Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)
Sunday, April 1, 2007 | Reason : Science of Religion | print version Print | Comments |

Document The God Debate

by Sam Harris, Rick Warren, Newsweek

Reposted from:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17889148/site/newsweek/

Also:
AUDIO: A New God Debate

Newsweek: 'Religion: Is God Real?' by Jon Meacham

At the Summit: On a cloudy California day, the atheist Sam Harris sat down with the Christian pastor Rick Warren to hash out Life's Biggest Question—Is God real? A NEWSWEEK exclusive.

sam rick
The Great Divide: Atheist Sam Harris (right) and evangelist Rick Warren (left) meet to discuss religion and faith in America at Warren's Saddleback Church in California

April 9, 2007 issue - Rick Warren is as big as a bear, with a booming voice and easygoing charm. Sam Harris is compact, reserved and, despite the polemical tone of his books, friendly and mild. Warren, one of the best-known pastors in the world, started Saddleback in 1980; now 25,000 people attend the church each Sunday. Harris is softer-spoken; paragraphs pour out of him, complex and fact-filled—as befits a Ph.D. student in neuroscience. At NEWSWEEK's invitation, they met in Warren's office recently and chatted, mostly amiably, for four hours. Jon Meacham moderated. Excerpts follow.

JON MEACHAM: Rick, since you're the home team, we'll start with Sam. Sam, is there a God in the sense that most Americans think of him?

SAM HARRIS: There's no evidence for such a God, and it's instructive to notice that we're all atheists with respect to Zeus and the thousands of other dead gods whom now nobody worships.

Rick, what is the evidence of the existence of the God of Abraham?

RICK WARREN: I see the fingerprints of God everywhere. I see them in culture. I see them in law. I see them in literature. I see them in nature. I see them in my own life. Trying to understand where God came from is like an ant trying to understand the Internet. Even the most brilliant scientist would agree that we only know a fraction of a percent of the knowledge of the universe.

HARRIS: Any scientist must concede that we don't fully understand the universe. But neither the Bible nor the Qur'an represents our best understanding of the universe. That is exquisitely clear.

WARREN: To you.

HARRIS: There is so much about us that is not in the Bible. Every specific science from cosmology to psychology to economics has surpassed and superseded what the Bible tells us is true about our world.

samSam, does the Christian you address in your books have to believe that God wrote the Bible and that it is literally true?

HARRIS: Well, there's clearly a spectrum of confidence in the text. I mean, there's the "This is literally true, nothing even gets figuratively interpreted," and then there's the "This is just the best book we have, written by the smartest people who have ever lived, and it's still legitimate to organize our lives around it to the exclusion of other books." Anywhere on that spectrum I have a problem, because in my mind the Bible and the Qur'an are just books, written by human beings. There are sections of the Bible that I think are absolutely brilliant and poetically unrivaled, and there are sections of the Bible which are the sheerest barbarism, yet profess to prescribe a divinely mandated morality—where do I start? Books like Leviticus and Deuteronomy and Exodus and First and Second Kings and Second Samuel—half of the kings and prophets of Israel would be taken to The Hague and prosecuted for crimes against humanity if these events took place in our own time.

[To Warren] Is the Bible inerrant?
WARREN: I believe it's inerrant in what it claims to be. The Bible does not claim to be a scientific book in many areas.

Do you believe Creation happened in the way Genesis describes it?

WARREN: If you're asking me do I believe in evolution, the answer is no, I don't. I believe that God, at a moment, created man. I do believe Genesis is literal, but I do also know metaphorical terms are used. Did God come down and blow in man's nose? If you believe in God, you don't have a problem accepting miracles. So if God wants to do it that way, it's fine with me.

HARRIS: I'm doing my Ph.D. in neuroscience; I'm very close to the literature on evolutionary biology. And the basic point is that evolution by natural selection is random genetic mutation over millions of years in the context of environmental pressure that selects for fitness.

WARREN: Who's doing the selecting?

HARRIS: The environment. You don't have to invoke an intelligent designer to explain the complexity we see.

WARREN: Sam makes all kinds of assertions based on his presuppositions. I'm willing to admit my presuppositions: there are clues to God. I talk to God every day. He talks to me.

HARRIS: What does that actually mean?

WARREN: One of the great evidences of God is answered prayer. I have a friend, a Canadian friend, who has an immigration issue. He's an intern at this church, and so I said, "God, I need you to help me with this," as I went out for my evening walk. As I was walking I met a woman. She said, "I'm an immigration attorney; I'd be happy to take this case." Now, if that happened once in my life I'd say, "That is a coincidence." If it happened tens of thousands of times, that is not a coincidence.

rickThere must have been times in your ministry when you've prayed for someone to be delivered from disease who is not—say, a little girl with cancer.

WARREN: Oh, absolutely.

So, parse that. God gave you an immigration attorney, but God killed a little girl.

WARREN: Well, I do believe in the goodness of God, and I do believe that he knows better than I do. God sometimes says yes, God sometimes says no and God sometimes says wait. I've had to learn the difference between no and not yet. The issue here really does come down to surrender. A lot of atheists hide behind rationalism; when you start probing, you find their reactions are quite emotional. In fact, I've never met an atheist who wasn't angry.

HARRIS: Let me be the first.

WARREN: I think your books are quite angry.

HARRIS: I would put it at impatient rather than angry. Let me respond to this notion of answered prayer, because this is a classic sampling error, to use a statistical phrase. We know that human beings have a terrible sense of probability. There are many things we believe that confirm our prejudices about the world, and we believe this only by noticing the confirmations, and not keeping track of the disconfirmations. You could prove to the satisfaction of every scientist that intercessory prayer works if you set up a simple experiment. Get a billion Christians to pray for a single amputee. Get them to pray that God regrow that missing limb. This happens to salamanders every day, presumably without prayer; this is within the capacity of God. [Warren is laughing.] I find it interesting that people of faith only tend to pray for conditions that are self-limiting.

WARREN: That's a misstatement there.

HARRIS: Let's go back to the Bible. The reason you believe that Jesus is the son of God is because you believe that the Gospel is a valid account of the miracles of Jesus.

WARREN: It's one of the reasons.

HARRIS: Yeah. It's one of the reasons. Now, there are many testimonials about miracles, every bit as amazing as the miracles of Jesus, in other literature of the world's religions. Even contemporary miracles. There are millions of people who believe that Sathya Sai Baba, the south Indian guru, was born of a virgin, has raised the dead and materializes objects. I mean, you can watch some of his miracles on YouTube. Prepare to be underwhelmed. He's a stage magician. As a Christian, you can say Sathya Sai Baba's miracle stories are not interesting, let's not pay attention to them, but if you set them within the prescientific religious milieu of the first-century Roman Empire, suddenly miracle stories become especially compelling.

