--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > > 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. > > Not to mention reading in a lot of *motives*, > from the same source. Hmmm. Have we seen > this before?
Actually, if you read my post, I didn't read any motives into what Harris says. But ironically, Barry proceeds to explicitly read in a whole bunch of motives. > > I also think you are missing Sam's whole point if you think > > he doesn't understand the nuances of religious faith. > > I get the feeling that he understands them so > well, and describes them so well, that he some- > times generates a panic reaction from those he > *has* understood, and whose beliefs he has > described accurately. They are uncomfortable > with having their beliefs described differ- > ently than *they* would like them described. (Speaking of reading in motives!) Since Barry has this phobia about mentioning my name, it's not always clear when he's referring to me. If he is doing so here, or even just including me, he's hilariously way off base. To the extent that Harris is describing my beliefs, they're the beliefs he's arguing *for*, not against. The big point on which I differ with Harris is that I don't think religious belief of the type Sullivan holds (but that I emphatically do not) is dangerous. > > 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. > > Or when you accept "God exists" as a factual > statement, or accept "my technique of meditation > is the best" as a fact, or "the ME is a real > phenomenon" as a fact. The issue is not with > believing these things as *belief*, but with > trying to promote them and act upon them as > if they were fact. FWIW, the only one of these three I hold to be a fact is the second, although I'd rephrase it to "most effective for householders." So again, if Barry is referring to or even just including me, he's WAY off base on two out of three counts. > Every being who has attained realization has > come to some kind of subjective level of comfort > with the things that he or she *believes*. No > problemo there. But not all of these beings have > declared the things that they believe *fact*. As > you say, Curtis, that's taking a step over a line > that, in most other situations in life, is drawn > to describe the difference between fantasy and > reality. However, religion is not the same as most other areas of life in many respects. (And the image here of Barry making a righteous distinction between fantasy and reality is a source of virtually unlimited belly-laughs.) > I get the feeling that Sullivan is more focused > on the up side of belief, the carrot tied to the > end of a stick that keeps the donkey walking. > Whereas Harris understands that, but at the same > time he's seen a few donkeys walk right off the > edge of a cliff while single-mindedly pursuing > their carrot. Or, more in keeping with the times, > seen a few donkeys trample a few kids who got in > their way while they were running after the carrot. > He's more aware of the potential down side of > faith mistaken for fact, and the danger of focus- > ing on a dangling carrot to the point that one > can no longer see the other things and people > around them accurately. But Harris and Sullivan *agree* on these points. If that's all the discussion were about, there'd be no reason to hold it, at least not as a debate. As a gay activist, Sullivan is only too aware of the potential downside of being in the way of those running after the carrot, of faith being mistaken for fact. He wouldn't have to *be* an activist if it weren't for those people. > > All in all, it's been an interesting discussion, > if a little long-winded. >
