This is a lively debate, as you might expect. You’ll can view the entire debate at Truthdig.org. [1]
Sam Harris opens the debate by arguing that there are only three types of arguments used by those defending religion:
- That a particular religion is true;
- That believing in religion is useful; or
- That atheist are immoral (and other ad hominem attacks on atheists).
Harris elaborates on each of these three types of arguments.
Chris Hedges opens by advocating that all of us need to stop tolerating the intolerant. He joins with Sam Harris on this point. Hedges then moves on to argue that Harris “conflates faith with tribalism,” holding that tribalism is not religion. He credits monotheism with giving rise to the recognition of the individual, altruism and “the open society.” Hedges makes the argument hard to join, however, when he asserts that “The question is not whether God exists.”
Hedges is a sharp critic of Harris’s alleged militant stance against Islam (see the end of Part III & the beginning of Part IV).
There’s lots of discussion about sociology, politics, science and disenfranchised populations along the way. The entire discussion is laced with references to the real world, which keeps it lively. An issue that haunts this discussion, though, is the difficulty identifying the type of believer who is problematic. What kind of believer is the kind about whom we need to be concerned?
These are two highly competent spokespeople. The debate is well worth viewing.
Print this post [2]
[3]