Sam, what are the secular sources of an acceptable moral code?

HARRIS: Well, I don't think that the religious books are the source. We go to the Bible and we are the judge of what is good. We see the golden rule as the great distillation of ethical impulses, but the golden rule is not unique to the Bible or to Jesus; you see it in many, many cultures—and you see some form of it among nonhuman primates. I'm not at all a moral relativist. I think it's quite common among religious people to believe that atheism entails moral relativism. I think there is an absolute right and wrong. I think honor killing, for example, is unambiguously wrong—you can use the word evil. A society that kills women and girls for sexual indiscretion, even the indiscretion of being raped, is a society that has killed compassion, that has failed to teach men to value women and has eradicated empathy. Empathy and compassion are our most basic moral impulses, and we can even teach the golden rule without lying to ourselves or our children about the origin of certain books or the virgin birth of certain people.

Rick, Christianity has conducted itself in an abjectly evil manner from time to time. How do you square that with the Christian Gospel of love?

WARREN: I don't feel duty-bound to defend stuff that's done in the name of God which I don't think God approved or advocated. Have things been done wrong in the name of Christianity? Yes. Sam makes the statement in his book that religion is bad for the world, but far more people have been killed through atheists than through all the religious wars put together. Thousands died in the Inquisition; millions died under Mao, and under Stalin and Pol Pot. There is a home for atheists in the world today—it's called North Korea. I don't know any atheists who want to go there. I'd much rather live under Tony Blair, or even George Bush. The bottom line is that atheists, who accuse Christians of being intolerant, are as intolerant—

HARRIS: How am I being intolerant? I'm not advocating that we lock people up for their religious beliefs. You can get locked up in Western Europe for denying the Holocaust. I think that's a terrible way of addressing the problem. This really is one of the great canards of religious discourse, the idea that the greatest crimes of the 20th century were perpetrated because of atheism. The core problem for me is divisive dogmatism. There are many kinds of dogmatism. There's nationalism, there's tribalism, there's racism, there's chauvinism. And there's religion. Religion is the only sphere of discourse where dogma is actually a good word, where it is considered ennobling to believe something strongly based on faith.

WARREN: You don't feel atheists are dogmatic?

HARRIS: No, I don't.

WARREN: I'm sorry, I disagree with you. You're quite dogmatic.

HARRIS: OK, well, I'm happy to have you point out my dogmas, but first let me deal with Stalin. The killing fields and the gulag were not the product of people being too reluctant to believe things on insufficient evidence. They were not the product of people requiring too much evidence and too much argument in favor of their beliefs. We have people flying planes in our buildings because they have theological grievances against the West. I'm noticing Christians doing terrible things explicitly for religious reasons—for instance, not fund-ing [embryonic] stem-cell research. The motive is always paramount for me. No society in human history has ever suffered because it has become too reasonable. WARREN: We're in exact agreement on that. I just happen to believe that Christianity saved reason. We would not have the Bill of Rights without Christianity.

HARRIS: That's certainly a disputable claim. The idea that somehow we are getting our morality out of the Judeo-Christian tradition is bad history and bad science.

WARREN: Where do you get your morality? If there is no God, if I am simply complicated ooze, then the truth is, your life doesn't matter, my life doesn't matter.

HARRIS: That is a total caricature of—

WARREN: No, let me finish. I let you caricature Christianity. If life is just random chance, then nothing really does matter and there is no morality—it's survival of the fittest. If survival of the fittest means me killing you to survive, so be it. For years, atheists have said there is no God, but they want to live like God exists. They want to live like their lives have meaning. HARRIS: Our morality, the meaning we find in life, is a lived experience that I believe has, to use a loaded term, a spiritual component. I believe it is possible to radically transform our experience of the world for the better, very much the way someone like Jesus, or someone like Buddha, witnessed. There is wisdom in our spiritual, contemplative literature, and I am quite interested in understanding it. I think that medita-tion and prayer affect us for the better. The question is, what is reasonable to believe on the basis of those transformations?

WARREN: You will not admit that it is your experience that makes you an atheist, not rationality.

HARRIS: What in your experience is making you someone who is not a Muslim? I presume that you are not losing sleep every night wondering whether to convert to Islam. And if you're not, it is because when the Muslims say, "We have a book that's the perfect word of the creator of the universe, it's the Qur'an, it was dictated to Muhammad in his cave by the archangel Gabriel," you see a variety of claims there that aren't backed up by sufficient evidence. If the evidence were sufficient, you would be compelled to be Muslim.

WARREN: That's exactly right.

HARRIS: So you and I both stand in a relationship of atheism to Islam.

WARREN: We both stand in a relationship of faith. You have faith that there is no God. In 1974, I spent the better part of a year living in Japan, and I studied all the world religions. All of the religions basically point toward truth. Buddha made this famous statement at the end of his life: "I'm still searching for the truth." Muhammad said, "I am a prophet of the truth." The Veda says, "Truth is elusive, it's like a butterfly, you've got to search for it." Then Jesus Christ comes along and says, "I am the truth." All of a sudden, that forces a decision.

HARRIS: Many, many other prophets and gurus have said that.

WARREN: Here's the difference. Jesus says, "I am the only way to God. I am the way to the Father." He is either lying or he's not.

Sam, is Rick intellectually dishonest?

HARRIS: I wouldn't put it in such an invidious way, but—

Let's say Rick's not here and we're just hanging out in his office.

HARRIS: It is intellectually dishonest, frankly, to say that you are sure that Jesus was born of a virgin.

WARREN: I say I accept that by faith. And I think it's intellectually dishonest for you to say you have proof that it didn't happen. Here's the difference between you and me. I am open to the possibility that I am wrong in certain areas, and you are not.

HARRIS: Oh, I am absolutely open to that.

WARREN: So you are open to the possibility that you might be wrong about Jesus?

HARRIS: And Zeus. Absolutely.

WARREN: And what are you doing to study that?

HARRIS: I consider it such a low-probability event that I—

WARREN: A low probability? When there are 96 percent believers in the world? So is everybody else an idiot?

HARRIS: It is quite possible for most people to be wrong—as are most Americans who think that evolution didn't occur.

WARREN: That's an arrogant statement.

HARRIS: It's an honest statement.

Rick, if you had been born in India or in Iran, would you have different religious beliefs?

