Sam Harris Talks about the Defence of Religion

[_Ray A]

marg, you don't know enough to be worth talking with. Your knowledge is inversely proportional to your dogmatic certainty.

And what dogmatic certainty is that?

I have no qualms about your objectivity, marg. I am sure that if anyone will, you most certainly will read widely before forming any opinion. I think you will spend endless hours in public libraries, university libraries, and conducting firsthand interviews with anyone you can. I think you're the sort of person to scrutinise every inch of every claim, with an open mind, and will spare nothing to check every nook and cranny of every subject you've ever investigated. And, most of all, you're not one to rush to premature conclusions.

You epitomise balance, and objectivity.

Never in the field of human investigation, was so much owed by so many to so few.

And marg was there. Always and ever providing the truth which totally escaped lesser minds.

I feel nothing but awe to have known you. I only wish I could be even half as smart as you are.

[_EAllusion]

There's nothing formally illogical about a resurrection.

I don't know why my comments on Harris were so disappointing. He's often not sharp in his arguments and relies on rhetorical bluster even when he's spotted the high ground through holding the most reasonable position. He also does defend som new age/eastern religious views that are just as dubious as the religious views he condescends. He also defends some morally abhorrent ideas with his trademark cockiness. It might help to listen to how he argues his positions when he has some internal dispute with atheists, such as whether it is appropriate to use that term to describe themselves. He seems terminally incapable of not reducing opponent positions into ridiculous strawmans.

He's a pretty bad spokesman for atheists, which is why some people interested in seeing bad spokesmen for atheists are all too happy to prop him up as one. It's not unlike an LDS message board apologist wanting pretend that, I don't know, antishock is representative of critics and getting to neglect someone like Beastie.

[_Daniel Peterson]

If there's really anybody out there who thinks that poor antishock8 is representative of critics, I want to be among the first to protest such an unfair and silly idea. He's in the bottom tier even on this board.

[_Calculus Crusader]

I'm no logician by any means, CC, but I do wonder, though you may not derive a logical contradiction for the Resurrection, how do you get around the impossibility of the proposition? I realize you're not claiming widespread resurrection and are focusing only on one exception, but still, bodily resurrection remains outside of what we know is possible. Faith is the only basis for belief in the Resurrection, I'd imagine.

Hello again. Resurrection is impossible for us, but not for God. If He can create the universe, then He can certainly restore a man (much more than a man, in the case of Jesus Christ) to life.

Also, do you believe that all people are eventually destined for either heaven or hell?

Yes.

If so, how would one falsify that claim?

It's not a matter for empiricism.

Finally, if you do not believe Jesus to be coequal or coeternal with the Father, what do you believe His relationship to the Father to be? Is Jesus not God in the flesh, but rather a subordinate son/prophet/teacher? Or, do you hold to the Mormon view of the Godhead?

Jesus Christ is the unique incarnation of the Logos. He is not true God but is called "God" as a sign of his authority from God. (Angels and Moses are similarly referred to as "God," and the Son is even more worthy of the honor.)

Or, do you hold to the Mormon view of the Godhead?

No. There is, and ever shall be, only one God, and He is incorporeal. Jesus Christ was created out of nothing, along with everything else, and the Holy Spirit is not a distinct person.

Sorry to beleaguer you with so many questions, CC, but I'm curious.

KA

No problem. :)

[_marg]

There's nothing formally illogical about a resurrection.

In formal logic/deductive logic, to reach a reliable conclusion one must have premises which can be relied upon.

So address C.C's words in which he infers that formal logic can somehow prove the resurrection of Jesus.

"However, I do not think the Resurrection is illogical. You can derive a contradiction from the doctrine of the trinity using formal logic; that is not the case for the Resurrection."

Edit: Well E.A., I see C.C. is helping he explained his argument further. He writes:

Hello again. Resurrection is impossible for us, but not for God. If He can create the universe, then He can certainly restore a man (much more than a man, in the case of Jesus Christ) to life.

Does this prove anything? Not a friggin thing. If one sets up the argument to include "anything is possible" because God is involved and God can do anything, then any conclusion one wishes to make is possible.

[_marg]

I feel nothing but awe to have known you. I only wish I could be even half as smart as you are.

Ya, by the way you jumped to an erroneous conclusion regarding "paranoia" and deletion of posts. Sometimes it's not how long you search for information, but how well you do search and then evaluate.

[_Calculus Crusader]

So address C.C's words in which he infers that formal logic can somehow prove the resurrection of Jesus.

"However, I do not think the Resurrection is illogical. You can derive a contradiction from the doctrine of the trinity using formal logic; that is not the case for the Resurrection."

Infer != imply

"You can derive a contradiction from the doctrine of the trinity using formal logic; that is not the case for the Resurrection." != "...he infers[sic] that formal logic can somehow prove the resurrection of Jesus.

Hello again. Resurrection is impossible for us, but not for God. If He can create the universe, then He can certainly restore a man (much more than a man, in the case of Jesus Christ) to life.

Does this prove anything? Not a friggin thing. If one sets up the argument to include "anything is possible" because God is involved and God can do anything, then any conclusion one wishes to make is possible.

It was not offered as a proof, dimbulb. And I would automatically rule out statements that violate formal logic.

[_Calculus Crusader]

I do not suffer fools or theomachoi gladly.

So I take it there are no mirrors in your house?

I bet he knows he's smart in the same way dart knows there's a god... which is to say he knows s***.

Some Schmo considers himself a wit and he's half right.

[_marg]

Hello again. Resurrection is impossible for us, but not for God. If He can create the universe, then He can certainly restore a man (much more than a man, in the case of Jesus Christ) to life.

Does this prove anything? Not a friggin thing. If one sets up the argument to include "anything is possible" because God is involved and God can do anything, then any conclusion one wishes to make is possible.

It was not offered as a proof, dimbulb. And I would automatically rule out statements that violate formal logic.

Ok don't use the word proof. However, formal logic is essentially offering conclusive conclusions. You used the words "formal logic" in your argument. In essence you said one can not derive a contradiction in the formal logic argued for the resurrection. You tell me what you can argue using formal logic with regards to the resurrection. What are your premises and what is your conclusion?

[_Calculus Crusader]

Ok don't use the word proof. However, formal logic is essentially offering conclusive conclusions. You used the words "formal logic" in your argument. In essence you said one can not derive a contradiction in the formal logic argued for the resurrection. You tell me what you can argue using formal logic with regards to the resurrection. What are your premises and what is your conclusion?

This is not difficult. Stating that the Resurrection does not violate formal logic is not the same as claiming to have a deductive argument for the Resurrection.