http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=50g-hyD3A7A
I just watched this last night -- I believe it's in 5 parts: the link is to the first part, and you can click to see the other parts there. I'm sharing my impressions here, being pulled from my memory of watching the debate last night, so I am not sure of exact-wordings.
Reza Aslan is a progressive Muslim. Sam Harris is an Atheist who's concerned about Muslim terrorism, and one of his main concerns is that it's not just poor, disadvantaged Muslims who are involved in stuff like suicide-bombings ... he says if it was totally the disadvantaged doing this, it could be considered more economic than religious, but since many with educational and economic advantages are also doing suicide-bombings, he feels it's inextricably tied-up with religion.
Oh, he also feels progressives like Aslan exacerbate the problem, since their perception of their religion is so elastic, it's impossible to pin it down and call a spade a spade, and he feels progressives inadvertently protect the conservative-extremists in their religion, by presenting a more positive face of the religion to the world, which can lead to greater tolerance and cause the religion (including the dangerous elements) to be preserved.
I was glad to hear Harris point out that he is not advocating for the forcible eradication of religion -- but, rather, he is advocating for the rules of conversation to change, so that it will become more acceptable to critique religious faith and religious holy books, just as we would (and do) critique everything else.
Aslan says some really cool stuff that I am still pondering: He says that religion is humanity's language for talking about our experiences with transcendence -- which I think he defines as our awareness that we are part of a reality greater than ourselves, a reality beyond what we are physically-able to observe. Aslan also feels scientists are part of this ongoing conversation about transcendence.
Which makes perfect sense to me, since I feel a great sense of awe when reading about/pondering many wonders of science -- i.e. where James A. Michener, in his book, Creatures of the Kingdom: Stories of Animals and Nature, spins out a beautiful and majestic narrative about the evolution of life.
Aslan also says that as we gain more knowledge and our perspectives change, so does our religion, as of course it should. To me, this is comparable to how languages evolve over time. And it gives me another interesting tie-in, as Bill Tammeus, the author of a blog I frequent, has compared being spiritual to having an interest in linguistics -- and being religious to speaking a specific language.
http://billtammeus.typepad.com
(I'm referring to Tammeus's 6-1-09 entry).
I just watched this last night -- I believe it's in 5 parts: the link is to the first part, and you can click to see the other parts there. I'm sharing my impressions here, being pulled from my memory of watching the debate last night, so I am not sure of exact-wordings.
Reza Aslan is a progressive Muslim. Sam Harris is an Atheist who's concerned about Muslim terrorism, and one of his main concerns is that it's not just poor, disadvantaged Muslims who are involved in stuff like suicide-bombings ... he says if it was totally the disadvantaged doing this, it could be considered more economic than religious, but since many with educational and economic advantages are also doing suicide-bombings, he feels it's inextricably tied-up with religion.
Oh, he also feels progressives like Aslan exacerbate the problem, since their perception of their religion is so elastic, it's impossible to pin it down and call a spade a spade, and he feels progressives inadvertently protect the conservative-extremists in their religion, by presenting a more positive face of the religion to the world, which can lead to greater tolerance and cause the religion (including the dangerous elements) to be preserved.
I was glad to hear Harris point out that he is not advocating for the forcible eradication of religion -- but, rather, he is advocating for the rules of conversation to change, so that it will become more acceptable to critique religious faith and religious holy books, just as we would (and do) critique everything else.
Aslan says some really cool stuff that I am still pondering: He says that religion is humanity's language for talking about our experiences with transcendence -- which I think he defines as our awareness that we are part of a reality greater than ourselves, a reality beyond what we are physically-able to observe. Aslan also feels scientists are part of this ongoing conversation about transcendence.
Which makes perfect sense to me, since I feel a great sense of awe when reading about/pondering many wonders of science -- i.e. where James A. Michener, in his book, Creatures of the Kingdom: Stories of Animals and Nature, spins out a beautiful and majestic narrative about the evolution of life.
Aslan also says that as we gain more knowledge and our perspectives change, so does our religion, as of course it should. To me, this is comparable to how languages evolve over time. And it gives me another interesting tie-in, as Bill Tammeus, the author of a blog I frequent, has compared being spiritual to having an interest in linguistics -- and being religious to speaking a specific language.
http://billtammeus.typepad.com
(I'm referring to Tammeus's 6-1-09 entry).
