Sam Harris/Andrew Sullivan Online Debate at Beliefnet

I don't find an argument from made-up facts very compelling. You're a great example of producing exactly the ideas that should be excluded from a reality-based discussion.

So they are welcome but only if they disavow their religious, ethical and moral beliefs and let people like you control what policy is? I wouldn't use the term bigoted, crash, if I were you.No, religious people, myself included, are arguing from the facts, and the facts are that physical things verifiable by science are not a good guide for developing ethical and moral principles. They have a place, sure, as pragmatism is important and plays a role, but science cannot address certain basic values such as valuing freedom. It can highlight some pragmatic benefit to those values, and it can also highlight negative consequences as well, but it cannot effectively address the matter of right and wrong, and so basing policy merely on the facts of science, as you advocate, would be the height of arrogance and ignorance for our soceity.Edited by randman, : No reason given.

Now that you resort true to form with personal attacks instead of reasoned debate, I can't help but think that someone like Nosy will come along and bail you out by banning me or some such....Edited by randman, : No reason given.Edited by randman, : No reason given.Edited by randman, : No reason given.

absolutely and informed electorate is important. but there are many varieties of information. how's this. if a man came up to you and said "i think abortion is wrong because it ends a life even though life evolved on it's own with no aid from anyone." what would you say to him? i disagree, surely, but there is nothing irrational about the belief that ending a life is wrong, especially with regard to the framing documents of our country. so is it okay to believe that anything involved in ending this life (including stem cell research) is wrong simply because it's wrong to end a life as long as the source of that is not religious dogma?i choose to be informed by both my intellectual endevors and by the immense compassion i attribute to something larger than myself (though not inspired by that ridiculous book). does this make my information less valid than yours which is informed by the intellectual endevors of others? we have given our legislators the power to make laws based on opinion. if we stop making laws on healthcare (except for medical regulation) then that is a different matter... and one i wish we would consider. but the involvement of non-experts in any matter of expertise is a flawed concept. and yet, our policy is not decided by poltical scientists, but by lawyers and businessmen.further, you and sam continue to discuss how moderate religious people just make excuses for the extremists. and yet you refuse to accet it when we do not. i make no excuses for the insane. i can't tell you how many times a day i say "crazy fucking fundies".

This may too off-topic and so let's not make a thread of it, but I really wonder at the implied allegations that an embryo or fetus is not a human being according to science. Seems to me that science actually is fairly supportive of the opposite claim, that a developing human being is a human being. I think the guiding principle in allowing abortion, for example, is not denial of the baby's human status, but insistence on the rights of the mother to determine that choice between she and her doctor....in other words, it's not a science-based decision but a subjective one, but like I said, maybe that is too off-topic.Edited by randman, : No reason given.

like hate the sin, love the sinner?
really. that shit doesn't even work for christians. my mind and my opinions and my choices are a part of my personality and a part of who i am. this is not to say that i am undefinable without the label "christian," but rather that i am undefinable without the word "deference."but they do fault the believer. he says to andrew that his idea of god is so beyond justification that it's silly. he doesn't say silly, but he does allude absurdity. this is not necessarily his fault, though as andrew's little tale of 'god never started for me and thus can't end for me' was a weak one. but, nonetheless, he is intolerant of the conclusions to which people have come. there is no scientific demonstration of the reducibility of consciousness, therefore, it is safe to assume that consciousness could be something separate. there is no scientific demonstration on the origin of life. therefore it is safe to assume that these origins might not be happenstance. the continuous assumption that religious people simply must be informing all of their decisions based on their religious proclivities is also apparent in your and sam's arguments. i didn't become an academic because god told me to; i became an academic because i'm good at it. i don't believe that the earth is round because i found a little blurb in an obscure book in the bible that said something about it, i believe it is round, because i have seen pictures of it and am reasonably convinced in the veracity of the nasa program. i do not believe that the death penalty is wrong because i was informed through the bible, but because of equally irrational philosophizing on the state of developed civilization. however, clearly i am just a christian being informed by my pastor who tells me when to wake and when to bed and when to wipe my ass and i am a continuing apologist for morons who can't tell red from blue and their own comfort (like andrew) from reality.

i quite agree. it is a subjective decision that the rights of a person who has been alive at least 9 years overreach those of a person who has not yet been born and cannot survive on his own yet. it is a human creature. it is not a born being. this is not a scientific distinction, but a philosophical one and it's not a scientific decision, but an ethical one. but, it is mildly scientific in that the laws must give deference to those who are truly informed in the area--the doctors. but that's the extent of it. and yes, we will get in trouble if we continue this. if only more people could even begin to see this reasoning--even if they disagree with it.Edited by brennakimi, : No reason given.

BK, both you and Randman are being 100% ridiculous.Look, to a reasonable person there's a considerable gulf of difference between persecuting people for their beliefs - the exclusive province, until last century, of religion by the way - and deciding that we're not going to draw our maps on the assumption that the Earth is flat; we're not going to develop monetary policy on the assumption that dollar bills grow on magic money trees; that we're not going to treat the mentally ill from the assumption that they contain invisible demons to be exorcised; and we're not going to base our medicine on the assumption that a book written by sheepherders two millennia ago is a more reliable guide than the nation's top medical experts.Reasonable people don't make decisions, especially decisions for other people, based on make-believe. This is not an unusual or irrational position. But, for reasons they can never elucidate, the religious expect their own religious make-believe to get a pass.On what planet is that a reasonable request?

