Stak Contra Sethbag: Sam Harris sucks!

[_Sethbag]

Trying to be more specific I notice that in believers understanding of transubstantiation Latin words do not do anything. It is understood that God does.

Well, of course most of the time, in America, since Vatican II, the priest will say the words in English, not Latin. But still, the same principle applies even if the language is different.

Read this source here for their description of when the host becomes the body and blood of Christ.

Q: When do the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ?

A: Consecration by a priest turns the Eucharist into Christ's body and blood. Consecration takes place when the priest says the words, “This is my body, broken for you. This is my blood.”

I wouldn't say the words do not do anything. If anything, they "trigger" the transubstantiation. If you want to say God does it, fine, but apparently God waits to do it until the correct words have been spoken,in whatever language.

[Guest]

Trying to be more specific I notice that in believers understanding of transubstantiation Latin words do not do anything. It is understood that God does.

Well, of course most of the time, in America, since Vatican II, the priest will say the words in English, not Latin. But still, the same principle applies even if the language is different.

Read this source here for their description of when the host becomes the body and blood of Christ.

Q: When do the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ?

A: Consecration by a priest turns the Eucharist into Christ's body and blood. Consecration takes place when the priest says the words, “This is my body, broken for you. This is my blood.”

I wouldn't say the words do not do anything. If anything, they "trigger" the transubstantiation. If you want to say God does it, fine, but apparently God waits to do it until the correct words have been spoken,in whatever language.

When, not why or how.

[_Jhall118]

This post has convinced me that Stak has probably read very little of what Sam Harris has actually wrote. Since you clearly can't be bothered, here's a video that sums up why you are wrong:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3KG5s_-Khvg

How can Sam Harris be responsible for the "new atheist" movement, if he doesn't even identify himself as an atheist? He even goes as far to criticize people who do, and thinks the term should be abandoned all together. In the Q and A after that talk, I asked the second question. In his reply, he said something about how we should always be open to new beliefs, and not dismiss them just because they are religious.

Sam Harris is about the last personal responsible for what you are crying about.

[_Chap]

This post has convinced me that Stak has probably read very little of what Sam Harris has actually wrote. Since you clearly can't be bothered, here's a video that sums up why you are wrong:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3KG5s_-Khvg

How can Sam Harris be responsible for the "new atheist" movement, if he doesn't even identify himself as an atheist? He even goes as far to criticize people who do, and thinks the term should be abandoned all together. In the Q and A after that talk, I asked the second question. In his reply, he said something about how we should always be open to new beliefs, and not dismiss them just because they are religious.

Sam Harris is about the last personal responsible for what you are crying about.

I disagree a lot with Mr. S, both as to the substance of what he says and from time to time his manner of saying it.

But I do have to say that it is extremely unlikely that he would criticize Sam Harris as he has done without having read a significant part of his writings. Reading stuff is basically what Mr S, does. (See the significance of his name ...)

[_Jhall118]

I lurk a lot, and I know how much he reads but... Sam Harris bends over backwards talking about how he respects religious thinking, does not identify as an atheist etc. It's hard to see how one could blame him for teenagers not "respecting religion" (whether you think they should or not). Dawkins, Hitchens and Dennet? Sure. I think he really misses the mark for Harris though.

[_Milesius]

No no, they are influenced by Harris. See this comment from J.T. Eberhart, a former bigwig with the Student Secular Allaince:

In 2004 I was an atheist, but I was the live-and-let-live type. Religion didn’t bug me, it just wasn’t my cup of tea. Then, for Christmas that year, my mother got me both of Sam Harris’ books. In The End of Faith there was a single sentence that changed my life forever.


We live in an age when a person could have the intellect and the resources to construct a nuclear bomb, and still believe they’ll receive paradise for detonating it.

He was right. My work as an activist began the following semester. I read every piece Harris put out, memorizing some of the passages for use in my own debates.

The strain of Eberhard's stupidity is particularly virulent. (I know, having engaged him.)

[_honorentheos]

Interesting thread.

I can appreciate that people like his work and find some kind of value in what he has to say, but where I draw the line is how little his books prepare people to actually encounter “religion” in the public sphere.

When I finished reading The End of Faith I would have agreed whole-heartedly with you. I was out of Mormonism and balancing between atheism and agnostism when I read it at a friend's suggestion. My overall take-away was he did not understand religion and, by his own admission from the book itself, could not relate to people who did find value in it. I considered it a throw-away.

But that wasn't the end of my exposure to Harris and, like jhall118, I think Harris has evolved a long ways from where he was when he wrote that first book. Now I respect him for the most part and see his writings as an opportunity to observe a keen wit making the exact journey you lament young freshmen have only just begun. On the admittedly rare occurrence someone tells me they have been reading Harris, my first question is, "What did you read?" followed by, "What did you take away from it?"

I don't think the Harris who wrote The End of Faith could have written this essay, for example, though I think we can easily trace a genealogy of thought from it back to his early book. So it is with any thinker who is genuinely committed to the search for truth. Kant evolved over time. Kierkegaard, Nietzsche...we can draw lines between their thoughts from beginning to end usually but understanding the journey is always part of understanding the thinking and the thinker. How could anyone be a lover of wisdom and not love the process of intellectual evolution?

Is Harris hip deep in the philosophical arguments you live for and are better equipped to engage? No. But neither are the vast majority of theists and non-theists. I'd argue it is precisely this that makes him valuable in discussing a path from the adolescent to the mature, because he is making that same journey himself.

It's the mature man or woman who can see a reincarnation of their old awkward colt-legged youthful way of thinking and feel compassion rather than...