Has anyone else been following this online debate? Its incredibly good.
http://www.beliefnet.com/story/209/story_20904_1.html
GBL
Online Faith debate between Sam Harris and Andrew Sullivan
by GetBusyLiving 4 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
Amazing
GBL,
Yes, it looks like a good debate. Harris, like many athiests or anti-religionists, make the same old tired, worn-out argument that all religion is bad because some Islamic nutcases, or some Christian nutcases, do evil things in the name of God. None of this really has anything to do with faith, especially on a case-by-case basis for each individual. I could make the same old tired argument about athiests and the irreligious by noting how Nazism and Communism (both basically athiestic systems) caused even worse carnage and wickedness, and thus anything and anyone not espousing belief in God is harmful to humanity. We could use these arguments to blast any ideology or movement. These arguments are an extension of ad hominem and guilt by association. The underlying problems are really about how nutcases misuse any belief system to do wicked things. When we take out the nutcases, then what is left really need not result in a debate anyway.
Jim Whitney
-
IsaacJS2
I thought the debate has been pretty good so far. I haven't checked it in a week or so. I don't know if they've resumed it yet or not.
I think the debate shows a fundamental difference between the way believers and secular nonbelievers view the world, which is an interest of mine. We perceive "truth" very differently, which is one of the reasons we end up chasing our tails in a debate. Reading it helped me see that more clearly than I did before.
I may be an atheist, but I actually do agree that religion isn't necessarily bad. I have to point out that history disagrees about the Nazi's being atheists, however. That's a commonly held myth. Just as you guys get tired of hearing about religious extremists "proving" that all religion is bad, I get kinda weary of hearing these tired arguments as well. That's the only reason I felt the need to mention it. But at least we have find some common ground on all of this, right?
IsaacJ
-
AllTimeJeff
I have been following it as well, and it is a great debate.
Amazing said:
Harris, like many athiests or anti-religionists, make the same old tired, worn-out argument that all religion is bad because some Islamic nutcases, or some Christian nutcases, do evil things in the name of God.
That is one facet of the arguement which is a gross oversimplification, and if I may say so, a mischarecterization. Having read his book, I can say that his arguement is that religion itself brings untestable ideas into the arena of life. Then because of the PC world we live in, no one is allowed to question any part of the logic of it. From their, his question is a simple one: Is a person allowed to believe whatever he wants to? I suppose it depends on the politcal and religous climate one finds himself in, but it is an excellent question, esp considering the fact that so many religous traditions, and even sects within a religion, often claim that they are the true religion. His arguements of course were never about freedom of religion, but rather, removing the superstitious double talk and being frank about why a person believes the way they do. As I find consistently demonstrated, people of faith seem to rail against anyone questioning their right to belief rather then try to defend why they believe the way they do. Thats fine, but it raises more questions then answers and does nothing to the arguement that Harris, Dawkins and others make about the superstitious nature of faith and religion.
It goes without saying that I am in Harris's corner. Sullivan is a very sincere man, but I note that it is hard for him to answer questions Harris asks very well.
-
GetBusyLiving
I would say that Sullivan is certainly no moron, but as far as this debate goes he is getting boot stomped by Harris, IMO. At the very least he attempts to answer the direct issues presented.
GBL