Sam Harris/Andrew Sullivan Online Debate at Beliefnet

he accuses all religious moderates of being unwilling to question anything spiritual or scientific. he accuses them of being unwilling to call fundamentalists on their bullshit or to combat untruth. this is a high accusation and one not demonstrated by reality. when you start making generalizetions, of course you are going to miss some groups, but it should be clear that many religious moderates are very active in fighting religious extremism and broaches of civil and secular rights. he just paints with a broad religious brush and his intolerance (which it can only be called) is really ill-founded. not all people who fail to bomb abortion clinics are moderates.Edited by brennakimi, : No reason given.

What, just because you say so? It's great that religious moderates want to take all the credit for opposing religious violence and fundamentalism, but what exactly have they accomplished that we should credit them for?I mean, Pat Robertson is still on the air, but religious moderates are more likely to have a "Boycott Disney" bumper sticker than write a letter to get his show pulled. I don't recall a massive moderate outrage at the idea that John Kerry's stance on abortion - personally opposing the practice but unwilling to breach the Constitution by banning it - could render him unable to receive communion from his church. In the very subject this forum exists to discuss, moderates spend a great deal of time clucking their heads in disapproval of atheists and only one day - the so-called "Evolution Sunday", which was yesterday in fact - actually educating their flock about science and science's opponents. (I don't mean to refer to the conduct of anybody here.)Sure, sure, we hear all the time about how moderates are so busy fighting religious fundamentalism. But as fundamentalism spreads throughout the world pouring gasoline on a hundred individual tribal brush fires, I don't see that they've accomplished anything worth taking credit for. Maybe you have some examples?

I can sort of see where you think Sam Harris is claiming that religious moderates don't call fundamentalists on their bullshit. Of course they do, but I think his point in context is that they don't do it on the level of questioning the basic dogma from which fundamentalism derives!I think that is what he means when he says "deeply question the preposterous ideas". This idea is supported in the second quote when he says: If you listen to Sam Harris in the later episodes of beyond belief he boils it all down to dogmatism. His claim is that if you are unwilling to question your basic dogma then any derivation on that dogma that is destructive is not going to be met with the same amount of disdain that someone from outside the dogma would offer.Take for example Fred Phelps. Most mainstream Christians distance themselves from Phelps claiming that there are other overriding Christian principles (humility, love thy neighbor, etc) that make his behavior wrong. But few if any will ever examine the more basic idea that their dogma against homosexuality is at all wrong. That is why you have Christians who will adamantly say that Fred Phelps is wrong yet still go to the polls and vote to pass a ban on homosexual marriage.Sam is saying that problem is not Phelps, Bin Laden, {insert fundamentalist here}. The problem a basic philosophy, not based on reason, that is flawed and that otherwise reasonable religious moderates will refuse to even question that philosophy.I think he has a perfectly legitimate criticism and I don't see how what you described is at all tantamount to claiming that all faith is insane. Sure. I'll take that as a valid criticism such that anytime someone speaks in absolute terms they are probably technically wrong. But I have a feeling that if you questioned him on those grounds that he would budge. I'll give you the point about over generalization. It is even accurate to describe him as intolerant but that does not mean it is not a just intolerance. I am intolerant of a lot of things. I am intolerant of racism, sexism, etc and I think it is valid to include dogmatism in that list. Is it ill-founded? I think I made a pretty good case above that it is not ill-founded. Likewise, not all suicide bombers are necessarily fundamentalists.

---

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

cause the anti-religious have done such a good job with their increasingly strong voice...try googling "progressive christianity". we vote, we petition, we campaign, we scold, we accuse. we work within the system to support civil rights and prevent any religious group from insanely ruining policy because they feel they have a moral imperative. we believe that our moral imperative is to end injustice, to end hunger, to end discrimination, to provide aid, jobs, hope, freedom. we do censure those who we feel are misrepresenting reality. we support the search for truth both scientific and spiritual. we support differing viewpoints as variety and discourse betters society, but we also seek to ensure that those differing viewpoints do not result in any form of oppression, by commission or ommission.now, maybe we don't have radio shows where we cuss about how evil pat robertson is. but we did send george allen letters condemning his xenophobia and we do publicly denounce such behavior. however, scandal sells and the media is not interested in moderates of any stripe. he can well receive it in my church. you mean like you spend so much time clucking in disapproval of theists?
absolutely, christians should be more involved in discussing scientific realities, but the main interest of christianity is not science--that's science's job. we gather on sundays (well. i haven't been to church in a while... i have some issues.) to worship and to discuss how to improve ourselves. we're not supposed to meet on sundays to discuss how to go to war with other believers, or would you like us to be like the "christian soldiers"? maybe you should challenge your local moderate congregations to hold and participate in a science conference or forum or panel discussion. maybe i should do the same.but our job is to work within the government to change it for good. how much do you do in your average week to combat real life fundamentalism? do you write letters to your congressmen about protecting the spaces around abortion clinics? do you volunteer as an escort for women seeking abortions? do you work with a non-faith-based charity organization or donate to one? are you active in your local school distric to bring in scientific speakers or speakers on tolerance?many people make great efforts and you simply don't hear about it. but to what standard do you hold yourself since you require so much of us?

Isn't adding that he is HIV + a superfluous element?Anyway, I'm about halfway through the debate. Looks I arrived late to the party again. I'll chime in when I'm done.

---

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis

"As a gay Catholic, I know what the cold draft of fundamentalism is like; I've felt its dogmatism and dismissal and denial close at hand. So spare me the thought that you know it better than I do.

​

I'm also aware that it might not be as simple as you claim it is.

​

I have met fundamentalists whose convictions are extreme but whose spiritual humility nonetheless leads them to great tolerance for dissent and doubt among others and great compassion for the needy. I have met those who are utterly uncompromising on the issue of sexual morality and yet have never shown me anything but interest, empathy and friendship." -Andrew Sullivan

---

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis

Yeah. I'm not saying that Sullivan isn't a great writer, too, and there's a reason that I follow his blog every day. In fact, Sullivan's participation was how I originally came to find out about the dialogue in the first place.But he's completely ceded the intellectual ground; and I think his claim to have the monopoly on the disdain and dismissal of fundamentalists is arrogant and ridiculous. I mean, just in popular polls, more people trust homosexuals than atheists, who are at the bottom of the public esteem pile. There's been many, many public, openly-gay political figures, even within the Republican party; yet, I'm hard-pressed to think of a single public figure who's an open atheist.I think Sullivan reaches too greatly when he claims his experiences as a gay man represent the apex of the dismissal it's possible to receive from the religious.

but he's not just intolerant of dogmatism. he decries all religious people. nope, some of them realize that it's not about religion, but politics.

I watched this debate a few days ago on C-SPAN which is the first time I've heard Harris or Aslan speak. It was a good debate. I found a clip on YouTube. I though we'd all might appreciate it.

---

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis

you should not conflate the "Left" with the "anti-religious". i'm about as left as you can get within the capitalist system. of course my relationship towards religion seems to be up for debate and not a statement i'm allowed to make on my own.

Bump and highlight. Thanks for pointing out this discussion. And Sorry for a blatant cut-n-paste but that is too beautiful to go unamplified.

At least since I have visited.Good Stuff.

---

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

Spam removed, Spammer shot.Edited by AdminAsgara, : No reason given.

---

Boanerges WHAT!!!!

It looks like the debate may be over. The latest post by Sam Harris, dated 17 April, is here.To start at the beginning of the debate, go here (it continues for six pages). Part 2 begins here and includes Sam's message of 20 March and Andrew's of 5 April.I agree with Crashfrog--the civility Sam Harris and Andrew Sullivan showed during the debate was nice. It is much easier to see the essence of the debate without wading through extraneous crap.Though, unfortunately for Mr. Sullivan, there really wasn't much essence on his side.Cheers.