doodah - 14-12-2005 at 23:23
Ayer echaron en REDES un programa sobre por qué el tipo de creencias que fomenta la religión es perjudicial.
Si queréis leer la entrevista:
http://www.rtve.es/tve/b/redes/semanal/prg377/entrevista.htm
Una cita de Harris:
doodah - 14-12-2005 at 23:24
Sam Harris:
La situación es que, tomemos mi país, los Estados Unidos, por un momento, literalmente el 44% de los estadounidenses creen que Jesús volverá a la
Tierra, bajará literalmente de las nubes como un superhéroe para salvar el mundo, en algún momento de su vida, en algún momento en los próximos 50
años. El 22% de los estadounidenses afirman estar seguros de que esto es verdad; y otro 22% cree que posiblemente sea verdad. En los próximos 50 años.
Sin - 29-12-2005 at 15:43
Hola, doodah.
Quizá este vínculo al sitio de este filósofo os interese. Lo malo es que está en inglés...
http://www.samharris.org/
Saludos 
Sam Harris is the author of the international bestseller, The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason. He is a graduate in philosophy
from Stanford University and has studied both Eastern and Western religious traditions, along with a variety of spiritual disciplines, for twenty
years. Mr. Harris is now completing a doctorate in neuroscience, studying the neural basis of belief, disbelief, and uncertainty with functional
magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). His work has been discussed in The New York Times, The Los Angeles Times, The San Francisco Chronicle, The Chicago
Tribune, The Economist, The Guardian, The Independent, The Globe and Mail, The Toronto Star, and many other journals. Mr. Harris makes regular
appearances on television and radio to discuss the risks that religion now poses to modern societies. The End of Faith won the 2005 PEN Award for
Nonfiction. Several foreign editions are in press. Mr, Harris can be reached through his website at www.samharris.org.
(De un blog)
[Modificado el 29-12-2005 de Sin]
Entrevista (en inglés)
Sin - 29-12-2005 at 15:46
Aquí os dejo el vínculo: Los peligros mortales de la fe religiosa.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/feature/-/542154/002-83...
Críticas de prensa (Book Reviews)
Sin - 29-12-2005 at 15:50
The New York Times:
September 5, 2004
Against Toleration
By NATALIE ANGIER
THE END OF FAITH
Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason.
By Sam Harris.
336 pp. W. W. Norton & Company. $24.95.
When I was 8 years old, my family was in a terrible car accident, and my older brother almost died. The next night, as I lay scared and sleepless on
my paternal grandmother's living-room couch, she softly explained to me who was to blame. Not my father's Aunt Estelle, a dour, aging wild woman and
devout Baptist, who, as usual, was driving recklessly fast. No, the reason Estelle's station wagon flipped over and Joe was thrown out the back window
was this: my father had stopped going to church the previous year, and God was very, very angry.
Dear old Grandma June. A compelling lack of evidence for any sort of Higher Power may have steered my mind toward atheism, but she put the heathen in
my heart.
It's not often that I see my florid strain of atheism expressed in any document this side of the Seine, but ''The End of Faith'' articulates the
dangers and absurdities of organized religion so fiercely and so fearlessly that I felt relieved as I read it, vindicated, almost personally
understood. Sam Harris presents major religious systems like Judaism, Christianity and Islam as forms of socially sanctioned lunacy, their fundamental
tenets and rituals irrational, archaic and, important when it comes to matters of humanity's long-term survival, mutually incompatible. A doctoral
candidate in neuroscience at the University of California, Los Angeles, Harris writes what a sizable number of us think, but few are willing to say in
contemporary America: ''We have names for people who have many beliefs for which there is no rational justification. When their beliefs are extremely
common, we call them 'religious'; otherwise, they are likely to be called 'mad,' 'psychotic' or 'delusional.' '' To cite but one example: ''Jesus
Christ -- who, as it turns out, was born of a virgin, cheated death and rose bodily into the heavens -- can now be eaten in the form of a cracker. A
few Latin words spoken over your favorite Burgundy, and you can drink his blood as well. Is there any doubt that a lone subscriber to these beliefs
would be considered mad?'' The danger of religious faith, he continues, ''is that it allows otherwise normal human beings to reap the fruits of
madness and consider them holy.''
Right now, if you are even vaguely observant, or have friends or grandmothers who are, you may be feeling not merely irritated, as you would while
reading a political columnist with whom you disagree, but deeply offended. You may also think it inappropriate that a mainstream newspaper be seen as
obliquely condoning an attack on religious belief. That reaction, in Harris's view, is part of the problem. ''Criticizing a person's faith is
currently taboo in every corner of our culture. On this subject, liberals and conservatives have reached a rare consensus: religious beliefs are
simply beyond the scope of rational discourse. Criticizing a person's ideas about God and the afterlife is thought to be impolitic in a way that
criticizing his ideas about physics or history is not.''
