Sam Harris: Argument From Extremism
by MikeGeneSam Harris recently wrote an article for the LA Times entitled, God's dupes: Moderate believers give cover to religious fanatics — and are every bit as delusional. Harris continues his attack on religious moderates by asking the reader to envision a series of "concentric circles of diminishing reasonableness." In the center, we find the the Muslim jihadis and the Dominionist Christians and as we proceed outward, the religious believers become increasing less extreme. Harris then argues that the moderates function as shields for the extremists:
The problem is that wherever one stands on this continuum, one inadvertently shelters those who are more fanatical than oneself from criticism.
The fatal flaw in Harris's argument is that there is no reason to single out religious moderates for such criticism as it can be applied to just about any position.
Consider another series of concentric circles where those in the center are hardcore animal rights extremists who call for the execution or assassination of scientists who experiment on animals. As we move outward, we find people who don't agree with assassination, but who still favor terrorism to intimidate scientists from conducting such research. As we move further outward, we find people opposed to terrorism, but who favor massive government regulation and litigation to discourage scientists from conducting such research. Continuing outward, we find people who are opposed to only certain forms of animal experimentation (for example, with cosmetics). Out further still, we meet people who are not opposed to animal research, but would like to see scientists minimize or eliminate any needless suffering for the animals.
According to Harris, those who would simply like to see scientists take steps to minimize needless animal suffering are acting as shields for the extremists who advocate for terrorism and assassination. So must one choose to either side with ALF or abandon any concern about the treatment of animals? That would be absurd.
As I mentioned, this type of blame game can be used for any position. Do you favor a two-day wait period before purchasing a handgun? You act as a shield for those who want the government to confiscate all firearms. Do you favor expanding government healthcare to the children of poor? You act as a shield for those who want government to control every aspect of healthcare. Do you oppose partial birth abortions? You act as a shield for those who want to make all abortion illegal. On and on it goes.
Harris's argument is an argument against all moderates and is thus an Argument From Extremism. This should surprise no one as Harris himself can be placed inside a set of concentric circles. As someone who strongly advocates that all religion is evil and must be eliminated, Harris stands toward the center. Outside of him are the atheists who agree, but don't waste their time in the futile quest to rid the world of religion. Outside of them, are the atheists who don't agree religion is evil and must be eliminated (they remain agnostic on this issue). Further out are the atheists who actually think religion is a force for good in the lives of many people, making it a net positive for society. According to Harris, we should criticize such reasonable atheists because they inadvertently shelter Harris.
Or, we could move one more step inward from Harris. We know from the history of many communist nations that there have been atheists who have favored the execution of religious people. These are people who would strongly agree with Harris's "religion is evil" message and have followed the logic to take strong actions against such evil. From this perspective, Harris himself acts as a shield and should thus be criticized. Is Harris Stalin's dupe?
The Argument From Extremism appeals only to extremists. While extremists may sometimes be shielded by the existence of moderates, this is a small price to pay to keep the continuum of moderation that acts as a buffer to make civilization possible. The alternatives are to have a world completely polarized by sets of extremists or a world where everyone thinks and believes the same. I'm not sure why someone like Harris thinks this is something we should all strive for.
March 31st, 2007 at 2:26 am
Sam Harris appears to be fanatically anti-religious (mainly anti-Christian). I wonder why?
This diatribe of his shows only his intellectual laziness as he is not able or does not bother to give meaningful and reasonable assessment of what Christian religion is. Just about anyone can parrot Dawkins on this issue and that is just what Sam Harris is doing. In any case I heard better criticism of Christianity from my high school teachers.
Comment by inunison — March 31, 2007 @ 2:26 am
March 31st, 2007 at 7:27 am
Mike Gene wrote:
Hi Mike,
You've misinterpreted Harris's argument if you see it as applying broadly to moderates of all stripes, on all issues.
Harris sees religious faith, which he defines as "simply unjustified belief in matters of ultimate concern," as harmful. The continuum of which he speaks consists of people, from one end to the other, who regard religious faith as a positive thing and a worthy foundation on which to base important decisions.
A religious moderate may base her morality, for example, on her faith that God wants her to behave in a particular way. Her morality may in fact be perfectly benign and unobjectionable to society at large. But the fact that she bases it on faith is a tacit endorsement of the idea that faith — unjustified belief — is a suitable basis for moral decisions.
Having supported the idea that moral decisions can be legitimately based on faith, how can she now argue that a religious extremist is unjustified in killing infidels, if he genuinely believes that God wants him to? His morality is based on faith, just as hers is. How can one set of unjustified beliefs trump another?
Harris's point is not that moderation per se is a bad thing. His argument is that moderation in faith is a bad thing, because the legitimization of faith itself takes reason off the table and gives cover to those who hold extreme ideas, and take extreme actions, on the basis of faith.
Comment by keiths — March 31, 2007 @ 7:27 am
March 31st, 2007 at 9:34 am
Hi Keiths,
You write:
Yet I have already knocked down Harris's anti-faith position here. Since we are not omniscient, we all must at some point rely on faith. Consider Harris's definition. Who determines whether a belief is "unjustified?" Who determines what is of "ultimate concern?" It sounds to me that the answers to those questions will involve faith and depend on the person.
Moral decisions and beliefs are based on the idea of what "ought" to be. Are you telling me that we can root these decisions and beliefs in 100% Pure Reason? It sounds like the very act of making a "moral decision" itself is on that continuum.
Comment by MikeGene — March 31, 2007 @ 9:34 am
March 31st, 2007 at 9:50 am
Harris's argument hinges, at its core, on the mistaken view that any person or group of people can accurately cut the line between a justified and unjustified belief.
Further, to define faith as "unjustified belief" is to beg the question. I suspect that most of the "moderates" on both sides of the atheism-theism continuum do think that there are legit reasons (whether correct or not) for a wide spectrum of faith-types.
The philosophical tradition that includes Hume and Russell, grants as much (that at the base of reason and experience we find a kind of faith). The New Atheists seem to be drawing from, but simultaneously cutting ties with, that great tradition.
Comment by bipod — March 31, 2007 @ 9:50 am
March 31st, 2007 at 10:03 am
I am surprised that you highlighted the sentence that is the fatal flaw in Harris' argument but you missed the point completely.
The fatal flaw is that this is simply an unsupported assertion. Harris is assuming you'll take him at his word that all religious people always shelter their more fanatical brethren from criticism. Unfortunately, this simply isn't true.
