I think this is the heart of Sam Harris's point. If religion makes statements about how the world is, then it should be held to the same standards that rule our other beliefs. I think he is trying to see if there is any condition of proof that would contradict the belief in God which is the lowest bar for a rational discussion about beliefs. If there is no condition under which the belief can be contradicted, then it is an irrational assertion. I know that religion has gotten this pass in the past and Harris is trying to change that. It is one thing to irrationally assert that you "know" that angels greet us when we die, but it is another problem entirely if you irrationally claim that God gave you a certain patch of real estate.
I'm sure you already know this about Harris's intentions so I don't understand what you are abjecting to? --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "coshlnx" <coshlnx@> wrote: > > > > http://www.tinyurl.com/2835ty > > Talk about being unclear on the concept... > > Harris concludes: > > "Let me close by asking you a simple question: > What would constitute 'proof' for you that your > current beliefs about God are mistaken? (i.e., > what would get you to fundamentally doubt the > validity of faith in general and of Christianity > in particular?) I suspect the answer to this > question will say a lot about why you believe > what you believe." > > Actually, that question says far more about > why Harris believes what *he* believes. >
