1. Reply to a Christian

Comment #15436 by Cable on December 31, 2006 at 9:41 am

John#46, I think your post is an interesting demonstration of my point from #45. Both sides can look straight at an argument for the other side and utterly miss its import. It's incredible to see.

That thing about believing that the Christian bible should report facts more accurately, it's interesting, but only to a non-believer. It's rather like the creationists' claim that evolution should be more transparent. Evolution doesn't conform to Christian ideals, and the Bible doesn't conform to atheist ideals. Both arguments are designed to reinforce the opinions of people on the side that hatched them, but neither is applicable to the opposing camp.

2. Reply to a Christian

Comment #13861 by Cable on December 19, 2006 at 8:16 pm

Sorry for the late entry into this discussion; I just discovered it. For myself I agree with Anonymous Two. Allow me to present my own version of her(?) argument, somewhat less elegantly:

Sam Harris:
If you have read my letter this far, one of two things has happened.

Or perhaps Mr. Harris is simply not as convincing as he believes he should be. He seems angry, and that doesn't help. I know some bright people who are Christian believers. It is of course extra difficult to make an argument that any intelligent opposition will find convincing, while positively dripping chunks of superiority. This is one of many characteristics of this webpage that makes me think it is atheists who are the target audience of Mr. Harris' argument, not Christians as it would seem to suggest in its title.

As far as I'm concerned, and I dare say most Christians would agree, Nick#16 and Anonymous Two#32 have effectively dismantled Mr. Harris' argument. Since there is little obvious agreement on this, I feel obliged to try to restate their points:

Sam Harris:
the obvious deficiency of the Bible as a source of mathematical insight... Why doesn't the Bible say anything about electricity...

Isn't this an argument to convince yourself, not a believer? I'm unclear why the Christian bible must contain any reference to advanced learning to be genuine. Of course that would have been an incredible convencience for all of us, "just too easy" to quote Dawkins, but seems well outside the scope of the work. The Christian bible need not be a trove of mathematical knowledge in order to live up to its advertised function, a timeless though hardly encyclopedic collection of truths.

Besides, the Bible quotes Jesus as saying something about how much more blessed are future believers who make their decision on faith alone. That's a fantastic statement and fully one argument in ten I've ever heard about the Christian bible ends up visiting it. Once again into the same tepid bathwater: How impossible would extra blessed faith have been for all time, had Jesus then gone on to explain 20th century biology or mediaeval European agricultural practice to his hapless followers? Indeed I think it's safe to conclude that the Christian bible emphatically could not have made any such revelations without giving up (even more) self-consistency, and this point is a non-starter.

every devout Muslim has the same reasons for being a Muslim that you now have for being a Christian.

Personally I find more compelling the similar intra-Christian argument that even between Catholics and Protestants, each believes the other is going to hell. But it is convenient for me that you chose Islam to make your point. I heard a Baptist preacher once declare Islam to be a Christian heresy. I think he must be right. It seems to fit the definition. Obviously then to a Christian, Muslims are all sadly mistaken and will pay for it in the afterlife. Arguments about equivalence of religions are unconvincing to a religious person.

True, for the sheer joy of playing for a while in the field you've laid out Mr. Harris, I've deliberately side-stepped what I believe is your actual argument, that similar religious experiences with contrary conclusions invalidate both. To address your point directly however, I'll say that it's not necessarily true. The simple presence of disagreement does not invalidate both sides. Anonymous Two has already made this point, and argumentative people are fighting over the allegory she used to make it while ignoring the point itself. It seems an obvious point to me.

The Christian bible warns of false prophets. Of what interest is a prophet without followers? Obviously then some people will be deceived. Bible predicted it. Is that not an argument that Islam and the fervour with which it is practiced are evidence of the Bible's accuracy, and Christianity's truth? No really, it is.

--

I've addressed the entire argument, haven't I? Personally I agree with you, Mr. Harris. However I find your argument unconvincing, and your presentation self-defeating. Onward to cherry-pick a few follow-up comments I found interesting.

Mark#24:
if an all-wise, all knowing God had written the Bible, it would be much better--better written, more accurate, more informative, more interesting.

You know there's some nice poetry in the Christian bible. I want to agree with you: it would have been fantastic if that poetry had been the best poetry ever written. Maybe it is the best poetry ever written, and sadly we are incapable of appreciating it. Nevertheless the distinction should be self evident between an instruction manual dictated by benevolent flying saucer jockeys and a book of history and philosophy written for rural sheep herders.

Admittedly the Christian camp is somewhat split on the subject of whether the original text comprising their bible is a faithful record of verbatim dictation. Nevertheless it would be strange to argue that the love poetry to God was dictated by God. That leaves open the argument of which parts may be dictation, and toward which audience God dictated those parts. It's an interesting argument, but not a damning one.

Fred#28:
What I find comical ... utterly infantile ... "God" is ... pathologically obsessed with ... genitals ... narcissistic ... lacking in self-esteem ... emotionally dysfunctional ... Why not just love us unconditionally like any kind parent...

He isn't human, so it's a bit of a lost cause, subjecting him or people's impressions of him to Freudian analysis.

rabidrobot#29:
I think Mr. Harris' arguments are both eloquent and devastating...

I find them cogent enough, yet wide of the mark and unconvincing.

Religion and faith are not logical, and few really deny that. If there were a reason, so to speak, to believe someting, it would not be faith.
--and--
Andrew#35:
Faith is specifically belief that does not depend upon logic or evidence. If you have good reason to believe something then by definition you are not taking it on faith.

Not so. Without going into boring detail let me simply encourage you both to trust me in stating the obvious: religious people familiar with logic find their own beliefs to be entirely logical. Many religious people arrive at their faith from logic. Secular logicians sometimes perceive a dichotomy between faith and logic, but theologians don't share that opinion. Indeed quite the opposite. I suggest reading some Christian philosophy for clarity. Chesterton might do the trick.

That biology student from Liberty University I saw on the recording of Dawkins' recent reading at Randolph-Macon, the one who was baiting Dawkins by opening with that blatant booby-trap about blind and reasonable faith, was trying to present a philosophical argument with roots as old as Aristotle. His teachers truly believe that scientific logic is just as unjustified as this crowd believes religious logic to be, and some of them are equally haughty about it. So now what?

An omnipotent being must be able to do anything it wants but either answer contradicts this - if you say yes then it can't lift the rock, if you say no then it can't create the rock.

Ah, logic. This argument is simply a harmless parlour disagreement about the term from human language most appropriate to apply to God. I've had some fun with this chestnut at the occasional party, but it has limited application to sober discussion.

If your response is going to be to claim that God allows suffering for some higher purpose (e.g. free will)

I wouldn't presume to explain God; a concept beyond my comprehension by definition. Old Testament God rained a lot of pain on people, and his reasons are often unclear. He seems cruel to me, but maybe that's a fault of my own inappropriate perspective. Maybe God is cruel, simple as that, and you'd better use tongue if you'd like him to kindly not drag you back from the dead and ceaselessly smack your mortal gob for the duration of his entire life, just because you upset him once.

The arguments on this page are designed to encourage the atheism of atheists, but as always there's nothing here that won't wash harmlessly off the backs of the religious.