Comment by K Klein — March 31, 2007 @ 10:03 am
March 31st, 2007 at 10:12 am
Hi K Klein,
Harris argues that the sheltering is inadvertent. In essense, the problem is that moderates lend legitimacy to the extremists, even if they oppose the extremists.
Comment by MikeGene — March 31, 2007 @ 10:12 am
March 31st, 2007 at 10:22 am
I think there is another problem with the statement Klein quoted - Harris is saying that moderates shelter "those who are more fanatical" (emphasis mine). Note that he has not established this fanaticism in moderates, which he directly implies by using the comparative form rather than the positive. Moreover, this is another example of language abuse since fanaticism is generally referred to as extreme zeal or devotion, and that seems to be exactly the point Harris needs to demonstrate. (Although I should note the interesting fact that the term "fanatic" is somewhat linked to religion etymologically, even though the normative usage has separated from the root somewhat.)
Comment by thechristiancynic — March 31, 2007 @ 10:22 am
March 31st, 2007 at 11:32 am
Mike:
Actually, I think the fatal flaw is Harris' own literalist extremism:
IOW, the most radical, most fanatical of believers in religion are the ones that best represent what that religion is all about. Everyone else is just play-acting. You are certainly correct that this concentric circle thing can be applied to any 'ism'. Including Harris' own 'ism'. He is the most radical, most fanatical of believers in atheism, thus the "truest of true believers."
All outward concentric circles of less radical atheists, agnostics, humanists and people who just don't care are there to protect him from the consequences of his own fanatical beliefs - because he's the most important of them all. A true high priest or avatar.
Now, I can see where his idea came from. No doubt it has to do with his short tour of duty on the Dalai Lama's personal protection goon squad. I can imagine that members of the US Secret Service could easily fall into believing much the same sort of thing, with their charge (POTUS, VPOTUS) at the center, the ring of personal protectors willing to take a bullet for them, the peripheral waves of protection that move along with the center like a bow wave and radiate out like a wake.
That tour of duty didn't last long - a mere three weeks according to the Washington Post - so I'm guessing he took himself way too seriously and that was entirely obvious to his charge. He turned on (ecstasy), dropped out for 11 years, and "read a lot of books on religion." How incredibly unimpressive, in a less-than Tim Leary sort of way.
If he were just a bit more detached from his ego (something Buddhism does encourage directly), he might have noticed at some point along the way that it's his ego which puts him in the Truest of True Believer inner circle of one, and that's the very same personality quirk that puts jihadists and dominionists at the center of their own self-circumscribed cages. IOW, had his drug-induced quest taken him toward Islam or Christianity, he'd be one of those fanatics he rails so loudly against. It's his nature, can't help himself.
Nobody should take him as seriously as he takes himself. The Dalai Lama sure doesn't!
Comment by Joy — March 31, 2007 @ 11:32 am
March 31st, 2007 at 12:52 pm
Harris sounds like an intellectual enabler of the kind of dystopia I refer to in this post.
An excerpt:
Comment by stunney — March 31, 2007 @ 12:52 pm
March 31st, 2007 at 2:48 pm
I see many sets of concentric circles. Each with it's true believers in the center. The role of those in the outer circles is to protect the world from those in the center.
Comment by bj — March 31, 2007 @ 2:48 pm
March 31st, 2007 at 4:17 pm
I guess this means moderate atheists provide cover for extremist atheists like Pol Pot, Stalin, and Mao.
I guess everyone can now agree on the absolute bankruptcy of this argument. . .
Comment by mcromer — March 31, 2007 @ 4:17 pm
March 31st, 2007 at 8:40 pm
Mike wrote:
This is where many discussions of faith go off the rails, because the word 'faith' has multiple meanings. The kind of faith we need to have because we are not omniscient is not the kind of faith Harris is talking about. The former is what enables people to buy and drink a Coke from the local 7-11, confident that it does not contain a lethal dose of cyanide. The latter is what enables people to believe that communion wine turns into the blood of Christ when consecrated.
Mike, surely you're not saying that we can't speak of justified and unjustified beliefs, simply because there is no universal agreement on a precise line of demarcation between the two.
I wear a full beard. Pluck my beard-hairs, one by one, until a lone whisker protrudes from my chin. Every sane person will agree that I started with a beard and ended without one, even if they do not all agree on the precise moment when my beard ceased to exist.
As with beards, so with justified beliefs. I have a friend who inherited some bad neurochemistry from his mother. When he's not taking his medicine, he believes he is Jesus Christ, largely on the basis that his mother's name is Mary and his father's is Joseph. Can you tell me, with a straight face, that we cannot regard his belief as unjustified because, as you say, "Who determines whether a belief is 'unjustified'?"
No, but I'm saying that once someone has decided that it is moral to do God's will, if He exists, then the remainder of the problem is empirical: figure out if God exists, and if so, figure out what His will is. When a religious moderate answers these two questions on the basis of faith, it becomes difficult for her to criticize an extremist for doing exactly the same thing. She is reduced to saying to the extremist, "It's wrong for you to kill infidels because my God, whom I accept by faith, is real, while yours, whom you accept by faith, is not."
Comment by keiths — March 31, 2007 @ 8:40 pm
March 31st, 2007 at 10:38 pm
bipod wrote:
Hi bipod,
See my response to Mike above. Your mistake is to think that if a distinction isn't clear-cut in all cases, then it can't be drawn at all. The beard example shows the fallacy of this.
If so, then how do you justify believing something against evidence and reason?
I'm not sure what you mean by legitimate, incorrect reasons for faith.
As I mentioned to Mike, the word 'faith' can mean different things. A basic faith in reason and experience is necessary for those who wish to survive in this world. Religious faith is optional.
And even then, note that our faith in reason and experience is not blind. That is, we don't assume that our senses and our faculty of reason are absolutely reliable. We consider their 'outputs' provisional. We're constantly cross-checking reason with reason, reason with experience, experience with reason, experience with experience. We cross-check our own conclusions with those of other people. The fact that all of this coheres is justification for the limited faith we place in experience and reason.
Comment by keiths — March 31, 2007 @ 10:38 pm
March 31st, 2007 at 10:51 pm
stunney wrote:
Dogmatic regimes all. Harris has made clear that he opposes dogma in general, not just religious dogma. His reason for focusing on religion is that it gets a "pass" in today's society. People don't hesitate to criticize a political ideology they disagree with, but they handle religious ideology with kid gloves, because faith and religious ideas are to be "respected", not criticized. It is important that this double standard be eliminated so that religious ideas and secular ideas can be judged on a level playing field.
