Sam Harris/Andrew Sullivan Online Debate at Beliefnet

Yea, that is where Sam gets a little fuzzy although to be fair I would call your tentative suggestion that involves a higher power an extraneous element that is not necessary. Sam's conclusions about the reducibility of conscousness leaves the door open to further rational inquiry while a higher power involved in abiogenesis does not.

---

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

Your mistake in logic is this: You must first prove that morality cannot exist without God which of course is a topic for another thread.If you can prove that morals and ethics are the sole purview of religion then you would be correct. Absent that though all you have is a false reversal of the logic used in this case.

---

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

no, i did not say that it required a higher power, i said that it could involve one. i have left the door wide open for further inquiry. hell, it could be a feedback loop of reasonably advanced civilizations seeding a planet. this would even allow for the unbeginning/unending of the universe. mmm feedback loops.it just irritates me when people like that don't see their own inconsistencies and yell at everyone else's.Edited by brennakimi, : No reason given.

I am not sure I follow you here. Surely the atheist beleives that acceptance of God is irrational and so espousing that encourages radical atheists which persecute religious people. Neither do most religious people rally against atheists, but if moderate believers are to blame for radical fundamentalists that use violence because they advocate belief in God, then surely the same must hold true for moderate atheists, right? Hmmm...... First, most religious people do not disavow the viewpoint of the non-believer as long as the viewpoint is not related to God. A religious person, for example, will accept a medical breakthrough even if an atheist brings it.Secondly, the point you are making is more true for the atheist per things that relate to values. He does disavow the viewpoint of the believer because he claims the believer's religion is a fantasy. However, most religious people in public policy do not claim an unbeleiver has no sense or morals. Quite the contrary, most religious people claim that people have a sense of morality regardless and are therefore held to that standard no matter how much they deny the standard.Additionally, the tenets of Christianity overwhelmingly followed by most Christians are that of volunteerism with some people free to reject God without legal penalty. So their tenet actually maintains the right of the unbeliever to hold and follow a different view, provided it doesn't violate others. Forcing people to fund things differing to their beliefs, however, can be seen as a violation, which is why there is absolutely nothing wrong with ending taxpayer funding of stem cell research.Edited by randman, : No reason given.

Actually, there is no need to prove anything at all, whatsoever. Keep in mind no one, or almost no one, is advocating removing all atheists from the media, academia and government. It's a rhetorical question designed to consider the implications of crash's claims that we should exclude people we think are misinformed from being in the values debate. In other words, if you boil it down, the argument is on something like stem cells, scientists should decide based on facts, and religious people asserting ethical concerns should shut the heck up and be ostracized because it's clear they are misinformed.My point is then, well, let's turn that around. How about we say all atheists are not informed on any subject relating to God and by extension morality.....no need to prove anything because this is basically one group telling another group they have to judge by their accepted rules. There is no need to prove anything to the atheists since all it would take is the religiously-minded people to "reach consensus" and prove it themselves based on their evidentiary rules.Get the point?

I think you have a good point randman in that there are some circumstances where issues regarding that boundary between morals and policy come into play. There may not be a completely rational answer (yet) or more importantly the religious input may not be of the type that should so very obviously discarded.I think there is definitly some middle ground here and I think that actually Sam Harris is closer to what the right answer is then I think you are giving him credit for. That is of course assuming that I completely understand him.Take a look at his comments that brennakimi posted about the reducibility of consciousness a few posts back. To me, those sound like things that you would say albeit he takes a more hands of approach of simply saying that he isn't convinced of connection yet does not propose a definitive alternative.The biggest problem with this sort of "middle ground" is that what do you do in highly controversial situations where the two sides are actually diametrically opposed rather than just simply coming from different perspectives and the religious argument is not allowed to be criticized simply because we have this strange cultural respect for someones beliefs as if they were immune. That I think is the biggest point that Sam makes and I wonder if you would talk about that in isolation from the issue of wholesale disallowing religion from the decision making process.

---

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 see where you are coming from and I do agree with you on the examples you listed.What about less clear cut cases though. For example, there was that case of the 12 year old who wanted a sex change. What if the question under discussion is a law to allow or disallow that action.Rational inquiry would support the science that this kid has a gender identity disorder but to what degree of confidence is that enough for the procedure to be allowed.The opposite of that is obviously, what could the religious side of the fence bring to the table that has enough weight to counter the conclusion of the kids therapists and for that matter parents.To me that is somewhat fuzzier than the question of if we should draw maps based on a spherical vs flat earth. The concept of a flat earth has been falsified. I don't think the concept that someone with a gender identity problem needs to have gender reassignment surgery is entirely confirmed.

