Now you are simply stretching the meaning of words to save face. By what measure did you conclude that Sam Harris is not a philosopher? His book The Moral Landscape deals with philosophical issues, does it not? (We wouldn't be talking about it if it didn't). Many of his critics are philosophers, aren't they? Are you going to pretend that every time you use the word 'philosopher' you are only ever referring to those who have obtained a degree in philosophy? From where did Socrates obtain his degree? I suppose he isn't a philosopher either.
Generally, I am going to consider a person a philosopher if that person has been educated primarily as a philosopher and holds at least a Ph.D. in a closely related field, if not philosophy itself. Sam Harris is known primarily as a neuroscientist. He has a B.A. in philosophy. Most if not all of his collegues who rebuked him are not philosophers.
Harris has been criticized by some of his fellow contributors at
The Huffington Post. In particular, R. J. Eskow has accused him of fostering an
intolerance towards Islam, potentially as damaging as the
religious fanaticism that he opposes. Margaret Wertheim, herself an atheist, also weighed in, contending that liberals should view Harris's account of religious faith "with considerable skepticism".
In May 2006, Harris came under sustained attack in a featured article by
Meera Nanda for the
New Humanist, in which she claimed that his analysis of religious
extremism was flawed, and suggested that he was criticizing religion "for what seems to be his real goal: a defense, nay, a celebration of Harris' own
Dzogchen Buddhist and
Advaita Vedantic Hindu spirituality." Nanda stated that Harris failed to apply the same critical analysis to the
eastern traditions as he applied to
Western religions, and she argues that the detachment from the self in
Dharmic spirituality is part of the recipe for
authoritarianism.
[59]
Journalist
Chris Hedges' book When Atheism Becomes Religion (originally published as I Don't Believe in Atheists) targets Harris and Dawkins as its two examples of the worst atheism has to offer. Early in the book,
[60] Hedges quotes a statement from Harris's The End of Faith
[61] regretfully advocating a nuclear first strike as arguably "the only course of action available to us, given what Islamists believe" in the event of an Islamist regime such as
Iran acquiring nuclear weapons capability. Harris has responded
[62] to Hedges' repeated mentions of the quotation (throughout the book and in subsequent articles and interviews) by reprinting the passage in question with sections highlighted to stress his personal horror not only at the likely immediate casualties of a first strike but also at the probable ultimate consequences for Westerners, and his call for Muslim nations to police each other's weapons development so as to prevent the scenario from arising.
Anthropologist
Scott Atran has criticized Harris for using what Atran considers to be an unscientific approach towards highlighting the role of belief in the psychology of suicide bombers. In the 2006 conference
Beyond Belief, Atran confronted Harris for portraying a "caricature of Islam". Atran later followed up his comments in an online discussion for
Edge.org, in which he criticized Harris and others for using methods of combating religious dogmatism and faith that Atran believes are "scientifically baseless, psychologically uninformed, politically naïve, and counterproductive for goals we share".
[63] In
The National Interest, Atran argued against Harris's thesis in
The Moral Landscape that
science can determine moral values. Atran adds that abolishing religion will do nothing to rid mankind of its ills.
[64]
In January 2007, Harris received criticism from John Gorenfeld, writing for
AlterNet.
[65] Gorenfeld took Harris to task for defending some of the findings of
paranormal investigations into areas such as
reincarnation and
xenoglossy. He also strongly criticized Harris for his defense of judicial
torture. Gorenfeld's critique was subsequently reflected by
Robert Todd Carroll, writing in the
Skeptic's Dictionary.
[66] On his website Harris disputed that he had defended these views to the extent that Gorenfeld suggested.
[67] Shortly afterward, Harris engaged in a lengthy debate with
Andrew Sullivan on the internet forum
Beliefnet.
[68] In April 2007, Harris debated with the evangelical pastor
Rick Warren for
Newsweek magazine.
[69]
Madeleine Bunting quotes Harris in saying "some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them", and states this "sounds like exactly the kind of argument put forward by those who ran the Inquisition".
[70] Quoting the same passage,
theologian Catherine Keller asks, "[c]ould there be a more dangerous proposition than that?" and argues that the "anti-tolerance" it represents would "dismantle" the
Jeffersonian wall between
church and state.
[71] Writer
Theodore Dalrymple described the passage as "quite possibly the most disgraceful that I have read in a book by a man posing as a rationalist".
[72] Harris repudiated his critics' characterization, stating they "have interpreted the second sentence of this passage to mean that I advocate simply killing religious people for their beliefs. . . . but such a reading remains a frank distortion of my views."
[73] Harris goes on to argue that beliefs are only dangerous to the extent that they can influence a person's behavior, and to the extent that the behavior is violent. He believes that pre-emptively attacking known dangerous fanatics (i.e.
Osama Bin Laden) is justified. Harris also claims, however, that "Whenever we can capture and imprison jihadists, we should. But in most cases this is impossible."
[73] If the quote is read in its context it clearly states that when extreme beliefs motivate terrorism preemptive strikes against potential terrorists are sometimes justified.
[74]
Wikipedia*
Please don't make me go trawling through posts to prove you wrong. I asked you whether you would kill a child begging for her life to be spared if you believed that you were following a divine directive. You response indicated that you would.
