Talk:Sam Harris/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Morality and ethics

"..., one of the most promising lines of medical research is liable to be trumped by a medieval notion that the soul enters the zygote at the moment of conception."

NPOV???!!!! --213.54.179.193 12:10, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

The quoted sentence is obviously biased. I'll remove it. --Sokrat3000 19:20, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I see this is your first contribution, Sokrat3000. Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay.

Obviously what I am going to say is that, in a sense, I was merely reporting the views of Sam Harris, who tends to express himself quite forcefully on this and other issues. However, one gets tired of continuously inserting "Harris says" and "thinks Harris", so there is a tendency to spill over into advocacy (which is bad!).

Of course what Harris would say is that it is interesting that we are having this discussion at all. If I had talked about a "medieval notion that the sun revolves around the earth", would anyone have batted an eyelid? Is it therefore biased to point out that there are some very ill-informed people out there who still seem to think that metaphysical concepts have a useful contribution to make to this very important debate in medical ethics?

I will probably revisit the article before Christmas, and will have to put something neutral back in to balance up the paragraph, but for now I will leave it.

Thank you again for your contribution. --Laurence Boyce 15:35, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

This is surely not the right place to argue about stem cell research. I just wanted to make clear that there are different views on this topic and each one has its right to exist. As far as I know Christian theologians opposing stem cell research often rely on Enlightenment philosopher Immanuel Kant and I doubt you'd call his philosophy a "medieval notion". I think that it's sufficient to point out that Sam Harris opposes metaphysical concepts. Anyone interested in the subject can follow the link to the article about stem cells. The controversy about the use of embryonic stem cells is treated there, too. --Sokrat3000 21:06, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, I have now revised the article generally. I have tidied up the offending paragraph, but have put the sentiments directly in the words of Sam Harris, using a recent quote from Free Inquiry magazine.[1] All quotes are now sourced in the mark-up by the way. I hope this satisfies everyone. --Laurence Boyce 20:21, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Forty-four percent?

"He notes that some forty-four percent of Americans, according to polls, believe that Jesus will probably return within the next fifty years."

If I remember correctly from reading the book, it is twenty-two percent that believe that he will return within fifty years; forty-four percent believe that he will return at some point in time. I'm not positive about this, however, and I don't have the book with me to check, so will someone find out this information and correct the article if needed? --68.52.211.222 23:46, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your query. I'm not sure what Harris said in the book, but on The Huffington Post he said: "According to several recent polls, 22 percent of Americans are certain that Jesus will return to earth sometime in the next fifty years. Another 22 percent believe that he will probably do so."[2] --Laurence Boyce 18:19, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I have reverted your recent edit 68.52.211.222. As I explained above, it is 22% who are certain, and another 22% who think it is likely, (and the source according to Harris is several polls, not one in particular).[3] I think it is therefore a reasonable paraphrase to say that 44% think Jesus will probably return within the next 50 years; indeed Harris has said something similar himself in The God Who Wasn't There—you may view the clip here. We are merely reporting what Harris has said; if he has got the facts wrong, I'm sure his critics will be pointing this out. --Laurence Boyce 19:34, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello 71.106.3.27

. . . and welcome to Wikipedia! I note that this is the second or possibly third time that you have made a slightly perplexing anonymous edit to the Sam Harris article. I know that this is not "my" article, but I freely admit that I have a certain emotional attachment to it at present.

What is the source of your information? Mine is the book The End of Faith, and the material and pointers provided on Harris's website. I am therefore not aware of his having published pieces in the Los Angeles Times or Playboy. I would love to read them; do you have the date/issue info to hand? There was an article in the Times of London, and an interview in the Shambhala Sun; I wouldn't call them essays really.

Then further down, you provide a list of TV appearances. If Harris maintains his profile, this list may become quite lengthy and may just duplicate the info on the official website. I chose to highlight a couple of items; OK, someone else might have chosen differently.

May I suggest that you obtain a Wikipedia account? It doesn't take long and you don't have to provide your real name; then I could have posted this to your user talk. I think I'll wait a few days to give you or anyone else a chance to respond, after which I may revert.