WARREN: There's no doubt where you're born influences your initial beliefs. Regardless of where you were born, there are some things you can know about God, even without the Bible. For instance, I look at the world and I say, "God likes variety." I say, "God likes beauty." I say, "God likes order," and the more we understand ecology, the more we understand how sensitive that order is.

HARRIS: Then God also likes smallpox and tuberculosis.

WARREN: I would attribute a lot of the sins in the world to myself.

HARRIS: Are you responsible for smallpox?

WARREN: I am responsible to do something about it. No doubt about it. I am responsible to do something about the 500 million who get malaria every year and the 40 million who have AIDS, because I will be held accountable for my life. And when I say, "God, why don't you do something about this?" God says, "Well, why don't you? You were the answer to your own prayer."

HARRIS: I totally agree with Rick: it is our responsibility to help bridge these inequities, but I think you become even more motivated, potentially, to help people when you realize there is no good reason, certainly not a supernatural good reason, for the fact that I have so much and my neighbor has so little.

Do you think that religiously motivated good works are actually harmful?

HARRIS: The thing that bothers me about faith-based altruism is that it is contaminated with religious ideas that have nothing to do with the relief of human suffering. So you have a Christian minister in Africa who's doing really good work, helping those who are hungry, healing the sick. And yet, as part of his job description, he feels he needs to preach the divinity of Jesus in communities where literally millions of people have been killed because of interreligious conflict between Christians and Muslims. It seems to me that that added piece causes unnecessary suffering. I would much rather have someone over there who simply wanted to feed the hungry and heal the sick.

WARREN: You'd much rather have somebody—an atheist—feeding the hungry than a person who believes in God? All of the great movements forward in Western civilization were by believers. It was pastors who led the abolition of slavery. It was pastors who led the woman's right to vote. It was pastors who led the civil-rights movement. Not atheists.

HARRIS: You bring up slavery—I think it's quite ironic. Slavery, on balance, is supported by the Bible, not condemned by it. It's supported with exquisite precision in the Old Testament, as you know, and Paul in First Timothy and Ephesians and Colossians supports it, and Peter—

WARREN: No, he doesn't. He allows it. He doesn't support it.

HARRIS: OK, he allows it. I would argue that we got rid of slavery not because we read the Bible more closely. We got rid of slavery despite the profound inadequacies of the Bible. We got rid of slavery because we realized it was manifestly evil to treat human beings as farm equipment. As it is.

Rick, what is your role as a pastor in encouraging reformation of other faiths?

WARREN: All of the great questions of the 21st century will be religious questions. Will Islam modernize peacefully? What's going to happen to the influx of Muslims into secular Europe, which has lost its faith in Christianity and has nothing to counteract this loss in religious terms? What will replace Marxism in China? In all likelihood it's going to be Christianity. Will America return to its historic roots—will there be a Third Great Awakening, or will America go the way of Europe?

HARRIS: I think the answers, in spiritual and ethical terms, are going to be nondenominational. We are suffering the collision of denominations, specifically the collision with Islam. Whatever is true about us isn't Christian. And it isn't Muslim. Physics isn't Christian, though it was invented by Christians. Algebra isn't Muslim, even though it was invented by Muslims. Whenever we get at the truth, we transcend culture, we transcend our upbringing. The discourse of science is a good example of where we should hold out hope for transcending our tribalism.

WARREN: Why isn't atheism more appealing if it's supposedly the most intellectually honest?

HARRIS: Frankly, it has a terrible PR campaign.

WARREN: [Laughs] It's not a matter of PR.

HARRIS: It is right next to child molester as something you don't want to be. But that is a product, I would argue, of what religious people tell one another about atheism.

Sam, the one thing that I find really troubling in your arguments is that I am guilty, to quote "The End of Faith," of a "ludicrous obscenity" when I take my children to church. That is strong language, and it doesn't exactly encourage dialogue.

HARRIS: To some degree the stridence of my writing is an effort to get people's attention. But I can honestly defend the stridence because I think our situation is that urgent. I am terrified of what seems to me to be a bottleneck that civilization is passing through. On the one hand we have 21st-century disruptive technology proliferating, and on the other we have first-century superstition. A civilization is going to either pass through this bottleneck more or less intact or it won't. And perhaps that fear sounds grandiose, but civilizations end. On any number of occasions, some generation has witnessed the ruination of everything they and their ancestors had built. What especially terrifies me about religious thinking is the expectation on the part of many that civilization is bound to end based on prophecy and its ending is going to be glorious.

WARREN: I believe that history split into A.D. and B.C. because of the Resurrection. And the Resurrection is not only the resurrection of Jesus Christ, it is the hope of the world: it says there's more to this life than just here and now. That doesn't mean that I do less, it means that this life is a test, it's a trust and it's a temporary assignment. If death is the end, shoot, I'm not going to waste another minute being altruistic.

HARRIS: How do you account for my altruism?

WARREN: You have common grace. Even in people who don't believe in God, there is a spark God has put in you that says, "There's got to be more to life than just make money and die." I think that that spark does not come from evolution.

Sam wrote that without death, the influence of faith-based religion would be unthinkable.

WARREN: Because we were made in God's image, we were made to last forever. That means I'm going to spend more time on that side of eternity than on this side. If I did not believe that there is a Judgment, if I believed Hitler would actually get away with everything he did, that would be a reason for great despair. The fact is, I do believe there will be a Judgment Day. God is not just a God of love. He is a God of justice. So death is a factor. On the other hand, even if there were no such thing as heaven, I would put my trust in Christ because I have found it a meaningful, satisfactory, significant way to live.

HARRIS: How is it fair for God to have designed a world which gives such ambiguous testimony to his existence? How is it fair to have created a system where belief is the crucial piece, rather than being a good person? How is it fair to have created a world in which by mere accident of birth, someone who grew up Muslim can be confounded by the wrong religion? I don't see how the future of humanity is in good care with those competing orthodoxies.

Rick, let's be blunt. Is Sam's soul in jeopardy, in your view, because he has rejected Jesus?

WARREN: The politically incorrect answer is yes.

HARRIS: Is that the honest answer?

WARREN: The truth is, religion is mutually exclusive. The person who says, "Oh, I just believe them all," is an idiot because the religions flat-out contradict each other. You cannot believe in reincarnation and heaven at the same time.

Sam, let's be blunt as well. Has Rick, in your view, wasted much of his life on behalf of a Gospel that you think is a first-century superstition?

HARRIS: I wouldn't put it in those stark terms, because I don't have a rigid view how someone should spend their life so as not to waste it.

WARREN: What's your politically incorrect answer?