A zippered-lip policy would be fine, a pleasant display of the neighborly tolerance that we consider part of an advanced democracy, Harris says, if
not for the mortal perils inherent in strong religious faith. The terrorists who flew jet planes into the World Trade Center believed in the holiness
of their cause. The Christian apocalypticists who are willing to risk a nuclear conflagration in the Middle East for the sake of expediting the second
coming of Christ believe in the holiness of their cause. In Harris's view, such fundamentalists are not misinterpreting their religious texts or
ideals. They are not defaming or distorting their faith. To the contrary, they are taking their religion seriously, attending to the holy texts on
which their faith is built. Unhappily for international comity, the Good Books that undergird the world's major religions are extraordinary
anthologies of violence and vengeance, celestial decrees that infidels must die.
In the 21st century, Harris says, when swords have been beaten into megaton bombs, the persistence of ancient, blood-washed theisms that emphasize
their singular righteousness and their superiority over competing faiths poses a genuine threat to the future of humanity, if not the biosphere: ''We
can no longer ignore the fact that billions of our neighbors believe in the metaphysics of martyrdom, or in the literal truth of the book of
Revelation,'' he writes, ''because our neighbors are now armed with chemical, biological and nuclear weapons.''
Harris reserves particular ire for religious moderates, those who ''have taken the apparent high road of pluralism, asserting the equal validity of
all faiths'' and who ''imagine that the path to peace will be paved once each of us has learned to respect the unjustified beliefs of others.''
Religious moderates, he argues, are the ones who thwart all efforts to criticize religious literalism. By preaching tolerance, they become intolerant
of any rational discussion of religion and ''betray faith and reason equally.''
Harris, no pure materialist, acknowledges the human need for a mystical dimension to life, and he conveys something of a Buddhist slant on the nature
of consciousness and reality. But he believes that mysticism, like other forms of knowledge, can be approached rationally and explored with the tools
of modern neuroscience, without recourse to superstition and credulity.
''The End of Faith'' is far from perfect. Harris seems to find ''moral relativism'' as great a sin as religious moderation, and in the end he singles
out Islam as the reigning threat to humankind. He likens it to the gruesome, Inquisition-style Christianity of the 13th century, yet he never explains
how Christianity became comparatively domesticated. And on reading his insistence that it is ''time for us to admit that not all cultures are at the
same stage of moral development,'' I couldn't help but think of Ann Coulter's morally developed suggestion that we invade Muslim countries, kill their
leaders and convert their citizens to Christianity.
Harris also drifts into arenas of marginal relevance to his main thesis, attacking the war against drugs here, pacificism there, and offering a
strained defense for the use of torture in wartime that seems all the less persuasive after Abu Ghraib. Still, this is an important book, on a topic
that, for all its inherent difficulty and divisiveness, should not be shielded from the crucible of human reason.
Natalie Angier has written about atheism and science for The Times, The American Scholar and elsewhere.
[Modificado el 29-12-2005 de Sin]
Un pasaje de "The End of Faith": El problema de los moderados
Sin - 29-12-2005 at 15:57
The Problem with Religious Moderates
We can no longer afford the luxury of political correctness. When religion causes violence, its root claims must be challenged.
By Sam Harris
Reprinted from The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason with permission of W.W. Norton & Company, Inc.
People of faith fall on a continuum: some draw solace and inspiration from a specific spiritual tradition, and yet remain fully committed to tolerance
and diversity, while others would burn the earth to cinders if it would put an end to heresy. There are, in other words, religious moderates and
religious extremists, and their various passions and projects should not be confused. However, religious moderates are themselves the bearers of a
terrible dogma: they imagine that the path to peace will be paved once each of us has learned to respect the unjustified beliefs of others. I hope to
show that the very ideal of religious tolerance-born of the notion that every human being should be free to believe whatever he wants about God-is one
of the principal forces driving us toward the abyss.
We have been slow to recognize the degree to which religious faith perpetuates man's inhumanity to man. This is not surprising, since many of us still
believe that faith is an essential component of human life. Two myths now keep faith beyond the fray of rational criticism, and they seem to foster
religious extremism and religious moderation equally: (i) most of us believe that there are good things that people get from religious faith (e.g.,
strong communities, ethical behavior, spiritual experience) that cannot be had elsewhere; (2) many of us also believe that the terrible things that
are sometimes done in the name of religion are the products not of faith per se but of our baser natures-forces like greed, hatred, and fear-for which
religious beliefs are themselves the best (or even the only) remedy. Taken together, these myths seem to have granted us perfect immunity to outbreaks
of reasonableness in our public discourse.
