An unreasonable project

[bjorn]

Sam Harris seems to have spawned a new site, dedicated to Reason's heroic battle against Dogma, at www.reasonproject.org/

So far little meat and a few puzzling articles (not the least as they are not that negative about religion), though I imagine this will soon be amended, as there is even set up something that seems to intended as a Bible Bashing Zone (or Baibazoo as they say in Battersea).

[humphreyclarke]

Not a lot on here yet. All they seem to have got around to doing is a newfeed section which filters pro-religion articles into a 'hall of shame' section and the anti-religion ones to the top. There is a link to a Frank Zappa performance on youtube, a forum with only a couple of posts in it and a few sacrilegious cartoons. Looks like it has a long way to go if its to reach the dizzy heights of 'Richard Dawkins.net' and 'Internet Infidels'. This bit here seems to be a rip off of 'The Skeptics Annotated Bible:

www.reasonproject.org/scripture_project/The_Bible:Genesis_1/

One interesting thing, they seem to have paid quite some attention to the neuroscience of belief. This will be the next big battleground, with faith portrayed as a parasitic infection that takes over the host; the 'Quatermas and the Pit' hypothesis.

Crickey!

www.reasonproject.org/reason_project_video_contest1/

$10,000!

Anyone own a video camera?

[humphreyclarke]

May 11, 2009 8:42:41 GMT humphreyclarke said:

This bit here seems to be a rip off of 'The Skeptics Annotated Bible:

www.reasonproject.org/scripture_project/The_Bible:Genesis_1/

Ah, my mistake

Steve Wells, creator of the Skeptics Annotated Bible, Qur’an, and Book of Mormon has generously donated the full contents of his website to the Reason Project. Using this as a foundation, we intend to make the Scripture Project the best source for scriptural criticism on the Internet.

I must admit I quite enjoyed their online Qur'an. Allah is certainly not a fan of unbelievers, in fact most of the part I have read seems to be a long monologue about how he is going to pack them off to the incineration unit.

[jamierobertson]

Then again, humphrey, what would we say about folk who based their whole concept of God on the Skeptic's Annotated Bible?

[humphreyclarke]

www.reasonproject.org/newsfeed/item/how_much_reason_do_you_want/

Well, the Reason Project didn't exactly get a great write up by Nature. I thought this was pretty sensible:

What the Reason Project has in its favour is philosophical rigour. That may also be its failing, because it looks unlikely to venture beyond those walls. Like most Utopian ideas, atheistic absolutism works as long as it ignores what people are like and remains in a cultural and historical vacuum. Logical neatness and self-consistency are, unfortunately, not enough.

I’m glad people make it their business to expose bigotry and oppression. If some choose to focus on instances where those things are religiously motivated — well, why not? But it seems important to acknowledge that the supposed conflict between science and faith is actually not that big a deal.

What is a big deal is the relatively recent strength of fundamentalist opposition to selected aspects of scientific thought, which has made the United States and Turkey (see ‘Turkey censors evolution’) the two Western countries with the lowest proportion of population who believe in evolution.

In other words, this is not a matter of science versus faith, but of the rejection of scientific ideas that challenge power structures. After all, fundamentalism rarely objects to technology per se, and indeed is often disturbingly keen to acquire it. That’s not to minimize the problem, but recognizing it for what it is will avoid false dichotomies, and perhaps make it easier to find solutions.

Of course the 'Reason Project' has put the article in their Hall of Shame section. So it is fine to promote reason, just so long as it doesn't conflict with anything you say.

[jamierobertson]

URG.

I don't usually do this (and I'll probably regret it later, but I had to do it incase there are any impartial observers reading that site...) but I've stuck up a reply to TRP'S posting of Philip Ball's review.

Folks, how on earth do we get people away from this "religion must = blind faith" axiom that seems to be everywhere?

[eckadimmock]

I think my favourite Harris quote is "Some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them."

Here's a comment on him: www.lewrockwell.com/orig8/theroux1.html

Theroux notes "However, what has somehow been overlooked, until now, is that Harris not only believes in reincarnation, Buddhism, Hinduism, and a wide assortment of New Age mysticism, but in abandoning what he considers to be the "immorality" of Christianity and its teachings of natural moral law and the universal rights of mankind, he alternatively supports water-boarding and other forms of torture so long as such practices are used against Muslims and others he disapproves of. "
Hitchens is another one who slams religion for being violent while cheering on military operations against nonsecular nations. Honestly, some people have no sense of irony.

Harris explains himself here but some of these justifications look frankly evasive. His justification of torture seems to make Theroux's point.