The goal should be to eliminate dogmas of all kinds, secular and religious, and to re-establish reason's pre-eminence as an arbiter of truth. I'm glad that Harris is working toward that goal.
Comment by keiths — March 31, 2007 @ 10:51 pm
March 31st, 2007 at 10:52 pm
bipod: Further, to define faith as "unjustified belief" is to beg the question.
Keiths: If so, then how do you justify believing something against evidence and reason?
Good question Keiths and one you ought to direct to your own side. The following revealing quote was taken from a new post at UD.
The Origin of Life. This problem is one of the big ones in science. It begins to place life, and us, in the universe. Most chemists believe, as do I, that life emerged spontaneously from mixtures of molecules in the prebiotic Earth.
How? I have no idea. Perhaps it was by the spontaneous emergence of "simple" autocatalytic cycles and then by their combination. On the basis of all the chemistry that I know, it seems to me astonishingly improbable.
Nevertheless he believes in spite of the evidence and his own admitted doubts. If he said this instead about God one could easily imagine a negative reaction from the debunkers of faith.
Comment by Bradford — March 31, 2007 @ 10:52 pm
March 31st, 2007 at 11:01 pm
Keiths writes:
I'm glad you used the word "judged." Truncate the d and add any of a number of names and you come up with decisions that level the legal playing field against those whose convictions are rooted in their faith. Not so if your view is secular. Note I did not say scientific or truthful. Views consistent with those terms can be consistent with faith and contravening what is secular. You're right about a double standard. The separation clause can be a handy wedge.
Comment by Bradford — March 31, 2007 @ 11:01 pm
March 31st, 2007 at 11:14 pm
bj wrote:
Hi bj,
I don't think this model holds. First of all, the world doesn't necessarily need to be protected from those in the center, depending on what the center is. Surgeons who give up lucrative practices in the West in order to set up third-world clinics may be True Believers, but do we really need to be protected from them?
Second, in cases where the center is noxious, the question is, do the outer circles have a moderating, or an enabling, influence on the center? In the case of religious faith, Harris argues that the outer circles are enablers, and I would agree, for reasons expressed earlier in the thread.
Comment by keiths — March 31, 2007 @ 11:14 pm
March 31st, 2007 at 11:34 pm
Today I watched the film about the 911 flight that crashed in a field in PA. The jihadists that hijacked that plane were shielded by what religious moderates and what is the evidence?
Comment by Bradford — March 31, 2007 @ 11:34 pm
March 31st, 2007 at 11:55 pm
mcromer wrote:
Hi Matthew,
Here's the difference: if you believe that morality should be based on faith, then you can't coherently argue against an extremist who also bases his morality on faith and comes to the conclusion that it is right to kill infidels. By contrast, an atheist simply doesn't believe in God. Nothing about that (lack of) belief justifies Maoist ideology or the persecution of theists. It is perfectly consistent for an atheist to oppose dogmatists like Stalin and Mao.
Comment by keiths — March 31, 2007 @ 11:55 pm
April 1st, 2007 at 12:18 am
Keiths:
Keiths, do you have a working definition of faith? It does not infer incoherence. I'm not an expert on the Koran but the Koran has something to say about behavioral norms. You just don't invent anything you wish and say it is consistent with Muslim doctrines. You can dispute what another believer states when that believer is wrong. I've both done it and been at the receiving end.
Comment by Bradford — April 1, 2007 @ 12:18 am
April 1st, 2007 at 12:50 am
Harris is correct. Moderates do insulate extremists from criticism.
Mike is also correct. This reasoning can be applied to just about anything.
But the question of whether any particular brand of extremism is good or bad is still entirely subjective.
That said, I still share Harris' distaste for moderates. Wishy washy waffling people pleasers with finger to the wind opinions who suck up for support and point fingers to either side to avoid criticism.
In this regard I agree with Rush Limbaugh, Martin Luther King Jr., and Jesus. Moderates usually do more harm than good.
Comment by chunkdz — April 1, 2007 @ 12:50 am
April 1st, 2007 at 7:13 am
Bradford wrote:
Yes. As I said in my first comment on this thread, I'm using Harris's definition of religious faith: "unjustified belief in matters of ultimate concern."
What's incoherent is for a religious moderate to base her morality on faith, but then to fault an extremist for doing exactly the same thing.
The problem is that the Qur'an, like the Bible, is ambiguous, contradictory, and subject to interpretation. Even if there were a miraculous unanimity within every religion regarding the interpretation of its scriptures, it would remain true that religions contradict each other. The problem is unavoidable: if you allow faith to dictate morals, you get contradictions, and someone else is going to do things you consider immoral with the best of intentions and the cleanest of consciences, because their faith tells them they are doing the right thing.
As an aside, the very ambiguity of holy books is a sure sign that either 1) they are not really God's word, or 2) God doesn't particularly care if we get the message. If getting His message across were a priority, an omnipotent God would have arranged for a book which was superhuman in its clarity and translated and copied perfectly from manuscript to manuscript, all the way down to us. Better still, He could dispense with the book and beam the meaning directly into our heads. This would eliminate the possibility of error while making his message available to the illiterate, who, after all, have constituted the majority of people through time.
Comment by keiths — April 1, 2007 @ 7:13 am
April 1st, 2007 at 7:39 am
Newsweek just posted a debate between Sam Harris and Rick Warren here.
Comment by keiths — April 1, 2007 @ 7:39 am
April 1st, 2007 at 9:43 am
Hi Keiths,
No, I said, it sounds to me that the answers to those questions will involve faith and depend on the person. For example, Harris believes that religious faith is harmful. From where I sit, he has not successfully justified his belief. He also apparently thinks the world would be better off without religion. He has neither justified this belief. Yet I would bet Harris thinks he is justified on both counts. So how do we determine if he is truly justified?
No, whether or not you started with a beard and ended with a beard is a matter of simple observation. And even with simple observations, as you note, there will be disagreement on the point when your beard ceased to exist. But what about the myriad of beliefs that are not settled with simple observations? In fact, Harris wants to make this an issue of beliefs about "ultimate concerns." Are such things settled with mere observations? Harris's problem is about belief in God. He thinks this belief is unjustified. But what does he want? Does he want science to detect God as a controlled, experimental result? Does he want philosophy to prove the existence of God? Does anything less mean that God does not exist?
