1. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #26897 by sandipchitale on March 22, 2007 at 7:56 am

In one of Andrew's blog entry he says:

"Some readers have asked when I'm simply going to surrender to Sam. Well: in many ways I have surrendered. I'm fascinated by what reason can illuminate about faith - and have found Sam's arguments enriching to my own faith. But I can no more be reasoned out of faith than I was reasoned into it. I really have no choice in the matter. But I hope to understand it better and to see it in the truest light possible."

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/03/is_buddhism_the.html

If some one thinks they have "have no choice in the matter (of faith)" - can one even debate with them?

2. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #25504 by sandipchitale on March 13, 2007 at 9:52 pm

Andrew's response:

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/03/the_undiscovere.html

He ends with:
---
...
But what that really means is: we have learned how to be human through religion. And how can we not be human? And who would want not to be human? What you are asking for, as I have argued before, is salvation by reason. But even after you have been saved by reason, you will die, Sam. And what will save you then?
...

Say what?

3. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #22317 by sandipchitale on February 14, 2007 at 5:05 pm

Andrew has responded:

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/02/the_unclean_gla_1.html

4. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #22257 by sandipchitale on February 13, 2007 at 6:19 pm

I hope Sam points out to Andrew - if it does not walk like a duck, does not quack like a duck then it is not the duck.

5. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #22233 by sandipchitale on February 13, 2007 at 4:25 pm

From what I understand Einstien's position to be - naturalistic pantheism is what it was (in broad sense).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstien

In response to the telegrammed question of New York's Rabbi Herbert S. Goldstein in 1929: "Do you believe in God? Stop. Answer paid 50 words." Einstein replied in only 25 (German) words: "I believe in Spinoza's God, Who reveals Himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a God Who concerns Himself with the fate and the doings of mankind."

No?

6. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #22218 by sandipchitale on February 13, 2007 at 2:58 pm

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/02/faith_and_the_u.html

Do I hear Andrews position starting to approach that of so-called Einsteinian God?

7. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #21538 by sandipchitale on February 9, 2007 at 10:02 pm

Andrew has posted a bit on his blog:

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/02/truth_now.html

He says he will respond next week.

8. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #21445 by sandipchitale on February 9, 2007 at 7:56 am

I think this is almost unfair. IMHO, the theists have been getting away with fuzzy, faith(feeling) based arguments about god/spirituality/soul etc etc for too long, with almost no questioning and many times almost a kind of encouragment from each other and the people around them. And that is precisely the point of Sam's "End of Faith" book. According to Sam (and Richard as well), the time has come to apply the same logical/rational standards applied to any other debate, to the debates on god etc.

In my discussions with the theists I observe the following pattern:

(Sometimes) first they are incredulous that I am questioning some of their assertions. They say this has not been questioned by most of the much more intelligent (implying compared to the regular every day Atheist) people in the history. (As if that was a necessary and sufficient argument for it) They start making aggressive posturing about my questioning rather than my arguments on the basis of that. Second, they realize that the arguments from Atheists are logical/rational and they start becoming introspective. Then they calm down and start listening. Then a kind of sheepish mood sets in for their slack logical/rational reasoning. Then they get frustrated and evasive. When the anologies of lack of evidence for Thor, Fairies, Harry Potter, god's of other faiths (which they agree with) is give they say something like "That is not the same thing. The anology does not apply" and so on. At last they bail out by saying something along the lines of it-gives-me-hope, I-feel-good, without-god-why-will-people-be-good (not even realizing the full implication of that line of argument), do-you-want-to-take-that-away-from-people so on and so forth. In fact I (and I dare say many Atheists) am not against some of these arguments such as it-gives-me-hope, I-feel-good so long as the purpose of the god/spirituality/sole is precisely that as opposed to any claim to its "trueness".

If nothing else the theists should debate with atheists just to hoan their logical/rational debating skills.

9. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #20696 by sandipchitale on February 5, 2007 at 10:49 pm

NormanDoering wrote in comment# 20651

"He should be more than mildly interested. If you want to know why people believe in God then you must listen to people like Andrew Sullivan and you should learn. If you don't do that you won't get anywhere."

Yes, I agree, iff one is interested in finding how the neurological processes work that make people believe in God(s). (IMHO this kind of study will be an excellent research area for the field of neuroscience). That may simply explains how the mechanism of belief works. It does not have any bearing on the existence/non-existence of God in the objective sense. It may also not give us any clue as to how to make people not believe and IMHO that should not be our (Atheist's) goal.

My point is simple - if we as Atheists provide logical/rational reasoning for concluding that there is no need for existence of God, Thor, Zeus, Harry Potter and countless many fictional entities for that matter ... the battle is won to the extent it can be won. If some people still claim that they get feelings of belief and faith in their brain, we cannot insist they don't. For example when one sees an optical illusion, one even an Atheist does experience it...that does not mean the optical illusion is "true". An independent/objective explaination of it is sufficient to convince the person to understand that it was an illusion.

As an Atheist my goal is to convince Theists is that their very real experience of belief and faith is a powerful - God illusion - "The God Delusion" :) I think the rest will follow from there.

10. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #20627 by sandipchitale on February 5, 2007 at 8:00 am

Once again...Andrew keeps explaining how his feeling/emotion of the faith in god always existed and is very real to him...which I am sure Sam is not talking about. It may be that Sam may be mildly interested in and amused by it. Most likely, Sam will grant to Andrew, 100%, that Andrew's belief/faith (the sensation Andrew gets in his brain) is real. Sam is not trying to refute that. Sam is trying to refute the object of that belief/faith i.e. the god. I hope Sam clears that distinction. Otherwise they will keep going past each other for long time.