Thank you for your interest, and happy new year! --Laurence Boyce 18:25, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not User:71.106.3.27, but it's easy enough to Google for that the LA Times essay. August 15, 2004 is the date you're looking for. A couple of links: http://www.dennisprager.com/samharris.html, http://www.cuyamaca.net/tpagaard/PagaardSite/Generic/HarrisReligionProblem.pdf . Whether one considers that of "essay length" is subjective. But it's definitely a short, expository piece of writing by Harris, published in the LA Times, so I guess that's what's important. --Ds13 18:16, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for these links. I have now located the Playboy article; it was in the January 2005 issue, entitled Who Needs Religious Moderation?. I am going to tidy up the media info shortly; I think I shall remove the reference to the Shambhala Sun however, as this was an interview, not an article. --Laurence Boyce 16:54, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Criticisms

Harris' own arguments (i.e. demonstrating the harm that religious faith is allegedly responsible for) are so well expressed in this article that I think it's appropriate to start a Criticisms section. He's a controversial author and definitely receives public criticism, so making that aspect clear in the article is important, in my opinion. --Ds13 18:36, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

What I would like to know is what the psychological community, specifically the academics, thinks of this book. Harris lays out the ideas that religious belief is harmful and that moderation is a nonexistent choice; in other words, he's saying to throw out the baby with the bath water. I would think the psychological community would say that speculation and devotion are normal human practices, not necessarily irrational. So what do they say? Someone please find out and post. -Amit --67.22.216.150 04:25, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Heh. I think he's saying there's no baby. :-) Hmoulding 14:47, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I have replaced a paragraph in the criticisms section concerning Harris's alleged misrepresentation of data. The links did not appear to point to any direct criticism as such, but instead to a statistical website. In its place I have presented some atheist criticism, so the section as a whole now contains criticism from all directions. I hope this is satisfactory to all.—Laurence Boyce 14:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I have expanded The End of Faith article to include a criticism section. Accordingly, I have reduced the criticism section in this article slightly.—Laurence Boyce 03:23, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

---

Laurence, I think it would be appropriate to expand the criticism section again and spend more time providing refutations to Harris's claims, rather than linking to the criticism and only offering vague generalities of the criticism. Many readers will be too lazy to read the original texts (summarization is what wiki is for, after all) and I think, as DS13 said before me, that Harris's opinions are expressed so well in this article it would be appropriate to also do justice to criticism of Harris. Also, I have added some criticism, including the requested information on psychological health and religion. C0h3n 07:12, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I disagree C0h3n. I don't mind the criticism section being expanded slightly, though I do feel that it currently contains a reasonable balance of critical opinion. What won't do really is to discuss the ideas themselves, rather than to simply report what has been said by the various critics. The point about balancing up Harris's views is a bit of a red herring. The article is principally about Harris; it is therefore unavoidable in my view that a greater prominence will naturally be lent to his own ideas. I feel therefore that I am going to have to remove the paragraph you added which I'm afraid doesn't directly related to Harris in any way. Thank you for your input. Laurence Boyce 12:53, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

That's fine for now, since the paragraph did not directly relate to Harris (in terms of someone using that as an argument against him). However, I would like you to expand the current criticism to be more explicit about what the critics are saying about Harris. I would do this myself if I had already read the criticism. Since I have not, I ask that you do this. If it is not completed in a few days I will read the criticisms of Harris and expand the criticism section. Let me say at this point that I agree with Harris's principal point that religion is irrational and dangerous and should be treated as such. However, I also think everyone should be able to reach their own conclusion and we should provide them the proper information to do so. Thanks. C0h3n 23:44, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, well we can certainly expand the criticism section if you wish. I have tried to separate out criticism of The End of Faith to that article; the distinction is not always that clear cut of course, but it would be good to maintain it if we can. I think I might leave this to you C0h3n. One problem is that the New Humanist website appears to be down at the moment, so you won't be able to read Meera Nanda who has provided the most stinging criticism to date. I'll give them a ring this afternoon to see what's up. Thanks again. Laurence Boyce 12:13, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good. I'll get to it soon. Right now I have all sorts of final papers to due for my classes, so it may be a while. C0h3n 02:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Neuroscientist? Puh-leez!

The article states he is a neuroscientist, whereas in his online mp3 lecture he states that he is now interested in neuroscience. He has an undergrad degree in philosophy. So I dont think he should be called a scientist just yet. Dilettante, perhaps. --70.132.1.227 11:17, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I believe Harris is currently a PhD candidate (meaning he was done all the leg work and now has to defend a thesis/research disertation) in Neuroscience (the university's name has not been released to the public).