Look, if justification is what "every sane person" believes, don't forget that atheists have always been in the distinct minority. Does the atheist world view mandate that the majority of human beings are insane?
No. But such decisions are usually not difficult when dealing with trivial claims about particular things or people. The problem is that larger aspects of our reality force us to take our lack of omniscience into the realm of ambiguity. Consider the many court cases where it is not absolutely clear if the person is truly guilty of the crime. Or are the animal rights activists right in arguing that we are not justified in experimenting on animals? Or should we remain in or leave Iraq? On and on it goes. Are there rigorous algorithms for answering these questions and how would we really know that they work?
Moral decisions that are not rooted in socialization are almost always a function of world views and the complex interplay between the network of various beliefs/arguments. This is no different from those who claim to lack faith. Consider that Harris is in favor is using torture on Muslim captives. All atheists don't agree with this. So it looks like atheists have the same "problem."
Your criticisms do not resonate, keiths, because they are only words. What Harris et al. first need to do is a) use Reason and Science to come up with a consistent moral system; b) demonstrate to the rest of the world that atheists everywhere agree with this system and c) demonstrate to the rest of the world that atheists everywhere practice this system. Until I see this, I see only people bashing religion without behaving any better or offering anything better to take its place.
Comment by MikeGene — April 1, 2007 @ 9:43 am
April 1st, 2007 at 12:45 pm
Keiths:
No wonder these arguments are skewed. Harris's tactic is one of the most insidious out there. If you dislke something redefine it in a way that assures your side of a propaganda victory. How's this? Atheism is redefined to mean an unjustified skepticism as to the existence of God. Mainstream evolution theories are redefined to mean to mean unjustified belief in common descent.
Comment by Bradford — April 1, 2007 @ 12:45 pm
April 1st, 2007 at 12:58 pm
Keiths:
This is a classic blunder. You're conflating faith with opportunism. Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot. Add dozens of lesser known party hacks within those respective regimes and lots of mass murdering criminals. You know what they all had in common? All of them had noble sounding rhetoric to excuse their excesses. Lies. Hitler was rescuing oppressed minorities within the Sudentenland. Stalin was working toward a workers paradise. Pol Pot was ridding Cambodia of treasonous elements. They are like the jihadists who use religion as a justification for mass murder. It's opportunism from A to Z and you are too smart to take them at their word. If it weren't the Jews Hitler would have had another excuse. If it weren't 99 virgins, terrorists would invent something else. You can't see that?
Comment by Bradford — April 1, 2007 @ 12:58 pm
April 1st, 2007 at 2:30 pm
Well in that case, physicalism / materialism certainly qualifies just as well as any particular religious belief.
Comment by mcromer — April 1, 2007 @ 2:30 pm
April 1st, 2007 at 2:50 pm
I wrote:
Mike replied:
Yet we agree that my friend is deluded when he believes he is Jesus. Evidence and reason weigh heavily against his belief. We agree on that basis that it is unjustified. If so, why shouldn't we take evidence and reason into account when evaluating religious beliefs?
First of all, the question of whether religious faith has net benefits for humankind is separate from the question of whether particular religious beliefs are correct. Most people won't be satisfied knowing their beliefs are beneficial; they want to know how likely it is that their beliefs are true. Given that concern, why abandon the very best tools, reason and evidence, that humans have developed for making such judgments?
Second, if you believe that Harris or anyone else is holding an unjustified belief, you can challenge him on it. Present evidence and an argument for why he's wrong. Debate the facts and the logic of his position, and in turn be open to reasoned criticism of your own position. This is healthy. It is what productive debate is all about.
What's totally unproductive is to say "You're wrong, because I believe I'm right" with no further justification. Yet that's exactly what faith amounts to.
No, they require reasoning as well. But what does faith contribute?
Broadly, he wants religious claims to be validated according to the same standards of evidence and reason that we apply to non-religious questions. If such validation is not forthcoming, he would like to see believers abandon their inappropriate faith-based claims of certainty.
No. God might exist. Odin and John Frum might exist. There might be no god but Allah, and Muhammad might be His prophet. There might be a Flying Spaghetti Monster and a celestial teapot orbiting between Earth and Mars. Harris is just asking for evidence of these things before committing to a belief in them.
Yes, and in those court cases the judge and/or jury (at least ideally) apply reason and evidence to the best of their ability, with the "beyond a reasonable doubt" clause thrown in to protect the innocent. The point is not that reason and evidence are magic bullets which will answer every question with decisive clarity. The point is rather that they are extremely valuable tools which should be employed to the fullest in answering important questions of innocence or guilt, right or wrong, and the existence and nature of God.
Except that the worldviews of the faithful are at least partially based on faith. Faith can determine whether someone considers something right or wrong.
Okay, I'll add some hand gestures next time.
Why should they have to offer a moral system? What relevance does that have to the truth or falsehood of theism? And by the way, Harris is offering something better: the absence of faith, and its replacement by reason.
Which leads to a few final questions: Why do you consider faith to be a good thing? Why should it be applied to questions of religious belief, but not to the rest of life? And why allow faith to trump reason on questions as important as the existence and nature of God?
Comment by keiths — April 1, 2007 @ 2:50 pm
April 1st, 2007 at 2:51 pm
keiths:
Thanks for the link, keith. I read it all, and the only thing that comes through clearly is that a) Harris is 'terrified', and b) he hasn't thought his position through clearly.
And I found it irritating that he kept insisting that it's "possible" for an atheist to be altruistic and give up worldly things to do good deeds for others. Well, where are they? Where in Harris' 11 'lost years' of spiritual questing (while his Mom paid the bills) is his accumulated record of selfless deeds? From his own accounts, it was always All About Sam.
He blames religious people and their God for his neighbor's poverty in contrast to his own plenty. Why doesn't Sam share his wealth directly with his neighbor if it bothers him so much? And now that he's rich, has he paid his Mom back for supporting him during 11 years' worth of spiritual questing?
It's "possible" for religious people to devote their lives to a vow of poverty and serve others for as long as they live. The long history of religious people doing that very thing makes the statement reasonable by means of empirical evidence of observation.
Atheists are most certainly not famous for vows of poverty or serving others for as long as they live, so that statement is a mere hypothetical. Lots of things are "possible." That doesn't necessarily make 'em entirely reasonable based on empirical evidence of observation.
