But the message is that nobody should have any hate, but only love towards one another as we are all equally guilty.
Everybody is a sinner and deserving of the punishment of sin. We are not in any position to point a finger.
I will never understand why people cannot admit they are sinful. At our core we are all sinful in nature.
There are many reasons why we should reject the concept of sin. 1) There is simply no proof of it. 2) The concept of inherited sin is antithetical to the concept of free will. 3) Genetics has disproved the existence of an original Adam and Eve, and "evil" has been with the universe since the beginning; we wouldn't even be here without constant destruction. So how did sin enter the world? 4) The concept of sin does an inadequate job of describing moral values. In fact, it's difficult to tell what a sin even is. And don't tell me that the Bible is some kind of guide. It tells us that we shouldn't commit murder, yet all of the death that god condones apparently doesn't count as murder.
Do you expect me to simply "know" that I am sinful through my own conscience or intuition, just as CS Lewis argued? Intuition is not a guide to objective moral bearings. Someone who grew up as Buddhist will tell you that you should "know" that the secret to life is the constant cycle of death and rebirth. In other words, what we think we know as truth is often transmitted culturally to us throughout our lives. Only some of it is innate, and that innateness certainly does not come from god.
I understand, but I guess I've never found that a powerful criticism. Ultimately, I don't care about philosophies that are only properly studied and practiced in doctorate programs. Religion couples philosophy with "government" mechanisms to disseminate, implement, and adapt it. After all, I assume you think that religion is an anthropological solution to common problems that societies have. In that worldview, ethics are pre-mediated. They exist between logical proofs and simply "ought" assertions. The Grand Inquisitors of history and duped theologians created the borders and how far they can stretch.
To provide a full critique, I really think you can't compare philosophy to philosophy. We'd just end up with differing 1st premises and unfair comparisons. I think you have to provide a system for disseminating information along with it. If Christianity was a major part in shifting a continent or more from barbarism to relative brilliance in 1,700 years (not shabby), the next, improved system needs to have similar ambitions.
You don't have to come up with some white paper you have prepared about how you'd fill the gap. But, you know, what are your rough ideas? National or transnational education standards that heavily critique other ethical systems and provide debate within a narrow scope of your preferred one? Church-like structures with secular philosophers, therapists, and community workers?
There is no reason for the average person to study and practice moral philosophy in doctorate programs. Most people don't intellectualize it to such a degree. They act according to simple moral intuitions, and these moral intuitions are transmitted culturally. At least on a sociological level, people act according to their incentives. Religion was never some kind of fundamental moral precept that, once removed, would require us to build a completely new one. It's just another part of our cultural framework that contributes to our moral intuitions. It can be replaced by other factors (a stable, comfortable environment is crucial, which is one reason why poorer people tend to be more religious). That is why, as religious authority declines, there is no obvious and linear moral decay concomitant with it, as much as any number of religious authorities try to convince us that we are headed toward moral deprivation. We don't need any special mechanisms. We just need a better concept of morality (which yes, science can help us to achieve) and social cohesion.
Lastly, I must object to the claim that Christianity shifted a continent out of barbarism. It may be true that it played a part, but no more than religion played a part in the rise of the Greco-Roman world or China. Perhaps the most important element of any country's rise is Jared Diamond's concept of "guns, germs, and steel", followed by the contributions of brilliant men. In some cases, religion may actually impede (for example, usury laws). Of course, even if a post-religious or post-Christian society had to live up to those lofty ambitions, there is a chance that Sam Harris is right in that society will become more moral and more focused on human well-being, which would be a good legacy to have.
EDIT: The implication of guns, germs, and steel, of course, is that if the Native Americans had instead lived in Europe with all of its incredible advantages, we would now be arguing about how the Great Spirit played a major part in lifting the continent out of barbarism and to brilliance.
i think this is an excellent post.
also, if empathy is not the ultimate moral virtue, or if the ultimate moral virtues do not occur always in tandem with empathy, then i have not even the most base understanding of morality or ethics.
I think the implication of any system of ethics not based upon empathy is that we are, in some instances, sanctioned in making people more miserable on Earth if we believe that it will accomplish greater good in the afterlife. That is a dangerous precedence, one used by religious fundamentalists all over the world. And if someone argues god really wants him to do something, then there is nothing that anyone can do to argue against it; he might even argue that the Bible itself sanctions his actions (as people have done throughout history to commit atrocities).
