Judy, Thanks for the long response. It has helped me understand where we are seeing this discussion differently. I also really enjoy the fact that your take on it is very personal and that you haven't drunk from either glass of KoolAid! My lips are stained with Sam's POV, but that doesn't mean I don't want to examine it critically. This quote from Sam may be a good starting point:
"But you are saying quite a bit more than that. You are claiming to know that God exists out there. As such, you are making tacit claims about physics and cosmology and about the history of the world. What is more, these are claims that you have just pronounced unjustified, unjustifiable, and yet impervious to your own powers of doubt." My take on this discussion is that Sam is trying to have a philosophical discussion with a person who is not trained to think that way so there is no common ground for the discussion. Where you and I differ, I think, is that you are saying that belief in miracles is different than the belief that God exists or that Jesus died for our sins. I don't think this is accurate according to epistemological rules for supporting a belief. The content does not matter, just the evidence. I think you are also seeing the nature of a belief in God as being un provable by its very nature. So it does not have to exist within the rules for evidence we use for other beliefs. But in Christian doctrine there is evidence which is presented as persuasive devises. They are also bad evidence. Miracles in the Bible is not a straw man. It is one of the two legs of the New Testament's advocacy for us to believe in the divinity of Jesus. The other one you deftly knocked down in a previous post concerning the fulfillment of the Jewish prophesies. Andrew is being a bit evasive on which of the supporting beliefs of his faith he is choosing to include. He is not just a generic Christian, he is a Catholic. If the word has any meaning it would include a whole bunch of un disclosed beliefs about how the world is. Here is another point I think we disagree on. As in Sam's quote above, the belief in God is a statement about facts and the world. This is Sam's central point. These beliefs are not unsupportable by their nature. They are poorly supported by bad reasons. This style of ignoring these bad reasons and giving people a pass because of the psychological value of these beliefs (Bush's claim that Jesus saved him from being a drunk) is not an epistemological "get out of Jail Free" card. Andrew's appeal to the history of Christianity and its popularity as a cultural idea is a perfect example of his inability to consider any epistemological rules. By his logic we should all be worshipers of lingums and yonies because that idea is much older. (I am quite sympathetic for a case for yoni worship BTW) Because Andrew has not really revealed the structure of his belief system in a coherent way, there is no way to argue against his position philosophically. Because he is the one with an assertion, it would be up to him to provide the reasons for his beliefs. I think he is either smart enough to avoid this kind of discussion, or her genuinely doesn't understand how philosophers like Sam argue ideas. It takes specific training so that ideas can be evaluated according to epistemological criteria. The kind of assertions Andrew is making wouldn't cut it in a freshman philosophy debate. (the idea has merit because it is believed by lots of people through history? Blogger please! That play on "Nigga Please" was a great throwaway joke on Andrew's part early on in the discussion.) Andrew believes in Christianity's claims because it gives him a personal value. It has a physiological and he would say spiritual value for him. These are not beliefs that he cares to draw out and examine in the way Sam is inviting. I don't blame him for that. It shows me that the Muslim fanatics who are willing to kill themselves to take a few of us infidels out with them will not be changing their minds anytime soon. Even smart articulate guys like Andrew cannot examine the reasons for his cherished beliefs in a critical way. He just can't get over the deeply held psychological grip that keep these beliefs unquestioned in our modern world. Interestingly, Andrew probably rejects the belief in Zeus for the same good reasons Sam rejects his Christianity. I think I understand how you and Sam agree concerning the value of meditation experiences and the states they open. Thanks again for taking the time for this discussion. Thinking about this stuff in detail is a real pleasure. --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "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. > > If you mean you think I'm projecting my own emotions > onto Harris, I don't see how that could possibly be > the case. As you go on to say, quite correctly, my > perspective on what he and Sullivan are discussing-- > i.e., the nature of the metaphysical reality--is much > more in line with Harris than Sullivan. > > What I'm seeing with Harris is the need to *stamp > out* Sullivan's perspective. I don't think there's > any way you could attribute such a need to me. > I don't share Sullivan's perspective, but I see no > need whatsoever to stamp it out; that's what I would > argue *against*. > > I also think you are missing > > Sam's whole point if you think he doesn't understand the > > nuances of religious faith. > > Let me put it this way: I see nuances in religious > faith that I don't find reflected anywhere in what > Harris says. If he does understand them, he seems > to have chosen not to use that understanding in > what he says to Sullivan. > > I don't think it's possible to argue effectively > against religious belief unless one is first able > to empathize with it, see how a reasonable, well- > balanced, intelligent person could hold it sincerely. > > 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. > > Clearly. But making an elaborate case that there's > no good reason to have confidence in the miracles > attributed to Jesus, as Harris does in