---

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 have brought up a POTENTIAL objective reason to place the restriction but I think you are missing the reason that is often actually used.Have you seen the senate hearings where, I belive it was Santorium (spelling), was holding up the childrens picture of embryos with faces and Bush's comments about how the stem-cell legislation is linked to the pro-life position.People ARE using non-objective religious arguments to make policy. Moreover, often the ONLY weight on their side is the one derived from religion.I would much rather have our decision makers debate the issues regarding the rights of the deceased and wheather an embryo falls into this category but that is not the level of debate that is occurring. In fact that level of debate is not even entertained because the discussion stops at beliefs of the lawmakers.Don't you agree that this is a problem? Wouldn't you rather congress discuss the issue in exactly the way you framed it rather than simply asserting that it is not pro-life to use otherwise dead embroys for research?

---

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 don't think he's correct in saying the religious side isn't criticized based on their religion. I mean did he attend college? (obviously yes), but the point is the religious side of the equation is under constant bombardment by the Left on these issues. If anything, it's the atheists that are protected, imo, not religious perspectives.The other issue is that if he is talking about politicians being reluctant to be dismissive of religion, then he needs to consider the alternative. Would it be better to have a less democratic system where religion is marginalized?I don't think it would.

What if the issue is environmental restrictions? Should the position that we can pollute all we want because Jesus is surely going to return in less than 50 years be SERIOUSLY considered alongside a more conservative recommendation?I agree with you that people who think this should still have the power of their vote, but how do we have standards in place such that pure nonsense, even if it is nonsense from the majority, won't ACTUALLY survive in rational discussion regarding future policy?

---

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

How is it non-objective? Are pictures of unborn babies subjective or objective? How about developmental details concerning the unborn?Objective, scientific evidence actually supports the pro-life position in that the unborn baby is indeed a human being. Life has begun. The subjective position is to think a baby is not a human being until it leaves the babies womb. I mean think about this.Does the unborn have it's own DNA?
own blood-type?
own heartbeat?
Is he or she alive?On what scientific basis are you denying that an unborn child is not a human being?To say this is purely a religious matter, imo, is quite ridiculous. It is true that religious people spearhead the pro-life movement and protection of the unborn, but so what?Most abolitionists were religious as well.
Most civil rights leaders were openly religious.
What the heck is wrong with religious people wanting to protect the life of the unborn?

I fundamentally disagree with your premise of "God and by extension morality". Your whole argument depends upon that being true and without support I do not accept that as a premise.I agree that IF IT IS true that morality cannot exist without God that you would be entirely correct but that is an argument for another thread.For now, we can consider your role reversal a point of contention. Given that, even if it was true it does not invalidate the original circumstance. All that would mean is that rational questions would be the purview of science while moral questions would be the purview of the religious. All it does is polarize.

---

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 the main point of contention is not that your scenario is unworkable but that regardless it does not eliminate the claim of Harris and Dawkins that we should have a way to exclude obvious nonsense and that religion should be no more immune to criticism than ANY OTHER reasoning brought to the table during rational discussion.You can go ahead and include atheism in that although I am hard pressed to think of a case where someone would be uncritical of a concept just because it is atheistic. Maybe you can provide one?

---

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

That's kind of like should the position that children be taken from their religious parents for their own protection be SERIOUSLY considered....Personally, I don't anyone that advocates destroying the environment because Jesus is returning. Do you really think that's what Christians believe? You don't except as it relates to Constitutional law protecting individuals and minority opinion. We live in a soceity designed to be of and for the people ostensibly as much as possible, and so that includes the freeom to mess up.You think, for example, the War of Northern aggression was a wise move.

1. Obvious nonsense is not so obvious or nonsense to others. Our nation is founded on the concept of factionalism where each faction's nonsense has an equal chance in the political process. To remove "obvious nonsense" is to end our form of government, which may seem wise except there are no better alternatives out there.2. Religion isn't more immune to criticism. That's a myth believed by Dawkins and atheists.