[extropy-chat] Books: Harris; Religion and Reason

[The Avantguardian]

--- Robert Bradbury <robert.bradbury at gmail.com> wrote:

> Sam Harris [. . .] made ~5 arguments
> against the tolerance by
> rational individuals of religious based perspectives
> (be they Christan
> fundamentalism or Muslim).  One of his perspectives
> seemed to revolve around
> the fact that all religions are *not* equal and we
> should stop pretending
> that they are.
> He asked the fundamental question of
> "Where are the Buddhist
> suicide bombers?" (given the extent to which the
> Buddhists have been abused
> by the Chinese)

Well I imagine a good number of them are lying at
bottom of Pearl Harbor somewhere near the Arizona
Memorial. Don't get me wrong, I have a great deal of
respect for the Buddhist philosophy which has had a
huge impact on my world view, but to believe that
there is something inherently pacifist about ALL
Buddhism is to ignore Buddhism's historical context.
Remember that various sects of Buddhism have easily
had as great an effect on Asian military tradition as
Christianity has had on Western military tradition.

>From the Shaolin warrior monks of China to the Zen
Buddhist influence on the Budo arts of Imperial Japan,
Buddhism has served the violent ends of the states
that have sponsored it as readily as Islam or any
other religion.  While one can say that the Buddhist
teachings extol the virtues of peace and advocate
violence only in the cause of self-defense, one could
likewise defend Christianity on the grounds that,
amongst other platitudes, it advocates turning the
other cheek. 

The fact of the matter is, Buddhism like every other
religion, has had a severe disconnect between its
preachings and its historical practice. Is this a
fault of the meme or a limitation of the minds that
hold it? I believe it is the latter. The same can be
said of any other religion exploited by those with the
will to incite the gullible to violence for personal
gain. I am not certain that the eradication of
religion will solve this.

People can become fanatical about almost anything.
Take away religion and the war-mongers will utilize
something else to bring death and destruction into the
world. Nationalism, Rock Concerts, and Soccer Games
can all be used to incite the suggestable to violence
against their neighbors. Let us not forget that the
ancient Pythagoreans used math as an excuse to murder
those who had the temerity to believe that the square
roots of certain numbers could not be rendered as
perfect fractions.      

, or to an even greater extent "Where
> are the Jain
> militants?" (Jain's are an Indian religion that he
> suggested were extremely
> non-violent in their beliefs).

Well this is like asking, "Where are the dodos?". They
died out. MOST LIKELY because of their entirely
pacifist ways. If your religion dictates that you
should rather die than step on bug, you and your
religion are not long for this world.

> His fundamental position seemed to be that the
> traditional position of
> "tolerance" by "moderates" for religious extremism,
> particularly that which
> is fundamentally unextropic, and particularly that
> which is based on the
> acceptance of irrational perspectives, should be
> discontinued.

But all fanaticism is irrational even when the memes
one is fanatical about are rational. Nazism was
heavily influenced by Neitsche's nihilism which was a
RATIONAL philosophy and state-enforced rational
atheism did not prevent Stalin from killing millions
in the former USSR.

>  I.e. it is
> no longer acceptable for one to reject active forms
> of the destruction of
> information (e.g. suicide bombers) but one must
> extend that to passive forms
> of the destruction of information (e.g. irrational
> religions).

Well I am not sure how responsible irrational
religions are for the passive destruction of
information. While I am against the religiously
motivated burning of books, I don't think that simply
believing in one after-life or another suffices as a
mechanism of information destruction.
 
> If there are those who would like to support my
> renomination to the ExI
> Board based on the platform that all information as
> is feasible should be
> preserved and that the execution of programs which
> seek to destroy
> information without a substantive argument that such
> information is
> worthless (i.e. a legitimate reason to erase
> information rather than simply
> an unjustified assertion that one religion is right
> and another is wrong)
> should be terminated, I would be willing to accept
> such a nomination.

Who gets to judge the worth of the information? For
that matter HOW does one judge the worth of
information? Should it be sheer rationality? Much of
beautiful literature is not necessarily rational.
Alice in Wonderland isn't a very rational story.
Should it be banned? What is the worth of a platypus?
Is the platypus rational? I am against the elimination
of the platypus regardless of possible answers to
these questions. If there was a platypus cult that
believed that the platypus was nature's most perfect
organism and all had to worship it or die, I might
tell the cultists to bugger off but I would still be
against the elimination of the platypus.

That the platypus can be exploited by the cultists to
further their own power has no bearing on the
intrinsic worth of the platypus. Does my support of
the platypus makes me complicit in the abhorrent
conduct of the platypus cultists? I don't think so.   

>  Note carefully, that I am *not* saying that the
> information potentially contained
> in external programs should be erased (e.g. current
> forms of capital
> punishment)

As opposed to future or past forms of capital
punishment? Talk about euphemisms. :) 

> -- I am simply saying that the execution
> of programs that would
> intentionally erase information without a really
> good (proven) reason should
> cease execution.

Is simple competition for mind-share a good reason for
one program to erase another? If not, then is hunger a
good reason for the human program to erase the chicken
program? Or the chicken program to erase the
grasshopper program?
 
> So, in some respects, I am throwing my glove down to
> the ExI board . . .

I am not a member of the ExI board, so I will bow out
at this point. Suffice it to say that I think
tolerance is a postive virtue within limits.
Tolerating an idea and the person who holds it is one
thing but tolerating those who would use that idea as
an excuse to do harm to others, especially me, is
another matter entirely. For what it is worth, I am
not opposed to your reinstatement on the board,
provided you realize that some sentiments, no matter
how coldly rational they may seem to you, should only
be communicated by private channels.

On an email list such as this, freedom of expression
must be tempered with an eye for public propriety
because, by proxy, more than your own personal
reputation is at stake. Feel free to privately email
me with whatever floats your boat, however, as you
will find me a bit more indulgent when not in the
public eye.


The Avantguardian 
is 
Stuart LaForge
alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu

"The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: his eyes are closed. . ."

- Albert Einstein, "What I Believe" (1930)


		
__________________________________________ 
Yahoo! DSL – Something to write home about. 
Just $16.99/mo. or less. 
dsl.yahoo.com