Originally posted by jaywillAm I not to understand Harris as pointing to a class of superstitious human sacrifices with their associated ignorance of science, and gather by innuendo that that is pretty much the criticism Harris is leveling at Christians who believe in the efficacy of Christ's redemptive death ?
[quote] If you think Harris was saying that Christians you are acquainted with cannot possibly know anything about the sciences, then you have, to that extent, poor reading comprehension. Harris was there saying that past instances of human blood sacrifice were predicated on commitments grounded in ignorance about the physical world. That does not entail any ...[text shortened]... ll respond to this paragraph seperately and alone, for space sake.
As you can see from the excerpt, Harris explicitly states that he thinks "it is astride this…scientific ignorance that Christianity now stands…" (emphasis mine). But I think it was very sloppy reading and inference on your part when you concluded before that Harris assumes that you and your Christian acquaintances are incapable of scientific knowledge. Did you read the part where he laments that "a worldview in which 'propitiatory sacrifices on behalf of the living and the dead' figure prominently is rather difficult to defend in the year [2011]. But this has not stopped otherwise intelligent and well-intentioned people from defending it" (emphasis again mine)? Harris is committed (as is any reasonable person) to the idea that Christians can be highly intelligent; highly skilled; highly trained; highly capable in the sciences, as well as any number of other areas. Unfortunately, even otherwise highly intelligent and scientifically capable persons can believe articles of total nonsense, especially when it features prevalently in their milieu and has the ability to play some sort of strong narrative function (or some such). And that is just what the doctrine of the scapegoat is -- complete and utter nonsense. But, as Harris implies, that does not stop persons from trying to defend it.
That is part of his defense mechanism to deal with the perceived encroachment on his self righteous view of himself . "The Gospel is silly and nonsensical".
"God does not exist."
"The Gospel is silly and nonsensical"
These are just handy tools in the arsenal of the Anti-theist.
From what I quoted of him, it is not warranted for you to infer that Harris is self-righteous, let alone that his attitudes are part of some defense mechanism to protect his self-righteousness. Why do you persist in these sorts of caricatures? Probably, in part, it is simply this: you do not have any actual argument you could offer someone like Harris. Harris would represent an example (I would also represent one) of a person who thinks your salvation story sounds positively cockamamie, and we would require actual evidential reasons or some manner of argument to be convinced that it makes any sense. That your "god does not exist" is not a part of some defense mechanism. It is a proposition that I happen to believe on the basis of what evidence I have as I understand it. You could at least attempt to proffer some new evidence to me, or explain why you think I am failing to correctly interpret what evidence I do have. For instance, regarding the DoS, you could say "well, it makes sense that the torture and bloodshed and death of an innocent could conduce to cosmic justice and moral balance because of reason X and reason Y and reason Z", and the like. And you could say "it makes sense that the suffering of an innocent would satisfy and marry well with the values of someone who is perfectly loving and good because of consideration A and consideration B and consideration C", and the like. But instead you make the implication that my stupefaction toward such a principle is some defense mechanism aimed at self-righteousness.
Now. If I counter this with a defense of Christian theology, I suspect that you will respond that you are not talking about the Christian Gospel AT ALL, like Harris.
I hear you saying that I am misunderstanding Harris. He's communicating. And you also are communicating by pointing to his words as suming up things nicely for you on this thread.
What am I missing ?
Not sure how many ways I can ask this of you. Do you -- or do you not – have any evidential reasons in favor of the "implicit commitment" I outlined earlier (and if you do not care for the way I outlined or stated it, then please offer a revision)? By an evidential reason, I am basically talking about some consideration that bears on the truth of the commitment, some consideration in virtue of which the propositional content of the commitment is more plausible or more likely true. You can go ahead and proceed with a "defense of Christian theology", but for intents and purposes here, please only do so if doing so will divulge some evidential reasons in favor of the implicit commitment outlined earlier. Does that make sense?
1 edit
Originally posted by jaywillAre you saying that you CANNOT AVOID refusing to confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord ? Are you saying you CANNOT AVOID disbelieving in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead ?Right, obviously the perfectly righteous procedure of a loving god demands that we ought to be thrown into fire to suffer horribly for all eternity for error that in practice we cannot avoid.
What is it that you cannot avoid ?
What "practice" is it that you cannot avoid ?
"That if you confess with your mouth Jes God.
