I think we are getting into a bit of “hair-splitting” and semantics. The original question was whether or not Harris was a neuroscientist by virtue of his Phd and previous background in research.
President Obama is no longer a lawyer in the technical sense. He allowed his license to lapse in 2008 after being elected President. However, his understanding of the Constitution based on his position as editor of Law Review at Harvard, as well as his years of teaching constitutional law at the University of Chicago School of Law, garners respect in certain circles of the legal community. He may not be a legal titan, but he is certainly not a constitutional lightweight.
Particularly given his acute grasp of constitutional issues when crafting Executive Orders, as well as debates in the Oval Office over numerous policy initiatives during his time as President. There were a number of legal scholars inside the Administration who lauded Obama’s insight and understanding of these complex legal issues. It was no secret that the former President devoured legal memos late into the night at times. He would read law review articles and writings by scholars on certain issues. Among those who had an enormous amount of respect for his legal insight included Justice Elena Kagan, former Solicitor General in the Obama Administration.
Constitutional law is very cerebral, and not something most of our political leaders are able to grasp with any real depth. I dare say Obama has a far better understanding of constitutional law than the vast majority of practicing lawyers (since most of them do not deal with it in their areas of practice). Even though he has not been directly involved in the practice of law, or as a professor in the field, in fifteen years.
I have practiced law since 1991, primarily with issues involving constitutional law. There is not one President in modern history who could hold a candle to Obama in this field.
As to whether someone is a “lawyer”? A great example is Michelle Obama. She is a licensed lawyer. Despite the fact that she elected to take inactive status over a decade ago. Reinstatement — depending on the state bar rules — likely would require her to take a certain number of hours of Continuing Legal Education and pay whatever the reinstatement fees are in that state. She is still recognized as a lawyer given her status as a member of the Illinois Bar.
The more salient point is that anyone who has a significant history of being immersed in a particular field garners a certain degree of respect. The mere fact that they are not directly involved in the field does not diminish their understanding. Whether you agree with their point-of-view in other realms.
I consider Harris to be a very intelligent and informed scholar in his field. I also believe he has brought a very logical and sound argument to the dialogue criticizing religion — specifically Islam and Christianity. And the fact that you diminish Reza Aslan’s body of work, as well as his spiritual journey, research, and reasoned personal evolution, speaks volumes.
Rather than begrudging respect — which I have for people with whom there are vehement disagreements, but acknowledge their intelligence, your position is outright contempt. I regret to inform you, but these men are not morons — contrary to your statements. Far from it. Nor do you have to be some religious scholar to make arguments about the existence of a god, as well as offer criticism. The ongoing priest-pedophile scandal in the Catholic Church is a case-in-point. It begs the question as to the legitimacy of the whole institution.
My problem with Islam, Judaism, and Christianity are the leaders who either distort the messages and principles underlying them, or those who stand quiet and are therefore vicariously complicit in the tarnishing of the religion. And those that take any of these religions to extremes. The hypocrisy is legion.
The fact that people are threatened by the criticism, resorting to argument ad hominem rather than valid, fact-based retorts, begs the question as to whether the foundation of their faith is really all that sound. Aristotle would certainly agree.
Maybe Marx was right when he declared that “religion is the opiate of the masses.” I think he too had a valid point given two thousand years of horrific human behavior in the name of a god. It bears questioning. Whether it offends you or others — Christians, Muslims and Jews alike. As my mother was so fond of saying, “people who live in glass houses should not throw stones.” Best they clean up their house before criticizing another.
I have long stood in the middle of the debate over whether or not there is a god. I am an Agnostic. I belong to the Church of IDK (“I don’t know”). Which for me is the most valid position given there is no scientific proof that either side is right. So when engaging in discussions with either side, I would ask you why the “believers” are the ones that scare me? Why I consider them to now be the primary threat to the existence of humanity?
More so, with each passing day. Rendering the notions of “pearly gates”, “seventy-two virgins”, and “second comings” as utter absurdities that only make the increasing prospect of an apocalypse a self-fulfilling prophecy…