Mike Gene:
Um… yes. At least, in so far as Harris (and Dawkins, and PZ, and the rest) make that very claim on a daily basis.
Comment by Joy — April 1, 2007 @ 2:51 pm
April 1st, 2007 at 2:57 pm
In a related Newsweek article, the author says…
Since both wings in the 'Culture Wars' believe the vast majority of humans somewhere in between their poles don't count, I've the perfect solution. Put all the wingnuts on an island together ala 'Survivor' only don't promise anything to which ever side wins. The rest of us can get along fine without this 3-5%. We don't need any of them to decide how we should live and what we should believe.
Comment by Joy — April 1, 2007 @ 2:57 pm
April 1st, 2007 at 3:10 pm
What criteria validates whether or not Alexander the Great did such and such? What criteria validates the choice different nations reach as to the governmental system under which they operate? What validates the philospohical underpinnings of our legal system, our educational system, our social welfare system? Very few non-religious questions are decided as a result of a laboratory experiment. As for certainty, the views of anti-theists at TT are as confidently expressed as those of their counterparts even when evidence is in short supply. Biblically defined faith is nothing more than a belief that cannot be sustained in whole by sensory evidence. If you think about this, most of what we believe would fit this description. Christ customarily supplied reasons for what he taught and referrred to historic Hebrew writers to back his moral and theological claims. That is hardly the stuff of a command to simply beleve based merely on authority. Yet that kind of belief has been in evidence all too frequently in recent history within nations ruled by totalitarian secular authorities.
Comment by Bradford — April 1, 2007 @ 3:10 pm
April 1st, 2007 at 3:18 pm
keiths:
Um… nope. Harris is telling (NOT 'asking') everyone who holds beliefs different from his to stop believing what they believe because HE doesn't believe what they believe. That's entirely different from what you assert, and a whole heck of a lot more irrational. Not to mention solipsistic.
This offering might be a lot more impressive if it was one Harris demonstrated the value of by actually practicing. But since Harris expresses unsubstantiated faiths in public so often, it looks like a pig in a poke.
Because to most people the question is relatively 'important', and those who insist their own personal appeal to their own personal judgments should trump all other individual's judgments are totally irrational. 2-year old temper tantrum stuff from pathologically immature minds.
Comment by Joy — April 1, 2007 @ 3:18 pm
April 1st, 2007 at 4:30 pm
Harris seems to believe that the only possible valid forms of knowledge or rationally warranted belief are those yielded by the methods of the natural sciences; and that the only real entities are those which are posited by the natural sciences.
But this is essentially a faith-based philosophical worldview.
"Science is the only way of obtaining true knowledge of reality."
That statement cannot itself be verified by the methods of science. So the first problem with Harris's faith is that of its self-referential incoherence. The claim that the only way to arrive at rationally justified beliefs is through empirically verifiable procedures involving sensory perception, cannot itself be justified through empirically verifiable procedures involving sensory perception.
To avoid this incoherence, one can broaden one's view of reason so that it's not limited to empirical methods. But then Harris's position can't be justified, since it's obvious that rational arguments can be and have been given for theism. It would be fun to watch Harris take on Aquinas, Descartes, Pascal, Leibniz, Kant, Godel, Putnam, van Inwagen, Dummett, and Plantinga; and try to convict them all of irrationality on account of their theism.
I vividly remember attending a lecture by Plantinga at Oxford based on these notes. Plantinga v Harris would be a seriously unfair contest…
Van Inwagen v Harris would also be a seriously unfair contest. But what would make it particularly interesting is the fact that van Inwagen is the author of this elegant paper: Is It Wrong Everywhere, Always, and for Anyone to Believe Anything on Insufficient Evidence?.
Comment by stunney — April 1, 2007 @ 4:30 pm
April 1st, 2007 at 5:18 pm
Leaving the God question to one side for a moment, it is very telling that among atheists there is no agreement about morality.
Some atheists believe free market capitalism is morally right. Some believe it is very immoral. Some atheists believe pacifism is morally right. Some believe it is morally wrong. Some believe capital punishment is wrong. Some believe it is morally legitimate.
But it goes deeper than that. Some atheists believe some form of utilitarianism is the correct theory of morality. Some don't. Some hold to a social contract theory of morality. Some hold to a neo-Aristotelian virtue ethics. Some are Ayn Randian rational egoists.
But it goes even deeper than that…
Some atheists hold cognitivist views of morality. Others (such as J. L. Mackie, author of 'Ethics: Inventing Right and Wrong') hold non-cognitivist views, such as emotivism or prescriptivism. Some atheists believe morality is an adaptive illusion. Other atheists such as Thomas Nagel hold to some version of moral realism.
Et cetera, et cetera.
What's the Catholic view of morality? It's generally called 'natural law ethics'. In an article by Clifford Kossel called 'Natural and Human Law', this is explicated as follows:
So, from a Catholic perspective, there is nothing irrational about combining theistic belief with a belief that true morality is to be sought using what Aquinas called 'ratio recta'——'right reason'.
But in any case, Harris seems to be unaware of the fact that ethical and metaethical disagreements are rife among non believers.
An atheist follower of Ayn Rand might 'justify' using low paid child labor in some Asian sweatshop by citing Randian doctrine. How would this differ in essence from a Christian who condemned that practice, citing the doctrine of Jesus? One has faith in Rand. The other has faith in Jesus….
Comment by stunney — April 1, 2007 @ 5:18 pm
April 1st, 2007 at 5:42 pm
Hi Keiths,
You can surely take reason and evidence into account, as I suspect most religious believers do just that.
Sure, but Sam Harris is the one who claims religion is a net harm for society.
And do any of us ever attain such knowledge? Can we really KNOW our beliefs are true?
I don't think most religious people abandon reason and evidence. You simply put "reason and evidence" into different perspectives and you get different outputs.
Sure, and after hours of "productive debate," everyone will be where they started from. Take the ID debate. I've watched years of "productive debates" by both sides who claim to serve reason and evidence. Both sides feel justified in their beliefs.
Faith allows you to escape permanent agnosticism and thus inaction.
That sounds great until you apply it to specific claims. For example, when it comes to the resurrection belief among Christians, what is it that Sam wants?
Which is fine. But if Sam doesn't commit to belief in any of them, who cares? Unless someone is actively trying to get Sam to convert, they have no obligation to provide the type of evidence that would make Sam Harris believe them.
