Review of Sam Harris
~C4Chaos reviews Sam Harris' "Letter to a Christian Nation". Quote:
If lack of precision in terms is Harris' main fault, then ~C4 could also do better, as in last sentence of this paragraph, when he writes, "I agree with Harris that religion is a source great suffering in the world; pre-conventional and conventional religions to be exact", perhaps it should be something like "I agree that worldviews in the egocentric and ethnocentric range, i.e. preconventional to early conventional, armed with late conventional technology and systems of power distribution, are a source of great suffering in the world". I would never agree with Harris that religion as such is a source of great suffering - that statement being an obfuscation in itself, prompted by a hidden ideological agenda, in itself quite militant - because at those earlier stages of societal and cultural development, "religion" does not stand apart from anything else. We too often call all those earlier social and cultural features "religion". Or, speaking of great suffering in other developmental terms, it's "low morals with high/er means", or in simplest terms possible, exterior development plus interior stagnation (or even regression). It's not "religion" that produced Hitler or Mao or Stalin or the contemporary banking system. Solutions to such situations may be argued in many ways, of course, without blaiming any one exclusive condition. Little more subtlety and precision would go a long way.
Fortunately, ~C4 then goes to define some of these terms with Fowler and Spiral Dynamics and even manages not to mention Wilber in this post (especially his "Marriage of Sense and Soul" and "Integral Spirituality" where all these arguments are hashed out for anyone interested in up-to-date solutions to the burning modern and postmodern divide).
Read the whole review.
"...The only reservation I have with Harris's approach, is that, in his passion to wage intellectual war against the mythic membership, he fails to address the stages of moral development of people. Consequently, the stages of moral development applies to everyone, including Atheists. Thus, there are pre-conventional Muslims, conventional Muslims, post-conventional Muslims; pre-conventional Christians, conventional Christians, post-conventional Christians; pre-conventional Atheists, conventional Atheists, post-conventional Atheists. Meaning: Atheism is not immune to the extreme forms of fanaticism that Harris is ranting about. Although religion is indeed a big factor in stages of moral development, religion is not the root of all evil. Individual and social intelligences come into play along the way. Religion is a by-product of human (and collective) development, not a root cause. But I agree with Harris that religion is a source great suffering in the world; pre-conventional and conventional religions to be exact."
If lack of precision in terms is Harris' main fault, then ~C4 could also do better, as in last sentence of this paragraph, when he writes, "I agree with Harris that religion is a source great suffering in the world; pre-conventional and conventional religions to be exact", perhaps it should be something like "I agree that worldviews in the egocentric and ethnocentric range, i.e. preconventional to early conventional, armed with late conventional technology and systems of power distribution, are a source of great suffering in the world". I would never agree with Harris that religion as such is a source of great suffering - that statement being an obfuscation in itself, prompted by a hidden ideological agenda, in itself quite militant - because at those earlier stages of societal and cultural development, "religion" does not stand apart from anything else. We too often call all those earlier social and cultural features "religion". Or, speaking of great suffering in other developmental terms, it's "low morals with high/er means", or in simplest terms possible, exterior development plus interior stagnation (or even regression). It's not "religion" that produced Hitler or Mao or Stalin or the contemporary banking system. Solutions to such situations may be argued in many ways, of course, without blaiming any one exclusive condition. Little more subtlety and precision would go a long way.
Fortunately, ~C4 then goes to define some of these terms with Fowler and Spiral Dynamics and even manages not to mention Wilber in this post (especially his "Marriage of Sense and Soul" and "Integral Spirituality" where all these arguments are hashed out for anyone interested in up-to-date solutions to the burning modern and postmodern divide).
Read the whole review.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home