Apparently the interview attracted a huge response - bigger than they’ve had on any recent topic. Many letters supported Harris, but most of the responses were religious believers highly offended by his comments.
He’s supposed to be a guest on another NPR program, Talk of the Nation, tonight. The audio will be posted after it airs:
Wow, that host seemed a little perterbed. I think it’s emblematic of Harris’s point that this is a taboo subject. His existence seemed threatening to her. She kept it together, but I heard some indignation behind her voice.
Which is Sam Harris’s point. We need to learn how to talk about these things.
Yes, that was one irked believer doing the interviewing. ;-) You could really hear it when she challenged him with some of the standard apologetic arguments. I thought Harris handled it well in terms of staying on point and not losing his focus.
I also liked his answers to the callers who brought up Communism and moderate beliefs.
Actually, to me, while Michel Martin did sound rather defensive, she still seemed respectful and did allow Harris to state important things.
Defensiveness makes a lot of sense in this context. In my mind, it seems to be the typical reaction of people who actually listen to the arguments being made as opposed to those who stopped listening because they have made up their minds in advance.
Thing is, Harris is being portrayed as someone on an offensive mode. We can certainly understand that many believers may feel offended but, at least, the issue of secularism (whether or not it’s linked to atheism, agnosticism, or Brights) is slowly making its way into social discourse in the U.S. and elsewhere.
Harris’s point about taboos is interesting (after all, atheism is the object of the “second coming out”) but seems insufficient to explain the situation in the United States.
Here in Quebec, religion is also taboo (much more so than in the U.S., in fact) but it rarely becomes the basis for political discourse. Religious tolerance has recently been discussed to some length in relation to public life here (especially in schools), but even then, it doesn’t become a political issue in the same way as it does in federal politics in the U.S. (or even in federal politics in Stephen Harper’s Canada).
Apart from Western Europe and Canada, other parts of the world are quite secular. For instance, 90% of Malians are Muslims and Mali is linked to other parts of Islam the same way much of Western Europe is part of Christianity. Yet Malian political discourse is more secular than most federal politics in the U.S., IMHO.
As strong believers are agreeing to have this conversation on secularism and atheism, we can say that there’s hope for peaceful coexistence.
As strong believers are agreeing to have this conversation on secularism and atheism, we can say that there’s hope for peaceful coexistence.
I agree. And since 9.11 more people are being forced to have this conversation, which gives people like Harris an opening. Which I applaud, of course.
In the pre-9.11 environment in the US, someone like a Harris or a Dawkins would have been brushed aside as a “kooky scientist egghead” whose rantings about atheism were so irrelevant as to be silly. Now, they’re basically saying the same things they did back then, but their POV is so much more relevant, even to believers.
Good points, Karen!
In my experience (as an outside observer going back and forth between the U.S. and the “Rest of the World”) it seems to me that there’s even a more recent context for the conversation. Or maybe it’s just the long-term effects of 9/11 but I really only notice it now, as in, the last year or so. That might have to do that prior to that, my experience of the U.S. was mostly in the MidWest (Indiana) but even in Massachusetts, I seem to hear progressively more and more talk about secularism and atheism in the context of peace-making. The initial phases of the Iraq invasion were conceived less religiously than it might be now (especially with the Shiite/Sunni issues), attacks on London also seem to have had an impact, along with the Israel/Hezbollah conflict, and the still relatively recent elections in Palestine, Iran, and the Vatican. The combination of all of these issues seems to prepare people to have a discussion about religiosity and war.
Actually, I teach cultural anthropology and religious wars tend to become a subject in our classes. In classes I gave the day after the 2004 election, religious wars were rapidly recuperated as a socio-political idea. More recently, students have seen religious wars as more of a global issue related to diplomacy and the influence of beliefs on social practise.
Again, my perspective is biased by my experience. But I really do sense a deepening of the reflections on negative effects from any kind of religious dogmatism.
Please allow me to be a bit more polemic here for a minute…
One thing that tends to annoy me a little is when people point to a specific belief system (say, Islam, Evangelical Christianity, or Catholicism) as being inherently conducive to bellicosity. Harris himself doesn’t always avoid this pitfall. In my mind, the same way that a religious background isn’t the necessary cause of morality, a specific belief system (religious or non-religious) is not a direct cause of immorality. Dogmatism exists with almost any belief system. It’s more obvious if that system is more exotic. Yet the belief system under much of Anglo-Saxon Protestant (Weberian work ethic) culture cuts so deeply into mainstream U.S. society (including many secular dimensions) that many people fail to see its impact and dogmatism.
