Dear babayada,
I think the argument which Mr. Harris is making goes something like this:
Religions are based on irrational tenants.
Irrational tenants can foster extremism.
Religions can foster extremism.
Very true, both logically and historically!
What Mr. Harris boldly proposes:
Religions are based on irrational tenants.
Irrational tenants no longer serve us well.
Religions no longer serve us well.
(... so why hang on to them?)
Logically, true. Ideologically, true.
But, practically, it's quite clear that we have far, far to go before we
can collectively base our lives and actions on a completely rational basis
without seeking those things which (irrational) religion offers us.
We are capable of being ethical without being religious, but sadly, many
who are religious are also very unethical and use the very same irrational
devotion which religion requires to exist to further their destructive
purposes.
The moral conversation which our race is engaged in will proceed both
rationally and irrationally, but I think what Mr. Harris is trying to say
is that until we are bold enough to let go of our need to support
institutions based upon irrational notions, we will be unable to solve one
aspect of the problem of extremism and its destructive consequences.
Oh, and clearly, even if there were no more religions, there will still be
other expressions of extremism, for example, the ecoterrorism which you
alluded to earlier, or the freedom fighters of a particular group of
people wanting political independence, etc. Mr. Harris is not offering
the panacea for all of human destructiveness, but simply identifying one
source which, in principle anyway, can be replaced with something less
prone to manipulation by those with evil intent. I, for one, think he has
a good point.
Best,
HF
