Reply
Mon 21 Dec, 2015 05:06 am
Or "individual primates" just refers to individual human beings?
Context:
traditional Islam, martyrdom must be viewed as the ultimate attempt at career
advancement. The martyr is also the greatest of altruists: for not only does he secure a place for himself in Paradise, he wins admittance for seventy of his closest relatives as well. Aspiring martyrs also believe that they are furthering God's work here on earth,
with desirable consequences for the living. We know quite a lot about how such people think-indeed, they advertise their views and intentions ceaselessly-and it haseverything to do with their belief that God has told them, in the Quran and the hadith, precisely what the consequences of certain thoughts and actions will be. Of course, it seems profoundly unlikely that our universe has been designed to reward individual primates for killing one another while believing in the divine origin of a specific book. The fact that would-be martyrs are almost surely wrong about the consequences of their
behavior is precisely what renders it such an astounding and immoral misuse of human life.
-Sam Harris
@FBM,
Thanks.
But does it specifically refer to human beings?
@oristarA,
Yes, even though the author is being somewhat vague, the clause "while believing in the divine origin of a specific book" nails it down.
@oristarA,
A primate is any member of the "order" of animals that includes humans, apes, monkeys and chimpanzees.
The word "primate" (in place of "human") highlights the fact that the human trait of killing one another is not exclusively human, i.e. it is a basic natural trait that developed through evolution.
I think the author's point in this case is that religious violence is a basic human instinct.
Thank you both.
The author went on:
Quote: Because most religions conceive of morality as a matter of being obedient to the word of God (generally for the sake of receiving a supernatural reward), their precepts often have nothing to do with maximizing well-being in this world. Religious believers can, therefore, assert the immorality of contraception, masturbation, homosexuality, etc., without ever feeling obliged to argue that these practices actually cause suffering. They can also pursue aims that are flagrantly immoral, in that they needlessly perpetuate human misery, while believing that these actions are morally obligatory. This pious uncoupling of moral concern from the reality of human and animal suffering has caused tremendous harm.
Does "in that they needlessly perpetuate human misery" mean "because they (religious believers) needlessly make human misery permanent"?
@oristarA,
To perpetuate means to continue an ongoing pattern. Their flagrantly immoral aims work to continue the human misery that existed before.
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:
To perpetuate means to continue an ongoing pattern. Their flagrantly immoral aims work to continue the human misery that existed before.
And they think that they are moral according to their "bible"?
@oristarA,
Oops I missed a couple of words when I read this at first. The author is arguing that religious violence is
not a part of basic human nature (although I personally disagree with the author in this). He seems to be arguing that religious violence goes against nature.
This is from the author's point of view. The term "flagrantly immoral" is his subjective judgment of these aims.
Selected Answer
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace