--- In [email protected], "markmeredith2002" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > snip > > > As a nonreligionist whose assumptions don't > > jibe with those of either of these guys, I don't > > think Harris knows as much as he thinks he does > > about the scriptural texts and religious > > perspectives he's dumping on, so in many cases > > he's attacking his own straw men. > > > > Maybe Harris's most stubborn assumption is that > > if science is valid, then religion isn't. He > > insists on judging religion by the standards of > > science, which really makes no sense. Sullivan, > > on the other hand, assumes that one doesn't > > somehow negate the other, which seems to me a > > much more reasonable position. > > > > Or to put it another way, Harris is threatened > > by religion, but Sullivan isn't threatened by > > science. > > > > > *Both*, IMO, are so attached to their assumptions > > > that they cannot possibly challenge them. > > > > Thing is, only if Harris's assumption about science > > negating religion is correct should Sullivan *need* > > to challenge his own. Sullivan isn't trying to > > negate science. So it isn't symmetrical. > > So do you believe thunder happens when a guy named Zeus > who lives on top of a mountain in Greece gets mad at > someone on earth and tries to zap him? No? How about > the entire universe being created 4,000 years ago in 6 > days by a guy in sky named Yahweh? Did science negate > these religious truths for you?
Are you deliberately misconstruing me, or what? In your other response you apparently assumed I was a fundie Christian, even though I've said twice now that I'm not a religionist. If you want to discuss this *seriously*, great. Please reread what I wrote that you were responding to, and try again. How dare science intrued on this private > sacred aspect of human life. Scientists must be feeling really > threatened by Zeus and Yahweh to do such a thing. > > Honestly, I sense Harris is too much of a materialist for me and good > scientist doesn't have to mean materialist, but I think this world is > long overdue for a serious reassessment of the inane religious beliefs > that have plagued human history and still dominant human thinking. > > "With or without it <religion>, you would have good people doing good > things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do > evil things, that takes religion." -- Nobel Laureate Steven Weinberg > > "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it > from religious conviction." -- Pascal