HARRIS: I think you could use your time and attention better than organizing your life around a belief that the Bible is the inerrant word of God and the best book we're ever going to have on every relevant subject.

How would the ideal world work, in the Sam Harris view?

HARRIS: Right now, we have to change the rules to talk about God and spiritual experience and ethics. And I'm denying that that is so. You can have your spirituality. You can go into a cave and practice meditation and transform yourself, and then we can talk about why that happened and how it could be replicated. We may even want, for perfectly rational reasons, to say we want a Sabbath in this country, a genuine Sabbath. Let's realize that there's a power in contemplating the mystery of the universe, and in reminding yourself how much you love the people closest to you, and how much more you could love the people you haven't met yet. There is nothing you have to believe on insufficient evidence in order to talk about that possibility.

WARREN: Sam, do you believe human beings have a spirit?

HARRIS: There are many reasons not to believe in a naive conception of a soul that kind of floats off the brain at death and goes somewhere else. But I do not know.

WARREN: Can you have spirituality without a spirit?

HARRIS: You can feel yourself to be one with the universe.

WARREN: OK, then why can't you just take the next step? Because right now you're talking in extremely nonrational terms.

HARRIS: There's nothing irrational about it. You can close your eyes in meditation and lose the sense of your physical body, totally. Many people draw from that the metaphysical conclusion that "I'm just spirit, and I can transcend the body." That's not the only conclusion you have to draw from that experience, and I don't think it's the best conclusion.

WARREN: You're more spiritual than you think. You just don't want a boss. You don't want a God who tells you what to do.

HARRIS: I don't want to pretend to be certain about anything I'm not certain about.

Rick, last thoughts?

WARREN: I believe in both faith and reason. The more we learn about God, the more we understand how magnificent this universe is. There is no contradiction to it. When I look at history, I would disagree with Sam: Christianity has done far more good than bad. Altruism comes out of knowing there is more than this life, that there is a sovereign God, that I am not God. We're both betting. He's betting his life that he's right. I'm betting my life that Jesus was not a liar. When we die, if he's right, I've lost nothing. If I'm right, he's lost everything. I'm not willing to make that gamble.

Comments 1 - 50 of 137 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #29054 by AbortGod on April 1, 2007 at 12:28 pm

Warren ends this polemic with Pascal's wager!?!?!

"We're both betting. He's betting his life that he's right. I'm betting my life that Jesus was not a liar. When we die, if he's right, I've lost nothing. If I'm right, he's lost everything. I'm not willing to make that gamble."

We need to do a lot more "PR" because if this is the best they can do, we have a fighting chance.

C-

Other Comments by AbortGod

2. Comment #29055 by eggplantbren on April 1, 2007 at 12:33 pm

 avatarRick Warren is *huge* in the evangelical Christian world. Pretty much all of them have read "A Purpose Driven Life". If this article can get a few of them to have heard of Sam Harris, it's a good thing.

Other Comments by eggplantbren

3. Comment #29056 by devilsplaything on April 1, 2007 at 12:36 pm

The only reason I hesitate to argue with religious people: they're the only people to whom "because I said so" is a valid argument.

Other Comments by devilsplaything

4. Comment #29061 by Yorker on April 1, 2007 at 1:03 pm

I've said it before and although tiresome, I'll say it again. The irrationality of "debate" with a committed religite is a waste of time. How can debate take place between two parties, one of whom flatly refuses to admit the slightest possibility of being wrong? I'm fed up with hearing the weak response that "well, something useful may come from it".

Bollocks! Nothing useful ever comes out of such exchanges, religites spout the same tired old shit over and over and some of us atheists are still not bored by by it. Why are they doing this? Money from the media possibly?

Other Comments by Yorker

5. Comment #29062 by JJoe on April 1, 2007 at 1:04 pm

You guys should really read the whole exchange.

Oh man, the referee should've stepped in and called that fight after the first 3 questions. Warren had nothing but his fuzzy headed faith to offer. Sam wiped, and I mean wiped, the floor with him.

I'll give this to Warren though, he didn't beat around the bush and equivocate as badly as Andrew Sullivan did. At least he stood there and took his beating like a man. Even if he didn't (couldn't?) recognize how badly he came off.

Other Comments by JJoe

6. Comment #29063 by yeahok on April 1, 2007 at 1:04 pm

HARRIS: Then God also likes smallpox and tuberculosis.

WARREN: I would attribute a lot of the sins in the world to myself.

HARRIS: Are you responsible for smallpox?

LOL

Other Comments by yeahok

7. Comment #29066 by Zaphod on April 1, 2007 at 1:17 pm

 avatarRick Warren is an idiot. He doesn't believe in evolution. He thinks he has a responsibility to get rid of small pox "which has been eradicated" and he used Pascal's Wager at the end.

"I'm betting my life that Jesus was not a liar. When we die, if he's right, I've lost nothing. If I'm right, he's lost everything. I'm not willing to make that gamble"

What a douche.

Other Comments by Zaphod

8. Comment #29067 by DavidJGrossman on April 1, 2007 at 1:19 pm

 avatar"WARREN: ... If death is the end, shoot, I'm not going to waste another minute being altruistic."

A person who is only good because of fear of punishment or in favor of reward is not a good person. Someone who is good because they feel it in there heart is far superior, morally, than some religious nutjob who only is good because of their religious aspirations and fears

- Dave

Other Comments by DavidJGrossman

9. Comment #29068 by Druid on April 1, 2007 at 1:25 pm

 avatar"When we die, if he's right, I've lost nothing. If I'm right, he's lost everything. I'm not willing to make that gamble."

Assume that a personal god exists, would he really be satistfied with a faith nourished by such a terribly self-seeking and political reason? It is a completely useless and non-intellectual approach.

And about prayers, he is just deluding himself, his own mind.

Other Comments by Druid

10. Comment #29069 by Canuck#1 on April 1, 2007 at 1:33 pm

 avatarI so agree with Yorker - it's apples and oranges and a lucid and rational debate is impossible...a complete waste of time. Faith and rationality are incompatable.... and the fact is the bet is still worth taking on the side of rationality. You will not waste hours and days listening to sermons berating you to have more trust, to change your life, to....... It never ends. I've been there.

Other Comments by Canuck#1

11. Comment #29073 by Planeswalker on April 1, 2007 at 1:55 pm

Rick is using a lot of good ol' religious arguments:

The argument for the complex beauty of the world
The argument for answered prayer
The argument for the evilness of atheism (Stalin, Mao...)
The argument for morality without god
The argument for atheism as a faith
The argument for democracy (96% believers)
The argument for Pascal's Wager

...and many others... None of them really impresses me.

