Harris vs. Sullivan on religion
BeliefNet has brought together Sam (End of Faith) Harris and Andrew (Conservative Soul) Sullivan for a three-part (here, here, and here.) discussion on religion. Harris and Sullivan are both extremely critical of Islamism (Sullivan’s “gravest threat” and “pretty high on our list of humanity’s worst ideas”), but part ways—as expected—over the value of religious moderation.
When Sullivan states of his fellow religious moderates that “[w]e have read the scriptures not searching for gotchas, but for truth,” he both undermines a core doctrine of his Catholicism and misrepresents atheists’ truth-seeking. True biblical inerrancy would preclude the existence of the many errors and contradictions (or “gotchas,” according to one’s preference) that plagues both the old and new testaments. Recognizing the existence of textual flaws does not mean that atheists read religious texts in search of errors, merely that we don’t overlook them.
Atheists can—and often do—read religious texts in the manner of Francis Bacon:
Read not to contradict and confute; nor to believe and take for granted; nor to find talk and discourse; but to weigh and consider. Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested...
When Sullivan reads his chosen holy text, there is “a voice that can clearly be heard” that has personal importance to him; atheists read the same words and clearly a different voice:
…the Creator who purports to be beyond human judgment is consistently ruled by human passions--jealousy, wrath, suspicion, and the lust to dominate. A close study of our holy books reveals that the God of Abraham is a ridiculous fellow--capricious, petulant, and cruel--and one with whom a covenant is little guarantee of health or happiness. (Sam Harris, The End of Faith)
Harris and Sullivan discussed imputations of intolerance, culminating in this full-throated defense (by Sullivan) of the modern secular state:
You ask legitimately: how can I, convinced of this truth, resist imposing it on others? The answer is: humility and doubt. I may believe these things, but I am aware that others may not; and I respect their own existential decision to believe something else. I respect their decision because I respect my own, and realize it is indescribable to those who have not directly experienced it. That's why I am such a dogged defender of pluralism and secularism - because I believe secularism alone does justice to the profundity of the claims of religion. The attempt to force or even rig laws to encourage others to share my faith defeats the point of my faith - which is that it is both freely chosen and definitionally dealing with matters that cannot be subject to common consensus.