But I thought this was about the truth? Are you saying truth always wins in the courtroom?
Runnin' out of time so let me get to your last questions.
Sure.
But it is.
Because I have no reason to think human reason can truly settle this issue.
Comment by MikeGene — April 1, 2007 @ 5:42 pm
April 1st, 2007 at 6:03 pm
An insightful observation by Mike. It extends beyond religion though. What entrepreneur has not had reasonable doubts about the outcome of a planned business venture? Yet the good ones persist because they know that if things never get past the thinking stage nothing will happen.
Comment by Bradford — April 1, 2007 @ 6:03 pm
April 1st, 2007 at 7:15 pm
Bradford, commenting on Mike Gene:
As many philosophers have pointed out, there are many propositions which we cannot prove without circularity but which we hold either as epistemically foundational beliefs on which other beliefs must ultimately depend for their justification; or, in non-foundationalist epistemologies (such as coherentism or reliabilism, as beliefs that simply do not require justification. Some possible examples:
1) The external world exists independently of me.
2) Sense-perception is a generally valid way of coming to justified belief about the external world.
3) Memory is a generally valid way of arriving at justified beliefs about the past.
4) There are minds other than my own.
5) Inductive reasoning is a generally valid basis by which to justify beliefs.
6) Causal reasoning is a generally valid basis by which to justify beliefs.
7) Deductive reasoning is a generally valid basis by which to justify beliefs.
Wittgenstein gives a nice and very simple example. Your belief that 'This is my hand' is generally such that it's senseless to ask for a justification of it; because if that belief might really be false, then the whole framework of justifying one's beliefs is called into question. Nothing would be, in general, a sufficient reason to make you give up your belief that that bodily appendage you see is indeed your hand. And any reason you could give for that belief would not be as epistemically convincing, probable, certain, believable etc, as the belief itself on its own already is.
See also the extensive philosophical discussion of the brain in a vat notion.
The point being that belief in certain propositions is quite rational even in the absence of justifying reasons, because those propositions are fundamental to any conceptual framework in which notions of epistemic justification have a place.
Plantinga has famously argued that belief in propositions whose truth requires the existence of God can be quite rational despite their basic or foundational status for a given believer in certain circumstances.
Harris appears to be blissfully ignorant of the relevant philosophical literature.
Comment by stunney — April 1, 2007 @ 7:15 pm
April 1st, 2007 at 9:43 pm
There is no agreement among believers about morality either, so I'm not sure what disagreement among atheists is supposed to prove. Jews believe it's wrong to eat pork. Hindus believe it's wrong to kill a cow. Catholics believe it's wrong to kill a human embryo. Osama bin Laden believes that it is immoral to drink alcohol but virtuous to kill infidels. Etc.
Comment by mtraven — April 1, 2007 @ 9:43 pm
April 1st, 2007 at 10:04 pm
I have to agree with mtraven; dissent within a group doesn't necessitate the falsity of a given worldview.
I agree that differing usage for 'faith' makes discussion a little tricky, but you haven't done much to help it by giving what you take to be paradigmatic cases of certain types of faith. For instance, what is the justification for believing that the Coke you buy from a 7-11 won't have that lethal dose of cyanide? Is it because one has never drank one previously? Well, that would be sort of an obvious conclusion. (See, I've been reading up on my WAP.) Or to expand that, you might say, "I have never known or heard of anyone who has died from drinking a 7-11 Coke, so my belief is justified," but that seems to lead into more questions, least of all ones about inference.
When I get into these sorts of discussions, I like to propose a notion: Exchange "trust" any time you're tempted to use faith. I'd love to see a productive conversation come out of that.
Comment by thechristiancynic — April 1, 2007 @ 10:04 pm
April 1st, 2007 at 10:43 pm
Harris does nothing of the kind. He's not singling out religious belief for special, severe scrutiny — he's arguing that religious belief should be subject to the same scrutiny, the same standards of reason and evidence as other beliefs.
Stalin and Pol Pot were atheists, so you might want to look for better examples of opportunism disguised in faith's clothing.
In any case, are you seriously asserting that no one has ever done something which we would consider evil, thinking it was God's will? That every evil ever done in God's name was done with faith as a mere cover story? Give me a break, Bradford.
Pascal grasped the problem 450 years ago when he wrote:
Comment by keiths — April 1, 2007 @ 10:43 pm
April 1st, 2007 at 11:22 pm
mtraven wrote:
The point is that an absence of religious faith does nothing to guarantee moral consensus either. Hence advocating an end to religious faith and its replacement by 'reason', as Harris does, because religious faith doesn't guarantee moral consensus, is, not to put too fine a point on it, er, really dumb.
Comment by stunney — April 1, 2007 @ 11:22 pm
April 1st, 2007 at 11:24 pm
No wonder these arguments are skewed. Harris's tactic is one of the most insidious out there. If you dislke something redefine it in a way that assures your side of a propaganda victory.
Why are you so defensive of the guy. You would think he's a member of your family. Religion is subject to the same standards. Believers are more honest though when they reveal that some of what they believe cannot be confirmed by sensory data. Some of your core beliefs cannot be so confirmed either. Harris's whole faith meme is an indulgence in self-deception.
You're conflating faith with opportunism. Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot"¦ All of them had noble sounding rhetoric to excuse their excesses.
The examples are perfect. Stalin's belief in atheism and communism were extensions of logic beyond that which he could validate by reason and evidence alone.
There has been evil done in God's name but so what? There was evil done by Stalin in the name of an ideology that disavowed God's existence. Do you notice how the same standards are applied to both scenarios? They are both wrong. Why do you have an anti-God obsession. C'mon, out with it. Don't give us that double standard excuse.
Comment by Bradford — April 1, 2007 @ 11:24 pm
April 1st, 2007 at 11:50 pm
When atheists like Harris start banging on about the deleterious consequences of religious fanaticism, it's only fair to point out that the record of atheists in power isn't morally stellar either.
Let's compare the Inquisition with Mao Zedong's Communist China.
Comment by stunney — April 1, 2007 @ 11:50 pm
April 1st, 2007 at 11:55 pm
Keith S
What the hell is "ultimate concern" What can be "justified" belief on such a nebulous term?
