I do think that religious beliefs, with their unfounded ideas about metaphysics, tend towards abstract ethics, which are ultimately harmful. Note “tend” and “ultimately.” This amounts to my saying, really, that I think religious belief is mistaken, and I disagree with it — this doesn’t mean that I dislike or distrust everyone who expresses religious belief.
Brian,
Your definition is off. A dogmatist is someone who holds their own views as true. It does not necessarily imply pushing them on others.
From dictionary.com
The American Heritage Dictionary
dogmatism: Arrogant, stubborn assertion of opinion or belief.
WordNet
dogmatism: the intolerance and prejudice of a bigot [syn: bigotry]
Neither of which is quite the definition I was using. Neither of which should be the point, anyway, since I explained what I meant by “dogmatism” quite clearly.
sodomy and homosexuality harm people?
BULLSHIT.
how’s that for eviserating debate Fitz? I am so sick of this calling good evil and evil, good stuff you are do in the name of ‘debate’.
YOU are what is causing harm and suffering Fitz. You. F$%^ YOU.
It’s your hatred of homosexuals, your promulgation of damn lies, made up and twisted facts and innuendos, your twisting of the truth that is causing harm and suffering. It’s YOU that caused me to be beaten to a pulp when I was 16 because I was a fag (or so they decided), it was YOU who caused my first love to slit his throat at the young age of 18 because his father called him a pervert and kicked him out of the house, it was YOU made me wish I were dead after years of change therapy, it was YOU who made my life miserable till I was 30, it was YOU forces us decide not to be able in my or my partner’s home states because of fear, it is YOU who forces us to spend thousands of dollars and hours and hours of time trying to legally and financially protect our family, its YOU who forced my friend from to marry or be ostracized from church.. and then live a life of desperation and loneliness, it is YOU YOU YOU YOU who cause the suffering and harm.
You and your ilk and your damn lies, innuendos, fraudulent studies and hatred that cause suffering and harm. That ilk would be the first to believe that porn causes rape and harm…
but no.. not your pornographic lies of hate hiding behind your false reading of the Christian message. No, those never cause harm and suffering.
You call good evil and evil good.
God, when will the lies stop?!
trey,
Words cannot express my sadness for the verbal/physical/emotional abuse you and other members of the LGBT Community have suffered at the hands, words, and laws of bigoted, viciously homophobic and dangerous people like Fitz. Amp and I are going to ban him because of all the venom he has spewed at everyone here on ‘Alas’. I’m so sorry Trey. I can’t imagine the depth to your pain and others who are like you. Things will hopefully change for the better in the coming. It’s a movement after all. African-Americans and women went through the same kind of horrors as the LGBT activists are going through now. Don’t give up the good fight. And remember that Fitz is not the representative of all us hetero people. Some of us know better and aren’t full of hate. And we are on your side. Once again, you and other LGBT people who have suffered have my deepest and most sincere sympathies.
phew.. sorry for the outburst. i just read his words and it just so happens that tomorrow is the anniversary of my highschool love’s suicide and i lost it. I’m just so tired of all the bull from people who call themselves religious. Any other day I would have been a bit more civil. Just tired of it.
thanks, i do know that we’ve got LOTS of allies.. this blog is proof of that.. just people like Fitz sometimes….
Brian,
You can use any “definition” you want, but the fact remains that you’re using words incorrectly. Being a dogmatist does not mean that you push your opinion on others. So, when you say that “liberal, pluralistic people CANNOT be dogmatic, by definition,” well, that’s just untrue.
But aside from the minor semantic issue, I think we agree about the quote, so probably just best to leave it, yes? :)
trey –
I don’t know if you’ll read this given a few days have gone by, but I wanted to post a comment to reiterate what you said.
People like Fitz are the reasons I got thrown out of my home by my parents when I first started college because I couldn’t stop being a lesbian, had my mother hit me in my mid teens when she found out about me, had letters call me a freak turn up in at my apartment for my roommates to find from my loving parents, that contribute to the fact that my partner can’t take me with her to family gatherings back in MO, that one of my friends got her soul ripped out when her partner had to chose between her and her family and had to go with the latter, that an ex gf of mine had to cut herself to deal with the pain of her high school experiences where she was raped, repeatedly because she was a queer, that a friend broke down in front of me she was THIS close to making all the pain go away, forever, and on, and on …
People like Fitz are responsible for th above, and yet hides his hate behind his claims to being a Christian … well, you know what? My girlfriend is a Christian, and it is nothing like Fitz in any shape or form. I may never understand it myself, because for me religion will always be about hate and violence, but for her its about love and acceptance. Imagine that.
Thank you Adrienne and Amp for banning this hateful person. You are the kinds of people we proudly call Allies.
You’re very much welcome Sarah and Trey. The LGBTQ Community needs all the friends and allies they can get right now in this country. We’re happy to be them. Not all of us heteros are homophobic bigots.
although, now I’m curious as hell as to what Fritz linked this time
*slaps* bad antigone
I don’t know how appropriate this is on a blog like this one, but anyway, ((((Sarah)))) and ((((Trey))))
It’s odd how important inclusion in media can be. Two of the main characters of a daily comic strip I did years ago, “Cast of Thousands,” were gay. Another cartoonist told me that reading my comic strip was an essential part of his coming out process. I was stunned and touched.
In one of Margaret Cho’s concert films, at the end, she talks about the right of all people – specifically including fat people – to be free of the self-loathing society teaches us. I shocked myself by crying.
Seeing Jon Stewart enranged at the casual gay-bashing that passes unnoticed on mainstream news is important. It might be the most important thing he does all year.
There’s a sense in which mainstream media is against the “outsiders” – the queer, the fat, the people of color, the gender outlaws and misfits, the disabled, the foreign, and probably others I’m forgetting. It’s not an active thing, a lot of the time; it’s more like an unconscious belief that what happens to outsiders simply isn’t important enough to be shown in any sincere way.
And insofar as outsiders are allowed on TV, they’re never angry, they’re never political; they live in easy harmony with their straight, thin, pretty, white masters. They’re happy just to be included as secondary characters supporting the lives of the important characters. Prejudice never impacts their lives (at least, not for more than a single “very special” episode).
In that context, a passing moment of real inclusion can matter a fuckload.
Anyway, I’m rambling.
My point is, I’m thrilled, Sarah and Trey, if you think of me as friends and allies. Like Adrienne said.
And hugs are definitely appropriate on a blog like this one!
Adrienne, Amp and Crys (hey, have an ex gf called Crys …) thanks guys. Us queers really need straights like you all, because, at our most we are only 10% (though, according to the dark side we do go out of our way to recruit, so who knows what’s possible? *wink*) and so we need straight allies to get the kinds of rights everyone should have (and we ALWAYS need the hugs Crys *smile*).
Fitz is as little a representation of straight people as he is of real Christians, so we just need to keep in mind that more and more so you three are the ideal that more and more straight people are aspiring to in terms of seeing us LGBTQ people as as boringly screwed up as everyone else :)
I want to thank Trey and Sarah for telling their stories, which remind me what we’re fighting for.
there is a question to be asked on the purpose of faith according to the books, when we call ourselves believers what we are doing is separating the fact of now, with the miracles of yesterday. A dogmatist has a problem of reaffirming the obvious in order to ‘testify’ that which is with the just. But such propositions cannot come without the niavity (lack of suffering) in their understanding through suffering. faith is dangerous to the perceptive individual because it makes him choose not to understand when he is most needed for it. It makes them deviate from their own acceptance of their flesh and blood, and go about telling people how they should be. I think there is no future from religious thinking, if we do not understand that which makes us believers and skeptics to begin with.