Sam Harris Nails Palin
 

Uh.... Sort of.

Unlike our token atheist (who is in the midst of a major hitting slump), this atheist is dead on the money regarding Palin and (more importantly) the sorry state of US politics:

http://www.newsweek.com/id/160080

Highly recommended.

A sampling:

Yet another misleading thread...

how funny. I could seriously see the two trying to evangelize to each other, but anything more than that...notsomuch.

I've gotta say, though, for one of the world's leading secular atheists, Sam is pretty hot. He can try to convert me. I'm okay with that.

This is what happens when there is no accountability.

Hmmm. I see what he is trying to say but going from people wanting someone who they can relate to and feel comfortable with to the notion that this is an anti-intellectual anti-education impulse is a big leap, and not one supported by the overwhelming evidence.

I'm sorry, but no one gets to be a Senator or a Governor if they are stupid and uneducated. Palin may not be the greatest mind our country has to offer and I'm not arguing she has an Obama like intellect. But when someone argues that she is nothing more than a sideline reporter who somehow stumbled into a VP candidacy they marginalize themself with me.

Is he seriously arguing that Republicans want stupid people leading them? That is maybe the dumbest thing, or the most disingenous, I have heard a pundit say in a while. No doubt that flatters the world view of some on the left but it is not a serious thing to say.

I take it you haven't read much Harris?

Oh come on. You are twisting his thesis. He is not saying that they value stupidity or that they purposefully sought out a dimwitted candidate. He is saying that the Palin choice indicates that they sometimes find other traits more important. Or that they cynically manipulate the "she's one of us" angle to deflect attention from her shortcomings.

Sincerely,

Jessie Ventura


Sorry, couldn't resist. The characterization has to be put in context. Nobody is saying she is literally "stupid and uneducated" in the same way that you would describe one of your neighbors or co-workers. But her interviews thus far have illustrated that she is shockingly ill-prepared to be a heartbeat away from the presidency.

There's a difference between BEING
 

elite and BEING elitist. Not only is this guy an atheist, he clearly doesn't understand the difference.

He overvalues politicians and what they do for us. I disagree that our brightest should be engaged as government employees, even those at the pinnacle, but rather they should be our puppets.

I disagree with his thesis that what they do is more important than pilots. Harris appears to be part of the arrogant entrenched media believing traditional views of government.

Did you read the article? I think you may have missed the point. Granted, easy to do with Harris.

I haven't finished it, other things intervened.

Are you kidding me? He is talking specifically about the POTUS. The most powerful, most important job in the world.

Also, he is not saying that you find the smartest person in the world and make that person president, as your first paragraph implies. Rather, he is arguing that we should have extremely high standards for our candidates.

Sheesh. What an odd thing to have to argue.

I just read the wiki bio of Jesse Ventura:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesse_Ventura

Wow. UtahDan may want to rethink his hypothesis on governors.

Harris was the guy who went on for an entire book ranting at how only atheists have half a brain. Then wrapped it up by making a plug for buddhism. He's my exhibit A that historically and even today "atheist" just means you don't believe in the Judeo-Christian formula. Read Harris or Dawkins' "The God Delusion" and that's all they do. The attacks get redundant and it's curious to me that they go on like this material is new. Their points have been made by folks like Spinoza and Hume for centuries.

Thanks for posting that, JL. I don't think I would have run into it myself, and I always love to read Harris. Not because I agree with him, usually, but because he makes for pretty good entertainment and because I like to keep up with the evangelical atheism movement.

Anyhow, in this instance Harris makes some great points that should raise concerns for anyone, regardless of political preference. The problem with Harris's essay, though, is the problem with all of Harris's writings: no one will take him seriously except those who already agreed with him to begin with.

I find Sam a little frustrating. If you follow his work, he's got a lot of important points to make about what faith has turned into for many believers, and about the implications of the evolution of faith for our society in general.

The problem with his work is that he constructs his messages in such a way that he's more likely to further alienate his readers than to draw them in. Just look at this piece. Incredibly sarcastic and hyperbolic, and he deliberately uses inflated diction and convoluted syntax so that the average Nascar Palin apologist will feel belittled and inferior after reading the commentary. And he just comes across as so self-righteous and full of himself.

He's like this in all his writing. And the irony is that he writes about the growing rift between those who appeal to reason and those who appeal to ideology, yet his own writing only serves to widen the chasm by reinforcing all the stereotypes the ideologues have of the rationals: that they are elitist, condescending, presumptive, irreligious, leftist bastards.

