Tag: peace

  • The offensiveness of Sam Harris

    This is likely to be the first of many posts in which I will criticize the atheistic worldview provided by Sam Harris. Harris is the author of two recent books:

    Letter to a Christian Nation and End Of Faith

    In a recent article in Newsweek, A Dissent: The Case Against Faith, Harris offers some interesting insights into Christianity.

    He mocks the faith of Christian believers by questioning some of the prophecy offered in the Bible. He calls it embarrassing. And he refers to the Christianity of his targets as nihilistic. Although he doesn’t cite any specific ministers in his article, I am sure that he can find some examples of Christian representatives that could back up his opinion. But that’s about as far as I think he could go with that… I think he would be hard pressed to find many Christians that loathe their current lives and that are just sitting waiting to die. In fact, I see plenty of activity coming from Christian Churches to help people live a better life in the here and now. That certainly goes against Harris’ claim, which he makes sound like a generalization, that Christians can hardly wait for the end times. Harris argues, “It should be clear that this faith-based nihilism provides its adherents with absolutely no incentive to build a sustainable civilization—economically, environmentally or geopolitically.” Last time I checked, there are numerous Christian individuals, congregations and organizations that are dedicating their time to doing just what Harris says Christians aren’t doing… namely, helping the poor, the sick and the downtrodden. This equalization of the economic masses doesn’t necessarily follow the typical capitalistic ethic, but it does not sound like the actions of a nihilistic end-of-world fanatic to me.

    Harris goes on to argue that “religious people will devote immense energy to so-called moral problems—such as gay marriage—where no real suffering is at issue, and they will happily contribute to the surplus of human misery if it serves their religious beliefs.” He then uses the example of stem cell research to back up his claim. His argument is frightening. In a nutshell, Harris diminishes the value of the beginning of human life, suggesting that early embryonic development does not necessarily constitute human life. His oversimplification of this debate is astounding. He criticizes Bush’s decision to veto stem cell research as a simple faith-based decision not to jeopardize the life of these early “souls”. Yet, Harris doesn’t feel the need to address the larger issue at all.

    The bigger picture around this whole debate is around the value of human life in general and where one should draw the line when considering medical advances. One recent discussion I read (sorry… the source isn’t readily available to me, but I’m sure a quick google search would provide plenty of hits) tries to debate when a human fetus begins to feel pain and thus, which abortive techniques to use to minimize the suffering of a human fetus. Crazy… In this argument, there’s a clear recognition that a fetus does feel pain at some point, and that scientifically, it is important to determine the boundary around which that pain development occurs. Yet, no absolute method currently exists to identify when exactly a fetus does experience pain. Similarly, some have argued that a fetus can be aborted up until the point in time when it could be viable outside of the womb. That particular point in time is different for each fetus as well.

    So the question becomes: at what point does a collection of cells become a human being. I don’t know about you, but I learned fairly early on that new life occurs when an egg is fertilized. I remember in elementary school watching a plant grow out of a small bean tucked against a glass with wet paper towel keeping it pressed against the glass. elementary school. Call me crazy, but would it have been ignorant or, to use Harris’ word, “embarrassing” to look at that sprouting bean and say it wasn’t a plant?
    Would it be any less trivial to look at a newly fetus and say it wasn’t a person? Tell me Sam, at what point does a person not become a person? And how does that differ from a seed that has been germinated? The signs of new life are there, regardless of the current form.

    Or maybe I’ve misunderstood… maybe it isn’t about this argument at all. Maybe it’s simply a utilitarian argument: we’ll use the weak for the betterment of society as a whole. In that case, how do you measure the worth of a newly germinated person, a fetus, a baby, a young child, a handicapped person, etc. against the worth of someone else in need of medical assistance? Are you suggesting that the murder of a few is worthwhile for the benefit of the many? In that case, would you be willing to sacrifice your life for “donate your body to science day” today so that the rest of society could benefit from the medical research that *might* result from your body? You’ve already told us that
    Where do you draw the line, Mr Harris? And, who decides the worthy and the unworthy in this decision? I’m listening for your enlightened response, Mr Harris. Where is your “genuine wisdom and compassion” that you complain that religious dogmatism lacks?

    The most curious part to me is the broad brush that Harris uses to paint Christianity. He generalizes, yet again, by arguing that Christians “safely enjoy a sacred genocide that will inaugurate the end of human history”. Yes, the Christian faith does look forward to the coming age of the Kingdom of God. But that doesn’t mean that we all look forward to fighting in the name of Jesus. Yes, some, maybe even many, Christians look to violence to solve their problems, but violence is far from the core message that Jesus offers in the New Testament. A better critique would be to suggest that Christians, in warfare, are going against Jesus’ expectations and that perhaps warfare should be reconsidered as an appropriate Christian response.

    I find it as repulsive as Harris does that religion should lead to violence. But doing away with religion entirely will not get rid of the violence. If anything, trying to focus on the core message of Jesus (peace and love) would be a more appropriate response.

