Even more proof #SamHarris is a #neocon

Due to a friend on social networks, I found this great essay deconstructing much of New Atheism's stance toward religion, with a particular focus on its stance toward Islam as exemplified by Sam Harris.

Among its links and footnotes? A 2004 column, "Mired in Religious War," that he wrote for ... the Washington Times.

Now, he's not a regular guest columnist there, tis true. Nonetheless, Harris is no idiot or naif on the political scene; he know the Times is a wingnut outfit.

And, not just a political wingnut outfit. There's the irony and hypocrisy of attacking a caricature of Islam in a paper that's not just conservative loony, but run by religious loonies.

Beyond that, Harris' crusade (no other word for it) against Islam is absolutist. And, it's part of a larger absolutism. What else could one say about column entitled "Science Must Destroy Religion"? Both the "must" and "destroy" are absolutist words.

Upon further reading, what I'm asking for is more skeptics to be like Scott Atran
.

I cited the evidence that atheists are as likely as religious people to scapegoat others, to hold dogmatic beliefs, and to condone violence because Harris and company repeatedly emphasize in one form or another that, all things being equal, atheism bests religion for tolerance, openness, and opposition to violence. Again, I see no evidence this is so (though I certainly wouldn't mind if were so).

That exactly sums up my take on the moral smugness of Gnu Atheists. It's no wonder Harris has used him as a reference without ever attempting to understand him.

Even more, Atran notes that Gnu Atheist types tend to believe, yes, believe, in a fundamental core of rationality no less than Chicago School economists:

I find it fascinating that among the brilliant scientists and philosophers at the conference, there was no convincing evidence presented that they know how to deal with the basic irrationality of human life and society other than to insist against all reason and evidence that things ought to be rational and evidence based.

Well, it's not.