Getting past the 2-D.
You know,
Its articles like this: Science Must Destroy Religion that make me question if Scientist-types deserve to be assumed as intelligent. I mean come on.
Though Sam Harris’ argument can make sense if you think of what it might be like for a Sciency-type to be frustrated over a failing war, apparently he is not observant enough to understand reactance.
Or perhaps he is the Trickster who is making fun of it all.. just not very well.
The problem I see as far as Science and Religion goes is that they are both so amazingly literal. The idea that attachment leads to suffering and attachment to beliefs leads to fundamentalism (constant suffering projected outwards) and you see the blight he’s in.
The way to find the seeds is to recall “That which bothers us in others bothers us in ourselves.”
Apply Sam’s view of his generalization of all religious types and it becomes pretty clear that he doesn’t like people who fit the profile of being ‘Judging’ as Meyers Briggs uses… himself included.
To label people and then assume their behaviors and project your own baggage onto the world scene will help only to fuel the fire. I could oppose him but will that make it worse? Perhaps.
My suggestion is that we as people urge Sam Harris and some fundamentalist Religious person who is irritatingly outspoken to cage fight. To the death. With crowbars and spray bottles of lemon juice. Then perhaps they could get all their happy reactance issues out on each other, grow up and take people one at a time rather than being caught in projected us and them idiocy.
