“Modern scientific reason quite simply has to accept the rational structure of matter and the correspondence between our spirit and the prevailing rational structures of nature as a given, on which its methodology has to be based.”

Modern scientific reason doesn’t have to do anything of the sort until someone can prove the existence of “our spirit” (and don’t forget, the burden of proof lies with the positive claiment). Assuming that ever happens we’d still be left to puzzle over what correspondence between it and the prevailing rational structures of nature means.

Gay Catholics and poor Republicans crack me up!

Andrew Sullivan’s wordplay does not address the salient point, to me, of Sam Harris’ column, namely that we are dealing with a “death cult” within Islam that is rapidly growing in power and because faith-based premises (of the East or of the West) are largely unchallenged we are tongue-tied when it comes to rebutting them. After all, we have our own fundamentalist cultists sitting pretty right here.  There is very little distinction between Islamist martyrdom and paradise and the Rapture of the fundamentalists of the West.

Not only not illuminating, it’s downright reactionary, which is a danger any time the dogmatist (whether athiest or deist) hooks-up to power.  .

We need not look to far to see the hypocrisy of ALL the religious leaders today from the Pope to the Imams. In Christendom WW1 and WW2 broke out with the religious leaders praying that God (the same God and the same religion) would give them victory. Islam also has blood on its hands. People need to get out of these religions, expose them for what they are...divisive forces in the world today who no longer have a place in a civilized world.

Yes, the “silly old priest” does bear the moral burden for what he says in public.  In his interminably boring ramble that was intended to pass for “scholarship” at Regensburg University he should have spoken to the issue of the times in his own words rather than hide behind the cloak of a long gone (& desperate) emperor.  Then for the old weasel to give his lame-half-measure-apology instead of confronting the whole issue head on as a leader is too pathetic. Well, what can we expect from the leader of an institution that is also decrepit, isolated from reality and utterly absorbed in it’s own self interest.  Mr. Sullivan can jump up and down on his soap box in defense of the “silly old priest” all he wishes but the truth is clear; Catholicism is on the way out and Islam is on the rise.  Fortunately, also on the rise is the belief in a secular realism based on science, and a hope, as Mr. Sam Harris has so beautifully expressed it (in paraphrase), “a desire to worship at the temple of reason”.

Andrew misses the point entirely. What he quotes of the pope’s speech on his blog indeed, like sam harris says, says basically nothing. The pope is making claims about spirit and its importance in our lives, when the spirit is something no one can realistically talk about. and a POPE talking about reason in faith is completely circular and does nothing - how can you advocate reason in faith when your life is based on complete irrationality?

Andrew,

Sam cuts to the core of the 3, 4, 5000 year old
problem. If you could wipe everyone’s belief system
clean and re-program them instantly you’d have something.
We can’t do that so Sam has reasons but no answers.

Now for the Pope deal, Sam (and the Muslims) slam
him for saying what we all know to be true. That is
the Islamist scriptures are inherently violent toward
non-Muslims and a large number of Muslims follow
the teachings verbatim. The remaining “moderate”
Muslims are as much targets as anyone for the
fundamentalists.

The Catholic Church having a violent history and
recent pedophile scandals negates any truth that
is spoken by the current Pope. This does not seem
“reasonable” to me. Truth should be truth no matter
the source. So, I ask if you don’t want the Pope to
speak the truth, who should and when?