Last week I commented upon an interview at Alternet.org with Sam Harris. It seems he didn't like the fact someone might question what he says and thinks. In an update by Tara Lohan, it seems Harris' fans are appalled that the man might be questioned on his views. Harris himself wrote to insist he was quoted out of context, does not believe in torture per se, only when it is "ethically necessary", and that some metaphysical claims should be investigated (glossalalic children manifesting reincarnation) while others (the bodily resurrection of Jesus from the dead) are to be dismissed out of hand.
As to whether and/or how he was misquoted, I will grant that it happens, and happens quite frequently, as reporters are notorious at finding a phrase or even a paragraph and running with it as representative of a certain hypocrisy or inconsistency, rather than placing it in a proper context. The problem, of course, is that the original story did nothing of the sort; it quoted extensively from Harris' work to show he is a silly, shallow poser whose claims to be an apostle of rationalism are empty.
Furthermore, his defense of torture, under any circumstance whatsoever, as well as his constant claim that religion is detrimental in any and all cases except for when it happens to be Buddhism; that any and all metaphysical claims are to be ignored except when they are "interesting" and might validate his own beliefs; and his refusal to acknowledge that the views he has made publicly reflect what he actually believes when he is challenged - all of these show that he is not rational, he is not consistent, and he should not be taken seriously.
Now, as to consistency, I am far from being consistent myself, and I find consistency to eb a rather thin intellectual virtue. The problem, of course, is that Harris' rails against religious belief - then seeks to defend his own beliefs through some rhetorical slieght-of-hand. His defense of torture - even if in limited cases - shows he has aligned himself with the most fanatical wing of the Republican Party which includes those Christians he thinks are destroying the world. His refusal to admit that he believes in things that have no basis in proof or rationality, even though he has quoted from works that make such claims, and enthusiastically endorses such views shows he is not only a hypocrite, but what is worse, an intellectual coward. Hypocrisy is easy - we all do it every day. Inconsistency is easy - we all do it every day. For someone who wants to position himself as some brave fighter against the horrors of religion to refuse to acknowledge beliefs he has publicly stated he has, and to attack those who question his consistency and rationality shows he is a coward, and cowardice is something that stands out.
One more thing. I wish I had fans.
Virtual Tin Cup