Your argument about communism does not parallel your argument about "anything goes" faith. If you argue that once you believe that morals come about through faith, how can you argue against any morality, the parallel is not your handwaving about how communism isn't compelled to accept it's morality by a lack of belief in God. (Actually a rather circular argument that faith is harmful to the race, is closer to what communism represents, so let's get that right.)
What you are presenting in your "anything goes" case for faith is that that is a doubt that has some legitimacy–but specifically in a skeptical application. But I don't see where faith has ever mandated that you take another sect's viewpoint on morality simply because they use the same language.
So that's entirely irrelevant. Unless you can prove that a position of faith mandates acceptance of any other ethic with a similar source. In fact, with faith there is an argument from Grace that is self-defeating if too much grace is extended to differing viewpoints from yours so radically as to deny grace to others who fall afoul of God. Your flat solution space of religious ethics based on a external "consistency" argument, mostly created whole-hog by atheists needs to ignore a lot.
Now, let's create a decent parallel, shall we? If one argues that ethics do not come from God–as both atheists and communists do. Then they are either 1) self-evident from nature, or problematic. If it is problematic, how can you disagree–scientifically now–with the Communists' choice of resolution? How can Harris? Simply because he believes in universal morality–(follow the conv, now) which in this second case is not self-evident? How can a parallel agnostic (in the general sense–don't get distracted?) resolution resolve this problem?
Now, if religion and communism are concerns because they get people killed and that qualifies as an "ultimate concern", how justified is it that creed-agnosticism + faith mandates the permission of any ethic, despite specific ethics motivated by specific articles of faith in each sect? Couldn't that be considered an "unjustified belief" on a "matter of ultimate concern"
Welcome to faith, my son.
Comment by Axeman — April 1, 2007 @ 11:55 pm
April 2nd, 2007 at 12:00 am
A standard atheist objection to religion is that that different religions make contradictory moral and/or metaphysical claims.
Different atheists also make contradictory moral and/or metaphysical claims.
If it's an invalid inference from the latter fact that atheism is false, then it's also an invalid inference from the former fact that theism is false.
Comment by stunney — April 2, 2007 @ 12:00 am
April 2nd, 2007 at 12:15 am
stunney said:
I don't see Harris making that argument in the article cited. Maybe he's made it elsewhere, I don't know. He wants to end religious faith because he believes its based on delusions and causes harmful effects.
Historically, the Enlightenment dethroned God from the status of lawgiver and replaced it with institutions designed to support Reason, as understood in the 18th century. That's where we get our system of government and the idea that humans should make their own laws which are arrived at through rational discourse and democratic processes. This system is far from perfect, politically and philosophically, but it sure beats religious warfare. It doesn't guarantee complete moral consensus, but I don't think it was ever advertised as such.
BTW, it is easy enough to distinguish between Enlightenment-based atheism and the atheism of Stalin or Mao, which is really closer to a secular religion. One has a respect for reason and a tolerance for a diversity of opinions, the other doesn't.
Comment by mtraven — April 2, 2007 @ 12:15 am
April 2nd, 2007 at 12:29 am
LOL. Well said. It passes the pale the amount of times I've heard this same objection come from an atheist with the same oblivion. Here's the methodological problem with common atheism with that: Many Creeds. Abe believes that God is a cat, Barney believes he's a shoe-salesman, Chuck believes she's a PAC chairman. Many Creeds argues that the wide range of existence of a wide range of beliefs is highly indicative that the entire matter is made up.
Now examine atheists disagreement about morality in that same light. Does it help that they don't agree? No. Does it help that they are open? Well, does it help that Barney is willing to concede various points about Abe's cat god? Probably not.
In fact Ethics itself, might sit in the same seat as Dawkins' theology. A study of a subject about which there is no subject. And yet the promise of atheists, like Harris, is that we'll come up with a scientific understanding of something we don't know to be a truly observable phenomenon outside of group behavior.
Now, outside of serendipity of stumbling over the element Ethics, how can Science study what can be explained away as simpler isolated facts? That humans (and chimps) war is just as testable as that humans (and chimps) have compassion. That humans don't like other groups is just as testable as that they may join bonds over these divisions. How do we get a "compassion" that is anything more than a variation of group relationship?
Comment by Axeman — April 2, 2007 @ 12:29 am
April 2nd, 2007 at 12:39 am
"One has a respect for reason and a tolerance for a diversity of opinions, the other doesn't."
And that means what? How is Harris having more respect for "diversity of opinions" than the moderates he takes aim at? His argument is a sort of guilt by association. You would have to argue that Harris has the perfect mix of tolerance and intolerance. In order to argue that both those are valid.
If we have a tolerance for diversity of opinions, can we have a tolerance for opinions that vary in tolerance?
So how does that make you want to defend Harris' take on people who by definition of being moderates moderate their views?
Comment by Axeman — April 2, 2007 @ 12:39 am
April 2nd, 2007 at 12:50 am
mtraven wrote:
Ah yes, the old 'Heads I win, tails you lose' argument.
Comment by stunney — April 2, 2007 @ 12:50 am
April 2nd, 2007 at 1:17 am
Hey, there's nothing like ad hoc stipulations to win an argument for you!
Comment by Axeman — April 2, 2007 @ 1:17 am
April 2nd, 2007 at 1:45 am
- what argument?
- it's hardly an ad hoc idea, see here.
Comment by mtraven — April 2, 2007 @ 1:45 am
April 2nd, 2007 at 6:55 am
From the link:
mtraven also wrote:
The problem is this is mythical. The French Revolution followed in the wake of this era as did the Napoleonic Wars. Reason did not replace "religious warfare." That is a historically unsubstanstiated claim.
Comment by Bradford — April 2, 2007 @ 6:55 am
April 2nd, 2007 at 9:24 am
Bradford wrote:
Don't forget the rise of imperialism and nationalism throughout the 19th century which eventually culminated in the First World War, followed by fascism and the Second World War. Oh, and Communism was in the post-Enlightenment witches' brew too.
If this constitutes 'reason replacing religious warfare', then religious warfare doesn't look so bad.
Comment by stunney — April 2, 2007 @ 9:24 am
April 2nd, 2007 at 12:11 pm
Sorry, I did not mean to imply that some golden age of Reason universally followed the Enlightenment — obviously, that's not the case.
I did mean to point out that some of the ideals of the enlightenment were implemented in politics (notably, the American system of government is founded on these ideals) and has worked reasonably well, although very far indeed from perfection.
