= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Douglas_Knight comments on Sam Harris' surprisingly modest proposal - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (43)
Sam Harris makes me extremely nervous when he says in the FAQ(5):
He has a long history of asserting that people believe their dogma. While he has managed to say interesting things about religion despite this terrible handicap, I think one must be careful when reading him.
Similar is sketerpot's example of the burqa in France. I don't know what was meant by the example, but it's not a disagreement of individual preferences or belief about preferences. All sides are in tacit agreement that (most of) the purpose of the burqa is to show allegiance.
Well, many people in the Taliban certainly do appear to act as though they believe their dogma.
That is the awful thing about the interaction of humans and dogma.
What can start out primarily as a means of advertising allegiance can easily, particularly in stressed circumstances , become a trap.
To me, someone who undertakes a suicide bombing mission would appear to be someone who believes in the stuff about heaven et al very seriously indeed. However, journalists who have taken care to look into the real circumstances of these people have suggested that some at least of them are not particularly fervent believers, and have diverse reasons for participating. [http://www.newsweek.com/2008/07/29/dressed-to-kill.html] Perhaps this is an extreme case of the argument set out in this post: http://lesswrong.com/lw/2r0/dont_judge_a_skill_by_its_specialists/
You don't have to be a religious fanatic to blow yourself up, but it helps.
My example of the burqa in France was just supposed to illustrate that disagreements over values are more newsworthy than the agreements, though they're less numerous. I wasn't taking a side on the issue, which turns out to be a tad more subtle than the headlines make it sound.
How else would you explain this? http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/31/world/asia/31herat.html?_r=2&ref=global-home
This is about shame. The uncle wants to restore his own honor, not avoid damnation, nor deter others from the damnation of eloping. I recommend this Last Psychiatrist article about a hardly observent Iraqi killing his daughter in America. If it's too long, just read section VI. As he says, OJ Simpson isn't enforcing Shariah.
Actually, I am surprised to learn that the Taliban executed elopers itself, rather than just endorsing parental murder. I would guess that crowds pulling couples from cars is more about conformity than Shariah, but I don't know much about it. Everything I've read about the Islamic Revolution in Iran suggests that with no religious change people started enforcing public dress codes much more severe than they themselves had been wearing. Though there is some bias in which accounts appear in English.
Anyhow, I recommend people like Pascal Boyer and Scott Atran for other explanations than belief.
Actually, now I recall that Sam Harris does not consistently claim that people believe their dogma, but only fundamentalists. If moderates don't believe what they say, why should fundamentalists? Yes, if people did believe in their religion, they might become literalists, but I think that's quite rare.
First, it's not just the uncle - it's the father, too. Even if the father does not "believe the dogma" as you say the dogma is a memetic force in that society, where partial endorsement thereof makes episodes as described common.
From personal experience of having being moderately religious orthodox jew in america for 20 years I can say I believed, and would follow the religious precepts even if none but god was looking. I can readily extrapolate that Talibanis really believe much of the dogma just based on that.
Yes, writing down Sharia should have some effect, but what? I doubt the Koran is more specific than Deuteronomy 21:18-20, which vaguely talks about killing disobedient sons, but is pretty widely ignored.
I think the most useful part of the concept of memes is to separate belief from belief-in-belief.
My previous comment emphasized the public too much. I don't mean to dispute that people believe in the rightness of what they do. I'm not talking about peer pressure to change one's actions. I do mean that neighbors influence people's morals, but mainly I object to the claim that people actually believe auxiliary factual claims that are made in their morality. I don't believe Harris's claim the Taliban choose their morals based on beliefs about afterlife. Did you honor your mother and father in order to live long? Did you keep the covenant with Abraham so that your descendents would be as numerous as the stars?
Yes. Why do you bring this up? Has anyone proposed a theory under which the father and uncle act differently?
Yes, this theory is commonly called evolution.
My point is that it takes some pretty strong mental forces to overcome natural attachment of father for the daughter. Shame by itself does not seem to make the cut.
You are assuming your conclusion: that shame is weaker than belief. Evolution is irrelevant to your argument.
Yes, evolution distinguishes between the father and the uncle, but shame+evolution and afterlife+evolution do so equally. Kin selection quantifies the expected differential action and it's pretty small - a factor of two. If you claim that shame would motivate the uncle and not the father, then you need a quantified theory of shame that is equally precise.
I gave an example where a father killed his daughter with lots of evidence that it was shame, not belief, so shame makes the cut, regardless of whether supernatural reward does.
Parents kill their children quite often. It's not that much to overcome.
Still, you'd agree there exist better or worse ways to show allegiance?
The French are not objecting to the implementation details. They are trying to prevent the group identity entirely.
Are they? It seems to me nobody would be against them wearing a badge or something. You can also ban football t-shirts on the same grounds.