Ah well, since you're interested Ian, Allow me to provide Darymple's example that he provides to support his assertion:
Harris tells us, for example, that “we must find our way to a time when faith, without evidence, disgraces anyone who would claim it. Given the present state of the world, there appears to be no other future worth wanting.” I am glad that I am old enough that I shall not see the future of reason as laid down by Harris; but I am puzzled by the status of the compulsion in the first sentence that I have quoted. Is Harris writing of a historical inevitability? Of a categorical imperative? Or is he merely making a legislative proposal? This is who-will-rid-me-of-this-troublesome-priest language, ambiguous no doubt, but not open to a generous interpretation. It becomes even more sinister when considered in conjunction with the following sentences, quite possibly the most disgraceful that I have read in a book by a man posing as a rationalist: “The link between belief and behavior raises the stakes considerably. Some propositions are so dangerous that it may be ethical to kill people for believing them. This may seem an extraordinary claim, but it merely enunciates an ordinary fact about the world in which we live.” Let us leave aside the metaphysical problems that these three sentences raise. For Harris, the most important question about genocide would seem to be: “Who is genociding whom?” . On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 9:47 AM, Ian Glendinning <[email protected]>wrote: > Be interesting to see an example argument for that opinion. > > I expected to find that impression of Harris when I read him (having > previously read Dawkins and already decided he was an arrogant > nutcase, despite Dennett being already being a hero of mine) but in > fact I found both Harris and Hitchens to be subtle and sophisticated > in their arguments. Plenty of "nastiness" in their examples of extreme > religious practices ... of which they clearly express their > "intolerance" ... but the headlines seemed to be representing them as > much more "shrill" than their actual arguments. > > Ian > > On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 5:52 PM, John Carl <[email protected]> wrote: > > More from a link I sent to Jon B regarding what the author calls, "the > > neo-atheists". The author himself is an atheist, so I find his criticism > > more cogent than I could provide. > > > > http://www.city-journal.org/html/17_4_oh_to_be.html > > > > "This sloppiness and lack of intellectual scruple, with the assumption of > > certainty where there is none, combined with adolescent shrillness and > > intolerance, reach an apogee in Sam Harris’s book *The End of Faith*. It > is > > not easy to do justice to the book’s nastiness; it makes Dawkins’s claim > > that religious education constitutes child abuse look sane and moderate." > > Moq_Discuss mailing list > > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. > > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > > Archives: > > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ > > http://moq.org/md/archives.html > > > Moq_Discuss mailing list > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > Archives: > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ > http://moq.org/md/archives.html > Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org/md/archives.html