Many religious moderates have taken the apparent high road of pluralism, asserting the equal validity of all faiths, but in doing so they neglect to
notice the irredeemably sectarian truth claims of each. As long as a Christian believes that only his baptized brethren will be saved on the Day of
judgment, he cannot possibly "respect" the beliefs of others, for he knows that the flames of hell have been stoked by these very ideas and await
their adherents even now. Muslims and Jews generally take the same arrogant view of their own enterprises and have spent millennia passionately
reiterating the errors of other faiths. It should go without saying that these rival belief systems are all equally uncontaminated by evidence.
...
While moderation in religion may seem a reasonable position to stake out, in light of all that we have (and have not) learned about the universe, it
offers no bulwark against religious extremism and religious violence. The problem that religious moderation poses for all of us is that it does not
permit anything very critical to be said about religious literalism. We cannot say that fundamentalists are crazy, because they are merely practicing
their freedom of belief; we cannot even say that they are mistaken in religious terms, because their knowledge of scripture is generally unrivaled.
All we can say, as religious moderates, is that we don't like the personal and social costs that a full embrace of scripture imposes on us. This is
not a new form of faith, or even a new species of scriptural exegesis; it is simply a capitulation to a variety of all-too-human interests that have
nothing, in principle, to do with God.
Unless the core dogmas of faith are called into question-i.e., that we know there is a God, and that we know what he wants from us-religious
moderation will do nothing to lead us out of the wilderness.
The benignity of most religious moderates does not suggest that religious faith is anything more sublime than a desperate marriage of hope and
ignorance, nor does it guarantee that there is not a terrible price to be paid for limiting the scope of reason in our dealings with other human
beings. Religious moderation, insofar as it represents an attempt to hold on to what is still serviceable in orthodox religion, closes the door to
more sophisticated approaches to spirituality, ethics, and the building of strong communities.
Religious moderates seem to believe that what we need is not radical insight and innovation in these areas but a mere dilution of Iron Age philosophy.
Rather than bring the full force of our creativity and rationality to bear on the problems of ethics, social cohesion, and even spiritual experience,
moderates merely ask that we relax our standards of adherence to ancient superstitions and taboos, while otherwise maintaining a belief system that
was passed down to us from men and women whose lives were simply ravaged by their basic ignorance about the world. In what other sphere of life is
such subservience to tradition acceptable? Medicine? Engineering? Not even politics suffers the anachronism that still dominates our thinking about
ethical values and spiritual experience.
Imagine that we could revive a well-educated Christian of the fourteenth century. The man would prove to be a total ignoramus, except on matters of
faith. His beliefs about geography, astronomy, and medicine would embarrass even a child, but he would know more or less everything there is to know
about God. Though he would be considered a fool to think that the earth is flat, or that trepanning constitutes a wise medical intervention, his
religious ideas would still be beyond reproach. There are two explanations for this: either we perfected our religious understanding of the world a
millennium ago-while our knowledge on all other fronts was still hopelessly inchoate-or religion, being the mere maintenance of dogma, is one area of
discourse that does not admit of progress. We will see that there is much to recommend the latter view.
With each passing year, do our religious beliefs conserve more and more of the data of human experience? If religion addresses a genuine sphere of
understanding and human necessity, then it should be susceptible to progress; its doctrines should become more useful, rather than less. Progress in
religion, as in other fields, would have to be a matter of present inquiry, not the mere reiteration of past doctrine. Whatever is true now should be
discoverable now, and describable in terms that are not an outright affront to the rest of what we know about the world. By this measure, the entire
project of religion seems perfectly backward. It cannot survive the changes that have come over us-culturally, technologically, and even ethically.
Otherwise, there are few reasons to believe that we will survive it.
Moderates do not want to kill anyone in the name of God, but they want us to keep using the word "God" as though we knew what we were talking about.
And they do not want anything too critical said about people who really believe in the God of their fathers, because tolerance, perhaps above all
else, is sacred. To speak plainly and truthfully about the state of our world-to say, for instance, that the Bible and the Koran both contain
mountains of life-destroying gibberish-is antithetical to tolerance as moderates currently conceive it. But we can no longer afford the luxury of such
political correctness. We must finally recognize the price we are paying to maintain the iconography of our ignorance.
Copyright 2004. Excerpted from The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason with permission of W.W. Norton & Company, Inc. For
more on the book, visit samharris.org.