Other Comments by Planeswalker

12. Comment #29075 by roach on April 1, 2007 at 2:10 pm

I disagree that these debates are a waste of time. Of course it's fair to say that Sam Harris (or Richard Dawkins, or Atkins, or whoever)will probably never convert the fundamentalist or the moderate he is debating. But I think these debates (just like the books) address a broad spectrum of people who can and do change their minds as a result. Why do I think this? Well I it would be fair to say that I was a secular liberal apologist for a good long while before I read The God Delusion and The End of Faith. It was political correctness run amok. I simply didn't want to offend anyone. After reading some books and listening to Sam Harris speak, I stopped apologizing for religious belief. I think the debates can start a snowball effect. For example, an open-minded moderate hears/reads a debate between an atheist and a believer, the debate piques his/her interest, he/she goes out and reads The God Delusion or The End of Faith or some other book, she changes her mind about religious faith.

Perhaps that's overly optimistic. But it's not the only possible outcome. Even if the hypothetical moderate is unconvinced by the books, perhaps she will be interested to read other books/articles about evolution/cosmology/neurology. So yeah, I don't think the debates are a waste of time.

Other Comments by roach

13. Comment #29076 by Ole on April 1, 2007 at 2:12 pm

 avatarWarren said: "When we die, if he's right, I've lost nothing. If I'm right, he's lost everything. I'm not willing to make that gamble."

What part of the brain is Warren using when he is predicting the future (after his death)? The frontal lobe.

Let me quote something Daniel Gilbert said:
We are the only animals that can peer deeply into our futures — the only animal that can travel mentally through time, preview a variety of futures, and choose the one that will bring us the greatest pleasure and/or the least pain. This is a remarkable adaptation—which, incidentally, is directly tied to the evolution of the frontal lobe

Ole

Other Comments by Ole

14. Comment #29077 by ksskidude on April 1, 2007 at 2:14 pm

 avatarWarren is a fool, and lost me as soon as he said he didn't believe in evolution. Harris as always continues to impress with his restraint. Hopefully a few of the Chrsitains will read this debate. Getting them to understand it, well that's another thing all together.

Other Comments by ksskidude

15. Comment #29079 by NJS on April 1, 2007 at 2:23 pm

"A person who is only good because of fear of punishment or in favor of reward is not a good person. Someone who is good because they feel it in there heart is far superior, morally, than some religious nutjob who only is good because of their religious aspirations and fears"

Ive been using that argument for the past couple of years since I really got "involved" with this debate. I think its an argument which should be shouted from the rooftops by Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris et al everytime the same point is raised.

Other Comments by NJS

16. Comment #29081 by Seti on April 1, 2007 at 2:31 pm

 avatar"You could prove to the satisfaction of every scientist that intercessory prayer works if you set up a simple experiment. Get a billion Christians to pray for a single amputee. Get them to pray that God regrow that missing limb. This happens to salamanders every day, presumably without prayer; this is within the capacity of God. [Warren is laughing.] I find it interesting that people of faith only tend to pray for conditions that are self-limiting."


When I was a kid I used to pray for a bike. Then I realised God doesn't work like that. So I stole a bike, and prayed for forgiveness. (Not my joke - don't know whose it is!)

Other Comments by Seti

17. Comment #29084 by AbortGod on April 1, 2007 at 3:04 pm

Seti,

"When I was a kid I used to pray for a bike. Then I realised God doesn't work like that. So I stole a bike, and prayed for forgiveness."

(Not my joke - don't know whose it is!)

It's an Emo Phillip's joke.

C.

Other Comments by AbortGod

18. Comment #29085 by NormanDoering on April 1, 2007 at 3:06 pm

Did Rick Warren control the editing on that or did Harris just leave his best arguments behind?

http://normdoering.blogspot.com

Other Comments by NormanDoering

19. Comment #29088 by StephenH on April 1, 2007 at 3:14 pm

 avatarStruggling with the audio link

All i get is "hi, i'm standing in an elevator being filled with snakes... and i'm updating a word document"

Hopefully, he won't be let out anytime soon

Other Comments by StephenH

20. Comment #29089 by Quine on April 1, 2007 at 3:20 pm

 avatarI believe the value of these debates should not be judged on some kind of win/loose basis. The value is that the arguments against religion are being made in a forum that is accessible to the population in general. When possible, the religions use their substantial political power to keep people from hearing any dissent. Part of the reason so few people admit to pollsters that they do not believe is that they do not know where the line is. People often say they do not believe in the conventional personal deity, but do not consider themselves to be atheists.

As time goes on, and Sam does more of these, I am looking forward to more and more sticky questions. I would have liked to ask Warren, "when Jesus was preaching, why didn't he say 'Blessed are those who absent themselves from rats, for the fleas of rats may carry plague.'" Just think of how much death and suffering of the innocent would have been avoided in future generations by these simple words. Or how about, "Energy is mass times the speed of light, times again, the speed of light, but thee shall make no weapon of this." Were these words written in scripture, although it may have taken a while, there would be no religious doubt today.

Warren talks about the arrogance of Sam's position on evolution. I would like him to put himself in the position of someone who goes before a great religious council stating that he has found that the sun does not go around the earth, as described in their scripture, but rather the earth both spins and goes around the sun. In this situation, Warren would be told he is arrogant. How could he deny what is written, and anyone can see happen every morning? Had he gone up into the heavens and seen it himself? What about all the art and poetry about the sunrise and sunset? Isn't it worth believing so we can have such creativity? Does he really want to live in a world where the living god Amun-Ra does not exist? I suspect Warren would consider himself just the way Sam considers himself, not arrogant, just wondering if it really is worth his time to talk to these closed minds (ie idiots).

Other Comments by Quine

21. Comment #29090 by Stephen J. on April 1, 2007 at 3:21 pm

A fair enough job by Sam Harris. I think a dispassionate reader would have no question as to who came out on top. The one criticism I have, which I have mentioned previously in this forum, is the response to the question about morality. Some remarks that Harris makes ("the golden rule is not unique to the Bible or to Jesus; you see it in many, many cultures—and you see some form of it among nonhuman primates" and "Empathy and compassion are our most basic moral impulses") seem inconsistent with his stated belief in an abosolute moral code. As I have argued previously, these moral intutions are shaped by biological forces, and thus are inappropriate as statements of what ought to be. I understand the need for a quick answer to this question in a debate, and I also understand that the argument against morality may lie forever beyond the comprehension of some people, but still I feel that here Harris and other atheists commit themselves to a gross untruth.

Other Comments by Stephen J.

