Many readers will want to check out the debate going on over at Belief.net between best-selling "End of Faith" author Sam Harris and "Conservative Soul" author/Time magazine blogger Andrew Sullivan. I have to admit, Sullivan does a noble job of defending his views, not to mention, doing it with flair and style.
- Log in to post comments
Both writers are conducting themselves in a respectful manner, buat as for Sullivan doing a "noble job of defending his views"
How can science disprove the true version of anything? Providing of course that one swallows the buffalo sized assumption that it is 'true' by whatever measure - and what else would said true version 'rest on' if not the truth?
I'm sure this kind of intellectual gymnastics is comforting to Sullivan but it has no place in a discussion about reason.
Geo:
I agree. Harris is being more civil than I could be already.
Science cannot disprove true faith; because true faith rests on the truth
HUH? Reading this, a picture of a snake biting its own tail popped into my head. "It's okay to have faith because (1) science can't disprove it and (2) it's the truth."
To (1) I say read up Russel's Celestial Teapot and to (2) I say if it was the truth it wouldn't require faith.
But what do I know. I think water is wet...
Why is it that when someone who is apparently intelligent as Mr. Sullivan is gets into a discussion that involves logic, reason and a look at the obvious facts (language in the bible), they ignore all of it and resort to nebulous pseudo reasoning and reliance on "faith". Please Mr. Sullivan give me something better than this.
Why is it that when someone as intellegent as Mr. Sullivan apparently is gets involved in a disscussion of this sort involving logic, reason and facts (language in the bible), the result is a skirting of the substance of the debate and a reliance on "faith". Pleas Mr. Sullivan, give me something better than this.
I would agree that Sam is leading this match right now, but in somewhat of defense of Mr. Sullivan...
The above posters neglected a critical part of Sullivan's argument prior to the "Science cannot disprove true faith; because true faith rests on the truth..." part. That is, he said in the sentence prior, "...I believe that God is truth..." (yes, full of holes, but it is his sincere belief) and, continuing, "...and truth is, by definition, reasonable" (not sure about that one either). However, *if* one believes that God is Truth, then Science can only ultimately prove God's existence/mind/plan/whatever.
Enough with the defense. The sardonic irony to Sullivan's stand--to include his book and listening to him in interviews, not just this blog debate--is the following, I think. As he commonly says (paraphrasing, of course), we cannot know God completely. We are mere mortals seeking the truth, which would bring us closer to God, and the search itself is where one finds faith and a relationship with God. Lovely stuff. But (1) if God is Truth and (2) we can never know God, then by definition, we can never know the Truth, only get closer to it--at our most optimistic, btw, in that we may well trip up in our quest for truth.
Just so happens that Sam Harris and guys like, say, David Hume, Bertrand Russell, and Friedrich Neitzsche, say the *exact* same thing. i.e. we can grasp things around us with our senses and try to make sense of those impulses with our organs, but there is no organ in the body capable of knowing "The Truth." The best we can do is sort those bits of knowledge best we can and try to make sense of it. And the entire time we do it, be critical of each other's findings because they (and/or you) may have mucked it up here and there. Most of all, rejoice in the fact that you can do it!
Sullivan and Harris are engaging in the narcissism of small differences. Unfortunately, I think only Harris grasps it right now (and I'm not exactly sure about that one either).
Fair point Travis. However, by leaving out the prior reference to, "God is truth" I actually thought I was doing Sullivan a favour by judging the quoted text on its own merits. Logically this sentence is entirely unconnected with what I quoted - the latter does not follow from the former. Of course, this is unless he's trying to pass off "God = truth" with "faith = truth". I was actually giving him credit for not being guilty of such cack-handed legerdemain.
Try this�
"I believe that mathematics is truth and truth is, by definition, reasonable. Science cannot disprove mathematical faith; because mathematical faith rests on mathematics; and science cannot be in ultimate conflict with mathematics."
There's some 'fragrance' of truth about it, but it's still gibberish. Is God mathematics?
Sullivan might reply with something that appeals to the "logic-defying" nature of "transcendence" and "personal experience." But if that's the route taking he's in trouble - with a number of years experience of mystical disciplines, Harris is better qualified than anyone to rip this line of 'reasoning' to shreds.
I think we're basically saying the same thing, George (nice point on the mathematics, btw--I could live with "God is mathematics" and, actually, early Muslims said God was represented by the zero. You know, everything and nothing at the same time, omnipotence and omnipresence, anyway...different discussion).
It's just so pitiful in so many ways... I honestly really respect Andrew Sullivan and many friends and family members who are religious people. They contribute to society, pay their taxes, love their children, have humor, want to help people, etc. and the irony is we're both trying to save each other. The religious are trying to save me by giving me God and I'm trying to save them by giving them confidence in their own logic.
Maybe that's the most ironic thing about this whole debate, in the end. The Atheist needs the most faith of all. Faith in himself, his cognative powers, faith in Humanity, faith that Beethoven's 9th and the statue of David were monumental achievements of Man...it's not like we have "a Book" to rely on. Anyway, this is fun.
Cheers!
Harris and others are not simply attacking people who believe. It is convenient to characterise them as being "anti-religion" and therefore "anti-believer" - it makes them easier targets. But this is not strictly true. Clearly certain religious practices, organisations and people will come under fire, but ultimately this is not what they�re after - it's the discourse common in society; the discourse which allows the unreason to persist; it's the discourse that says...
-- religious beliefs are not up for criticism, to criticise is at best rude and at worst oppressive and intolerant
-- religious beliefs don't stand to reason because they transcend such human trivialities as logic and reason
-- religious people don't have to qualify, justify or explain their beliefs because such justification is inherent in the holly texts from which they are derived
-- people derive their morality from religious teachings, something science could never replace
And from the other side of the fence...
-- religious beliefs may be hopelessly wrong, believers may even be deluded, but the content of religious arguments doesn't actually relate to claims about reality so can be conveniently ignored
-- there may be no truth in religious claims but people obviously need religion, so who are you to take it away from them?
-- religious moderates are actually are allies in the war against extremists, we should therefore respect their religious views, even though we know they're all deluded
Of course there's more, and many subtle variations on the same themes and each will find support and sympathy to a greater or lesser degree from both sides of the fence. But this constitutes the foundations of a discourse which is a breeding ground for fundamentalist extremists. While moderates continue to disown their home-grown extremists whilst defending the foundations of their toxic beliefs and fighting for the right to spread them further, then it�s a discourse that needs to change. It's a huge task, but if all of the above assumptions were suspended, even just temporarily, just think of the progress we could make.
If the likes of Sullivan attribute their deeply enriching sense of transcendence to religious doctrine derived from historical texts, then surely it will survive the kind of examination that the likes of Harris, Dennett and Dawkins propose. Simply declaring it off limits by pulling off a series of logic-defying back-flips is a poor substitute for reasoned debate in someone who would demand nothing less in any other exchange of ideas.