    Consider Harris’ closing statement: “In a world brimming with increasingly destructive technology, our infatuation with religious myths now poses a tremendous danger. And it is not a danger for which more religious faith is a remedy.”

    I agree with the increasingly destructive technology, but I do not agree with the solution offered. I think that religious faith can be an important tool for reconciliation and peace. Consider the work of Jimmy Carter, the Mennonite Church, Christian Peacemakers, etc. in trying to make a difference even in the face of great danger.

    In any event… I’m sure I’ll have more to say later. I think I’ve said enough for one night. Don’t take my word for this though. Do read Sam Harris. And I’m sure you’ll come to the same conclusions I’ve drawn. His arguments are shallow, lacking in compassion and short on wisdom.

    Todd Dow

    Additional links pertaining to this entry:

    Pro Sam Harris: The Atheist Manifestos I: Letter to a Christian Nation (2006)

    Con Sam Harris: Letters: Morality and AIDS, Turkey and the EU, America’s vote

    And I’m sure there are plenty of others… these are just two examples.

  • Interfaith Dialogue?

    Yes, this is a crazy suggestion, especially in today’s heated theological climate. But, it’s an important and valid idea, especially when we consider the line of reasoning. Consider this…

    David Warren, a writer for the Ottawa Citizen, provided some comments last week pertaining to the current conflict between the Catholic Church and Islam. As we’re all aware, Pope Benedict’s speech at Regensburg a little while ago hasn’t been sitting too well with many Muslims. Well… it sounds like a group of Muslim leaders have provided a coherent, civil and well-timed response that accepts the Pope’s clarifications to his original comments. And, those same Muslim leaders also “applauded his call for dialogue”. As with the Christian calling for peace, these Muslim leaders cited some scripture of their own in defense of the pacifist messages of their respective religions:

    Christianity – Mark 12:29-31: “‘The most important one’, answered Jesus, ‘is this: Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your sould and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ The second is this: ‘Love your neighbour as yourself.’ There is no commandment greater than these.”

    Islam – Surah 2:256: “Let there be no compulsion in religion: truth stands out clear from error: whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy handhold, that never breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth all things.

    Warren argues that both Christianity and Islam are religions of love, which hits the nail right on the head. Neither religion has, at its heart, hatred or evil intentions. Both religions only want what is best for its participants. Thus, it is important to keep focused on the path to peace and love that both of these religions hold as their fundamental principles.

    I urge you to consider the impact of this radical idea of love… Is it more effective to approach someone who differs in opinion from you with love or hatred? If you are defending Christianity which has a message of love at its core, can you represent it well without showing love? Are you acting out the life that you have been called to live as a Christian if you disregard the loving embrace that Jesus has met us with? I think not! In fact, wouldn’t it be counter-productive to represent a religion of love by waving a banner of violence? That sounds a bit hypocritical if you ask me.

    In my human weakness, I find it difficult to show love for my fellow man on a daily basis. I sometimes trip and fall. But, I remind myself of the great commandment and Jesus’ direction to us all: “Love your neighbour as yourself.”

    If only more people reminded themselves of this simple rule… Life would be so much more peaceful.

    Todd Dow

    Reference material for this article:

    David Warren’s article: Now We’re Talking

    Pope Benedict XVI’s Speech at Regensburg

    Open Letter to Pope Benedict XVI from leading Muslim Scholars and Leaders

  • Choose Pacifism

    Religious fundamentalism is at the heart of many of today’s problems. Taking religious absolute truths and using them to judge others has led to severe consequences, and the teachings of history have done little to ward off this same fanatical persecution in the present.

    Today, we see Muslims killing in the name of Allah. We hear the rallying cry of the Christian Right in the West. We feel the judgmental finger waving of the atheistic scientific community. The list goes on and on. The problem here is that everyone believes that they are right. Funny though… out of all of the possible “right viewpoints” in the world, how is one to determine which one is really correct?

    And therein lies the rub. Academics use the term pluralism to explain our individual “rights”. They say that everyone is entitled to their own version of “reality”. And really, I don’t see a problem with that. Each one of us does look at the world slightly differently. As an eldest child, I look at my upbringing as a tangle of rules, responsibilities and heightened expectations. I view my younger sister’s experience as a life of Riley, so to speak, where she ignored the rules, flouted responsibility and abhorred any sense of expectation from her parents and peers. And, I’m willing to bet that my sister sees our upbringing in another, totally different, light.

    And that’s fine with me. So we perceive things differently. I won’t get all bent out of shape about it. In fact, I welcome the opportunity to hear how others perceived our growing up years. There’s nothing like hearing your own experiences told through someone else’s eyes. Others are likely to pick up on details that you miss, and that makes the story that much more exciting.

    Unfortunately, sometimes the story will turn on me. I wasn’t always a model son or brother. In fact, there are a million little memories burned into my mind of times that I let everyone down and hurt my family and friends. I regret these times, but I can’t take them back. All I can hope for is forgiveness. And I’m lucky… as far as I can tell, I’ve left no lasting scars and my family still likes me and accepts me for who I am and for what I’ve done.

