Quote:
Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
One of my best friends from college, an Asian studies professor, has a book coming out next month that, among other things, takes Harris and his pals to the woodshed for being an ignorant slut when it comes to Buddhism. It's always worth a laugh.
Why do these people insist on speaking out of ignorance? Maher knows less than jack-shit about Islam or the Middle East, and won't listen to people who do know something; Harris knows jack-shit about Buddhism, and won't listen to anyone who does; and Murray knows jack-shit about evolutionary biology, among other subjects, and has been ridiculed by some of the best biologists out there, but still won't listen.
It's really amazing. They make a living off ignorance.
|
I don't listen to Harris' critiques of Islam because his big argument - that Islam is more problematic than Christianity or Judaism - is just weak. It relies on viewing Islam only over the last fifty years, and it focuses on the crazies rather than the moderates. If one takes a longer view and assesses Christianity's crimes, Christianity was a far more pernicious "problem religion" for a longer period of time than any other.
I'm not familiar with Harris' views on Buddhism. I think he's a bit off kilter to be picking fights with a religion as benign as that one. (I actually kind of like Buddhism to the extent it's more a way of thinking than a religion.)
Maher doesn't pretend to be enlightened. Maher is an opinion machine. He's thoughtful, but he's also got a quick trigger finger. He doesn't care to go deep into the weeds. He sells judgment. I like him because, while he is wrong on certain things, he's right far more often, and where he's right, he's ruthless. His disdain for religion generally, his views on climate, his stance on animal rights, and his free speech absolutism make him an essential voice.
Murray wrote one good book about excessive govt regulation and when I heard him talk about how society is bifurcating into "two Americas" (similar to John Edwards' shtick) on Harris' show, I thought he made some good points. But it struck me a bit odd that a guy who wrote on those soft anthropological subjects would also feel comfortable getting into biology. That takes an exceptionally nimble mind. The only person I've seen do that convincingly is Dawkins. And he does it in reverse - starting from the science and expanding into cultural issues. When you start with views derived from anthropology and then seek out the hard science to support them, as did Murray, you're doing it all backwards, and you're going to get flawed results.