- concerned reader 65.68.20.228 20:43, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Radical atheist

What is a "radical atheist"? This kind of irrational equivocation, sacrificing reason for the appearance of "fairness and balance," pandering to religious zealots, as if arguing against religion is in some way religious, is exactly what Harris argues against in his book. While I do find it amusingly ironic, I don't think that phrase is appropriate in this article. --12.203.121.191 06:42, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

He actually sounds more like an antitheist.--Kross^Talk 07:09, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Inappropriate tone

I see that we have had an "inappropriate tone" notice placed on the Sam Harris article. As nobody has started the discussion yet, I thought I would! For those who don't know, I should declare that I have done most of the work so far on the present article.

As it happens, I have been considering a minor re-organisation anyway. I think I might just drop the Early life section and incorporate some of it into the leading paragraph. The said section doesn't read terribly well and is a bit patchy, and in any event some of the information provided is not readily verifiable.

As far as the rest of the article is concerned, I would defend it against an "inappropriate tone" tag, though I think it's fair to say that the article is slightly anomalous (is that so bad?). I feel that initial traces of bias have largely been ironed out—what remains is a strong statement of what Harris is trying to tell us. If you doubt this (and you have an hour to spare!) then please listen to his latest lecture, The View from the End of the World. You will hear everything from the article and more.

Of course then there is the question as to whether such a high level of detail is actually desirable for an author who has been prominent for little over a year. It is here that I am not sure Wikipedia provides us with any mechanism for what I would term calibration—that is to say, weighing up the contents of various articles against each other. Instead, both the length and quality of articles seem largely driven by the level of interest and dedication of the contributors involved. Articles on TV shows, for instance, frequently attain a level of detail way in excess of that which would be appropriate for a published encyclopedia say. The top of the Wikiquote "long pages" list makes for amusing reading in this respect.[4]

Anyway, I didn't put the notice up!—so please come on and criticise or defend the article. In any event, I think I may soon make a light revision along the lines I have described above.

—Laurence Boyce 16:51, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I have now made a general revision to the article, implementing the changes I referred to, but also toning it down a bit further. The fundamental structure remains unaltered however, so I've retained the "inappropriate tone" notice for now. Please contribute to the discussion.—Laurence Boyce 17:12, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I posted the tone tag. I was specifically concerned about the paragraph: "Harris's basic theme, which he sets out in his book The End of Faith, is that unless we all wish to be blown sky-high, we had better start confronting head-on the irrationality which lies at the heart of religion—and not just in the Muslim world, but in our own backyard too.", which I feel is a bit flippant in language and tone. I cannot imagine Britannica using phrases like 'blown sky-high' (unless it was a direct quote, which it wasn't as far as I know), or 'in our own backyard' which would not conform to a more universal (as opposed to North American, English, Western, non-Muslim, etc.) view. The rest of the article should also be cleaned up a bit to conform to neutral, objective language as much as possible. I know Harris is a controversial figure, but the article should maintain a clean, and hopefully unbiased accounting of his views and significance. With just a bit more editing I think the tag can be removed. --JeremyLydellHaugen 02:41, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Jeremy. The paragraph you cite was intended to be slightly flippant, but I can see that it's also unforgivable. It is not a direct quote; rather it's a sort of summary paraphrase of Harris's views, in which context "our own backyard" means America I suppose. So yes, it's terrible, and thanks for pointing it out.

However, I don't want to monopolise the article, so I would welcome others to get in on the discussion and the editing. Please rewrite the offending paragraph and look at the rest of the article as Jeremy suggests. As I said above, Harris's views are well encapsulated in his lecture The View from the End of the World (55 mins + 25 mins of questions).

But I will certainly deal with that paragraph if nothing happens within a week. Thanks again.

—Laurence Boyce 12:42, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Made some revisions as discussed. Retained tag.—Laurence Boyce 15:02, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the tone tag. Nobody has made any significant revisions, but after some of the minor revisions that have been made, I feel the tone is far from objectionable. But please put the tag back if you disagree, or (better still!) make the appropriate changes.—Laurence Boyce 20:35, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Proposed page move

