(BTW, this is the response to Mark that I posted a couple days ago, just showing up now.)
--- In [email protected], "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "markmeredith2002" > <markmeredith@> wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "markmeredith2002" > > > <markmeredith@> wrote: > > > <snip> > > > > I think everyone here has misread Harris's viewpoints, > > > > which might be expected from this type of group. > > > > > > > Harris does not deny the existence of unbounded eternal > > > > divinity or anything else in that realm, he just says > > > > you can say with certainty that it exists, or say it is > > > > "Truth" that it exists. > > > > > > I think you meant "cannot say with certainty," right? > > > > Yeah, sorry. > > > > > > Harris properly points out the dangers of believing in > > > > these sort of absolute unprovable Truths without realizing > > > > that they're actually just your own belief systems that > > > > you own for whatever reasons, good or bad, but he's not > > > > denying anyone the right to hold their belief system - > > > > whereas religionists have a tendency to want to deny any > > > > other belief system which does not conform to their Truth. > > > > > > The problem is that you get into an infinite > > > regress here. Harris *is* denying religionists > > > the right to believe that their beliefs are > > > absolute Truth. That is the *foundation* of > > > their belief systems. > > > > > > Sullivan, as far as I can see, is not trying to > > > convince Harris that Christianity is Absolute Truth; > > > he's trying to show Harris that Harris's reasons > > > for asserting that Christianity *cannot* be > > > Absolute Truth are not well grounded. > > > > > > As I said to Barry, the argument isn't symmetrical > > > in this regard. > > > > OK, I see your argument, which only makes me support Harris's > > concern about religion more. The typical reasoning of a > > religionist is that they must not only be allowed to believe and > > practice their beliefs but believe and practice their beliefs as > > Absolute Truth. That tendency is what causes trouble. > > Well, it *can*, but it doesn't necessarily, depending > on the religionist. Harris doesn't seem to be able > to make that distinction. > > If your belief is Absolute Truth > > then anything that disagrees with it is absolute falsehood, > > sin, the Devil, and so forth, which justifies lots of strife. > > Again, it *can*, but it doesn't have to, and often > is not used that way. > > > I watch the documentary Jesus Camp last night, about summer camps > > training kids to be good spiritual and political evangelicals. The > > adults kept talking about being under fire and persecuted in the US > > and the need to change the country to end this. I hear this alot > from > > evangelicals, that they feel persecuted in this country. I not only > > don't see any persecution of them at all, I see them having undue > > influence in all branches of gov't. What you realize as you watch > > this film is that they feel persecuted because they can't force all > > their beliefs into the public schools and laws of the land and make > > everyone be good evangelicals. This is what happens when your > beliefs > > become Truths. > > > > Anyway Judy as you consider your response please be considerate of > > these good Christian Truths that are dear to me: > > Look, I'm not advocating for Christianity or any > other religion. I'm not a religionist, as I said > earlier in the thread. But I'm not an anti- > religionist either. > > And Sullivan isn't the kind of religionist who, > like the evangelicals you describe, wants to > impose his beliefs on everybody else. > > (Sullivan *can't* be a fundamentalist Christian > because he's an openly practicing homosexual and > an advocate for gay rights.) > > Yet Harris attacks him with the same fervor (and > nastiness) that he attacks the fundamentalist > religionists. As I recall, he thinks moderate > religionists like Sullivan are at least as much > of a threat as fundamentalists. > > In other words, his stand *against* religion is > just as absolutist as that of the fundamentalists. > > There's a sort of built-in paradox to the stance > that everyone should have a right to believe > what they wish. If you're going to be absolutist > on that score, you can't *exclude* those who > are absolutist in their own beliefs, even if > those beliefs mandate that they attempt to impose > their beliefs on you. > > Bottom line, I think you have to allow them the > right to make the attempt while fighting it tooth > and nail--not the right, but the attempt. In > this country, both the right and the fight are > supported by the Constitution. > > Religious beliefs, to my mind, are inherently > inarguable. And if that's the case, Harris is > fighting a losing battle. As a moderate > religionist, Sullivan wins by default. > > > > > > > "Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer > not > > a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in > > silence." [1 Timothy 2:11-15] > > > > "Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not > permitted > > unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as > > also saith the law. And if they will learn anything, let them ask > > their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the > > church." [1 Corinthians14:34-36] > > >