22. Comment #29093 by Donald on April 1, 2007 at 3:42 pm

HARRIS: Any scientist must concede that we don't fully understand the universe. But neither the Bible nor the Qur'an represents our best understanding of the universe. That is exquisitely clear.
WARREN: To you.

I think this illustrates a common problem with atheists debating religites. The atheist may well have a much more detailed and knowledgeable view than the religite, but the religite merely dismisses the extensive scientific knowledge.
(Typically, the religite combines this dismissal with weight of numbers: Billions of people can't be wrong. Actually they are. Are you calling billions of people stupid? - you're arrogant!)

I'm slightly troubled by something here though. Theologians have constructed elaborate "knowledge" structures and literature about religious belief. I've read some of it and conclude it's junk and not worth reading. But how do I objectively justify my dismissal of theology, while objectively condemning the religite's dismissal of science.

Ah, simply writing the question, has prompted me to realise an answer - science makes predictions, and they can be tested and result in useful technology, whereas theology is only rhetoric. So, when I read theology and find no predictions, nothing to test, no new facts, only dubious interpretations, after a while I judge the subject to be worthless. In contrast, in science I find discovery after discovery, verification by testing, new technologies resulting from it, and so I judge it worthwhile to read and continue reading.

Other Comments by Donald

23. Comment #29094 by MIND_REBEL on April 1, 2007 at 3:43 pm

 avatarHarris owned him. Total intellectual domination. Only someone with no understanding of evolution or science could think Warren didn't get destroyed.

Other Comments by MIND_REBEL

24. Comment #29096 by Veronique on April 1, 2007 at 3:47 pm

 avatarI am so tired of being told that because I am an atheist, my life has no meaning.

I also agree with Yorker that these 'debates' are a waste of everyone's time. Having said that, I suppose the debate with Hitchens, Dawkins and Grayling against the three religites did have some seachange factor. The audience response jumped from 44% in favour of the world being better without religion (before the debate) to 57% (after the debate).

There is no way a proper debate can be held between religious, dogmatic faith and rationality. The two stances are light years apart.

I take my hat off to the rationalists who attempt over and over again to intellectually engage religites. They do it with calm reason despite having to reiterate intellectual honesty with dreary repetition.

Why don't they get sick of it? I feel that a new dark age is on the horizon. Maybe they want to help stem the tide as much as they can. I wouldn't have the patience or the calm to take it on.

North Korea is supposed to be where we should all go! Warren is insulting in the extreme. Harris never is. What a divide!

V

Other Comments by Veronique

25. Comment #29097 by Fishpeddler on April 1, 2007 at 3:50 pm

 avatar"WARREN: Can you have spirituality without a spirit?"

This is the one area where I think SH regularly sounds a bit awkward. The problem is with the terms 'spiritual' and 'spirituality'. Non-religious people love these terms to express their sense of awe, wonder, beauty, and a diminished sense of self. Religious people, however, will invariably interpret these terms more strictly in terms of a human spirit or soul.

My impression is that SH doesn't really believe in a human spirit as something distinct from our biological selves (or maybe I'm just projecting my own beliefs onto him). I think he should abandon these problematic terms altogether, because whenever he uses them his Christian opposition treats it as a confession of a budding religiosity.

Other Comments by Fishpeddler

26. Comment #29102 by phiwilli on April 1, 2007 at 4:01 pm

Stephen J: ". . .these moral intutions are shaped by biological forces, and thus are inappropriate as statements of what ought to be."

What would you say about this revised version of your statement: "These ideas (of science, mathematics, morality, . . . whatever) has been shaped by biological forces, and thus are inappropriate as statements about what is true."

Seems to me that whether intuitions, ideas, etc. are shaped (influenced?) by biological forces is irrelevant to the issue of whether they are correct.

Other Comments by phiwilli

27. Comment #29104 by johntfiorito on April 1, 2007 at 4:08 pm

I agree that based upon the excerpts provided in newsweek that Harris owned Warren and that ending a debate on well...we'll see who was right when we die is the last ditch effort by a man desparate to prove his point...similar to William Lane Craig's comment on the resurection...well...if I can't prove it to you...it is the messenger and my inability to convince you with my words...it doesn't take away from the fact that I am right.,.....weak indeed.

I have one observation....if this conversation took place over 4 hours...they hardly published any of the transcript...the editing job on what to publish clearly indicates that Harris owned Warren...which I have no doubt that he did even if we had the full transcript to read...my only beef is that some people apologetic to Christianity might say that newsweek didn't publish all of Warren's rebuttles to Harris' comments and thus didn't give his view a fair shake....I don't think Warren has much to stand on that any of us here would agree with..but I guess I would have expected more than the simpleton, trite responses he is quoted above as using...though, if any of you read a Purpose Driven Life...that is the way he writes...maybe he speaks the same way...

He seems to be a smug man in this interview, perturbed that he's there defending what he knows is right to someone he has contempt for....

Other Comments by johntfiorito

28. Comment #29111 by Stephen J. on April 1, 2007 at 5:10 pm

"What would you say about this revised version of your statement: "These ideas (of science, mathematics, morality, . . . whatever) has been shaped by biological forces, and thus are inappropriate as statements about what is true.""

Since the analogy between epistemology and moral philosophy is rather tenuous, I don't think this really succeeds as a reductio ad absurdum. Nevertheless, you may be correct in objecting. I think a better way of putting my position is to say that our moral judgments are fundamentally based on evolved biological instincts, and since one cannot derive an "ought" from an "is", it would then be inappropriate to say that our moral judgments are valid. As I asked previously, is there any reason that pain is morally bad and pleasure is morally good? Why not the opposite? Why not say that orange is good and the smell of roses is bad? I doubt that there are rational answers to these questions. Instead, I would say that they are instinctive judgments and morality insofar as it relies on them is invalid.

Other Comments by Stephen J.

29. Comment #29112 by icouldbewrongbut on April 1, 2007 at 5:12 pm

Good point Stephen J.

It seems that notions of absolute morality derive from our arbitrary biological emotional wiring and are thus subjective rather than absolute. IE, Our urge to commit to fairness and our experience of empathy are only human subjective universals (which we may want to think of as de-facto absolute universals for purposes of how to live). I don't hear Harris or Dawkins explain morality this way enough when attacked about where morals come from without god. I'd like to hear them explain that we have intrinsic moral compasses that result from our biological wiring / genetics, and that possible actions seem good or evil to us because our emotional triggers are biologically wired that way, and that is the foundation of morality - because I think that concept doesn't occur to the masses of religionists nor do they come across it.

