"Our world is driven by religious doctrines that all educated people should condemn."
“The Moral Landscape: Why Science should shape morality."
Two Fi worldview examples. In the first, he is saying that "his" view should be shared by all "educated" people. In the second he is saying that science alone should shape morality, which seems rather oblivious to how others would choose to develop their own morality. Religious followers no doubt see these two statements as divisive and will be immediately repelled by them. This will only force them to embrace more vehemently their beliefs. His is a minority opinion, considering the statistics he cites in "Letter To A Christian Nation." He proposes that the world can do without religion, that it is not necessary to construct/maintain moral laws. However, he also proposes that science can take its place and do it better. Why do we need either as the "sole" originator of moral values?
We have enough historical precedence, jurisprudence, existing moral laws and innate common sense on matters of morality. He admits as much in his observation on how slavery was abolished even though it is condoned in the Old Testament. Therefore, the moral intuitions of man prove that he can evolve and reshape his OWN opinions on what constitutes morality "that works"...i.e. a "living morality". While I believe that science can “augment” existing moral laws, it cannot prevent, for example, a leader of a third-world country from committing acts of mayhem according to his own, corrupt moral doctrine, which may have nothing to do with religion at all. In that instance, scientifically derived morality is really of no use, because the universally held “moral consensus” of mankind already holds such despotic acts in ill repute.
Science, like religion is not immune to being subverted, misinterpreted or manufactured (see intelligent design/creationism). In the end, the fault lies not purely in science or religion. The real fault is in ourselves, and the arduous maintenance of our own belief systems, which are individual and not always healthy. As stated earlier, universal moral laws are driven by consensus and debate. They are amended or excised in ways to make them more effective or remove them if they become untenable. Again, this only happens by consensus. These laws must be egalitarian enough to attenuate opinions that they are zero-sum in nature, else the "well-being" of some, will come at the expense of the "well-being" of others. For example, even if science and statistics determined that universal healthcare was a moral imperative, there is still the rational/logical issues to consider (whether it is economically feasible).
However, an even bigger problem is that even if it could be shown that the "happiness and well-being" of the entire nation could be improved by universal health care, there are those in unique positions to subvert the process and the message, causing many to retain unwarranted/uneducated opinions of it. The mind is the problem, not religion or science. You cannot totally eradicate ignorance, blind hate, lack of intelligence, irrationality, confirmation-bias or biased assimilation from the equation. This is the problem with what Harris wants to export...especially to Islamic nations.
I am curious why he doesn't just promote Jainism rather than science as a means of a more forward thinking well-spring for a more compassionate and inclusive morality. Perhaps it is the ascetic nature of it, which might not sit so well with Americans and capitalism in general. However, it does seem much more benign, benevolent and forward-thinking than more popular religions. He uses Jainism's precepts to draw satirical distinctions between it, Christianity and Islam, but his personal "worldview" is that scientists should have a monopoly on universal morality. His dissertations are emphatically iconoclastic … laced with either insinuations or outright pronouncements of stupidity and condescension with regards to religion. Harris doesn't really care about how his negative views on religion (as a moral precedent) come across in the wider world, “especially” where Islam is concerned (Christianity as well). As such, I don't see a lot of Fe there.
I see Harris as attempting to export his personal worldview as the only alternative for devising morality in the absence of religion, which he clearly believes is grossly incapable of performing such a function rationally, compassionately and with well-being as its ultimate goal. He does not simply say that religion is bad and should be eviscerated, he goes further and offers science as an alternative that "should" supplant it. I see his use of love and hate as objects in his equation of happiness/well-being, not as something inherently Idealist in nature. His study of philosophy, especially Buddhism shows here. He comes at this issue of morality from an intensely rational and combative standpoint. His pontifications and “implied stupidity" do as much to convince me of this as his impersonal anecdotes and statistics, which are questionable.
If I had to type Harris using the Enneagram, I would put him at 5w6, assuming he is an introvert. He does not look particularly reactive at all, which would rule out 4, 6 and 8 as E types. If he is INFJ, then he is certainly not a 4 or a 9, and that leaves only 6 (6w5). He seems completely comfortable with confrontation and thinks well on his feet. I have not encountered any moments where he appears to be really flustered by the opposition, which might just show his extensive knowledge of the subject matter. He does seem particularly concerned with security and the martial arts, which are prototypically E6 traits. Enneagram 5w6 usually corresponds very well with INTJ. I am not completely sure of this, but I will study him some more. He certainly is an iconoclast, in every sense of the word. As such, he is on the fringe of popular held opinions/beliefs and he is content to be so. That is the realm of Enneagram 5 without doubt, and that is where you will usually find INTP and INTJ. I actually had a dream about him as some sort of anti-Christ after falling asleep on one of his debates on YouTube.
I will say for the record, that I believe what Harris is doing is warranted, although I don't totally agree with his methodology or science as some omniscient "moral factory". There are those like Reza Aslan who seem to want to create moral equivalencies along the lines of the violent history associated with both Christianity and Islam. But this falls flat on its face when we examine the nature of civility in America vs. Islamic countries. Our moral intuitions, experiences, and history have moved us away from the Abrahamic views that dominate the Old Testament. Islam, on the other hand is a much younger religion that is situated in countries that are not as well developed, either culturally or economically. Moreover, their moral values remain steeped in Sharia law, which is completely incompatible with secular and western democracies. This is the crux of Harris' argument against Islam...that it has not really evolved (morally) past some primitive, odious and hideous tenets. If 50% of the people in Islamic countries agree with the death penalty as the consequence for leaving Islam, then yes, I would say that Islam has a serious problem...with both its own people and the wider world.
