Peace, Jeff

from his intro letter: “I’m not sure I’m out to deconvert you”

Yet that is exactly what he goes about trying to do.

This is probably the most revealing thing he has said yet:

“In Christianity, non-violence is affirmed only by a few small sects with a fairly heretical interpretation of Scripture.”

“I don't think Mother Theresa did much good. But that's another story”

Regardless, there are thousands of Christians throughout the world whose good works are financed by millions of other Christians doing extremely good things non-violently.

Chandragupta Maurya is the name of the Jain king I mentioned. Bear in mind too, that Jainism partly grew out of a martial tradition and that some of the early “prophets” or practitioners were warrior kings who are said to have taught, amongst other things, combat techniques.

I'll let Mark ask me the questions he wants, but the short answer to your question is this: exactly the same kind of evidence that I expect of everything else I believe in.

I don't think Mother Theresa did much good. But that's another story.

What's the name of the conquesting Jain? I'd like to read more about that.

The commitment to loving others as we love ourselves, alleviating poverty, and sacrificing our lives of comfort in favour of offering our skills and expertise to those in the developing world carries with it an implicit adherence to non-violence. Christians that donate to missionary work are not paying for violent missionaries!

It's for this reason that I question Sam Harris' assertion that MLK is considered the best exemplar of the faith by many Christians. Albert Schweitzer and Mother Theresa are two figures that come to mind that many, if not most, Christians would put forward as the best exemplars of the faith. They both embody notions of service to others, and loving thy neighbour. As I wrote there are many anonymous Christians like this (and not just in the developing world) whose adherence to notions of service to, and love for, others, carries with it the implicit practice of non-violence. So I would suggest that it is simply untrue that Christians do not embrace non-violence because it is implicit in the doctrines that they do embrace and act upon.

Furthermore, Jainism does embrace violence when it is called for in self-defense of family or even one's nation. So, there seems to be no implicit call to oppose the actions one's own empire, especially if it might be framed in terms of self-defense. In fact, the first king to unify most of India was a Jain, who did so through conquest. He is still celebrated as a hero. That's not to show disrespect to Jainism, but to simply point out that Sam Harris' point seems to be based on an inaccurate understanding of Jainism.

For example, the golden rule, is a postulate about how people should treat each other. We believe that the golden rule is true or a noble way to live based on the success of those who live that way, or the amount of interpersonal success a person enjoys compare to the extent to which they follow the golden rule. We might be able to argue that evolution favors humans who can successfully live in community and that if all members of a community follow the golden rule that society will have less conflict and more babies, more children who make it to adulthood and have offspring themselves, thus empirically the golden rule is successful, therefore it is valued as true. But I’m not sure that we can deduce that the golden rule is a true belief based on accurate application of logic to other valid principles.

Many religions are the codifying of social behaviors in order to make their community more successful. And almost all of them contain some form of the golden rule. Most have deities associated with certain admirable spiritual qualities that they wish their adherents to emulate. There is a common belief among religions that failure to obey their religious practices will lead to degradation of society, moral chaos, and becoming conquered in war. Various religions offer personal rewards for compliance.

The general consistency between religions leads me to I believe that religious practice provided the society with some utility, and the longevity of the practice of religion implies a certain degree of success. If religion in general is successful, what common factor(s) make for success? And if we could identify successful beliefs could those beliefs be considered true? Some religions seem to be more successful than others. They have more adherents and are spread across a larger geographical area. Does that have anything to do with their beliefs either being more true or more of them being true than a less successful religion?

I find it very interesting that humans throughout known history have perceived spiritual qualities such as love, hate, beauty, mercy, and the like. I also find it interesting that the general population throughout history has deified and personified these spiritual qualities. It seems to say a lot about how humans operate: that we are relational and we understand symbols. We seem to understand spiritual qualities best through human behavior. And we seem to need to have something greater than ourselves to admire or worship.

Of all the religions that I know about, Christianity emphasizes forgiveness the most. I find that without forgiveness, Christianity makes no sense. Christianity has personified forgiveness in their deity of Jesus. And it is through deity power that Christians find forgiveness and are empowered to forgive. I’m not sure how a person would be able to extend forgiveness in the graciousness that is idealized in the Bible without the power of a deity. The beauty of forgiveness as expressed through the story of Jesus Christ is that justice is satisfied simultaneously as forgiveness is extended. The justice of God is not taking away life for life, but giving new superb life in exchange for the gift of forgiveness. Christ offers forgiveness for men taking away his life and more, and in exchange for giving up his life he receives a new life that is eternal, and is not subject to the kinds of suffering mortal life entails. That same gift of new life is promised to all of Christ’s followers who are willing to give up their lives.

I believe that to the extent a person lives a life of forgiveness, they are following Jesus, even if they do not mentally make the connection between the spiritual practice and deity of Jesus and his symbolic yet real act of forgiveness. And I believe that to the extent that a person practices a life of forgiveness, they receive the rewards of forgiveness, that is eternal life, whether or not they mentally understand the symbolic yet real forgiveness of Jesus Christ. But just like it is easier to do algebra if you learn how symbols and equations work, I think it is easier to practice forgiveness if you understand the symbols of forgiveness, that is Jesus Christ.