Stak Contra Sethbag: Sam Harris sucks!

[_Chap]

Deleted and replaced with:

What Sethbag just said.

[_madeleine]

But what was Sam Harris' point? Was it just a cheap shot intended to get a laugh? I don't think so. Harris was pointing out that we all have blind spots. We all see how ridiculous the religious assertions of others are, and fail to see how our own religious assertions look ridiculous to others. If a Catholic were listening to Harris' words and considering them carefully, they might ask themselves "hmm, so why is praying for a pancake to turn into Elvis inherently ridiculous, while praying over this bland wheat thin to turn into Jesus Christ is not?"

Contrary to popular (as in pop) belief, Elvis isn't God. Who Jesus is, is more than a philosophical commentary to believers.

At any rate, I don't care that you believe or don't believe. Why should you care that I do? What threat is transubstantiation to you?

[_lulu]

But what was Sam Harris' point? Was it just a cheap shot intended to get a laugh? I don't think so. Harris was pointing out that we all have blind spots. We all see how ridiculous the religious assertions of others are, and fail to see how our own religious assertions look ridiculous to others. If a Catholic were listening to Harris' words and considering them carefully, they might ask themselves "hmm, so why is praying for a pancake to turn into Elvis inherently ridiculous, while praying over this bland wheat thin to turn into Jesus Christ is not?"

Contrary to popular (as in pop) belief, Elvis isn't God. Who Jesus is, is more than a philosophical commentary to believers.

At any rate, I don't care that you believe or don't believe. Why should you care that I do? What threat is transubstantiation to you?

But Hitchens would affirmatively say (or said when he was alive) that all religion is all bad all the time. I don't know Harris so maybe I should just keep my mouth shut. But, alas, I'm obviously not.

Personally, I'm opposed to most absolutes, but not absolutely. And Hitchens position is an absolutist one, at least as to the "Western God" and I suspect any other(s).

On the other hand, it is offensive to me when people make fun of the Roman Catholic eucharist. I have been to too many masses and taken to much from them, including the eucharist, to feel comfortable hearing it demeaned.

But then I don't like temple garment jokes either.

[_madeleine]

Contrary to popular (as in pop) belief, Elvis isn't God. Who Jesus is, is more than a philosophical commentary to believers.

At any rate, I don't care that you believe or don't believe. Why should you care that I do? What threat is transubstantiation to you?

But Hitchens would affirmatively say (or said when he was alive) that all religion is all bad all the time. I don't know Harris so maybe I should just keep my mouth shut. But, alas, I'm obviously not.

Personally, I'm opposed to most absolutes, but not absolutely. And Hitchens position is an absolutist one, at least as to the "Western God" and I suspect any other(s).

On the other hand, it is offensive to me when people make fun of the Roman Catholic eucharist. I have been to too many masses and taken to much from them, including the eucharist, to feel comfortable hearing it demeaned.

But then I don't like temple garment jokes either.

Thanks lulu.

Yes, I know what Hitchens taught, and those who have hitched themselves to him are riding merrily along with him. It doesn't offend me. I just find it a totalitarian way of thinking, and I've never been a fan of totalitarianism.

I was once an atheist, and said to a Catholic friend that he was a cannibal. He in turn called me a heathen. I don't expect atheistic heathens are going to respect anything of religious importance. It doesn't offend me.

There have been times when I've seen Mormons making fun of other's religious beliefs. That can be perplexing, and offensive.

[_Sethbag]

Contrary to popular (as in pop) belief, Elvis isn't God. Who Jesus is, is more than a philosophical commentary to believers.

Sure, but only because you say so. I think labeling a person or thing "God" is a pretty arbitrary thing. You do it with Jesus. Hindus do it with a variety of beings, some more or less human, others not. Some folks in ancient times did it with idols, others to mountains, or the Sun, or any number of things.

At any rate, I don't care that you believe or don't believe. Why should you care that I do? What threat is transubstantiation to you?

Transubstantiation is no threat to me. It merely served as a convenient example in Sam Harris' comparison. The doctrine is a curiosity to non-Catholics who bother thinking of such things, like Mormon belief in Kolob, or the Rapture as imagined by modern-day evangelicals.

But it does serve as a pretty good object lesson for Catholics in being fair and open when thinking about or discussing the beliefs of others.

[_Sethbag]

Contrary to popular (as in pop) belief, Elvis isn't God. Who Jesus is, is more than a philosophical commentary to believers.

Sure, but only because you say so. I think labeling a person or thing "God" is a pretty arbitrary thing. You do it with Jesus. Hindus do it with a variety of beings, some more or less human, others not. Some folks in ancient times did it with idols, others to mountains, or the Sun, or any number of things.

By the way I should clarify what I mean here. You seemed to be pointing out that Jesus is God while Elvis is not as a reason why someone should be more careful about their comparisons. I was merely pointing out that Jesus' being God only matters to you because you designate him as such. To someone who doesn't believe that, the comparison is not only apt, but the defensive assertion of Christ's Godness as rendering him immune from such a comparison falls flat. Just like you might not be afraid to discuss Ganesh the Elephant-headed avatar of God in Hindu mythology.

[_huckelberry]

Contrary to popular (as in pop) belief, Elvis isn't God. Who Jesus is, is more than a philosophical commentary to believers.

Sure, but only because you say so. I think labeling a person or thing "God" is a pretty arbitrary thing. You do it with Jesus. Hindus do it with a variety of beings, some more or less human, others not. Some folks in ancient times did it with idols, others to mountains, or the Sun, or any number of things.
..............................
By the way I should clarify what I mean here. You seemed to be pointing out that Jesus is God while Elvis is not as a reason why someone should be more careful about their comparisons. I was merely pointing out that Jesus' being God only matters to you because you designate him as such. To someone who doesn't believe that, the comparison is not only apt, but the defensive assertion of Christ's Godness as rendering him immune from such a comparison falls flat. Just like you might not be afraid to discuss Ganesh the Elephant-headed avatar of God in Hindu mythology.

It is not a surprise that some do not believe that Jesus is God. If they do not they are very unlikely to believe in transubstantiation. However disbelief does not prevent an intelligent and thoughtful person from understanding what Christians mean. This vantage may avoid the sort of sophomoric ridicule of serious thought which some are tempted to engage in.

Speaking directly, I do not find any religious beliefs ridiculous. I may not believe all religious beliefs but I think they mean things to people. I think if you find somebody hoping to change pancakes into Elvis it is best to ask what they mean before simply figuring they are nuts.(I suppose that would be one possibility though) . I think it is thoughtless to ridicule Mormon temple garments. I personally am glad to avoid them but I understand that they represent serious things to believers. Similarly I do not participate in Native American sundance ritual. That does not mean I should not understand at least enough of what it means to people to not think it ridiculous.

Similarly but less pleasantly I do not think it sensible to think shooting a young girl for seeking education is well described as ridiculous. It is serious instead and I think seriously malignant.

[_madeleine]

Sure, but only because you say so. I think labeling a person or thing "God" is a pretty arbitrary thing. You do it with Jesus. Hindus do it with a variety of beings, some more or less human, others not. Some folks in ancient times did it with idols, others to mountains, or the Sun, or any number of things.

By the way I should clarify what I mean here. You seemed to be pointing out that Jesus is God while Elvis is not as a reason why someone should be more careful about their comparisons. I was merely pointing out that Jesus' being God only matters to you because you designate him as such. To someone who doesn't believe that, the comparison is not only apt, but the defensive assertion of Christ's Godness as rendering him immune from such a comparison falls flat. Just like you might not be afraid to discuss Ganesh the Elephant-headed avatar of God in Hindu mythology.

Thanks, I understood what you were saying.

Conversely, the claim of "Jesus is God" falls flat for you because you don't believe. It doesn't fall flat for me.

This can go in circles for days or even years. :) I know what I believe is not believed by everyone, or even a majority of everyone. That doesn't change what I believe, or how I approach the practices associated to my beliefs.

It also doesn't change how I view what others believe, or don't believe. I hold no belief that everyone has to believe as I do. None, whatsoever. I enjoy comparative religious discussions, including the Gods of Hinduism. I've had interesting discussions online with Hindu believers, and new-age Catholics who have overlaid Catholic belief and understanding over Hinduism.

I've had interesting discussions with my immediate family, who are all still, atheists. Not so secretly, I think they find my Catholicism eccentric. What makes our discussions good, all around, is that we seek to understand each other. My husband doesn't agree at all with my belief that Jesus is God. I understand this, and he understands that I do. We don't have an agenda of trying to convert one another.

[_Aristotle Smith]

Seth Payne: You really think Sam Harris should be spending his time at the lectern arguing with the First Cause? Tell me, how many religious folks order their lives and behavior because there must have been a First Cause? Do Mormons not drink coffee, tea, or alcohol because their must have been a First Cause? Are gays not supposed to get married to each other because there must have been a First Cause? How should we treat the poor and needy among us, in light of the fact that there must have been a First Cause? What does your assertion (or your support of the assertion) that there must have been a First Cause have to say about Just War?

The point is mainly that Harris doesn't engage with the philosophical underpinnings of religion, he simply points out some effects he doesn't like and counts on his audience to consider the argument unassailable. By the way, this doesn't speak highly of Harris' audience.

Allow me to dismantle science in the manner of the Nu Atheists. Science sucks because it mostly creates pain and suffering in the world. Science is responsible for nuclear weapons. Science gave us eugenics. If it were not for modern chemistry, the holocaust would only have been able to kill 10% of the people it did. The science of historical dialectical materialism killed more people in the 20th century than any other system of thought in the history of planet Earth, nothing else even comes close. Even "benign" technology is implicated in this madness. iPhones are mostly just devices that allow for the efficient transmission of boobie pics, kiddie porn, and widespread theft of property. In other words, science sucks.

Any attempt to address these issue means going beneath the effects to look at what is science, how it works, and what it is. In other words, a defense of science necessarily involves looking at the underpinnings of that which we call science. That is what I think Stak is asking for, that the same courtesy be paid to religion as Nu Atheists demand be paid to science. Asking Harris to address arguments about the First Cause is nothing but a specific example of something Harris might focus on.

Oh, and Mormons don't do anything because of belief in a First Cause, since Mormons believe in no such thing. This is one of the philosophical reasons mainstream Christians have serious problems with Mormonism, because the theological and philosophical underpinning of Mormons are so very different than that of mainstream Christians. They believe in a First Cause, Mormons do not.

[Guest]

Seth Payne: You really think Sam Harris should be spending his time at the lectern arguing with the First Cause? Tell me, how many religious folks order their lives and behavior because there must have been a First Cause? Do Mormons not drink coffee, tea, or alcohol because their must have been a First Cause? Are gays not supposed to get married to each other because there must have been a First Cause? How should we treat the poor and needy among us, in light of the fact that there must have been a First Cause? What does your assertion (or your support of the assertion) that there must have been a First Cause have to say about Just War?

The point is mainly that Harris doesn't engage with the philosophical underpinnings of religion, he simply points out some effects he doesn't like and counts on his audience to consider the argument unassailable. By the way, this doesn't speak highly of Harris' audience.

Allow me to dismantle science in the manner of the Nu Atheists. Science sucks because it mostly creates pain and suffering in the world. Science is responsible for nuclear weapons. Science gave us eugenics. If it were not for modern chemistry, the holocaust would only have been able to kill 10% of the people it did. The science of historical dialectical materialism killed more people in the 20th century than any other system of thought in the history of planet Earth, nothing else even comes close. Even "benign" technology is implicated in this madness. iPhones are mostly just devices that allow for the efficient transmission of boobie pics, kiddie porn, and widespread theft of property. In other words, science sucks.

Any attempt to address these issue means going beneath the effects to look at what is science, how it works, and what it is. In other words, a defense of science necessarily involves looking at the underpinnings of that which we call science. That is what I think Stak is asking for, that the same courtesy be paid to religion as Nu Atheists demand be paid to science. Asking Harris to address arguments about the First Cause is nothing but a specific example of something Harris might focus on.

Oh, and Mormons don't do anything because of belief in a First Cause, since Mormons believe in no such thing. This is one of the philosophical reasons mainstream Christians have serious problems with Mormonism, because the theological and philosophical underpinning of Mormons are so very different than that of mainstream Christians. They believe in a First Cause, Mormons do not.

On one point relevant here, I think Stak is very persuasive. That typical US college students don't learn enough philosophy soon enough.

In some Latin American countries, philosophy is taught in high school. One of my old friends and neighbors from Colombia, who had not been to college, claimed that he knew more philosophy than his girl friend who had a BA in philosophy. Now that might be hyperbole, but why aren't the basics of philosophy taught in US high schools?

They, we, I, might have an easier time sorting things out.