--- In [email protected], "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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.
Is that what Sullivan is doing? What are the tacit claims he's making in these areas? What is more, these are > claims that you have just pronounced unjustified, > unjustifiable, and yet impervious to your own powers of > doubt." Again, it seems to me that Harris is making a *category mistake* to insist that the claims Sullivan is making require scientific justification. Faith is *by definition* unjustifiable via scientific epistemology. Why is Harris trying to put faith into the same slot as science and evaluate it by scientific standards? > 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 It appears to me to be *bad philosophy* not to make a distinction between the epistemology of science and the epistemology of faith. I really can't get past that basic error in Harris's reasoning. Harris is essentially saying, "You can't prove this with the tools of science, so you should not believe it." Sullivan is saying, "You can't *disprove* this with the tools of science, so why *shouldn't* I believe it?" Harris wants to put Sullivan's beliefs on the same level as belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster. But as Sullivan points out, there's a *lot* more evidence--not proof, evidence--for the validity of Christian belief. It isn't *scientific* evidence, because in the first place it's indirect (e.g., its long history), and in the second place we have no way of measuring it accurately. It's as if Harris were demanding that somebody prove he's in love. 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. Addressed above, more or less. > 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. IMHO, Christianity shouldn't even bother. It's capitulating to the demand for something it shouldn't have to provide. 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. Maybe, maybe not. But it's dirty pool for Harris to *assume* he would do so and then argue against them. And remember, again, that Sullivan is an unrepentant gay, so he obviously doesn't buy Catholic doctrine hook, line, and sinker. <snipping stuff I've already addressed> 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. Well, no, but my disagreement with Harris is that I don't think anybody should be sentenced to jail in the first place for having these beliefs without being able to support them via scientific epistemology. 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 don't think he's suggesting we *should* all believe in Christianity; he's giving a reason why *he* believes in Christianity. Actually he's not even really doing that with his appeal to the history of Christianity. He's asking Harris to *empathize* with his belief, not to join him in it--asking Harris to see if he can understand why a reasonable, intelligent person might hold his beliefs. Epistemologically, it isn't a rigorous argument, but I don't think Sullivan is suggesting that it is. > (I am quite sympathetic for a case for yoni worship BTW) <g> > 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. But why *should* he have to debate his beliefs in those terms? Again, I disagree with your basic premise that if he can't prove his beliefs as you would prove a scientific fact, he shouldn't hold those beliefs in the first place. (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.) Not familiar with "Nigga Please," so Andrew's variant is lost on me... If you can explain it without killing the humor, please do so! > 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. Right, I kinda doubt an epistemological argument is going to resonate with them. But a theological argument showing that this is *not* what the Quran teaches might have a chance if you could get them to sit still long enough. 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. Boy, I don't think he would at all. He'd reject the belief because it's relatively impoverished in terms of its potential compared to Catholicism, but he certainly wouldn't reject it because believers in Zeus can't prove their beliefs scientifically. And he wouldn't label their beliefs "dangerous." > 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. Likewise!