[Mike D]

The equating of religious belief with blind faith is (I think) unlikely to go away - after all, if it's been around in its more modern form since Hume, Paine and Voltaire, so it will probably always exist as at least a minority view. The concept that faith is blind is of course an integral part of some people's worldview (like an article of faith) and they don't like such views challenged, especially when they see an (apparent) victory in the widespread popularity in New Atheist literature.

I think we just have to be patient and keep refuting rubbish when we see it online or published. There will always be some who are too inured in their views to take it on board, and some who just can't be @rsed thinking about the whole thing and will stay on the New Atheist bandwagon, but I think there are enough reasonable people out there who will realise that strident atheism (as opposed to 'considered atheism') isn't saying very much, and that maybe, just maybe, Christianity has something to it.

Mike

[humphreyclarke]

Quite an amusing exchange here between Philip Ball and Sam Harris

www.reasonproject.org/archive/item/debate_001_sam_harris_v_philip_ball3/

It's amusing to note how quickly Sam Harris is working to alienate everyone with his silly little project (which to date only consists of the sceptics annotated bible and a bunch of cartoons)

You will note that the OT has been upgraded from Bronze Age Superstition to 'Iron Age Nonsense'.

[jamierobertson]

Shame on you, Humphrey! How dare you call it the Skeptic's Annotated Bible, with all the hilarity and ridicule from educated people that the title brings with it! I'll have you know, it's "The Scripture Project", now, and it's "the preeminent source for scriptural criticism on the Internet".

Aherm.

[humphreyclarke]

Ah my mistake!. I thought it was just the same old sceptic's annotated bible with a new skin and a few extra sarcastic comments added to it. I had no idea it was a serious project devoted to 'Higher Criticism' in the mode of the Tübingen School.

[unkleE]

Quite an amusing exchange here between Philip Ball and Sam Harris

I suppose amusing, but actually quite scary. Sam doesn't seem to realise that he is almost a mirror reverse of a fundamentalist christian So many of the same characteristics - almost frothing-at-the-mouth moral indignation, absolute certainty, a high sense of moral purpose and an almost complete overlooking of anything positive that could be said for his opponents' viewpoint. We should truly be deeply worried if the Sam Harrises of this world ever gain government (just as some of us were worried when a fundamentalist christian gained government!)!

It is interesting that he does not hide away in shrinking semi-agnosticism like so many internet atheists - there is no more evidence for God than the tooth fairy, so why believe either. No Sam knows with scientific rigour that no God exists, Jesus could not possibly have been raised from the dead, and anyone who believes otherwise cannot have any scientific credibility. All religious belief can be summed up as "incoherence, wishful thinking, and dogmatism". He does not even need to point to an atom of an argument for these statements because all coherent, right thinking and undogmatic people know them all ready.

I wonder has he ever debated with WL Craig or Alvin Plantinga or the like. I'm sure their philosophical rigour would not dent his confidence, but they might teach him something - even Richard carrier admitted he "lost" the debate with Craig, but hoped he'd learnt from it.

I wonder too whether scientists should be judged by other irrational beliefs, e.g. that their wife/husband really loves them despite this never having been demonstrated to 95% confidence limits, that voting for a politician may actually change the world for the good, or that venting one's spleen in writing is likely to change anything.

I would definitely fail the test - I follow a football team that has never won the premiership, and every year finds new ways to self destruct - truly incoherent and wishful thinking.

I think there is only one good thing to be said. Most people don't seem to care as much about these issues as even Phil Ball does, and most are turned off by such ranting just as they are turned off by similar rantings from televangelists and the like - in both cases, they tend to only impress the faithful. Perhaps, eventually, both species will be superseded.

[humphreyclarke]

This was amusing:

'The argument that there is no deep conflict between scientific rationality and religious faith because some scientists are religious, and all religious people value some science, is a false one—and it has become a stultifying shibboleth. Is there generally no conflict between marriage and adultery simply because the two are so often found together? Would it matter if the BioLechery Foundation produced adulterers who could attest, without blinking, to their clarity of conscience? The analogy isn’t perfect, but perhaps you see my point. The cuckold, incidentally, is not merely science itself, but everyone everywhere, and those yet unborn. Who knows how much better our world would be if we had birthed a culture of genuine intellectual honesty in the year 1200'

Western Europe did birth a culture of genuine intellectual honesty around the year 1200!.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renaissance_of_the_12th_century

What kind of culture would he have preferred?. One that would have denied the existence of God? We could probably have kissed goodbye to natural philosophy if that had emerged.

[knowingthomas]

Iron Age Nonsense instead of Bronze Age Superstition? I guess Harris discovered JEDP!