While doing my postings, I took some quick glances of other students in their regards to Sam Harris’s lecture called, Sam Harris and the End of Faith. Can be found: <http://elearn.mtsac.edu/dlane/neuraltv10.htm> Some found Harris to be very criticizing. Not me, he’s so blunt that he’s awesome. I think he’s on the dot. There’s too much shadiness and dark secrets of the religions that most people do not know of because many people gets fooled by their descriptions of holiness; sunlight has its darkness too. We all know that idiocracy and ignorance- kills and will forget. To other responses regards to his apology at the introduction; he apologizes to the secularists. He did so just to exemplify it. There is a possibility of non-traditional secularists. Due to the misuse of philosophical terms, the traditional representation of the secularism has a different philosophy claim to it, or it can play new roles in the society for ones motives. Sometimes a person can sound so critically harsh and yet so right. That is what it sounds like when a blunt person presents their truths to another. It may sound uneasy at first; there are no shiny wrappings or sugar-coatings, that can be any better ever presented, than to taking it straight raw and unwrapped, just pure form.
I think he’s awesome maybe because it seems to affect me more since I am a science major. I have finally arrive myself in a clear picture of the controversies on science and the religious. It is true when he mentions about creationism being taught in schools. I remembered my bio professor brought up this issue. He told our class that creationism wants to start a teaching of their own beliefs in the science department. The whole class thought it was the most unreasonable and foolish idea ever and some laughed. The class came to an agreement with our professor, that it doesn’t qualify to fit itself to be in the science department, and if anything, they can fill the empty slot in th general education section. Harris made me realized how possibly easy it was that we can let this so called innocuous taboo earned it’s free ride to the gate of public education (more views siding with him in political issues but it is saved for the final.) So was Edward O. Wilson when he mentions that both of the institutions- does not go hand in hand. My bio class shouldn’t even acknowledge or welcome this teaching at all and including myself at that time. Harris was right about the fundamental taboo of our country. The taboo lets the religious entering from the back doors to take political opinions with the sciences. We can’t shed a bit of pity or sympathy to open the front doors to this flooded-gate to drown the sciences. However, I still won’t be bias or narrow-minded, but I must keep my awareness from them especially in the political public alliances. The struggles against the religious stance will be part of my future. I am confident to say that I have realized made a mistake when I thought science and the religious can go hand in hand- they don’t.
References:
Author and Scholar, Sam Harris: http://elearn.mtsac.edu/dlane/neuraltv10.htm
