BigTexasRob makes what appears to be a somewhat hypocritical request:
Having misrepresented Harris’s points in order to support your argument (in articles like “Clowns of Reason”), you then blame Harris for being misrepresented…. why not find the exchanges he is referring to and actually show us all how Harris is at fault for being unclear?
I think that’s a reasonable request, at least for the Sullivan and Prager debates for which the transcripts are available, and I will likely post that here at some point. I’m currently occupied with Hitchens right now and to be honest, I really can’t stomach any more of Harris’s smug incompetence for a while; reading Hitchens is a genuine pleasure by comparison.
However, I should very much like to see you back up your assertion as well and explain precisely how I “misrepresented” Harris’s points in this 2006 column, especially considering that I only referenced two of them:
1) Harris states one could be almost certain that the religion of an unknown suicide bomber was Islam.
2) Harris believes that the world is currently imperiled by religious faith due to the possibility of religious individuals obtaining and making use of advanced military technology.
Are those correct representations of Harris’s positions or not? If they are incorrect, then please explain where I have made a mistake.