Sam Harris/Andrew Sullivan Online Debate at Beliefnet

jazzns, hope you don't mind my jumping in here.....the short answer is that the 12 year old's family decides, right or wrong. Imo, the gov making a law trespasses on the principle of limited government and the fact the family itself is a type of government, but it is a sticky issue.

I have to go unfortunatly. I would like to pick up the discussion later starting from this notion that I presented of creating a standard.You mentioned the Judeo-Christian ethic as a standard but what I had in mind has nothing to do with ethics. I am not even sure what the Judeo-Christian standard would be for screening nonsense. Maybe you could expand on that with an essay in the meantime? I am certainly willing to consider it as a canidate for such a standard if you can make a convincing case. Certainly it seems like you would mildy be treading on the establishment clause but without knowing the details of your proposition I can only speculate given the name "Judeo-Christian ethic".Take care and don't get yourself banned from this forum too. =)

---

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

jazzns, there are mods and posters, imo, that want me banned regardless of good behaviour so don't expect me to be here, but I do understand needing to go. I have spent too much time here today as it is.On the standard thing, my position is that I don't believe we should push for such a standard because it's not government for and by the standard, but for and by the people, but if we are going to throw down the gauntlet and have atheists pushing "standards" for policy, don't complain when the religious resist and become more politically active in asserting religious standards to resist atheist influence.But it doesn't matter anyway as Congress is going to go with whatever standards are politically viable regardless of prior legislation, except the Constitution and fat chance of enacting standards for all policies that take decisions out of the hand of elected officials.btw, jazzns, I am sure we have butted heads in the past.....but it's interesting that today I have head a particular jazz performance buzzing in my head....ever hear the John Ellis quartet?

The topic is the web based debate. If your posts are not obviously connected to that short suspensions will be handed out.If it continues long suspensions.

I cannot be certain if you are responding to me or Crash. If you are referring to my questions on how and whether science can determine and address morals and ethics, how is that off-topic from from the web-based debate? This is a genuine question.Are you saying in this forum we can only discuss the debate and not the topic of the debate?It seemed to me that discussing the topic of the web-based debate was appropiate judging by the thread, and certainly if we are to discuss implications of science versus religion as a means of truth or policy or whatever, that considering the limitations of science is relevant. The web-based debate is claiming moderate religion, on the one side, is bad and to blame as well for perpetuating religious extremism.I really don't see how these questions are off-topic. Can you explain?Edited by randman, : No reason given.Edited by randman, : No reason given.

It was to both of you which is why it was a general reply.The debate allows for a reasonably well focussed thread. However, that is only going to be so if we discuss the actual debate. That is, the points made and logic used by the two of those in the debate.Take specific parts of the debate you agree or disagree with and support that position.The "topic" of the debate is, it seems to me, religion in general. Too big a topic for a well focussed thread.

This is a great statement and I totally agree. Sam's point is that in our current climate, ideas based on those religious foundations are immune from criticism on those grounds.I guess I was trying to think of ways that you could get that kind of distinction in practice but randman actually has a good point that such a thing would probably be impossible without sacrificing our essential notion that everyone, including the crazies, has a voice.The last day of Beyond Belief talked a lot about how to combat irrationalism in policy. A lot of the discussion was geared toward cultivating interest in science and rationalism. Maybe that is all we can do in the long run.Edited by Jazzns, : No reason given.

---

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

Sure it could involve a higher power (supernatural). It could also involve mystic ninja leprechauns from Alpha Centauri. I don't think it is inconsistent to disavow options that can never be confirmed and Sam makes that very clear when he is challenged on the same grounds that you just have.Sticking with abiogenesis as the example, there are literally an infinite number of possibilities for its cause if you include the supernatural. Heck, you might be able to argue that there are an infinite number of natural possibilities. But the only one right now that has any evidence for it whatsoever is one involving self organization either on earth or elsewhere in the universe. It is therefore not illogical to suspend belief in mystical ninja leprechauns when we have a much better candidate staring right at us.The difference between that and Sam's skepticism about consciousness is that the only place it leads him to is, "I don't know."

---

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

mine leads me to "i don't know" and also to more questions. if you had more interaction with me, you would know very well that unlike andrew sullivan, i have plenty of doubts about the existence of god; that my understanding of the universe is in constant uproar; that my belief in god is as tenuous as a blooming crocus. however, it seems to me that it is unnecessary to dismiss the idea of a god as long as the idea does not lead you to stop questioning the universe. it's not my fault most christians are morons. most non-christians are, too.

They may have a voice but we don't have to listen, or take them seriously. And it's not like we don't already make choices about who gets to take part in the debate, and who doesn't.

Yes this is true but the problem is that the current method we use to choose who gets to take part in the debate often can exclude the rational position. I don't really see any way around that currently. I just wish there was something we could DO with Sam's rather eloquent position more than the long struggle that has continually pushed mythology out of the decision making process ever since we stopped making sacrafices to appease the gods of the harvest. There are some modern issues that I don't think can wait that long.The greatest potential for humans to go extinct seem to be at the beginning of our rise to prominence on earth and now again here at our (current) pinnacle. What a sad thing it would be if what held us back from making plans to preserve the only intelligent life we know of in the universe was religious mythology.

---

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 see the difference between what you just said and Sam's position so I guess I don't understand your original criticism. Harris != Dawkins even though they share a number of basic principles.

---

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

if i understand you correctly, that's kind of my point.i consider myself religious, but i'm probably really not so distant intellectually from him. but i'm party to the crimes of religiosity because somehow me being a sane individual who believes in the potential for something outside of the explainable and the perceivable gives liscense to insanity from those who think they have a right to force others to conform to the choices they have made for themselves?how is that reasonable, logical, fair, or just?

I agree with you when you say you don't think it is fair. I am just not convinced that that is what Sam Harris is saying.I mentioned earlier that I am not entirely familiar with the work of Sam Harris but that some of the statements he has made seems to suggest that doesn't take the position that all faith is insane. Dawkins does for sure. Maybe you could point to a specific position that Sam takes in the article or elsewhere that you find disagreeable but otherwise I just don't quite get your complaint.

---

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

Right - because we allow statements like "there are other paths to truth besides reason" or "some things, we just know are true", or "the Bible is inerrant and perfect in every measure, and cannot possibly simply be the work of men" to go unchallenged - indeed, to be accepted as wisdom and isolated from any serious scrutiny.The mechanism for crowding out untenable and outright wrong ideas from serious discussion already exists; you're right that it's simply misapplied. The solution, as I see it, is exactly what Sam is doing - convincing people that religious dogma isn't just "another kind of truth", it's a series of falsehoods designed to exploit people.