This article should be moved to make way for a disambiguation page, which is now malplaced at Sam Harris (disambiguation). I would normally just move this article to Sam Harris (author) or (philosopher) or (atheist), but this is a very active article, so I would like the primary contributors(s) to help choose a title. Sam Harris, the author, does not qualify as the primary article; another Sam Harris, the singer, has nearly as many links, and probably has better name recognition except among intellectuals. I will do the move and correct all the links, so all you folks need to do is settle on a qualified article name. Chris the speller 16:25, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your assistance. "Sam Harris (author)" would be best in my view.—Laurence Boyce 20:06, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the cooperation. Note that until I get an admin to finish the move of the (disambiguation) page, "Sam Harris" will redirect to "Sam Harris (disambiguation)", which will point to all the other articles. The admins might respond within a week or two. Here we go ... Chris the speller 02:13, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Wondering about sensationalized images and captions

I'm looking at this article, its images and captions (e.g. <nuke blast>: "end of humanity?", <falling wtc towers>: "end of faith?", etc.), and wondering if this is an encyclopedic approach. It's provactive and controversial. But I think those are the roles of Harris and his books, not what an encyclopedia would typically do. Perhaps the question is: are those images and captions clearly represented as Harris' POV and questions, or can they be read as being the direct content/questions of the article itself and its author? --Ds13 05:37, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Still ready?

Hmm, you could have a point there! I was really hoping someone would undertake a general revision to the article, and remove the tone tag in the process. Only if I do it, we might just get more of the same. How about this for another un-encyclopedic possibility for the Religious America section, say? Well it's funnier than a nuke!—Laurence Boyce 14:15, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

If the images here were replaced by images actually used by Harris in his books, then, arguably, the usage would be fairly documenting Harris and his works. But I believe these are arbitrarily chosen images chosen to represent (in one POV) what Harris' views are. Thus, I will remove them in short order unless a compelling argument or substitute is forthcoming. (BTW, I checked the links to that rapture image and it's not surprisingly used as a supporting image in the Timeline of unfulfilled Christian Prophecy!) --Ds13 19:01, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Finer points of language

Thank you 131.215.x.x for your interest in the Sam Harris article. I would be quite happy to accept your recent edit if others agreed with you, but I really "feel" that:

1. The article ought to be consistent—you have changed only two out of seven instances.
2. Perhaps you should explain why you "feel" so strongly about this.

For my part, I "feel" that "feel" is much better both in tenor and tone. Are you concerned that we are understating the case? Sam Harris "feels" that religion is a major problem, but he's not that fussed about it? The article hardly conveys that impression overall. Also why not obtain a Wikipedia account? It only takes a minute or two.

Thank you again for your interest.

—Laurence Boyce 23:15, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Is Harris an atheist?

I think there can be no doubt that the author of The End of Faith and An Atheist Manifesto is technically an atheist, and indeed the article categories reflect this. However, I feel it may be a mistake to draw too much attention to this.[5] Harris himself seems to face both ways on this one:

Atheism is a dead end: as a word, a school of thought, an entity. There's no reason to confine ourselves to a negative reaction to something that's been disproven. No one wastes their time being an opponent of astrology. You don't get anything that anyone wants through atheism. I prefer to talk about rationality and reason. [6]

Also, to say that The End of Faith is a book on atheism is, I feel, a bit narrow. The book is wide-ranging, taking in politics, philosophy, ethics, and spirituality—alongside of course an attack on religion. In fact the word "atheist" only appears once, on page 68.

Laurence Boyce 14:34, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

The word atheist is probably appropriate for this article, given that it means what it does. Perhaps pointing out that Harris is critical of the concept of atheism (and why) might be useful... unless that strays into a tone of advocacy... Hmoulding 14:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Harris's more controversial political and ethical pronouncements

Having recently read "The End of Faith", I feel that this page does not at present reflect all of what he says in that book, particularly his political digressions.

I am thinking specifically of his idea that a nuclear first strike could be justified against Muslims on account of what they believe, his presentation of the case for judicial torture, and his assertion that Chomsky is guilty of drawing "moral equivalence" between the US and its enemies. I also think his utilitarian ethics and philosophical realism should be mentioned as underpinning his moral arguments.

Would there be any objection to me adding material on these things?

Stuarta 15:27, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Stuarta, and thank you for your interest in this article. I welcome your input but would also wish to caution you slightly. The first thing to say is that this is an article about Sam Harris, not about The End of Faith. That may seem like a nice distinction, but it is a distinction which is bound to grow over time. There is a separate article for The End of Faith which does deal with most of what you raise. It doesn't specifically mention the thing about the nuclear first strike, so you could add that if you wish.

