A reader writes:
I am most intrigued currently with your ongoing correspondence with Sam Harris. I must say, however, that I really don't know what the fuss is about. Are you debating the philosophy that underlies religion(s), or the dogma and mythology that encompasses the actual practice and institutions? Which is more important? Which does the ostensible harm to science, society and education? Do the underlying philosophies or the institutions set in place over millenia cause the problems Mr. Harris and you debate?
As you are a practicing Christian, I will use Christianity as my base. I would suggest that it is not the philosophy of Christ's teachings that is the source of the friction, it is the institutional practices of the religion He never wished to found. One can indeed be a Christian and at the same time not be a Christian in the formal, institutionalized sense (and certainly not a "Christianist", a term I have great fondness for). One can follow the teachings of Christ in the everyday routine and still believe that there was no Resurrection. His teachings are universal. It is far more important to me that I attempt in my own fallible way to follow His (and I capitalize out of respect for others, a most Christian attitude) teachings than it is to believe in His divinity.
I truly believe, and of course I may be completely wrong, wouldn't be the first time and won't be the last, that daily interaction with others, whether they be individuals or nations, in accordance with Christ's teachings, has a more positive and reaching effect. The debate should not be science vs. religion; it should be science vs. philosophy, and in that there should be no discord. Religion as philosophy, science and rational thought can always live comfortably together. One must simply decide whether the teachings or the institutions are more important.
The Dish 