11. The Only One in Step

Comment #19457 by sandipchitale on January 27, 2007 at 10:15 am

29 November 2006

http://www.leeds.ac.uk/media/news/mcintosh.htm

There is hope :)

12. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #19449 by sandipchitale on January 27, 2007 at 9:17 am

Another observation about the debate:

I think Sam (and Atheists in general) is in some sense saying to Andrew (and his other fellow moderates) that it is almost their moral responsibility to oppose the fundamentalists and extremists (doing "bad" things) in the religion. Sam is calling moderates out for the lack action on part of many moderates who remain silent on the use of their shared beliefs and interpretations of those beliefs for extreme and "bad" actions by the fundamentalists and extremists. It is almost as if they should take offense at that and therefore oppose the extremists. And when they don't it is interpreted as a silent consent or even encouragement by the extremists. It may be that there is a continuum between moderation and extremism and moderates do not agree on where to draw the line beyond which it is imperative to oppose the extreme views. The extremists take advantage of that. Secondly the extremists are motivated and therefore have political and social organization and clout, and will to force the policies of the governments and norms of the societies in their direction. The moderates leverage this to get what (moderate things) they want.

One may ask why are religious moderates *more* responsible than say Atheists? Well it is because it the reputation and belief system of the moderates that is at stake. They have something to loose in this.

I am confident that many Atheists will oppose anyone who does extreme/"bad" (simplification) things on the basis of Atheism. And if they don't the same criticism applies.

13. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #19390 by sandipchitale on January 26, 2007 at 9:30 pm

Sorry to jump in Sancus and Dogbreath. Please see my comment 19366. You can substitute the word "belief" with "spiritual experience".

Basically my point is - if a person has a "spiritual exprerience" - the "spiritual exprerience" does happen (exists) in that person's brain. I think most (and even more so Atheists) will not disputes that subjective experience. However IMHO, from it, it does not follow that what the "spiritual experience" was about is true/exists. Human brains are fairly gullible. Or else how could we enjoy optical illusions or pradoxical mental puzzles.

In other words the deluded person is indeed deluded i.e. s/he is not faking that they are deluded. And hence the title of Richard's book "God Dilusion" :)

Even a normal person under influence of certain substances can experience things which they themselves will agree that it was delusion.

In a nutshell, as I understand it, Atheism is about refuting the objective truth about God, due to lack of evidence.

14. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #19366 by sandipchitale on January 26, 2007 at 2:34 pm

I always get a feeling that Theists cannot decern the difference between their "belief" and the thing they believe in i.e. the object of the "belief". The Theists insist that their "belief" actually is happening in their brain and they feel it in as real as any other sensory experience. They do not realize that Athiests are not arguing/refuting about (in this instance Sam) about the theist's (in this instance Andrew) very real (experience of) "belief" - instead the Athiets are trying to refute the truthfulness of the entity that Theists are saying they believe in. I think any Atheist (in this instance - Sam) should make that distinction clear. That way all the subjective aspects of the "belief" - such as - it makes me feel good, I feel my "belief" - etc can be removed from the debate.

I feel that Andrew is calling Sam intolerent of his beliefs BECAUSE (IMHO) he thinks Sam is attacking Andrew's "belief" itself.

15. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #19365 by sandipchitale on January 26, 2007 at 2:18 pm

MouthAlmighty - you are kidding right? If not this may be useful:

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/209/story_20904_3.html

16. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #18417 by sandipchitale on January 20, 2007 at 4:59 pm

Have folks seen this?

http://time.blogs.com/daily_dish/2007/01/the_idiocy_of_r.html

Andrew already says he is irritated.

17. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #18092 by sandipchitale on January 18, 2007 at 9:06 am

"since God is definitionally the Creator of such a universe" - Andrew Sullivan. WOW!

Has Andrew heard the quote(AFAIK) by Carl Sagan "Extraordinary claims require Extraordinary Proof"?

Does Andrew even realize/understand that he is simply asserting the most fundamental claim one can make and is really at the heart of debate between Sam and him. If that assertion is ever accepted by Sam then rest of the debate is moot and minor details.

I am glad Sam has just begun to call him out on that, even though I would like Sam to go straight to the heart of the matter and refute that claim.

18. Discussion of The God Delusion

Comment #18007 by sandipchitale on January 17, 2007 at 10:43 pm

Have folks noticed a pattern where the people on panels like this, first put words in Richard's mouth (so to speak) and then attack and refute those words that *they* put in Richard's mouth. Take for example - the lady talking about why does Richard not try to see the evolutionary explaination for religion? He does. Did she even read the book The God Delusion and read about Richard's take on evolutionary basis of religion.

Secondly, the gentelman talks about why does Richard not think about the legacy of the religion (great religeous art/music/literature). Did this gentelman know of Richard's argument about:

- what makes one feel good
- inspires to do great things

does not neccessarily make it True.

My problem is that these folks go uncountered in absence of powerful advocate of Richard's arguments (which I find most hosts of such programs are) and leaving as default winners of the arguments. Sad.

19. William Crawley, BBC Belfast, names Richard Dawkins as Person of the Year 2006

Comment #15608 by sandipchitale on January 1, 2007 at 3:04 pm

Congratulations Professor Richard Dawkins.