Another good post randman. Thank you.You say that religion is routinely criticized and you are correct. Where I think you are missing the main point is that it is often not criticized on the basis of making practical decisions.Taking a cue from the ACLU thread, you can claim that religion is being criticized in civil litigation and be correct. The issues that Sam brings up though are specific instances where issues of practical and universal policy are under discussion.I'll expand on the stem-cell example for a moment keeping into account that this is not a thread about stem-cell research. Initial investigation into stem-cell research shows that it has great potential. I agree that there are moral and ethical considerations regarding stem-cell research but some of the restrictions being placed on it have no valid objective reason. There are embryos that are otherwise going to be thrown into the city landfill that are left over from fertilization treatments. If the reason for passing laws disallowing their using in promising scientific research is not religiously based then perhaps you can explain what the other rational reason is for the restrictions.The other example that Sam Harris used in his talk in the Beyond Belief series the concept of End Times doctrine. He makes a very good point when he asks why we should allow people who believe that the universe is going to end within their lifetimes to make policy decisions that should rationally consider the future of civilization into both the distant centuries and millinea. But in this political and social climate, it is not PC to announce and defend that End Times belief is silly superstition.In short, I agree with you that religion is often criticized. I agree that in some issues where religion is a factor that there are other more objective ethical and moral issues weighing in on what we as a society we should decided. I don't believe Harris or even Dawking would disagree. Sam even says as much on one of the later issues of Beyond Belief that there are factors other than religiosity that need to be addressed. The claim though is that where religion is a factor in practical matters of public policy, it is shielded or at least it is not criticized as much as it potentially should be given the gravity of the claims being made.

---

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

oops.....double post so edited this one outEdited by randman, : No reason given.

Please demonstrate the scientific evidence for right and wrong.If you say right and wrong are mere human creations, then why should the majority of people out there listen to the views of morals and values from an atheist minority?What is the scientific basis for your values?What is the scientific basis that "all men are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights"?

Your situation would be correct if you qualify athiest. An athiest by default does not necessarily rally against religion like Dawkins. A religious person often, especially in Abrahamic faiths, are the opposite. By default they have positions that are based on religion and disavow the viewpoint of the non-believer.If everyone in an atheist society was like Dawkins, you would have a point in that the morals they subscribe to their atheism may not be as criticized as it should. But saying that both COULD be true does not discount that it REALLY IS true in our circumstance here in a non-atheist country and keeping with the original target of religion.

---

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

I think you answered yourself here, except the comment on "no valid objective reason." Let's consider another moral and ethical situation. What about when people die, or better yet, are executed. Why not mandate their body parts all be available without their consent for research?One reason besides religious considerations is that this could lead to some people being killed early rather when it looks like they aren't going to make it, and for prisoners, I suppose it just seems offensive to our ethical concerns.On the issue of stem cells, there is a valid reason. People feel it is ethically wrong, and some feel it is ethically right. It's a moral and ethical disagreement. Science really has nothing to say to it, whatsoever, imo. Personally, I suspect a large reason to deny stem cell research even on babies that have been killed already is that this could lead to a slippery slope of experimenting on others that cannot refuse or grant consent, and this is a well-founded concern since historically, medical experimentation and procedures without consent has been a problem at times.There is also the plain old ethical factor of whether it's right. Take the issue of using prisoner's body parts. Why don't we do that? We feel we have the right to the prisoner by the fact we think we have the right to kill the guy, right? So why the heck not sell his body parts?Maybe there is just some sort of intuitive feeling that says it is wrong, or maybe we should be selling the body parts. Heck, why are we not engaging in eugenics for that matter?Does the right of individuals have a scientific basis such that mentally diminished people should use resources on the planet? If they are chromosome deficient, do they have a right to be counted as people? On what basis?The thing is science is a poor guide for ethics decisions. There may be no scientific basis not to use stem cells, but there are plenty of ethical reasons not to, and keep in mind, it's not really a ban on stem cell research, it's banning using taxpayer money to do that.Imo, the people have a right to dictate through their representatives what they will spend their tax dollars on, and it's unethical to suggest they must forfeit their opinions if they are religiously based. The fact is it is their money that they earned, not the grant seekers's money.Edited by randman, : No reason given.

True and this is what I think is the best short summary of what the discussion is about.What strikes me though is Sam's seeming courtesy to elements of religion that he feels are useful such as his comments about Buddist meditation. NO one else seems to be suprised by Sam's seeming support of reincarnation either. Granted it was something me mentioned in the Beyond Belief series which I don't think everyone has seen all the way through.Sam says, and I believe with good reason, that nonsense should not be allowed in the discussion and it should be criticized regarldess if the source is religion. I don't think though that his opinion necessarily extends to religious ideas that are not necessarily blatantly falsified such as a flat earth, Noah's flood etc. If something has not been proven false, I don't think Sam's complaint necessarily extends to that. This is my impression at least, feel free to correct me as I have not read his books yet.

---

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

Same reason we believe people have fundamental rights. Let me put it this way. Who is the "we" here? If you are talking about soceity as a whole, then our soceity evidently believes some people that believe in the End Times should make policy decisions, and so that's that. In other words, we live in an indirect democracy. Well, watching Chuck Schumer excorciate potential judges with the idea that strongly religious people can be good judges on issues like abortion makes me think the opposite, and there is a ton of very high-profile and unwarranted, imo, criticism of religious people and religion as an influence of public policy.