On our way to the future

I don't resonate with Sam Harris' notion of "killing Buddhism", thus solving the "problem of religion" and liberating a contemplative science. Buddhism is a precious proof that religion need not suffocate science, even when sharing the same lifespace - the human mind. His refusal to recognize further stages of structural unfoldment that rise above the rational discourse, as well as his failure to distinguish between prerational spirituality (mythic religion) and transrational spirituality (mystical religion) often make it difficult for me to feel sympathy for his otherwise brilliant arguments. At times, however, Harris' is convincing as one can be, unless you are bedazzled by heavenly glory. Like this one, in discussion with Andrew Sullivan :

Regarding the fate of our children: needless to say, we have already picked guardians to educate them; we call them "teachers." What happens at Harvard or Yale when a student raises his hand in history class and announces, "My daddy says that London and Constantinople are the same city"? One must presume that the next words he hears will be, "Sorry, but your daddy is wrong." Parents are not the eternal gatekeepers of epistemology, and if they do successfully mislead their children about matters of fact, their children pay the price. Any aspiring doctor who has it on his mother's authority that the pancreas is located in the head will have a tough time getting through medical school.

And then again:

You end your last essay by arguing for the veracity (or at least plausibility) of Christianity on the basis of its cultural success. I suspect you must know that this was a hard turn into a blind alley. You even acknowledge the existence of other very successful religions, and this spells doom. Consider the case of Islam. Here is a religion that explicitly repudiates the core claims of Christianity (Muhammad assures us that anyone who thinks Jesus was divine will spend eternity in hell, Qur'an 5:71-75; 19:30-38). Islam has nearly as many subscribers as Christianity does and is now spreading faster than any religion on earth. What should I make of this, if I am to follow your reasoning? Am I to believe that Muhammad really flew to heaven on a winged steed? That the Qur'an is the perfect word of God? On your account, these claims have stood the test of time. But that is not the point. The point is, they do not withstand the test of dispassionate scrutiny. And yet, in many respects, Muhammad's career as a prophet was more impressive than Jesus' was. At the very least, he escaped crucifixion. Of course, Christians have managed to make even the crucifixion of their Savior into a success story. It would seem that faith can rationalize anything.

Perhaps you wish to read the whole exchange, so here's the link to page 1. The problem is, IMO, that one can agree with both on many points, and you can disagree with both on all counts. What does that say about your altitude? Both Harris and Sullivan are clever enough to broaden my horizons with their arguments. But somehow I find both of their approaches timid when touching on the issue of absolute reality (and both should have no problem with addressing That clearly and unmistakenly, each in their own terms). Perhaps the present debate too early turned into a political match, its purpose becoming to impress and convince the reader, thus often deluting the potential of a truly transformative dialogue in which both parties and perspectives are corrected and elevated.