According to the Friendly Atheist, Sam Harris starts “a controversy anytime he talks about something not directly related to atheism.”
I have a simple question – how can that be? According to Harris, he is a man who is led by reason and evidence. And he only happens to be one of the Four Horsemen of New Atheism. Yet the New Atheist community also claims that it is led by reason and evidence. What’s more, Harris and the New Atheists claim that reason and evidence lead them to the truth and that truth is supposed to be atheism. But does reason and evidence truly lead them? Or are they simply adornments for what is already there?
Nevertheless, even if we accept the guiding nature of reason and evidence, when it comes to “something not directly related to atheism” it’s clear that reason and evidence guide Harris and the New Atheists to their own personal truths. It leads them in different directions. It clearly does not lead to objective truths they all embrace. In fact, the only “truth” they all seem to embrace is their atheism. Yet if reason and evidence led them to atheism because it is true, why can’t the same reason and evidence lead them to all the other truths not related to atheism? It’s not for lack of trying, as they all try to support their personal truths with reason and evidence. It’s just that all that reason and evidence fuels all kinds of infighting among the atheists. Where is the guidance?
So maybe they are not atheists because of reason and evidence. Maybe, like all their other beliefs, atheism is also a personal truth and reason and evidence are not guides, but props used to support their atheism. And this would make sense given the subjective nature of atheism and the subjective aspect of evidence.