Here is a link to the conversation going on at CaTE about a piece by Andrew Sullivan related to dogmatism in religion. I think it is quite relative to this one. Can somebody who knows more about links and stuff start a conversation at the Discussion Board with Alexandre’s thoughts? Maybe link Andrew Sullivan’s article too, if you think it is apropo?
In my mind, the same way that a religious background isn’t the necessary cause of morality, a specific belief system (religious or non-religious) is not a direct cause of immorality. Dogmatism exists with almost any belief system. It’s more obvious if that system is more exotic. Yet the belief system under much of Anglo-Saxon Protestant (Weberian work ethic) culture cuts so deeply into mainstream U.S. society (including many secular dimensions) that many people fail to see its impact and dogmatism.
Yes indeed. Thanks for sharing your thoughts here, Alexandre. It’s great to have you jump into the discussion.
Glad to see my thoughts weren’t misconstrued. These issues have been on my mind for a while now and they seem to be rather tricky.
Is the message board you’re talking about a specific part of the CatE forum?
[...] Maybe it comes from having been brought up in an open-minded French-Canadian Catholic environment (heavily-secularized, passionate post-Jesuits with strong mother figures) but I can really relate to a food philosophy that is both sensual and ethical. Max Weber’s Protestant Work Ethic notwithstanding, there’s something deep about connecting to life as both a pleasurable experience and a matter of helping each other out. Islam is actually very similar in this sense. And maybe the religious dimension of culture is just too much on my mind, these days, but this felt really good. [...]
[...] the eBay atheist » Blog Archive » Video: Sam Harris Interview In my mind, the same way that a religious background isn’t the necessary cause of morality, a specific belief system (religious or non-religious) is not a direct cause of immorality. Dogmatism exists with almost any belief system. It’s more obvious if that system is more exotic. Yet the belief system under much of Anglo-Saxon Protestant (Weberian work ethic) culture cuts so deeply into mainstream U.S. society (including many secular dimensions) that many people fail to see its impact and dogmatism. [...]
Comment by: David S
1Nice. He says a few things that need to be said clearly and politely.
Comment by: Early October Quickies « Disparate
2 10/1/06 7:52 PM | Comment Link |[...] the eBay atheist » Blog Archive » Video: Sam Harris Interview [...]
Comment by: Karen
3Harris was interviewed on NPR last week:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6166802
Apparently the interview attracted a huge response - bigger than they’ve had on any recent topic. Many letters supported Harris, but most of the responses were religious believers highly offended by his comments.
He’s supposed to be a guest on another NPR program, Talk of the Nation, tonight. The audio will be posted after it airs:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6181732
Comment by: Siamang
4That interview is there now, Karen.
Wow, that host seemed a little perterbed. I think it’s emblematic of Harris’s point that this is a taboo subject. His existence seemed threatening to her. She kept it together, but I heard some indignation behind her voice.
Which is Sam Harris’s point. We need to learn how to talk about these things.
Comment by: Karen
5Yes, that was one irked believer doing the interviewing. ;-) You could really hear it when she challenged him with some of the standard apologetic arguments. I thought Harris handled it well in terms of staying on point and not losing his focus.
I also liked his answers to the callers who brought up Communism and moderate beliefs.
Comment by: Siamang
6Yeah, the self-described Christians calling in seemed more thoughtful, less combative and less defensive than the host!
Comment by: Alexandre
7Actually, to me, while Michel Martin did sound rather defensive, she still seemed respectful and did allow Harris to state important things.
Defensiveness makes a lot of sense in this context. In my mind, it seems to be the typical reaction of people who actually listen to the arguments being made as opposed to those who stopped listening because they have made up their minds in advance.
Thing is, Harris is being portrayed as someone on an offensive mode. We can certainly understand that many believers may feel offended but, at least, the issue of secularism (whether or not it’s linked to atheism, agnosticism, or Brights) is slowly making its way into social discourse in the U.S. and elsewhere.
Harris’s point about taboos is interesting (after all, atheism is the object of the “second coming out”) but seems insufficient to explain the situation in the United States.
Here in Quebec, religion is also taboo (much more so than in the U.S., in fact) but it rarely becomes the basis for political discourse. Religious tolerance has recently been discussed to some length in relation to public life here (especially in schools), but even then, it doesn’t become a political issue in the same way as it does in federal politics in the U.S. (or even in federal politics in Stephen Harper’s Canada).
Apart from Western Europe and Canada, other parts of the world are quite secular. For instance, 90% of Malians are Muslims and Mali is linked to other parts of Islam the same way much of Western Europe is part of Christianity. Yet Malian political discourse is more secular than most federal politics in the U.S., IMHO.
