I recently read a blog post by my son. In his post, he referenced an article by Sam Harris, entitled The Fireplace Delusion. I read the Harris article with some interest and thought I’d post my response to it.
Here’s how it begins:
“It seems to me that many nonbelievers have forgotten—or never knew—what it is like to suffer an unhappy collision with scientific rationality. We are open to good evidence and sound argument as a matter of principle, and are generally willing to follow wherever they may lead. Certain of us have made careers out of bemoaning the failure of religious people to adopt this same attitude.”
Harris analogized religious argument to the common perception that a warm fire in the hearth is a comforting and “wholesome” thing, and that people will irrationally argue its merits and benefits, despite the fact that science has proven that fire, in itself, is a harmful, pernicious, and unhealthful thing. He goes so far as to say that, in view of advances in technology, those who burn wood, do so “recreationally”, rather than from any possible benefit or need, and that doing so should be outlawed. He rejects any opposing view as irrational, based on scientific evidence.
I found Harris’ article and analogy interesting, but not compelling. His argument, as I read it, is basically that religious people irrationally defend that which they believe, despite the fact that science proves religion false, and that for this reason non-believers face only irrational argument from believers and must therefore feel disadvantaged (implied in his closing statement). He applies his logic to believers in religion vs. non-believers, apparently equating non-believers to those educated in science, and believers to the close-minded and self-deceived, who defend falsehood in spite of absolute evidence to the contrary.
It is apparent Harris’ intended audience is the body of non-believers who consider religion to be false and irrational. His argument is founded in three assumptions that preexist his argument. The first two are obvious and are set out in the introduction to his article. First, he presupposes that those who are non-believers espouse good evidence and sound reasoning “as a matter of principle” and generally follow wherever it leads. Second, he asserts that those who profess religion do not. He seems to be attempting to console non-believers, who lament the fact that they cannot convince a religious person of the error of their thinking, by explaining that rational arguments are ineffective against them; they do not desire, nor will they accept sound reasoning or good evidence contrary to their beliefs.
The third presumption is not obviously stated, but is as evident as the first two. He presumes, before all, that religion is false, irrational, and not founded in scientific reality. All his rationale simply disintegrates in the face of the possibility that any religion may be true. In fact, if any religion is true, then the same presumptions he applies above can be stated otherwise with equal validity as: Those who disbelieve the true religious principles, do so despite good evidence and sound reasoning, do not desire such, and they will not follow where such leads. Harris’ fireplace analogy can be applied equally in the case of believers in false religious doctrine as in the case of believers in faulty scientific conclusions. However it fails in the case of true religious doctrine and principles.
Harris’ analogy fails to address the fact that there are renowned scientists who have made momentous scientific discoveries, who are also very religious. He also discounts the fact that the same analogy may be applied equally to the non-believing scientific community, who simply disregard any evidence that they have not measured, quantified, labeled, and manipulated. So, he paints non-believers with the broad brush of being open-minded and rational as a matter of principle, while using the same brush to paint believers as being close-minded and irrational, disallowing the possibility that either side might go either direction depending on the topic at hand (for instance, the scientist who is afraid of harmless snakes). Following this logic, one must assume that a scientist, regardless of renown or scientific accomplishments, who is also religious, must not be open-minded and rational “as a matter of principle,” nor willing to follow where open-mindedness and rational thinking leads.
A favorite quote of my son comes to mind: “The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”
One cannot simply state, as Harris has implied, that people believe in religion only because it is comforting, or that believing in religious doctrines is equivalent to being unscientific, uneducated, or irrational, without applying the same parameters to non-believers, whether scientists or not, and still comply with the argument he himself has presented by his analogy.
Mr. Harris’s analogy, contrary to his intent, I’m sure, is effective in showing how all people, including himself, regardless of whether they believe in religion or not, irrespective of their avocation, education, or belief system, feel the same emotional need to defend their beliefs and values; interestingly, that same characteristic demonstrated by his writing the article. We tend to see in others that which we find in ourselves. I’m sure, if he were to read this response, he would find humor in the fact that, as he read, he was developing in his mind arguments to refute it and support his own assertions, despite the fact that his original conclusions are admittedly based upon his “extensive research” at “dinner parties”.
A true scientist does not reject or deny the possibility of evidence he/she has not yet discovered. Neither does a true scientist expect to arrive at valid scientific conclusions without research and experimentation following proper scientific methodology. At the same time, all scientists accept and apply information they receive from sources other than themselves, sources they have vetted and trust, and they recognize the verity that they cannot possibly discover it all for themselves. They must believe somebody. True religionists follow these same principles.
As I would not expect to make any valid scientific discovery without following the prescribed protocols of science, I would neither expect to discover any religious verities without following the prescribed protocols of religion. Neither would I disregard the occasional fortuitous accident, or miracle, by which either scientific or religious knowledge may be obtained. Nor do I regard scientific knowledge as being separate and distinct from my religious beliefs. Harris, judging by the entirety of his article and not just the analogy, seems to discount completely that there may, in the final analysis, be no difference in true religious doctrine and scientific knowledge, or the possibility that in some future day all rational thought must include a knowledge of the existence and workings of God.
The value of faith is the ability to live according to true principles not yet discovered nor explainable by science. Those who can do so benefit by living according to those true principles, while those who disregard faith must wait until a true principle is discovered by science before they or their followers can benefit. Who, then, is close-minded? The believer who lives true principles only by faith, or the non-believer who discounts the existence of true principles not yet discovered and proven by science.
There really is no difference in the rejection of true principles, regardless of whether they are based in faith or scientific knowledge. Both are irrational. Similarly, it is no more rational to disregard the possibility that current scientific knowledge may be faulty or incomplete, than blindly to believe in false religious principles.
The key to true knowledge and wisdom is to seek it on its own terms, regardless of the source, and to follow where it leads…as a matter of principle.
It appears Harris’ mind is closed on the matter.
As he put it, “And that should give you some sense of what we are up against whenever we confront religion.”
I must admit, however, that he convinced me that a wood-burning fireplace is unhealthful.