MysteriousFaith

Andrew Sullivan & Sam Harris Conclude

Yesterday Andrew Sullivan presented what is likely to be the penultimate contribution to the dialogue on faith and disbelief between Sam Harris and himself. Who won? Neither. But those watching from the sidelines – those affirmed in their agnosticism, atheism or belief – benefited if for no other reason than the discussion exhibited something almost wholly lost in today’s culture: an ability to profoundly disagree and yet be civil. Such a need should be pedantic, but the pervasive religiosity of our current environment makes it difficult for simple discussions between those who disagree. In terms of temperament, Sullivan won hands-down, one of the few aspects of the discussion which it could be said was handily won by either participant.

Harris suffers from what he always does: his logic is unwaveringly direct and consequently, at times, cold. For too many, this becomes a reason to dislike him where a warmer presentation such as that of Sagan – who said much of the same as Harris does – was better perceived. Harris can be so dispassionate that he seems inhuman; the snarky Hitchens or grumpy Dawkins make for better evangelists of disbelief if for only the reason they have more personality. At times Harris the clinician obscures Harris the enlightened mind, with his arguments coming across accurate, logical, perfectly rational, but brittle in much the same ways as the fundamentalists he rightly decries. He might be right, but his directness gets in the way of his message being properly heard. For those who follow Harris closely, he acknowledges this, as he did during the Beyond Belief Conference when he accepted that some concessions on language and conceptualization might be necessary in the interests of political expediency.

Harris would also do well to have more trust in the fact that modernity in general is tearing down the walls of conventional religious belief. A recent poll shows that only 38% of Americans go to church regularly; but these same polls show that between 50 and 80% believe in a literal God. What are we to make of this? Conclusions vary, but Harris makes too little of this disconnect: religion serves many purposes, ranging from answers to questions of ultimate importance (where we came from and where we are going) to mere communal needs in an increasingly disconnected world. People may believe in a literal God – fine – but they clearly aren’t sufficiently motivated to make their daily habits revolve around church, and those of us with more secular sympathies should remember the other reasons which drive people towards rituals, rites and tradition. Confront people with this disconnect as abruptly as Harris does and you will run them towards the position most convenient, what is closest to them, and which consequently is religion. While this may be an intellectually unfulfilling position, it is an orientation which will likely be more effective.

Because he mistrusts the ability of modern society to deal with its fundamentalist tendencies, he makes a strategic mistake of the first-order: he sees the right enemy, but believes it can only be blamed on religion. Fundamentalism has many fathers, only one of which is religion. Harris is not wrong to attack religious fundamentalism, but his criticism of fundamentalism has a one-sided view of religion, as if it is the only progenitor of evil. His argument would have more power if he could do a better job of setting the historical context within which we find ourselves (an aging empire beset by external threats we do not understand and whose threat does not align with our protective capabilities and whose religious undertones evokes our own culturally-religious response), and what history would suggest about the role brittle religion interspersed with politics tends to play during these times. This would allow his ample and appropriate criticism of religious fundamentalism to be heard, but would give people a ledge upon which to secure their worldview.

Harris’ makes his mistakes, not least of which is choosing to open with why someone should not believe instead of initiating the conversation with what disciplines engender internal growth, a topic his Buddhist studies have much to contribute to. Harris should embrace his spiritual tendencies, his willingness to highlight those intangible practices which can be shown to foster meaningful transcendence. Harris has real insights into secular enlightenment, and his openness to ultimate truth we do not understand borders on classic agnosticism (a charge he likely downplays because to do so would lower his marketing message as the inheritor of the classic atheist in the mold of Bertrand Russell). Harris believes there is an internal dimension to life, but he does not believe the literal claims of Christianity shed any light on the subject. But in bypassing how tradition, rituals and rites add value to the worldview of many, Harris makes it an all-for-nothing exchange, when a more moderate line would likely have more impact.

These traditions appear to be much of what motivates Sullivan. We are left with the impression that the desire to be accepted as a homosexual by society colors a lot of Sullivan’s religious sympathies. Sullivan’s flowing literary style has always had a pensive, almost angst filled, character which the recent Bush Administration and its misadventures in Iraq have only intensified. On one hand, Sullivan would have us believe that religious moderation can be trusted to guard against its fundamentalist tendencies, but his own religious belief offered no such advance warning with President Bush and his current dance with religious nationalism. Sullivan wants Harris to believe that moderate religious belief can distinguish a symmetric worldview which allows ideas to be discarded when found to be antiquated, but retains its foundation in certain literal religious claims which are supernatural. Yet, Sullivan’s faith in his ability to discriminate between the two failed him over the last six years. Sullivan may be eloquent, but the insightful and predictive value of his analysis has been largely in hindsight, a position which many have been guilty of, but which should cost these same people much of their credibility.

What parts of Sullivan’s position are most tenuous? Harris wins the day when any logical argument is presented (look for Harris’ final contribution to be devastatingly on-point and yet unwilling to acknowledge Sullivan’s emotionally oriented and tradition laden responses). Many times, Sullivan is reduced to saying that what he believes cannot be proven, but only felt, which begs the response from people who would ask “and what do you make of those with no such feeling?” This entire line of thinking is disingenuous, and Harris will likely and appropriately have none of it: Sullivan employs all sorts of reason, logic and analysis only to walk himself into corner after corner, upon which he escapes by an assertion that “it’s real because I have felt it to be real.” As I have said before, we ride the noble steed of reason into battle only to plunge our sword into its heart when we realize where it has taken of us. Harris needs only logic, and as such his responses in areas of reason win this aspect of the debate.

In the end, both Harris and Sullivan make the same mistake: faith and belief are not the same thing. We have all conflated the two to our cultural detriment, and much of the intellectual ammunition exchanged between these two prodigious minds parallels this same error. What we have faith in, should be different that what we are open to, or hope for. If faith can not be tested or verified, as Sullivan tacitly admits, then it can not be given primacy even in the worldview he advocates. But we can believe that cultural institutions like the church do good, allow ourselves to focus on what they do that is beneficial, and accommodate this part of their influence on culture. Belief has an inherent verifiable element embedded in its definition and use which faith does not. As a result, belief offers the ability for us to focus our public dialogue on those things which can be tested and proven to be better or worse, the pragmatic orientation and results of which would likely please both Harris and Sullivan.

previous post: When China’s Economic & Political Agendas Collide, Will You Be Ready?
next post: Totalitarianisms Revisited

• Posted in Spirituality, Humanism, Theology
• no comments
• Trackback
• April 6, 2007

• Bookmark on del.icio.us
• Bookmark on Digg

Leave a Reply

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website