.jpg)
E-mail
Print
RSS
G-bookmarks
Live
TechnoratiHarris would have Americans ban all belief in God from the public square and the culture. Insofar as Christians look to the Bible as the revealed authority, they must be marginalized. After summarizing the Bible's teachings against homosexuality, Harris presents his argument with full force: "What should we conclude from all this? That whatever their import to people of faith, ancient religious texts shouldn't form the basis of social policy in the 21st century. The Bible was written at a time when people thought the Earth was flat, when the wheelbarrow was high tech. Are its teachings applicable to the challenges we now face as a global civilization?" Believers are "the genuine enemies of civilization," Harris argues, and religious tolerance--much less religious liberty--is simply too high a price to pay.
As a matter of fact, Harris aims his sharpest criticism at those who would pose as "moderates" in matters of faith. Those who seek to accommodate theistic faith with the claims of modern culture "are themselves the bearers of a terrible dogma." Furthermore, they blind themselves to the fact that they are lying to themselves and misrepresenting their faith.
In other words, Harris argues that one may be liberal or religious, but not both. Take Christianity for example. Liberal theologians and self-styled moderates have sought to accommodate Christianity's central truth claims with the worldview of secularism. Nevertheless, Harris correctly describes their predicament. "The first thing to observe about the moderates' retreat from scriptural literalism is that it draws its inspiration not from Scripture but from cultural developments that have rendered many of God's utterances difficult to accept as written."
Thus, moderates seek to argue that the authoritative text, the Bible, should be "reinterpreted" in light of modern knowledge and sensitivities. These efforts fail to remove the underlying problem, Harris insists. At the same time, the accomodationists destroy the very faith they claim to be attempting to save. "This is a problem for 'moderation' in religion," Harris argues, "It has nothing underwriting it other than the unacknowledged neglect of the letter of the divine law."
While believers place their trust in God and believe in life after death, "religious moderation consists in not being too sure about what happens after death." Nevertheless, even religious liberals pay lip service to vague promises concerning the afterlife and ambiguous assertions concerning God and his purposes in the world.
In Harris's view, this amounts to an exercise in mass self-delusion on the part of religious moderates. Furthermore, the very existence of supposed moderates in matters of faith provides cover for what Harris alleges is the heart of the problem--the very idea of belief in God. As he explains, "Religious moderation still represents a failure to criticize the unreasonable (and dangerous) certainty of others."
Those on the secularist side who fail to take their argument to its ultimate conclusion also come under Harris's condemnation. Moderate believers and moderate secularists are, in his view, combined as a massive obstacle to human progress. Religious beliefs are not to be fixed, Harris asserts, nor are beliefs to be merely tolerated. Sam Harris believes that civilization must eradicate belief in God--nothing less will do. Continue »