As strong believers are agreeing to have this conversation on secularism and atheism, we can say that there’s hope for peaceful coexistence.
Comment by: Karen
8I agree. And since 9.11 more people are being forced to have this conversation, which gives people like Harris an opening. Which I applaud, of course.
In the pre-9.11 environment in the US, someone like a Harris or a Dawkins would have been brushed aside as a “kooky scientist egghead” whose rantings about atheism were so irrelevant as to be silly. Now, they’re basically saying the same things they did back then, but their POV is so much more relevant, even to believers.
Comment by: Alexandre
9Good points, Karen!
In my experience (as an outside observer going back and forth between the U.S. and the “Rest of the World”) it seems to me that there’s even a more recent context for the conversation. Or maybe it’s just the long-term effects of 9/11 but I really only notice it now, as in, the last year or so. That might have to do that prior to that, my experience of the U.S. was mostly in the MidWest (Indiana) but even in Massachusetts, I seem to hear progressively more and more talk about secularism and atheism in the context of peace-making. The initial phases of the Iraq invasion were conceived less religiously than it might be now (especially with the Shiite/Sunni issues), attacks on London also seem to have had an impact, along with the Israel/Hezbollah conflict, and the still relatively recent elections in Palestine, Iran, and the Vatican. The combination of all of these issues seems to prepare people to have a discussion about religiosity and war.
Actually, I teach cultural anthropology and religious wars tend to become a subject in our classes. In classes I gave the day after the 2004 election, religious wars were rapidly recuperated as a socio-political idea. More recently, students have seen religious wars as more of a global issue related to diplomacy and the influence of beliefs on social practise.
Again, my perspective is biased by my experience. But I really do sense a deepening of the reflections on negative effects from any kind of religious dogmatism.
Please allow me to be a bit more polemic here for a minute…
One thing that tends to annoy me a little is when people point to a specific belief system (say, Islam, Evangelical Christianity, or Catholicism) as being inherently conducive to bellicosity. Harris himself doesn’t always avoid this pitfall. In my mind, the same way that a religious background isn’t the necessary cause of morality, a specific belief system (religious or non-religious) is not a direct cause of immorality. Dogmatism exists with almost any belief system. It’s more obvious if that system is more exotic. Yet the belief system under much of Anglo-Saxon Protestant (Weberian work ethic) culture cuts so deeply into mainstream U.S. society (including many secular dimensions) that many people fail to see its impact and dogmatism.
Know yourself if you want to know others.
Comment by: Siamang
10Wow, great insight Alexandre!
Please join us on the message board, I imagine you have a lot of great perspective worth sharing.
Comment by: NCxian
11http://conversationattheedge.com/2006/10/05/when-not-seeing-is-believing/
Here is a link to the conversation going on at CaTE about a piece by Andrew Sullivan related to dogmatism in religion. I think it is quite relative to this one. Can somebody who knows more about links and stuff start a conversation at the Discussion Board with Alexandre’s thoughts? Maybe link Andrew Sullivan’s article too, if you think it is apropo?
Comment by: NCxian
12“Relative” above should probably be “relevant”!
Comment by: Ir
13Alexandre wrote:
Yes indeed. Thanks for sharing your thoughts here, Alexandre. It’s great to have you jump into the discussion.
Comment by: Alexandre
14Glad to see my thoughts weren’t misconstrued. These issues have been on my mind for a while now and they seem to be rather tricky.
Is the message board you’re talking about a specific part of the CatE forum?
Thanks a lot for your help!
Comment by: (Catholic) Sensual Ethic « Disparate
15 10/15/06 1:21 PM | Comment Link |[...] Maybe it comes from having been brought up in an open-minded French-Canadian Catholic environment (heavily-secularized, passionate post-Jesuits with strong mother figures) but I can really relate to a food philosophy that is both sensual and ethical. Max Weber’s Protestant Work Ethic notwithstanding, there’s something deep about connecting to life as both a pleasurable experience and a matter of helping each other out. Islam is actually very similar in this sense. And maybe the religious dimension of culture is just too much on my mind, these days, but this felt really good. [...]
Comment by: Secularism and Ethics « Disparate
16 10/15/06 3:36 PM | Comment Link |[...] the eBay atheist » Blog Archive » Video: Sam Harris Interview In my mind, the same way that a religious background isn’t the necessary cause of morality, a specific belief system (religious or non-religious) is not a direct cause of immorality. Dogmatism exists with almost any belief system. It’s more obvious if that system is more exotic. Yet the belief system under much of Anglo-Saxon Protestant (Weberian work ethic) culture cuts so deeply into mainstream U.S. society (including many secular dimensions) that many people fail to see its impact and dogmatism. [...]