Another thing that I don't hear often enough in these debates is the following. Upon being charged as a closed-minded atheist (to the possiblity of being wrong and God existing), and the atheist saying indeed that he is open given sufficient evidence (frequently confounding the believer), I'd like to hear the atheist loudly respond, "Are you open to the possibility of God Not Existing"? turning the table to force the believer to acknowledge his close-mindedness. It seems effective when I've heard it used.

Other Comments by icouldbewrongbut

30. Comment #29113 by Stephen J. on April 1, 2007 at 5:27 pm

Another thing I've wondered about, though, is what would constitute sufficient evidence for an atheist to believe in God, since people like Dawkins tend to define God in such a way that it is less probable than any natural phenomenon. Consider the fine-tuning argument. It seems inconceivably improbable that the universe arose by chance--but surely God is even more improbable/complex. Now, all observable phenomena can be explained in naturalistic terms, if only with recourse to a brain in a vat scenario. So if you follow Hume's ideas on the testimony of miracles, you could never find, or even conceive of, a piece of empirical evidence that would convince an atheist to believe in God. (I suppose the opposite would hold for someone who believes all atheistic explanations to be less probable than all theistic explanations.) Thus you have to wonder if people are right when they call Dawkins a fundamentalist.

Other Comments by Stephen J.

31. Comment #29119 by quork on April 1, 2007 at 6:01 pm

Sam makes the statement in his book that religion is bad for the world, but far more people have been killed through atheists than through all the religious wars put together. Thousands died in the Inquisition; millions died under Mao, and under Stalin and Pol Pot.

Oh jeez, not again. Most of the man-made evil in the world was committed by baptised Mormons.
http://www.reuters.com/article/inDepthNews/idUSL0218416820070204

Other Comments by quork

32. Comment #29120 by quork on April 1, 2007 at 6:09 pm

WARREN: We both stand in a relationship of faith. You have faith that there is no God. In 1974, I spent the better part of a year living in Japan, and I studied all the world religions. All of the religions basically point toward truth. Buddha made this famous statement at the end of his life: "I'm still searching for the truth." Muhammad said, "I am a prophet of the truth." The Veda says, "Truth is elusive, it's like a butterfly, you've got to search for it." Then Jesus Christ comes along and says, "I am the truth." All of a sudden, that forces a decision.

Later on:

WARREN: The truth is, religion is mutually exclusive. The person who says, "Oh, I just believe them all," is an idiot because the religions flat-out contradict each other. You cannot believe in reincarnation and heaven at the same time.

Other Comments by quork

33. Comment #29121 by CDG on April 1, 2007 at 6:10 pm

Warren:"When we die, if he's right, I've lost nothing."

Warren fails to understand that his "loss" is happening right now - everyday- in his life. Choosing a life of delusion and wasting his precious short time here chasing fairytales is not only a loss- Its a tragedy in the shakesperean sense.

Oh the irony.

Other Comments by CDG

34. Comment #29122 by Stephen J. on April 1, 2007 at 6:16 pm

Not to mention that if any one of billions of people across space and time are right, or if there is some perverse god who punishes belief in the absence of evidence, or if any one of an infinite other possibile deities exists, then when he dies he's lost everything. So really the only way he comes out on top is if his particular brand of Christian god is actually the one that exists. I'm not willing to make that gamble.

Other Comments by Stephen J.

35. Comment #29123 by quork on April 1, 2007 at 6:20 pm

Juxtaposition:

WARREN: Sam makes all kinds of assertions based on his presuppositions. I'm willing to admit my presuppositions: there are clues to God. I talk to God every day. He talks to me.

...

HARRIS: It is quite possible for most people to be wrong—as are most Americans who think that evolution didn't occur.

WARREN: That's an arrogant statement.


Other Comments by quork

36. Comment #29125 by M31 on April 1, 2007 at 6:28 pm

 avatarIt's amusing that Warren ended with Pascal's wager. It could also be that there is an afterlife in which non-theists and skeptics are given eternal paradise while believers are punished forever - or any permutation thereof. Theists have no default advantage when it comes to an afterlife - it's the same gamble for everyone.

Other Comments by M31

37. Comment #29126 by Quine on April 1, 2007 at 6:30 pm

 avatarThere is a nice coverage of Pascal's Wager at:
http://www.iep.utm.edu/p/pasc-wag.htm

I like to point out to folks who use this argument that it leads to a religious arms race. The winner is the religion that can dream up the very best heaven, and the very worst hell. I choose to measure my truth by the veracity of evidence, and not by the scope of fiction.

Other Comments by Quine

38. Comment #29127 by Munger on April 1, 2007 at 6:48 pm

Ending the debate on Pascal's Wager shows how limited the faithful's argument is.

"If I'm wrong about Jesus, I lose nothing."

Uh, no. That's assuming that god (or gods) are either Jesus or non-existent. If you're wrong about the god you pick and there turns out to be another god in place, then you lose just as badly as the atheist. Maybe a little worse.

A lot of Christians relying on Pascal's Wager as a safety net are going to be really disappointed to find out Allah is not real happy with Christ worshipers.

Of course, it's always the same. Atheists are accused of being too "close-minded" when they realize that all possibilities are equal when you base them on faith and not evidence.

There's a Rowan Atkinson gag where he's giving the newly damned a tour of hell, and it has a great bit where he starts checking off sinners. At one point, he mentions the Christians.

"Oh, sorry about that. Turns out the Jews were right."

Pascal just lost.

Other Comments by Munger

39. Comment #29130 by jcole_15 on April 1, 2007 at 7:27 pm

"When we die, if he's right, I've lost nothing. If I'm right, he's lost everything. I'm not willing to make that gamble" That is the worst point a religious person can make. They are saying they are only religious because they are afraid of going to hell if there is one. If you are going to be religious be religious because you believe in jesus and his fictional book. Not because you are afraid.

Other Comments by jcole_15

40. Comment #29132 by NormanDoering on April 1, 2007 at 7:40 pm

MIND_REBEL wrote:
Only someone with no understanding of evolution or science could think Warren didn't get destroyed.

That would be about 80% of the American population who think Warren won.

http://normdoering.blogspot.com

Other Comments by NormanDoering

41. Comment #29133 by ICONIC FREEDOM on April 1, 2007 at 7:41 pm

 avatarI see the fingerprints of God everywhere

While I read and then listened to the exchange(for inflections), this initial statement stops the conversation in rationality and reason on the spot. This man has no proof other than his own subjective opinion of what he thinks god is, he has no evidence to fact to produce any rational argument.

Stenger said, "Absence of evidence is evidence of absence".