Why not check out that article first, and see if there's anything you'd like to add, before returning here? I feel the Sam Harris article may already be long enough at this stage. For example, I could have written a section on Harris's views concerning the incompatibility of faith and science, but I decided to leave it out. Thank you again for your interest.

Laurence Boyce 17:33, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I hadn't actually noticed there was an End of Faith page -- apologies.

Still, the views described on this page are essentially those in the book, so the absence of some of the things I mention is rather striking. I'll consider the content of both articles and decide what to add/where to add it.

Stuarta 20:05, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Reading honestly

This sentence is now a bit awkward, but without the trailing clause after the word "honesty" it's rather POV, even if you argue it's stating his belief, since it implied that it's the only correct belief. Efforts to make that more readable v. welcome. "And thirdly, moderation is simply bad theology because the extremists are in fact right: God really does want to put homosexuals to death or destroy infidels, if one reads the texts "honestly", meaning according to his literal interpretation." Krupo 03:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for you input Krupo. I have shortened the sentence in question. Laurence Boyce 10:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Language and neutrality

Thank you Homagetocatalonia for your recent edits. Having studied them, I can see that the article did indeed include some dubious phrases for which I was probably responsible, though I feel that maybe you have gone a little far in removing some reasonable material as well. To answer your rhetorical question from the edit history – "did someone cut and paste this from his book?" – the answer is no. There was no copying, but to some extent I did draw upon Harris's use of language which, as I'm sure you know, can be quite striking. I think that tomorrow or next week I might reverse some of what you have done, while endeavouring to maintain neutrality in the areas you have indicated. Thank you again for your assistance, and please everyone join the discussion if you wish. Laurence Boyce 12:11, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you again Homagetocatalonia for your recent edits. While I tried to accommodate your views last time, you are clearly not yet happy with the outcome. Obviously we would wish to avoid tendentious phrasing, but I think that, as it stood, the article was unmistakeably describing Harris's viewpoint and, as such, was not offensive in my view. Use of the pronoun "we" is not unacceptable per se, especially when it is clearly from the Harris perspective. Ditto the use of paraphrase, as opposed to the use of direct quotation, say.

I feel that your rephrasing does little to improve neutrality, but instead concedes in the direction of accuracy and stylistic considerations. For instance you say that, following 9/11, "he feels the non-religious can no longer afford to maintain [a double standard]." Why the "non-religious"? Harris believes that everyone should heed his call, and this was clearly presented as Harris's own viewpoint. Also you say, "Harris asks the reader to consider how he or she might feel . . ." Why "the reader"? The "world view" section in general draws far more clearly from Harris's audio lectures than from The End of Faith, say. And nobody says "he or she" anymore, do they? I feel that, while aiming for neutrality, the end result is maybe a bit leaden.

I think I may have to revert much of what you have written, but I will give you and everyone else the chance to discuss first. I am very familiar with everything Harris has said, but equally I appreciate the need to iron out bias. Thank you again for your input and please join the discussion.

Laurence Boyce 13:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I have now largely reverted the changes in question, but once again again I have endeavoured to iron out minor traces of conceivable bias. Laurence Boyce 16:14, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

More neutrality

Thank you for your interest in the article Yakuman. To answer your question about Harris's "long study," the answer is twenty years, though I am not aware of any independent confirmation of this. As far as the rest of the article is concerned, I feel that it is now fairly neutral. There does seem to be some disagreement about this from time to time, though I have noticed a general reluctance to bring the arguments to talk. I think I may revert your changes and then perform yet another sweep through the article with a view to ironing out persistent traces of POV. But please come on and discuss if you are still not happy – and everyone else too. Laurence Boyce 14:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Section-ending quotes

The section-ending quotes seem out of place to me. Not that they aren't germane, but that their current arrangement is more magazine style than encyclopedic. Personally, I'd integrate them into their respective sections.

