I would like to add a few reflections of my own on what I perceive as the inherent contradictions of "rational" critiques of faith (your mileage may vary).
1)It is illogical to denounce religion for killing people when in the absence of G-d neither mass murder, the extermination of the entire human race, nor anything else, can be objectively morally wrong. Ditto for criticisms of religious Fundamentalists for not acknowledging "the simple truth" when in the absence of G-d truth has absolutely no moral claim whatsoever, since morality cannot exist.
2)Materialists insist that only physical phenomena exist and that human thoughts are mere nerve impulses, then promptly criticize others for having different nerve impulses than themselves. Ditto for criticizing immoral behavior in purely material beings when in such a scenario a mass murderer is no more morally culpable for his actions than an erupting volcano.
3)One of the dogmas of "anti-dogmatists" is that reality is purely physical and ultimately meaningless and that human beings have no more purpose than cockroaches. Yet none of these people ever lives as though his life has no more meaning than a cockroach. Instead secularists are the world's champions at defining "goals" meaningless humanity should strive for or "problems" that he must solve (how anything can be construed as a "problem" in a universe in which it's a wonder that we're here at all is never explained). Indeed, he is obsessed with ethics even as he insists that mankind has no purpose. Yet he is determined to "attain the mind of G-d" and even gain control over the purely natural process that created him. Why would a cockroach wish to do such a thing?
I hope the reader will forgive me for some pride in pointing out that I myself made some of the points of the posted article in an essay at my own web site. Allow me to quote myself:
In addition to the utter subjectivism of any moral or ethical system based on Hellenistic reasoning there is another danger. Because the Hellenist is convinced that only the immediate can be known, anyone whose values system is based on Ultimate Things is regarded at best as a delusional obscurantist and at worst as a ticking irrational time bomb. The most inoffensive religious believer, the most benign private prayer, is a sign of insanity. Obviously, these people are dangerous. What if their G-d orders them to kill someone or to commit mass murder? Meanwhile, the Hellenist’s own dogmatic, unquestioned belief in his own rationality gives him a blank check to do the same things (when justified by what is immediate and "obvious") and moreover blinds him to this potential for evil within himself. Surely there is no need to point out at this stage of history that "rational men" are not at all above the most unrestrained violence and even killing. But of course, he never acts without a "rational" reason. The victims of the crusades died for no reason than the fanaticism of their killers; those executed by the rationalist Hellenist simply would not be rational. They would not cooperate. The Hellenist did not want to execute them, but they simply would not "see reason." Needless to say, this moral certitude is even more dangerous than that of one who believes in Ultimate Things, because the Hellenist’s moral certitude supposedly rests on "undeniable" immediate experience which "no sane person" could possibly doubt.
I'm a prophet! Who'd-a thunkit!
Perhaps the most thoroughgoing anti-dogmatist yet is John Gray, a dismal professor of philosophy at LSE. He wrote a book called Straw Dogs in which he not only denounces religion as well as secular placebos for religion like Communism and multi-culturalism, but also secular humanism itself.
He posits the extinction of the human race as desirable, however.
Why?
Because in attempting to renounce all dogma he defaults to the anti-humanist dogma of deep ecology.
What these self-proclaimed rationalists fail to realize is:
(1) Reason, or logical analysis, is merely a tool. It can be used to build a great variety of simultaneously self-contradictory edifices.
(2) Reason is a limited tool. As Godel proved several decades ago, any language of formal logic is necessarily incomplete.
(3) The human brain has inherent limitations. The assumption that the human mind can autonomously comprehend the universe correctly is ridiculous on its face.
If one believes in God, then in the case that God exists one has formed a correct view of reality.
If one believes only in the power of reason, then one has a flawed view of reality under every scenario.
I found this web site because I was looking for response to the Sam Harris’ book from “the other side.” I happen to agree with much of what he says but I think people spent too much time reading and engaging in conversation with people they already agree with. What’s the point of that? You never learn anything by listening to what you already know. Yet that’s what most people do, we humans have a confirmation bias, we attend to things that confirm our beliefs and discount or ignore those that contradict our ideas. If you believe men wearing hats are bad drivers every time you see a bad driver with a hat you are going to think “see I know it” and you won’t even notice all the good drivers wearing hats.
It would be nice if I had the time to provide this loving forum with another point view and respond to many of the post here but I only have time to respond to one.
Zionist Conspirator wrote ….
“It is illogical to denounce religion for killing people when in the absence of G-d neither mass murder, the extermination of the entire human race, nor anything else, can be objectively morally wrong. “
It is illogical to denounce the non-religious when revelations from god have been used to justify mass murder and attempted exterminations of entire races of humans as morally right. That what the 911 hijackers did. On the other hand mass murder has never been justified on purely rational grounds, there’s always some dogma involved.
“Materialists insist that only physical phenomena exist and that human thoughts are mere nerve impulses, then promptly criticize others for having different nerve impulses than themselves.”
They are not objecting to your nervous impulses it is the irrational and whimsical they object to. Not all materialists are reductionists. Nerve impulses do not equal thought but show me thought without nerve impulses.
“One of the dogmas of "anti-dogmatists" is that reality is purely physical and ultimately meaningless and that human beings have no more purpose than cockroaches. …Why would a cockroach wish to do such a thing? “
As far as anyone knows cockroaches don’t wish. Whether apes or chimps do is subject to reasonable debate. But humans do wish and humans create meaning, I don’t know any reasonable secularist that would argue otherwise. Spiritual explanations for spiritual things is perfectly reasonable but when the spiritual tries to explain the physical that it runs in to problems (such as violating the laws of physics). Would you allow physical explanations of purely spiritual things? Or want bridges built by spiritualist? Hospitals staffed with witch doctors? Public policy based on ancient poem?