pursuing the vision of an «objective morality», this fine gentleman seems to react to what might be a present-day prevalence of an absurd and hazardous dogma sustaining fundamentalist religious beliefs present in the society in which he lives…
although his purpose is honest and sincere, the concept of a «universal morality» based on something as incomplete as mere science… might end up feeding up the tendencies towards fascism, instead of shedding light towards a truer freedom…
he appears very well dressed with an apparent scientific objectivity, yet he remains highly ideological… when he states that «it seems patently obvious that we can no longer respect and tolerate vast differences in notions of human well-being», the hidden key word in that phrase is «we»… in the sense that one fraction of humanity that hasn’t yet reached a level of illumination that would truly substantiate its self-proclaimed superiority over the rest of humankind, feels entitled to «not tolerate» and «not respect» other points of view…
Harris’ final admonition is: «we simply must converge in the answers that we give to the most important questions in human life»… and how do we «converge»? is it «scientifically correct» to force others into our own ideology, whenever they might not be willing to «converge» along with us?
