OK I think I get it now. Sullivan is a: Catholic who doesn't believe that the Pope has a special relationship with the truth of reality. Christian who doesn't believe in the divinity of Christ or his death as salvation. the Bible as divinely inspired, but not as a special book differing from all other books written by men.
So if I can sum it up in word salad (since we are redefining words as we go along), he believes blabity blap and is upset that Sam Harris doesn't think he knows what he is talking about. You claimed that I had misrepresented Andrew's views on the Pope. I have very carefully not assigned to him the belief in the Pope's infallibility in certain contexts. He does believe that the Pope has a special relationship with the truth of existence and quotes him on matters theological. There is a name for people who do not view the Pope as having a special relationship with the truth, they are called non Catholics. He doesn't have to use the words he does to describe himself. He could just go New Age and believe whatever he wants. He is identifying himself with particular versions of belief systems that have specific meanings and doctrines. This is part of the problem in the debate. Saying that "God is love" is not the complete definition of the word "God" or there would not be two different words. No need for a straw man. His beliefs leak out even as he tries to appear more reasonable than he actually is. This is the central point Sam is making about religious moderates like Andrew. They are not owning up to their beliefs because they know it makes them look silly. As I said before Andrew rejects beliefs for the same reasons Sam does. The difference is that Sam is comfortable saying "I don't know" concerning ultimate realities and Andrew claims that a man who died thousands of years ago "loves him". So I'll be an atheist who believes in God for the purposes of this discussion. Want your dressing on the side? --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "curtisdeltablues" > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > > Thanks, I'll trrryyyyyy. > > > > From Andrew above the your quoted post: > > > > "A reader addresses one central point of contention between Sam > Harris > > and me - by supporting my position from a more agnostic > perspective:" > > > > My points stand. Andrew didn't write it, he is agreeing with it > > None of your points stand. The point of contention > between Sullivan and Harris in question here was > whether one should "doubt the whole shebang," as the > emailer puts it, i.e., whether it makes rational > sense to be an atheist. > > with > > one irrelevant qualification. Andrew has been guilty > > of defining God in terms that are too vague to be > > challenged in this whole debate and ignoring Sam's > > attempts to get him to own up to his own specific > > beliefs. > > What you're really saying is that Sullivan declines > to "own up to" specific beliefs that Harris (and you) > would like to attribute to him so you have something > you feel competent to challenge. > > Get that straw man before he gets you! > > > > > > Andrew is just as skeptical of the historical Zeus and > > confident of it mythic origins as Sam is about Andrew's Jesus dying > > for our sins myth. > > > > > > --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "curtisdeltablues" > > > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > > > > > > "The answer: because doubting the whole shebang is a > > > > 'certainty' that could be as mistaken as believing in > > > > any particular religion. The argument for believing > > > > in a 'tolerant' religious framework is because we do > > > > not, and cannot, know the truth of either atheism or > > > > of any theism....One can neither prove nor disprove > > > > the existence of God. But all scientific evidence > > > > suggests the physical limitations of the human > > > > consciousness separate us from the true nature of the > > > > universe. God is merely that true nature; religion, > > > > like science, a path to glimpse a part of it, not an > > > > expression of the whole." > > > > > > > > So do you think Andrew is on the fence about the existence > > > > of Zeus or is he pretty sure humans made up the whole idea? > > > > > > Sullivan didn't write this. Try reading what > > > I wrote, please. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What Andrew is doing is making the definition of God so vague > and > > > > lacking in distinctive qualities that he might as well say he > > > believes > > > > in blabidy blab. Defining God as the "true nature of the > universe" > > > > is great for evading being challenged on his specific beliefs, > I > > > mean > > > > who could argue with that definition? This is a definition > that no > > > > Atheist should have a problem with. Atheists assert that there > is > > > > mystery in the world and neither myths nor science have cleared > it > > > up. > > > > > > > > Religion is not just pointing the the mystery, religion is > claiming > > > to > > > > have explained it. Atheists are saying that religions have > added > > > > little to our insight into the "true nature of the universe." > They > > > > have offered interesting myths that have other values. > > > > > > > > The problem comes when Andrew uses specific myth books like the > > > Bible > > > > as his method of glimpsing a part of that true nature. It > comes > > > when > > > > he asserts that the historical person Jesus is fundamentally > > > different > > > > from you and I and has died for our "sins". As a Catholic he > > > believes > > > > that the Pope has special powers of insight into the true > nature of > > > > the universe. He is hiding his beliefs in a specific teleology > and > > > > that his provincial version of religion knows what that purpose > is. > > > > These are the beliefs that Atheist's challenge because that is > where > > > > the problem with religious beliefs begin. > > > > > > > > So is he doubting his doubt about the actual historical > existence of > > > > all myths, or just the one he grew up with? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "authfriend" <jstein@> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Duveyoung <no_reply@> > wrote: > > > > > <snip> > > > > > > I mean, if God is true, anything can be true, right? If we > > > > > > don't know EVERYTHING, we can be wrong about anything, > right? > > > > > <snip> > > > > > > But if we don't > > > > > > allow God to have that freedom, to be that deeply dramatic > > > > > > over the lifetimes of billions of souls, then we don't > really > > > > > > want a redoubtable God and instead are hoping for a > doubtable > > > > > > God. It's about faith, not certainty, right? > > > > > > > > > > Came across two pieces of material this morning that > > > > > tie into the issue of doubt more or less directly. > > > > > > > > > > The first was an email to Andrew Sullivan concerning > > > > > his debate with Sam Harris about faith vs. science, > > > > > which Andrew posted on his blog: > > > > > > > > > > "Moderation vs. Fundamentalism. How much doubt is too > > > > > much? Why not doubt the whole shebang? > > > > > > > > > > "The answer: because doubting the whole shebang is a > > > > > 'certainty' that could be as mistaken as believing in > > > > > any particular religion. The argument for believing > > > > > in a 'tolerant' religious framework is because we do > > > > > not, and cannot, know the truth of either atheism or > > > > > of any theism....One can neither prove nor disprove > > > > > the existence of God. But all scientific evidence > > > > > suggests the physical limitations of the human > > > > > consciousness separate us from the true nature of the > > > > > universe. God is merely that true nature; religion, > > > > > like science, a path to glimpse a part of it, not an > > > > > expression of the whole." > > > > > > > > > > http://tinyurl.com/2r8hyt > > > > > > > > > > In other words: Doubt the doubt. > > > > > > > > > > Then I was curious about when David Orme-Johnson had > > > > > been kicked off the MUM faculty and went to his > > > > > TruthAboutTM Web site to find out (2004). I nosed > > > > > around the site a bit and found this: > > > > > > > > > > "Issue: Is the Transcendental Meditation organization a > cult? > > > > > > > > > > "The Evidence: > > > > > > > > > > "The Transcendental Meditation organization is not a cult > > > > > and 'thought reform' is not used in the Transcendental > Meditation > > > > > program. > > > > > > > > > > "Background: > > > > > > > > > > "Research on the Transcendental Meditation program shows that > the > > > > > effects it produces are the opposite to those found in people > who > > > > > allegedly get involved in cults. For example, a doctoral > > > dissertation > > > > > conducted at York University found that high school students > > > became > > > > > more autonomous, independent, and innovative through the > > > > > Transcendental Meditation program, with increased ability to > deal > > > > > with abstract and complex situations. They also showed > increases > > > on > > > > > creativity, general intelligence and self-esteem. Similarly, > a > > > > > doctoral dissertation at Harvard found that the > Transcendental > > > > > Meditation program increased autonomous thought in prisoners, > and > > > > > increased moral reasoning to levels that displays mature, > > > independent > > > > > judgement based on principles. This is highly significant, > > > because > > > > > cult following is allegedly based on the oppositeblind faith > and > > > > > rigid adherence to arbitrary rules and authority, which are > > > > > characteristic of a lower level of moral reasoning measured > by > > > the > > > > > psychological tests used in the study. > > > > > > > > > > "A wide variety of other research also demonstrates the > growth of > > > > > independent thinking in those who practice the Transcendental > > > > > Meditation program. For example, well controlled studies have > > > found > > > > > that the Transcendental Meditation program increases field > > > > > independence. Research has shown that field independent > > > individuals > > > > > are more independent in their thinking and are more resistant > to > > > peer > > > > > pressure to do anything that they feel is not right. > > > > > > > > > > "An essential feature of a cult is that it is a closed system > of > > > > > thought that does not submit itself to outside validation. > The > > > > > Transcendental Meditation organization is the opposite > because it > > > > > submits its theories to the rigors of scientific testing, > > > encourages > > > > > research by independent universities and research > organizations > > > (to > > > > > date, 209 universities have conducted research on the > > > Transcendental > > > > > Meditation program), publishes in peer-reviewed journals, and > > > > > participates actively in scientific conferences worldwide." > > > > > > > > > > http://tinyurl.com/2shu7w > > > > > > > > > > This really got me chuckling. Obviously the last > > > > > paragraph is ironic considering what the TMO has > > > > > become; but what really struck me--and others have > > > > > made pretty much the same point, but this highlights > > > > > it so clearly--is the inherent contradiction in > > > > > trying to run a coherent movement deeply committed > > > > > to the universal practice of a technique that fosters > > > > > autonomy and independent thinking (and hence > > > > > encourages doubt). > > > > > > > > > > Such a movement willy-nilly carries the seeds of its > > > > > own destruction. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
