With a hat-tip to atrios I found this column by E. J. Dionne on the recent debate between Rick Warren and Sam Harris. As Duncan notes, Warren is a pretty conservative guy - up to and including denying a place at the table for Jews and others of different faith traditions - while Harris, for all the atheistic fire and brimstone of his writings, can't hold a candle to the destructive fantasies of many Christians (his fantasies are equally destructive, but also as delusional, a topic I have covered ad nauseum). I have no interest in the debate itself, although for reasons different from Duncan's. He is bored with the topic - I love his insouciance towards religious belief; it's so refreshing to find someone who actually says "I don't care" when asked about God - but takes Dionne to task, rightly, for not bringing up Warren's, shall we say, less than savory views. It is one thing to go after a lunatic like Harris - it's too easy, really - but it might be unseemly to question the bone fides of Warren because he is a pastor. Atrios has no problem doing so, however, and thinks Dionne should have been a bit more candid in discussing the less than savory nature of some of Warren's views.
My problem with this entire subject - the whole idea of a debate between Warren and Harris - is much more fundamental. The two men quite literally have nothing to talk about. A debate is a discussion on a topic in which those on opposite sides seek some sort of common ground through the process of argument. This is Crossfire-style nonsense, really, with no goal other than boosting ratings, and giving a forum to two men our public square would be better off without. Any Christian, or Jew, or Muslim, or Buddhist, or Chinese animist, or even garden-variety "believer" who hasn't really fleshed out his or her thoughts on the subject, should at least have the fortitude to insist that, when approaching an intellectually dishonest bully like Harris, certain questions be raised concerning his owned professed belief in things like reincarnation, ESP, torture, especially the torture of Muslims precisely because they are Muslims, and other problems that emerge from his writings. Warren, however, as popular as he is, is a lightweight, and I have to agree with atrios that he came off pretty silly in his "debate" precisely because he refused to put Harris on the spot on these and other issues. Once one agrees to let others set the terms of any debate, the debate is already lost.
Neither Harris nor Warren are intellectual shining stars, and a debate such as the one they held is more a showy, TV-set-piece designed for ratings rather than serious reflection on deep subjects. One should devoutly ignore it, except to say what has been said here. I would prefer to bracket off such discussions and debates as these precisely because they are pointless. We have serious problems facing us as a nation - and yes, religion is certainly part of the problem (how could I deny that?) - and we need to deal with them together, within a framework and vocabulary of shared values and goals. Part of that vocabulary should not include questions for which, in the end, there are no answers, only a whole lot of sound and fury, which, as Shakespeare reminds us, is really just a tale told by two idiots.
Virtual Tin Cup
