Tuesday, January 4, 2011

New Years Reading - The Moral Landscape by Sam Harris

If you are familiar with him and/or his writings you know that his book is related to religion. (Click on the title to go to his web site.)  In this case the neuroscientist approaches beliefs and morals, among other related subjects as subjects to which scientific study may ultimately be applied.  It is interesting but difficult reading (at least for me.)

In his chapter dealing with religion he broaches the issue of scientists who profess deep religious thought but ignore the potential conflicts between that religion (or any) and scientific knowledge.  Here, he takes direct aim at the current director of NIH, Dr. Francis Collins, who was appointed by President Obama.  Though being a physical chemist, a medical geneticist and former head of the Human Genome Project Collins is also a serious Christian believer.  Harris draws upon Collins' book, The Language of God.  He notes that "To read it is to witness nothing less than an intellectual suicide.  It is, however, a suicide that has gone almost entirely unacknowledged:" and he then takes Nature magazine to task for ignoring the "intellectual dishonesty that Collins achieves on nearly every page of The language of God."

In his review of the book, Harris notes that "It is on this basis (fundamental Christian teachings) (previous parenthesis mine) that the current head of the NIH recommends that we believe the following propositions:
1.  Jesus Christ, a carpenter by trade, was born of a virgin, ritually, murdered as a scapegoat for the collective sins of his species, and then resurrected from death after an interval of three days.

2.  He promptly ascended, bodily, to "heaven" - where, for two millennia, he has eavesdropped upon (and, on occasions, even answered) the simultaneous prayers of billions of beleaguered human beings.

3.  Not content to maintain this numinous arrangement indefinitely, this invisible carpenter will one day return to earth to judge humanity for its sexual indiscretions and skeptical doubts, at which time he will grant immortality to anyone who has had the good fortune to be convinced, on Mother's knee, that this baffling litany of miracles is the most important series of truths ever revealed about the cosmos.

4.  Every other member of our species, pas and present, from Cleopatra to Einstein, no matter what his or her terrestrial accomplishments, will be consigned to a far less desirable fate, best left unspecified.

5.  In the meantime, God/Jesus may or may not intervene in our world, as He pleases, curing the occasional end-stage cancer (or not), answering an especially earnest prayer for guidance (or not), consoling the bereaved (or not), through His perfectly wise and loving agency."

Harris concludes with the obvious related question, and many others of a less direct nature - "Is it really wise to entrust the future of biomedical research in the United States to a man who believes that understanding ourselves through science is impossible, while our resurrection from death is inevitable?"

1 comment:

  1. Indeed a serious question. I knew nothing of either the Mr. Harris or the book, The Language of God. My education in eschatology, biblical hermeneutics, and my continued belief in Santa Claus often collide with interesting results.I admit my interest in religion in general stems not from the Franciscan nuns of St. Clements but from typing Ana's paper for seminary.While I delve nether too deep or too long in this area, unless someone wants to discuss the topic my conclusions are often imprecise and obscure. I believe that there are many things we do not know and cannot imagine. I believe that sometimes my parents are in the same room with me when I am often troubled. I do not believe that the decisions of a bunch of "old white men" in Europe should have decided the direction of the Catholic or Protestant religions of the world, nor do I believe that Jesus would recognize or join any organized religion on the planet should he return tomorrow. Organized religion accomplishes very little good and a whole lot of brainwashing and misdirection. My association with organized religion is based on the quality of their (the parish I choose to belong to) service to their community and not their belief system.Religion has been used throughout history to enslave, the poor, empower the rich and marginalize those who are the "other". So, should the head of NIH be removed because of his belief system? AS long as it does not impede or direct the mission of NIH, I don;'t care if he believes in green Martians and worships cheese doodles. The minute it crosses over, is the minute I object.
    Sharon

    ReplyDelete