All the post-enlightement fallout you mention (nationalism, imperialism, fascism) you can blame on the enlightenment itself, or you can blame it on human's innate religiosity fastening onto new secular forms. Fascism was clearly a counter-enlightenment movement in its roots. Communism was more grounded in Enlightenment ideals but led to a perversion of them, again driven by the same irrational authoritarian tendencies that fuel religion.
All of which is to say, it is hard to get people achieve moral consensus. The liberal democratic state is one imperfect solution, the authoritarian state (secular or religious) is another. Which do you prefer?
And do you folks really count yourselves as part of the counter-enlightenment? I realize there is a big faction of the Christian Right who essentially believes it was a bad idea and we should go back an authoritarian theocratic regime, but I didn't think you were among them.
Comment by mtraven — April 2, 2007 @ 12:11 pm
April 2nd, 2007 at 12:31 pm
mtraven:
The only thing irrational is your proclivity to want to blame religion for what amounts to tendencies of human nature. Instead of looking for all 'isms' but atheism to blame try looking at the real culprit- human nature.
Mtraven, you need to fantasize about something other than ill-conceived motives you would like to pin on others.
Comment by Bradford — April 2, 2007 @ 12:31 pm
April 2nd, 2007 at 1:14 pm
mtraven wrote:
I'm a democratic socialist. I detest the Christian Right.
Now, my democratic socialism is not simply an Enlightenment idea. Its essence goes back to Jesus and some of the Old Testament prophets. The idea is that one cannot love God or know God if one doesn't care about the poor, about oppression, and about social injustice.
The Enlightenment generated slogans of freedom and equality—and the bourgeoisie promptly set about exploiting urbanized workers in the horrible conditions of 19th century unregulated factories. So much for freedom and equality!
You then have the formally democratic process corrupted by great asymmetries of wealth and influence.
So I criticize the Enlightenment not from the Right, but from the Left. And that leftist viewpoint owes more to Judaeo-Christian tradition than to the Enlightenment.
"Harder for a rich man to enter the kingdom…"
""You saw me hungry and you gave me no food……. Whatever you did to the least of my brothers you did also to me"
"All the believers were together and held everything in common. Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need…."
Comment by stunney — April 2, 2007 @ 1:14 pm
April 2nd, 2007 at 2:08 pm
There's the leftist Christian tradtion of Jesus himself, and then there's the rightist Christian tradition of the actually existing institutions of the Catholic church and similar. Not to mention Suppy Side Jesus. Both are real. I'm not Sam Harris, I don't believe that all religion is inherently authoritarian and harmful. Still, the rightwing tendencies seem to have more influence. If I were in your position, I'd be spending my time trying to build up a Christian left, which seems almost nonexistant in current politics, rather than engaging in these somewhat sterile philosophical debates.
Stunney, have you read anything by Joel Kovel? He's an ex-Marxist, ex-Freudian who has more recently written on the place of spirituality in politics and the psyche…also was a Green Party candidate for something I believe. Anyway, I find his viewpoint interesting and you might also.
Comment by mtraven — April 2, 2007 @ 2:08 pm
April 2nd, 2007 at 2:37 pm
mtraven:
Has it ever occurred to you that you believe "rightwing tendencies" have more influence because that's where you focus your attention? Sure, the loudmouths in the wings get the most attention from news media too, but only because they're so obviously outliers. If they were the 'norm' you wouldn't be hearing much about them and EAs wouldn't be devoting their lives to making fortunes by being loudmouths from the opposite wing.
By the way, the Christian left is alive and well, thanks. Though they're not making as much loudmouth noise as the so-'colorful' wingnuts are, they do represent a larger constituency of moderates and left-leaners. Thus you didn't know there is a Christian left presence in progressive politics, and aren't aware of how they have been working against the totalitarian proclivities of both wings of wingnuttery.
Stop and think for a moment - consider MacNeill's criteria for a genuine 'natural' proclivity. It must distribute according to the expected bell curve - two diametrically opposed wings at the ends of a much larger range of expression that is the middle ground. It's thus a large mistake to assume that wingnuts represent all there is of any position on any issue just because you don't hear much about the middle.
So portraying the situation as one of mere dueling wingnuts (the Robertson vs. Harris dichotomy) is a grotesque misrepresentation of the actual situation, and serves only to alientate reasonable people (or polarize them). Is that the goal of folks like Harris and Dawkins and PZ Myers? I ask because we already know that's the goal of folks like Robertson and Dobson and Buchanan.
Comment by Joy — April 2, 2007 @ 2:37 pm
April 2nd, 2007 at 2:52 pm
Oh, and that middle ground toward the left end of the curve includes lots of Jewish, Muslim, Hindu and 'other' moderates as well as UUs, non-denominationals and even agnostic/atheists who don't have it in themselves to hate everybody who isn't themselves.
I have often tried to explain to EAs around here that I've got no religious horse in this race, primarily because I consider my religious/spiritual views to be nobody's business but my own. You'll find that most people feel this way, so long as you're not sitting across from them telling them how stupid they are, telling them they're brain-damaged child abusers, etc. Hate speech gets attention, and attention makes hate-speakers more 'important' than they really are. This really isn't difficult to understand.
I will defend the human right to believe as one chooses (so long as it doesn't break other laws) and practice accordingly. I'll also defend the rights of American citizens to speak freely, for or against. Even hate speech, so long as it's not incitement to violence or panic (we have laws for that). That means I will speak against those in either wing-camp who demand that freedom and rights be abrogated in favor of their silly wingnut positions.
This is why it's so interesting to me that in the wake of Dover and affirmation of our cherished separation of church and state, the EAs have taken their crusade steadily away from the 'science' they've relied upon for 150 years to legitimize their wingnuttery. That's just bound to inform the many in the middle that there's something askew in the Dueling Metaphysics that still tries to cloak itself as 'science'.
…and THAT is the biggest break Intelligent Design - as science - has had in forever! §;o)
Comment by Joy — April 2, 2007 @ 2:52 pm
April 2nd, 2007 at 4:18 pm
mtraven, I've not read anything by Kovel.
As to the Judaeo-Christian left, Joy is correct—it certainly exists but just doesn't get a lot of airtime compared to Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, etc.
I see Kovel has criticized Tikkun magazine, a leftist Jewish magazine.
Then there's Sojourners.
And in the Catholic tradition, we have the likes of Dorothy Day and the Catholic Worker movement; Fr Dan Berrigan;