I've been giving a lot of thought to this discussion. I wrote a bunch of things that I never posted. We are seeing Sam's points so differently. I think you are reading in a lot of emotion into Sam's position that is from you, not him. I also think you are missing Sam's whole point if you think he doesn't understand the nuances of religious faith. My understanding of his point is that these differences are not as important as people are making them. Once you accept beliefs like "Jesus died for our sins" as a factual statement you are already way over the justifiable line in his view.
The reason I haven't posted more on this topic with you is that I really can't understand how you are looking at it. It seems to me that your actual belief system has much more in common with Sam than Andrew. I realize my own limits in understanding where you are coming from concerning this discussion. Rather than just spill out my own take on the material, I am trying to understand how you are seeing this discussion so differently than I am. I think Andrew is really interesting and his "Blogger please" line forever warmed me to him. But I think it is as impossible for him to understand where Sam is coming from as it is for me to understand where you are coming from, for different reasons. Anyway both these guys are bringing this discussion out and that makes me incredibly happy. This is an important topic for me. --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "coshlnx" <coshlnx@> 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 > > > > > >