A little boy wanted a bike and asked his mother, she told him to pray and ask god. He went into his room, sat down and started writing to god. "Dear God, if I'm good for one week…" realizing that this was an impossible task at 8 years old, he begins again. "Dear God, if I'm good for 24 hours". Again the task is too improbable.

He gets up and goes to the garden where he sees the statue of the Virgin Mary in his home's fountain. He grabs it, wraps it in a blanket, runs to his room and throws it in the back of the closet.

"Dear God, if you ever want to see your mother again…."

Other Comments by ICONIC FREEDOM

42. Comment #29135 by DavidMarsh on April 1, 2007 at 8:04 pm

 avatar"If there is no God, if I am simply complicated ooze, then the truth is, your life doesn't matter, my life doesn't matter."

Why can't they (religious people) accept that we have it within us to make our own lives meaningful and not rely on the big sky fairy to give it meaning?

"Well, I do believe in the goodness of God, and I do believe that he knows better than I do. God sometimes says yes, God sometimes says no and God sometimes says wait."

What a cop-out: God works in mysterious ways that we can't possibly understand. You can justify anything with this logic. God has the can't-lose position.

"Jesus says, "I am the only way to God. I am the way to the Father." He is either lying or he's not." and "Then Jesus Christ comes along and says, "I am the truth."

I'll let Tyler Durden take this one: "Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken." Saying you are God does not make it so.

Maybe Jesus was wrong, maybe others lied on his behalf. Maybe Jesus didn't ever exist. The "I am the truth and the light" argument really annoys me, it's always quoted as truth by religious people like it's some sort of magic.

Other Comments by DavidMarsh

43. Comment #29136 by John P on April 1, 2007 at 8:22 pm

 avatarI'm not so convinced this was a waste of time. This is NEWSWEEK! Not some arcane, backwater rag. Millions of people either have a subscription, or will pick up a copy and read this while sitting in their doctor's, dentist's and accountant's waiting rooms. If only 1% are swayed in some way by Harris, or have the seeds of doubt planted in their brains to flower later, then it's not a waste of time.

When was the last time you saw a debate between an atheist and a theist in a national magazine, prior to this past year? Ever see it in back issues of Life, Look or the Saturday Evening Post? I didn't think so.

Other Comments by John P

44. Comment #29138 by DavidMarsh on April 1, 2007 at 8:35 pm

 avatarMunger said: "...Pascal just lost."

Here's a great south park video that relates to this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ImzFdHd70vU

Other Comments by DavidMarsh

45. Comment #29139 by M31 on April 1, 2007 at 8:49 pm

 avatarDavidMarsh: ""If there is no God, if I am simply complicated ooze, then the truth is, your life doesn't matter, my life doesn't matter."

Why can't they (religious people) accept that we have it within us to make our own lives meaningful and not rely on the big sky fairy to give it meaning?"

I agree very much with you here David. Furthermore, I wonder why some theists are so offended by nature and the world around them. Why is it "just" "complicated ooze"? - why not "Isn't it amazing that we are made of atoms?! The same thing the mountains and trees and fish and zebra and the sun and all the stars and planets in the galaxy are made of! We are fundamentally a part of nature!" Why is it so depressing that long long ago our ancestors were unicellular organisms struggling to make it on a vast and barren planet? Why do they have to assume that we are fundamentally separate from nature to have meaning in their lives?

Finally, I don't understand how making our lives subject to the whims of a deity gives them meaning. In particular, the notion that this life is rotten and that all that matters is that you believe a certain legend so that your soul goes to heaven seems to take away meaning from life rather than adding any meaning to it.

Other Comments by M31

46. Comment #29140 by TranshumanAtheist on April 1, 2007 at 9:10 pm

If life is just random chance, then nothing really does matter and there is no morality


Christians like Warren can't seem to make up their minds on the role of "chance" in the universe. On the one hand they object to the idea that we got here through "chance." Yet they depend on "chance" (Warren explicitly calls it a "gamble" in the last paragraph) that a god exists which can stuff them into heaven.

Other Comments by TranshumanAtheist

47. Comment #29141 by CDG on April 1, 2007 at 9:11 pm

"complicated ooze" then " your life doesn't matter"

This guy is a pea brain. Has anyone noticed how often in a debate religious people will assert that atheists are arrogant and egotistical for thinking they don't need God? How did you get here? Why don't you give God credit? He created you.

I always like to point out to them that they are the truly arrogant ones. To think that they are so important as to deserve an eternity in bliss. For what you f ing Homo Sapien? All you have done for 70 years is eat, sleep, shit, piss, drink and have sex. Get over yourself, your'e not that important.

Oh the irony again.

Other Comments by CDG

48. Comment #29146 by mmurray on April 1, 2007 at 9:48 pm

 avatar
Another thing I've wondered about, though, is what would constitute sufficient evidence for an atheist to believe in God,


I want the skies to open and this big guy with a beard to lean out and say `Stop arguing - I wrote the bible and it's all true'. That would do it for me but if I can't have that other things would worry me like discovering that christian prayer did influence future outcomes to a greater extent than no prayer. That wouldn't have to be evidence of god but it would need some explanation.

I thought that Warren in this debate redefined arrogance -- whatever happened to humility as a christian virtue.

Michael

Other Comments by mmurray

49. Comment #29147 by bruno_burned on April 1, 2007 at 10:02 pm

 avatar
Paul in First Timothy and Ephesians and Colossians supports it


I kinda wish Harris would not even open a bible in his debates. It gives the theist way too much respect. Debating theology with a pastor is like debating D&D with a geek - unless you're a geek also, you're best just making fun of him and his silly little dice.

BTW - No offense to the geeks. I played D&D when i was a kid too :)

Other Comments by bruno_burned

50. Comment #29148 by A_Hamilton7 on April 1, 2007 at 10:06 pm

 avatar@roach (comment #29075)
But I think these debates (just like the books) address a broad spectrum of people who can and do change their minds as a result... Perhaps that's overly optimistic.


I can tell you from personal experience that it is not overly optimistic, that is exactly how I recently became an atheist.

After being raised as Catholic, and after being somewhat uncomfortable with my religion, I only recently began to really think about it. After reading a debate between Sam Harris and a religious person, I began seeking out more information. I soon found videos of Professor Dawkins giving rational arguments for atheism, and I was convinced. I am nearly done with The God Delusion now, and it is refreshing to finally be on rational ground.

Other Comments by A_Hamilton7
Reload Comments | Back to Top

More Comments: 1 2 3 | Next | Last

Comment Entry: Please Login

Register a new account

Username:

Password: