Sly, Sly, Sly. it’s The Invisible Pink Unicorn. Please don’t let these sloppy semi-heretics mislead you about the divinely revealed true nature of the IPU.

I will say that if you think reason isn’t passionate, you’re doing it wrong. Science is ecstatic, too. Of course. Ever read Barbara McClintock?

What irks me all the more, is that I’ve read this before, when it was called “The Future of an Illusion” and it was by Freud. Say what you will about that work, and I disagree with it as well, but at least it was written with some skill. The problem…

Harris’s atheism isn’t incompatible with pluralism. His belief that religion is incompatible with pluralism is.

Piny, ya took the words out of my mouth. I’m enough of a realist to know that pluralism must make some decisions about the acceptable range that it will encompass. And while Harris is certainly in his legal right to express these opinions, they present a challenge to the long term health of our pluralism, just like a Falwell and the Dominionists do.

#

Why is the mother of the Messiah called “Mary” instead of “Laura”? “Laura” is a pretty name. Why are there ten commandments, instead of thirteen? What’s the big whoop-de-doo about Jerusalem, or the Ganges River, in contrast to Cleveland and the good old Cuyahoga? Tradition, pal, that’s why!

As i said, i’m willing to grant a certain amount of paranoia in my read here. But the whole argument gets gendered. Reason is cool, calm, intelligent (read the male valence on that yet?) and Religion is passionate, emotional, and mystic… Without engaging the stereotypes specifically, i think they’re prima facie invalid, i think you can see where pinking religion as part of dismissing it in favor of the almighty power of Intellectual Reason has my patriarchy alarm going off.

Harris:
Right. Those are not as consequential. But this whole style of believing and talking about beliefs leaves us powerless to overcome our differences from one another. We have Christians against Muslims against Jews, and no matter how liberal your theology, merely identifying yourself as a Christian or a Jew lends tacit validity to this status quo. People have morally identified with a subset of humanity rather than with humanity as a whole.

piny:
Well, setting aside for a moment that he morally identifies with one subset of humanity–atheists–rather than with the other nine-tenths or so, how is this not true of other beliefs? He hasn’t proposed the abolition of nations, because we cannot be reasonable while infected with national identity. He doesn’t seem to have much of a problem with cultural heritage apart from religion. Neither one of those has a peaceable history.–piny

It’s the style of believing and talking about beliefs that isn’t true of other beliefs, according to Harris. That is, for most beliefs that aren’t religious beliefs, we find it acceptable and even preferable to ask, at times, for evidence. That is, we want thesort of evidence that lots and lots of people can agree on regardless of upbringing, political stripe, religious inclinations or the like. (I don’t pretend this is unproblematic, and I don’t think Harris, in his book, does either, though he does go over it quickly. It’s not a two thousand page book, after all.)

With religious beliefs, it is often antithetical to look for evidence of this sort. .In my mind (though Harris, to my knowledge, doesn’t say this explicitly), it is just that sort of agreement on what might count as evidence that helps to form ‘humanity as a whole’.

Also, though he doesn’t talk about it in that short interview, Harris (going by his book) doesn’t think religious thinking is the only ‘style’ of thinking that has this problem. Particular kinds of political movements (he cites Marxism) have similar problems, in that they are in some way ‘beyond question’ for their adherents. So, while he doesn’t (to my knowledge) advocate for getting rid of nationalism, he might very well think it does follow from his thinking.

I’m not fully supporting Harris’ views, but his outlook is much more involved and nuanced in his book than he could possibly explain in an interview. As another commenter has said, that doesn’t mean he’s not a dick. I did see a video of him giving a speech (I think it was for the booktv channel) where he came off as much less self-serving than he does in the alternet interview. (Although, in a way I suppose his position comes down to something like, “You just can’t argue with those people!”)

He also has a forum for readers of the book (and others) that goes into a lot of this stuff ad nauseum, but it’s pretty interesting:
http://www.samharris.org/forum/
Lots of different opinions there.

And when I do, I tend to forget the context that this guy provides–just as, I’m sure, many moderate religious people don’t see why they should explicitly reject other kinds of religion.

It’s all well and good to say that we should’nt have to do that. But growing up in a town where conservative and often fundamental Christianity are the norm (and in an extended family where the religious choices range from atheism, to naturalism and UU-attendance, to hardline Southern Baptism) saying you’re an atheist is a good way to brand yourself as an evil, immoral, Christian- and America- hater.

No, it gives the impression that you think of Islam as a monolith, which is the fault of your words, not the fact that I quoted them.

Not necessarily. For my comment to be true, it doesn’t necessarily demand Islam to be monolithic, all it takes is that the majority of Muslims won’t be as inclined to support secular sex education, and thus, with Muslim majority such thing may be lost on governmental scale.

Since I think this is a well-known, accepted fact, I did not bother with diclaimers.

However, I do not like the fact that you took my comment out of context, as out of context it gives the impression that I think all good things are coming to end because of growing Muslim population, whereas it really refers to sex education based on secular ideas (I do believe there are other problems, but anyway).

It was not a general statement, but a context-specific one.

No, it gives the impression that you think of Islam as a monolith, which is the fault of your words, not the fact that I quoted them. I didn’t pull it to highlight the “good things” part at all.

The Legislature of the Maryland Free State shall consist of a Legislative Council of fifteen members, to be elected at State-wide elections… No person shall be eligible to election… who is or has ever been a minister of the Gospel, or who has ever been under guardianship as a lunatic, or as a person non compos mentis, or who has ever been convicted, either within the state or elsewhere, of felony or bribery in any election…

sly civilian: How come the invisible, do-nothing, isn’t real deity is always pink?

Why is the mother of the Messiah called “Mary” instead of “Laura”? “Laura” is a pretty name. Why are there ten commandments, instead of thirteen? What’s the big whoop-de-doo about Jerusalem, or the Ganges River, in contrast to Cleveland and the good old Cuyahoga? Tradition, pal, that’s why!

Sure. My problem with Harris is that he’s arguing a homogeneity of religion that doesn’t seem to exist, and ignoring instances in which it does not seem to negatively affect the critical faculties of faithful people.

Well… it doesn’t affect their critical faculties outside of the domain of religious ideas, maybe. But then you sorta get this weird doublethink thing going, which isn’t exactly super-awesome either.

I’ll grant that there are some people who say, for example, “My religion isn’t really about whether Jesus actually lived or died or whether people really go to heaven if they believe in him, it’s about what we can learn from his example and how following that example can make the world a better place.” But it seems like in that case you’re really rendering the supernatural beliefs irrelevant and metaphorical. It’s hard for me to see how you can call that a religion at all, except in the sense that it’s a life philosophy which is loosely derived from ideas that other people treat as a religion.