21st-century Christian Philosopher

If you could see the control panel of this blog, you’d see that I have written a number of versions of this post. This post is the second part of this one. It deals with a speech I saw by Sam Harris, the author of The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason. , about the proposition that we should study religion no more.

In that post, nearly a month ago, I promised a second part on the nature of social ties. By the time gap, you might conclude that I am having a tough time with Harris’ argument. I disagree. I think that I am having more a problem with treatment than anything else, and secondly, it is hard to argue against something as hazily-stated as his argument is.

But having undertaken the work, I am no closer to what social ties are. I can think what I think they are. I think I can make a good case for why it is a reasonable model. But it is rather self-congratulatory to fashion a model of “communal ties” and then argue that because Harris’ claim does not hold true for this model, that the single model invalidates his case against any models.

I have avoided making that argument, for the large part. But that effort leaves me confused about what “communal ties” are. I know what I think they are. But Harris’ best argument is not based on what we know them to be now, but what the progress of Science may find them to be.

So if those words are anything more than shorthand for widespread conduct, Science is our best bet. And if there are laws to social interaction, again Science holds the best hope. It’s not what we hold today, but the promise that Science holds for improving patterns of prediction tomorrow.

Of course the answer here is so simple: Without a clear understanding what social ties are, Harris has no scientific backing to make his claim that whatever society is, it is the same with or without religion. In fact, his claim relies on society being different without religion. And to some degree we need to buy the more snake oil that there are no tradeoffs without religion.

Harris supposes this himself. Because there is “no alternative” to believing in Santa Claus. One weans oneself of Santa Claus, without tearing the fabric of society. So God is similar.

Except, this is not empirically re-inforced. The data shows that Santa Claus is often easily discarded, but God is not. I doubt you even need a control group to decide that Santa Claus and God do not exhibit the same forces.

Why not?

Well, there is a conceptual difference at least: Santa Claus is a promise that the laws of Science and Nature can be exceeded to bring you toys. God is a promise that the laws of Science and Nature can be exceeded to tell you that you are loved, you are regarded, that you have worth, and are singular in the eyes of the Perfect Observer.

Thus the more one grows in the positive aspect of God-based morality, the less one needs bright, shiny toys to fill your downtime.

Also, although Harris likens Santa Claus to God, Harris is unable (I’m pretty sure he will remain so) to show the same cataclysmic danger to the world, lest we rid ourselves of Santa Claus. Nobody is going to nuke anybody else over Santa Claus, because we fear that, without him, we’re not getting that pony we wanted soooo badly(!).

We have other means to get ponies and tops and trucks. However, were Harris’ to argue at this point that there are other means to secure the same confidence in being loved and regarded, he would be making this argument to rely on the argument that we can replace religion and lose nothing.

A developed, predictive theory of society is what we need to make this determination. It is clear that to argue this now, as Harris does, we need the data now. If we value Science, changing society now ought to be based on good Science. So Science may provide the analysis that we can lose religion and there are alternative (wait—we don’t need no steenkeen’ alternatives!!) methods for supplementing this demand, but it is then when such a move would be Science.

However, there should be a method to substitute our love and esteem needs met by religion. If we know that people are just looking for love and esteem, we can just give them that? QED, no need for God. Besides, one can even argue that religion doesn’t fit these needs as well as it claims to and as well as a clear-eyed focus on those needs might.

This seems to be commonsense. We can just do it ourselves, and it is not being that well-handled by religion in the first place.

Plus, as we know that religion, also hurts the self-esteem of some by calling them “bad” and saying they should not do as they do. In fact, as religion leverages only one groups’ idea of “bad” over another faction, and plays a role in the power struggle.

But let’s step outside of this representation for a second and realize that it is problematic to make this case against religion, when Harris’ case is that people who believe in God should not do as they do. And, regardless of validity, will try to leverage this opinion over others. The only remaining scrap is whether someone’s self esteem should be hurt by being called “dangerous” or “out of step” or “irrational”.

That we would not be “dangerous” or “irrational” if we change is paralleled by the case that you are not “bad” if you repent and do what you are supposed to do, in certain theologies. So the possibility of such a change hurting the esteem of some, and a resultant power struggle is balanced both on the sides of Harris’ reform and religion.

But, the claim is that if they can do esteem right, no one will need to prop up their esteem by believing in God. And if we can actually love each other, no one will need the “phony” love of God.

Yes, if. So, is it the idea that we need to forgo our decisions that meet our needs now, because Science might understand these things in enough detail to do all those things?

But what is “love”? Aren’t we talking about “social ties” again. So if society can multiply “love”, then it will have deepened our “communal ties”. Thus, it’s tenuous, but we might be dealing with Harris begging the question. It’s hard to tell, Harris uses the words he uses simply because it is fuzzy. And he is fuzzy on what “love” is. So in that we could ever find out what “love” is, we could find a way to multiply it and distribute it. But we are dealing with the same ignorance as before.

Again, anyone can tell you what they think corresponds to this symbol “love”, but that is not Science. And it very arguably is not the Science that Harris is going to need to start putting it out in an assembly line. So the rationale for the argument that we can technologize and maximize the production of “love” means that we must at that time know what it is.

Until then, it is the same speculation that we can “deepen communal ties” or provide the (“unneeded”) alternative to the need that religion fills in our societies today. And as it is the same speculation, it cannot serve as an argument in its own cause.

But, as typical I’m not going to rest with a technical “disqualification” of an argument, I’m going to wade into it deeper. So there is more on this next (although I’m a little more hestitant to label what it will be, this time.).