    There are times in my life where families butt heads. There are different versions of the same story. Each person sees things slightly differently. The blame is placed on different people at different points in the story. Everyone feels that it wasn’t their fault. What to do then? How do you resolve those types of situations? Does each family member hold on to their own version, refusing to think, even for a minute, that what they experienced was the only possible way that things could have played out? And really, even if their version was completely right, does that still mean that the family should drive a wedge between each other, just for the sake of being right?

    At the end of the day, right or wrong, aren’t we still part of a whole? We’re all part of the same family. Mom, Dad, sister, brother… and that’s just one combination. There are numerous different kinds, styles and sizes of families. But what should come of a family in crisis? Do they disagree just for the sake of being right, thus jeopardizing the health of the family? Unfortunately, some families do fragment from this type of approach. Looking from the outside in, most people look at those situations and feel disappointment and sadness that a family could allow itself to get to that breaking point. I can’t think of many people that celebrate the break-up of a family. Can you?

    For the sake of the family, compromises are often made. Sometimes people agree to disagree. But seldom do we see families that mediate disputes by killing a family member that refuses to tow the family line. Can you think of any justified reasons for doing this? I certainly can’t. Sometimes it is necessary to restrain family members. In cases of abuse and neglect, it is sometimes even necessary to remove harmful family members. But to condone or even encourage the use of violence to “correct” difficult situations would be completely contradictory, especially as a retaliation for past violence. Physically retaliating or killing an abusive family member would only reinforce the message that violence is the right way to control a situation, which is what that abusive family member may have been trying to do in the first place.

    Instead, don’t we want our families to heal? Don’t we want to regain a sense of normalcy and decency within our families? Isn’t it more enjoyable to love than to hate?

    This is where we find ourselves with religion. Rightly or wrongly, we find ourselves on different sides of the same debate. All sides are arguing for the truthfulness of their own arguments. But unfortunately, all sides are claiming the same divine inspiration. Everyone feels that their own view is right and everyone else is wrong. The focus from all sides is: I’m right and they’re all wrong.

    But really, haven’t we lost sight of the bigger picture when we focus on that question? In each of these religions, we see a similar divine message of love and peace. Christianity is bounded in the pacifist message of Jesus. Islam also contains this same message of peace. And grounding both of these Abrahamic religions is Judaism, which also strives for peace under the guidance of God. Looking further East, we see the pacifist teachings of Buddhism and other Eastern philosophies. With so many dominant world religions all touting the same message of peace, why do we find ourselves in such a state of turmoil? Isn’t it just a little contradictory to fight in the name of peace? Will killing you make me a more peaceful individual? I think not. Now that our fight is over, it might make me more peaceful for a little while. But what happens when someone else disagrees with me? Or what happens when your brother finds out what I did? Well… then we’re back at it again. Instead, why not try to come to terms with your disagreements? Why not try to resolve it the way we would with our immediate family members? Try to peacefully convince one another. Agree to disagree. At worst, agree not to talk about it anymore.

    But is it really fair to try to convince someone through violence and if that doesn’t work, to kill them? Will that convince them? Violent coercion is nothing more than torture until you hear what you want to hear. But that doesn’t mean that the person on the receiving end of the torture means what they say. In most cases, they just want the pain to stop. Can you blame them? And killing them… that will definitely not convince them otherwise. And even if it did, how would you then know?

    And furthermore, who gives you the right to judge me? Isn’t that God’s job? Last time I checked, judgment is the sole domain of our creator as our final judge. Yes, we do need to ensure there is peace and order during our short lifetimes, but that doesn’t mean that we go overboard. In the family unit, is it the father’s responsibility to kill an unruly child? I think not. By the same vein, it’s not our place to kill one another in the name of judgment either. At best, a loving father should be able to help guide a troubled child and to help them find their way in the world. This vision of forgiveness, teaching and rehabilitation sounds much more favorable to me. What do you think?

    So come on now… be serious about your faith. If you’re following a religion of peace, does it make sense to kill in its name? And, do you really think you’re convincing anyone when you do that? And most importantly, do you think that your God of love and peace will look favorably upon you when you show up at his doorstep? As far as I know, heaven is supposed to be a place of love, peace and celebration. That doesn’t strike me as the kind of place where people will reminisce about the number of people they killed in order to “join the club”.

    Give this some serious thought. If you want to send a message about the power and glory of your religion, set an example. If your example is one of violence and persecution, is that really where you’re at? Look at the core of your message. Think hard about where your religion would be in a perfect world. Strive to live out that message. Focus on yourself. Live by example. It’s hard for others to fault you if you do that. And if others do find fault, a pacifist response will make it even harder for them to justify a violent response. Raise the bar: Set the example. I can think of no better way to convince others than through living the life that you’d like others to follow. And if you’re reading the same texts that I am, then I’m guessing you’ll want to convey love and peace to those around you too.

    Todd Dow