his latest > response, is addressing beliefs that are way, way, > *WAY* farther over that line. > > It seems as though Harris is spending a lot of effort > going after the easy stuff that he has a good argument > against, even though Sullivan isn't making an argument > *for* that stuff, because he doesn't have a good > argument against what Sullivan *is* making a case for. > > In other words, the case Harris makes against Jesus' > miracles is one that Sullivan might well concede, > but it wouldn't touch Sullivan's belief that Jesus > died for our sins. > > Harris may want to throw the latter belief in the same > hopper with belief in Jesus' miracles, but he ignores > one significant difference, that one can believe Jesus > died for our sins without believing in the miracles. > > And I really think these are two significantly > different types of belief. "Jesus died for our sins" > is a purely metaphysical belief, whereas "Jesus > walked on water" is a belief that something specific > happened historically. If we could go back in time, > we could determine whether or not Jesus actually > walked on water, but going back in time wouldn't tell > us whether Jesus died for our sins. (Unless you're > convinced Jesus didn't die on the cross, or that > Jesus never existed, which seems a lot less likely > than that he didn't walk on water.) > > > 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. > > Absolutely, except that I don't see any need to > wipe out the type of belief system Sullivan holds. > I don't think it's dangerous, and I think it can > be very beneficial. > > What I'm doing, essentially, is being a devil's > advocate--so to speak!--for Sullivan's type of belief > system, not in the sense that I believe it myself, > but that it isn't some kind of grave threat to > humankind. > > > 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. > > Basically, I don't think Harris has made a good enough > argument against Sullivan. Harris is arguing against > quite a few straw men and has appeared to avoid some > of the real ones. As I keep saying, I do think Harris > has made some excellent points, but his straw-man > arguments weaken his case considerably. > > > I think Andrew is really interesting and his "Blogger please" > > line forever warmed me to him. > > I don't remember that one. What was it about? > > 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. > > Well, I hope I've advanced your understanding of > where I'm coming from a little. > > My sense is that Sullivan *does* understand where > Harris is coming from but just doesn't find it > convincing. > > Sullivan, however, as far as I can tell, doesn't > really get what Harris says about the value of > experiential exploration of the nature of > consciousness, something with which I'm obviously > very much in sympathy. The whole bit about > contingency is clearly a source of misunderstanding > between them, but Harris, I think, may have cleared > up what he meant in his latest response, and it'll > be interesting to see what Sullivan makes of it as > clarified. > > What I find fascinating is that in my case, getting > into experiential exploration of consciousness via > TM has made me *more* sympathetic, not less, to > Sullivan's type of religious belief. I used to think > religious belief was beyond the pale, as Harris does, > no more than wish fulfillment. I no longer think that; > I still think religious belief is *incomplete*, but > (at least with Sullivan's type of belief) not flat-out > wrong. > > Anthony Campbell, at the time a lapsed Catholic and > a TM practitioner, writes in "Seven States of > Consciousness": > > "As my understanding of Maharishi's ideas began to grow a > little...it was an extraordinary experience to see ideas I had > rejected as meaningless becuase they had been taught by people > who did not themselves fully understand them suddenly catch fire > like diamonds in a muddy stream." > > This is very similar to what I've found, although I > had rejected religious ideas from the start. Nor did > MMY's teaching or the experience of TM turn me into a > religionist. But I now see religious ideas as > reflections, distorted though they may be, of real > metaphysical principles. Those ideas weren't created > in a vacuum; they were originally *based* on > experiences of consciousness. > > Once the metaphysical understanding/experience is > well established through some systematic exploration, > I don't see any problem with putting it in the > context of a particular religious system, if one > finds that congenial and appealing. It isn't for me, > but I don't see any danger in it. > > The religious context in that situation would, I > think, become far more *abstract*, far less > contingent. If I were Harris, I wouldn't even > bother making arguments against religious belief > as it stands now; I'd put all my energy into > urging Sullivan to do some systematic experiential > exploration of consciousness and expose himself to > the type of metaphysical teaching we have from MMY > (i.e., Advaita Vedanta, which is about as contingency- > free as it gets). > > My guess is that if Sullivan were to get into this > kind of exploration, his understanding of his > religion would change fairly drastically, and the > discussion with Harris would take a very different > and much more productive course. > > Ultimately, I don't think religious epistemology > informed by experience of consciousness is > incompatible with scientific epistemology informed > by the same experience. The only difference is that > one is subjective and the other objective. The rules > for the two epistemologies are not as different as > they might at first appear. > > Ken Wilber makes a great case that the epistemology > of subjective exploration (i.e., exploration of > consciousness) proceeds by the same fundamental > rules as the scientific method, but that's a whole > 'nother discussion. > > > > Anyway both these > > guys are bringing this discussion out and that makes me incredibly > > happy. This is an important topic for me. >