I've never figured out whether his goal is really to improve society, or simply to inflate his own ego and villify religion.

I realized that was a bit harsh. But seriously, does anyone think this essay, in the way it was constructed, is going to cause any readers to rethink their assessment of Palin? It doesn't seem likely to me. Seems more likely that it will only further entrench readers in whatever opinion they already have of the vice presidential candidate, her apologists, and her critics.

I'm remembering that video that Sooner posted with the cleric chanting and such. I have two thoughts about that. First, as Sooner tacitly acknowledged, if you videotaped some of the stuff Mormons do many people would roar with laughter at that too.

Second, I can't believe people including Harris take that kind of stuff so seriously. They might just as well have had a vidoe of people line dancing, as far as I'm concerned. If I decided not to like or not to vote for or work for anyone who had weird religious practices in this country I'd probably be nearly a recluse. This is a country fraught with weird religious movements.

I hope you all have seen that I approach religion with a great deal of humor. It doesn't scare me anymore. I think it's mostly artifact, and I think American born religions are pretty much all ridiculous. The fact they hate one another and ridicule one another is farcical. Pure kitsch. They're also all scared, sad speactacles that are in decline.

Have any of you considered that Harris writes this stuff because it's his living? He's no different than people on cross-fire. He doesn't take it as seriously as you do. It's just a job.

The only truly dangerous religious movement left is Islam.

Are you being serious?

Look, many of them are quite bright, but to say that no single Senator or Governor is or has ever been stupid and uneducated is pretty off the mark, in my opinion.

Exactly. He's a professional troll.

I think the only true danger is God .Those who valiantly eliminate/ try to eliminate him ,are hero in my book. And those who do not see any God to begin with,are super-hero for sure.

No. That's just an alternate form of zealous ideology. Fundamentalist ideology and the belief that one's creed should be imposed upon others are dangerous regardless of whether the ideology is rooted in theism.


They are no less the intellectual lightweights than those who presume His existence from day one and never consider the alternative.

I don't like his style of writing but I believe he misses the point. Yes POTUS is currently an important position but it should be devalued. The power of the office has grown and we would be better off if we eliminated some of its powers as well as the powers of Congress. I don't agree we should make the standards rigorous but rather encourage us to devalue the office, make it irrelevant. We don't need that much power situate in one person.

Barbara has already identified the problems with Sam's awful hyperbolic writing.

Am I stating others will follow my advice? No. But it's an awful assumption that there is only one option and that the power vested in that office is a good thing. We need to neuter that office IMHO.

You're being ridiculous and you know it. You're making two different arguments.

In response to your first: No, we don't need a rocket scientist as president. We do, however, want someone with a certain degree of experience and tendency toward reason and reflection -- not someone whose knowledge of and approach to foreign policy relys on a combination of geographic proximity, divine inspiration, and the axiom "he who hesitates is lost."

In response to your second: If our representatives should ideally serve as mere puppets then wouldn't we be better served just to switch to direct democracy?

Yeah,that's probably true.Considering all the efforts which have been put through words and works to deride people's beliefs and imposing a self-creating religion on them, makes the irony quite rich.

The alternative ?? an alternative God or an alternative to his being ?
Leaving aside those who drink religion through their mothers' milk ,everybody is looking for an alternative for God .Man, has to have God .If there is no God ,he would have to make up one.

Let me see if I have this straight: you don't like his writing style because you find it too hyperbolic. But oh by the way, let's change the constitution to neuter the president and congress.

Gotcha.

No, I think I'll stick with it. Ventura is not a dumb guy. You just don't raise the money and get the people behind you that you need to if you are. Madonna is a good analogy. I don't want her to govern my state, and she has made political statements that I find silly, but this woman is a genius. She is a muti-national conglomerate, and it isn't because she is the best singer, dance or prettiest woman.

There are all kinds of smarts. Ventura, however much of a buffoon he may be, is not successful for no reason. He didn't Forrest Gump his way through life, none of these people do. Of course that doesn't mean I want to elect any of them.

I understand the point you made above that you think the author is suggesting that intellect is not the most important attribute to Republicans as opposed to saying that it is unimportant to them and/or they shun it. I think that is a mighty fine hair to split. Parties almost never put forward the smartest guy/gal they have. There are always other factors, such as charisma, good looks, name recognitions (Bush, Clinton, Kennedy), connections, experience that get factored in along with intellect. When you suggest that one party has intellect at the bottom of the list on a consistent basis and that right at the top of the list are "common" attributes...again I just don't think that is a perspective that is persuasive or deserving of much weight.