--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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.
But religion generally doesn't make those kinds of statements. (And if you're talking about "beliefs" of how the world is, you aren't referring to facts that can be determined by standards anyway. I think you just chose the wrong word there, though.) I don't think you can call religious statements about, for example, what happens to you after you die "statements about how the world is." And that wasn't his question anyway. As you go on to note, it was about belief in the existence of God and the validity of faith and Christianity in general. I'm not sure what he even means by "the validity of faith," but by "validity of Christianity," presumably he means such things as whether belief in Jesus assures one of eternal life. That simply isn't a statement about "how the world is." > 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. Of course there isn't. How could there possibly be? And you're using an extremely narrow definition of "rational." For that matter, it's Harris's question that is actually irrational. > If there is no condition under which the belief can be > contradicted, then it is an irrational assertion. A better term would be "arational," outside the realm of rationality rather than opposed to rationality. > 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. Sure, but he's asking *Sullivan* the question, not those who believe God gave them real estate. Remember, Harris finds moderate religionists to be even more objectionable than fundamentalists. > I'm sure you already know this about Harris's intentions > so I don't understand what you are abjecting to? As posed to Sullivan, the question makes no sense. Religion isn't science. And as noted, what kind of "proof" could there possibly be that God doesn't exist or that Jesus saves? And what does "validity of faith" mean? > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "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. > > >
