Quote:
Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Another question: why does he have credibility with you? Why do you listen to him?
|
I read the
End of Faith and found his measured tone and analysis to be refreshing. He dismantles religion, but not in a mean or heated fashion. While I of course adored the superb hit job Hitchens delivered in
God is Not Great, ultimately, I found that Hitchens' need to cleverly insult the religious undercut his message. It was highly amusing, but a bit dickish in spots. And Dawkins suffered from the same approach. His science is impeccable, but his tone is a bit patronizing and pompous. I may not care much for religion, but I don't think I can discount the religious as knaves and cavemen. I think people hew to religion for complex reasons and as long as they don't try to press their rules on me, I'm fine letting them do as they like. Dawkins and Hitchens lack that empathy.
Harris's assessment, on the other hand, was cool, linear, and economical. Where
God is Not Great or
The God Delusion would compel the religious to double down,
The End of Faith might convert them to atheism. Or at least leave them deeply shaken.
Lying and
Free Will were also interesting mini-books. I don't buy Harris's argument in
Free Will, but I nevertheless enjoyed seeing his clean analysis develop over its pages.
Harris is also "on the bus." He's taken loads of psychedelics and given many interesting interviews about how they impacted his thinking. I have a similar affinity for psychedelics (mushrooms, in particular). Harris is the rare writer and speaker who can describe the benefits of a "trip" in detail (most attempts at that are incoherent and dull). I think this informs his powers of analysis. He seems to have a rare skill for taking an issue or an argument down not only to its scaffolding, but to its raw material, if not its basic atoms. He can get to the heart of a complex topic at amazing speed. There's a form of insight he has which I think I can understand. It's like seeing around corners, an ability to read into people, that I suspect one acquires in not insignificant part from use of psychedelics. And he's also a bit of a kindred spirit in that, despite having an expanded mind in this regard, he can also be the least self-aware man on the planet.
I do, however, share your view that his criticisms of Islam in particular are not his best moments. I don't think you can criticize one without criticizng them all. The only proper way to attack Islam in the moment, I believe, is to say it is one of many paths men think will align them with the "man in the sky," all of which do immeasurable harm to humanity and are long past their sell by date.
