---Thanks, actually Harris is a Buddhist, (although he tends not to publicize this fact); but in any event, he's a different brand of athiest than Dawkins and Dennett. He's not a great fan of scientism, but would prefer to have rational discourses on the nature of the mind, in the context of direct meditative experience. In his worldview, there's a place for mysticism, but he has an uncertain ambivalence toward the existence of an afterlife. Since the existence of higher or unseen dimensions and an afterlife is part and parcel of Buddhism (e.g. the Tibetan Book of the Dead); Harris may have painted himself into a corner in regard to the other athiests, who don't accept the existence of an after-physical life. Einstein was a fan of Buddhism but didn't believe in a life beyond the physical.
In [email protected], bob_brigante <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Letters to the New York Times > > in Response to Nicholas Kristof's "A Modest Proposal for a Truce on > Religion" > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > > > > > > > The New York Times printed responses from Sam Harris > > and Richard Dawkins today (December 5): > > > > > > > > To the Editor: > > > > > > > > Contrary to Mr. Kristof's opinion, it isn't > > "intolerant" or "fundamentalist" to point out that > > there is no good reason to believe that one of our > > books was dictated by an omniscient deity. > > > > Most people who like the Bible, whether as a religious text or just > as literature, do not regard the book as being "dictated by an > omniscient deity." The Bible is seen as an attempt to understand > man's place in the universe, and although it clearly falls short in > that respect, so do science, which only unfolds greater fields of > ignorance as it progresses. > > > > > Given the astounding number of galaxies and > > potential worlds arrayed overhead, the complexities > > of life on earth and the advances in our ethical > > discourse over the last 2,000 years, the world's > > religions offer a view of reality that is now so > > utterly impoverished as to scarcely constitute a > > view of reality at all. > > > > > > Very funny! That some shmuck in a lab coat thinks he knows what the > reality of life is...that arrogant scientism is the POV that is "so > utterly impoverished as to scarcely constitute a view of reality at > all." Tell me, Sam, how you could possibly cite our barbaric age > (Hiroshima, Rwanda etc) as evidence of "advances in our ethical > discourse over the last 2,000 years"? This is at least as pathetic as > some TV evangelist railing against teaching of evolution in schools. >