Laurence, you seem to be the one who's tending most to this article. Thoughts? Savantpol 15:55, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Savantpol. It could be worse, the article used to be adorned with unencyclopedic images too! I quite like the quotes, but I accept what you say. I inserted the quotes at a time prior to the creation of the Wikiquote article, so there's less justification for them now. I wouldn't integrate them into the main text just for the sake of it – only if it adds something useful. All other views appreciated. Laurence Boyce 17:10, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I find the section-ending quotations to be out of place, almost ornamental, in fact. Comparable articles do not have such a feature and they detract from the purpose of the article--namely to present the reader with an informative, neutral description of Harris, his life, and his works. How were the quotations chosen? Why not others? What do they add beyond a sprinking of just barely relevant information? I say we stick to the normal model of sections unadorned with Harris's quips, however juicy. Eifel 02:32, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Fine. Please remove them. Laurence Boyce 09:56, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the quotes. C0h3n 05:57, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Revert

I have reverted some recent edits. I feel that the sentence in question from the "World view" section was far from awkward, and that it is a clearer reflection of Harris's viewpoint. Also given his rejection of all things religious, I feel it is unnecessary to draw attention specifically to his ethnic background. Laurence Boyce 11:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Once again, I do not feel there is much to be gained from drawing attention to Harris's ethnic background. Laurence Boyce 12:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Scandinavia

Too POV, the article doesn't include the blood-thirsty genocide that the pagan Vikings meted out to islands and lands where Christianity was taking root. The same Christianity that would later civilise their lands with the love of Jesus' and over their generations would (as Harris points out) mark them out as peoples reknowned for kindness.

Dean1970 29th Oct, 2006

Thanks Dean. As per my remarks to C0h3n, this article is not the place to discuss history or philosophy, but rather to report Harris's views and those of some of his critics in a neutral manner. Harris's point about Scandinavia is simply that those societies do not appear to be descending into moral chaos, notwithstanding the fact that they are largely atheistic. Laurence Boyce 12:54, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Moderates

Harris further notes that religious moderates (and indeed some secularists) appear to be blinded to the fact that fundamentalists really believe in all this stuff. Instead, a moderate tends to think that a suicide attack can more readily be attributed to a range of social and economic factors.

This seems awfully opinionated for a 'notes'--who says all moderates are blinded to that at all? The emphasis on 'believe' is also odd and a bit conversational.

I'm not sure if this is from the book or whoever wrote the article, so I won't mess with it, but if one believes that suicide tactics are limited to Moslems or religious people in general, they're pretty confused. The Tamil Tigers come to mind, as do Marxist guerillas everywhere. Being willing to fight to the death against a superior cause and impossible odds hasn't always been considered a bad thing in all circumstances, for one.Dnjscott 07:13, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Dnjscott. Harris has made this point many times, probably more so in media interviews and talks than in his books. For example, in his talk to the Idea City '05 Conference, Harris said this:

Another problem with moderation incidentally is [that] moderates, and certainly secularists, tend to be blinded by their own moderation; it's very difficult for moderates to actually believe that people believe this stuff. It's difficult for a moderate when you see on the news broadcast—you see the jihadist looking into the video camera saying things like, "we love death more than the infidel loves life"—then he blows himself up. Religious moderates—not fundamentalists—religious moderates tend to think, "that really wasn't why he blew himself up; it doesn't have anything to do with religion; this is economics; this is lack of educational opportunities." I don't know how many more engineers and architects have to hit the wall at 400 miles an hour for us to realise this is not simply a matter of education.

Also Harris has dealt with the Tamil Tigers here and elsewhere. But please tone down the language if you still feel the passage is too tendentious.

Laurence Boyce 14:31, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Eastern religion

The article says Harris draws inspiration from the practices of eastern religion. This term "Eastern Religion" is bleedingly vague. Something to do with incense is it, eh? Please someone, make this clearer. Is it Buddhism? Mrs. Moore 09:23, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Well it's sort of mystical meditational type stuff. I think. Laurence Boyce 18:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Reading his book, he spends a great deal of time talking about what sort of religious practices might be most beneficial, and even worthy of keeping if we get rid of the belief in a higher power aspect, and it seems like he is in favor of keeping something like meditation. On the other hand, I find that he isn't extremely clear on exactly what he means. Would his website be a helpful place to look? Edhubbard 20:52, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

There are some articles by Harris on mysticism here and here. Laurence Boyce 22:23, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Holding's critique

This is a widely read and directed critique, so it should not be vandalized. 58.162.2.122 01:23, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Yet several claim it is an "inappropriate" link? Why should a link to a well-known Christian apologetics site (with which I am not affiliated) be censored, as if Huffington Post links have any more respectability? 58.162.2.122 08:49, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

It is not appropriate to include personal or blog links. If Holding writes a book contra Harris, then we'll mention it. Also it is not true to say that Harris has ignored so-called "atheist atrocities." Rather he has dealt with this common criticism many times – in the afterword to The End of Faith for instance. Laurence Boyce 14:09, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

---

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5