--- In [email protected], "coshlnx" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --Right, but the strawman miracles are in the same category > as some of the items Sullivan brings up (aspects of Catholocism > that are remote from his direct experience & feel-good > inspirations based on the Bible and the history of the Church). > Harris lumps the whole ball of wax into one pinada and (somewhat > blindly) hits it with his baseball bat. Some strikes, some misses.
Yeah, Harris has a kind of shoot-first-ask- questions-later, take-no-prisoners approach that makes him sound like an angry fanatic. He can't allow a single point of Sullivan's to remain standing, even if that means he has to kill every *possible* point he thinks a religious person might make, whether Sullivan has offered it or not. Ironically, Sullivan comes across like the sweet voice of let-us-reason-together. He's a lot calmer and more secure in his views than Harris is in his. Part of Harris's problem is that he simply doesn't understand the nature of religious faith; he thinks it's a lot narrower and more constricted than it is for many people. It's one-size-fits-all, as far as he's concerned, no nuance possible. He lacks the capacity for empathy, so he really doesn't have a clear picture of what he's arguing *against* in Sullivan's case. It seems to me that Sullivan has a much better idea of where Harris is coming from than Harris has of where Sullivan is coming from. It isn't that Harris doesn't make some good points, just that when he does, they're more or less accidental with regard to Sullivan's argument. > > - In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], "qntmpkt" <qntmpkt@> wrote: > > > > > > --"Lon" <at46gordonsquare@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > As could be expected, Harris batted Sullivan's pseudo-argument > > > out of the park into the next county. I was tempted to abandon > > > reading the entirety of Sullivan's text after a few paragraphs, > > > but, optimist, kept doggedly on, wondering if he'd ever begin to > > > make sense ... but, no, it was too much to expect. > > > > > > Bravo for Harris's well-reasoned dismantling of Sullivan's > > > gibberish. > > > > Did you notice how much of Harris's response was > > devoted to beating the stuffing out of a straw man, > > i.e., the purported miracles of Jesus? Sullivan > > didn't invoke those miracles at all in his argument. > > > > To my mind, whenever someone expends a lot of effort > > in creating and then demolishing a straw man, it's > > an indication that he senses the rest of his argument > > is deficient in some way. > > > > What was it about Sullivan's argument, I wonder, > > that made Harris feel something was lacking in > > his response? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Lon > > > > > > -- > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > http://www.tinyurl.com/yrs9fo > > >