The SAME MOUTH spoke those words. I have to take BOTH teachings.
I hope you will one day realize what a terrible and pointless method of witnessing this is. I believe God does not exist, remember? No, I cannot confess, in any non-ersatz way, to God's authority. That would require my thinking that God exists in the first place; but you already know that I do not think as such.
Suppose S does not believe that P but you would rather that S did; and suppose you believe that P. On one hand, you can try to reason with S and say "Look S, P is true because of reasons x,y,z". On the other hand, you can say "Look S, you just have to really, really believe that P is true in your heart!". Go for the former approach.
It is not love that needs to be appeased. It is justice that will not go unexecuted.
Right, and, obviously, perfect justice can be executed by visiting suffering and bloody death on a person (for sins he did not commit no less). That's called bizarro-justice.
God loves me with an unimaginable powerful and enduring love. But He will not give up His righteousness because of that love. The delimma of the Almighty is how He can carry out His eternal love yet not violate or sacrifice His eternal righteous being.
Right, God loves all men ferociously. But, His perfect righteousness demands that we be tossed in a fire for all eternity; excepting, that is, unless we nail a man to a cross and visit suffering and bloody death on him. Then everything is cool. These are called bizarro-love and bizarro-righteousness.
Are you honestly suggesting that there are plausible accounts of perfect love, righteousness, justice; that collectively require that some person be made to suffer and die bloody death?
7 edits
Originally posted by jaywillI would like to get the book and read it after I finish Paul Copan's Is God a Moral Monster ? Making Sense of the Old Testament God. Give me to the end of Febuary or middle of March.
Have you read any other works by Harris, such as The Moral Landscape?
No. I have not yet read The Moral LandscapeBut I have been listening to a lot of Sam Harris lately. And I get more of a sense of his thoughts.
I would like to get the book and read it after I finish Paul Copan's Is God a Moral Monster ? Making Sense of the Old Testament God. Give me to the end of Febuary or middle of March
Ok, cool. I am still reading it myself. I am not sure what to make of it yet. But I guess my point was that I do not think it will support the earlier hypothetical response with which you presumed to saddle Harris.
EDIT: Sorry, I had to edit several times to figure out how to get rid of the unintentional bold text.
3 edits
Originally posted by LemonJelloI am short on time now. I will watch the video.
Jaywill,
Here is a (short) video for you.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hiJE71lm8DY
And if anyone is interested I'll write how I would think about some of Sam Harris's eloquently put criticisms of my Christian faith.
All I can do for you is tell you how I think about one or two of his apparent problems. But latter.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by jaywillReally doesn't work, because the video features a straw man atheist who is an idiot and doesn't understand the arguments.
Cute. Ok wiseguy. You want to trade little sarcastic cartoonist YouTubes? Here's a little one for you dude.
[b]"How To Make an Atheist's Head Explode"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0DT6uljSbg[/b]
Try this instead.
Originally posted by googlefudgeIt seems Carl Sagan is being converted to Hinduism and the Veda's.
Really doesn't work, because the video features a straw man atheist who is an idiot and doesn't understand the arguments.
Try this instead.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4E-_DdX8Ke0
He and Dasa should have much to talk about.
1 edit
Originally posted by Proper KnobNo problem for him now, is it? As a Hindu he will just be reincarnated into
Slight problem. Carl Sagan's dead.
another body and perhaps he will become a future Prime Minister of England
or a future President of France. But I hope he doesn't reincarnate in the USA,
unless it is as a dog catcher.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by RJHindsIf what you took from that was Carl Sagan (an Atheist) converting to Hinduism then you
It seems Carl Sagan is being converted to Hinduism and the Veda's.
He and Dasa should have much to talk about.
really need to watch it again with your brain switched on.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by RJHindsActually it was cringeworthy and false, both in that it doesn't make atheists head explode, either literally or figuratively,
That was funny. True, but funny. 😀
and that it misrepresents the arguments.
If you want to argue against atheists fine, but argue against what we actually say, not what you would like us to say.
3 edits
Originally posted by googlefudge
Really doesn't work, because the video features a straw man atheist who is an idiot and doesn't understand the arguments.
Try this instead.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4E-_DdX8Ke0
Really doesn't work, because the video features a straw man atheist who is an idiot and doesn't understand the arguments.
Brilliant googlefudge.
Like, LJ's little cartoon video didn't feature a strawman Christian ??