Sam Harris v. Dennis Prager
Here is a great internet moment. Sam Harris debates Dennis Prager on
the basic question- Is it rational to believe in god? Prager is forced
to write and voice his views, two things he is very well-known for
doing well. However, in this forum (e-mail debate) he isn't simply
writing an essay that allows no response. And, unlike the radio show,
he can't fade out to a commerical break or talk over the person he
disagrees with.
The result: I've never "seen" Prager so upset and frustrated. That's
what happens when someone shows how stupid your views are. You be the
judge.
I have agreed with some of Prager's points in other fora, so I thought
I'd try hard to read this objectively. I found Harris to come across
as razor-sharp and reasonable- easily a cut above Prager's
intelligence, which lost its patina of respectability without the
aforementioned crutches that he and the other radio flacks enjoy so
much.
In my view, Harris had the command of the facts and the arguments.
Prager was obtuse at times and cagey and immature at other times. He
was off his game and very nervous to have to put it all in black and
white. He tried to run to the refuge of Francis Collins, a brilliant
christian geneticist who happens to be a christian. But Collins' faith
had little to do with scientific inquiry, as Harris is quick to point
out in a scathing manner that nearly made me cringe with embarassment
for Prager and Collins both.
There were two misteps that Harris made, which is certainly
forgiveable, given the veritable field day he had with Prager.
However, as something of a debater myself, I can't help but be
frustrated that the following two points weren't forthcoming:
1. How does Prager justify not becoming christian in the face of the
superior intellect Collins' "realization" of the truth of
christianity? Prager is fond of touting "judeo-christian" values, as
the servant Jew of his christian owners at Salem Communications, a
nutty christian radio conglomerate. Well, let's see- Christianity is
Judeo-christian, but Judaism is only Jewish. Better to be christian
and have the best of both worlds, eh, Denny?
2. On the topic of how the world would fall apart without belief in
God, I am reminded of the common argument that atheists did terrible
things, such as Stalin and Hitler. However, virtually all of the Nazis
who killed and tortured and horded all the innocents in WWII most
likely considered themselves christian! Same for the Russians who
slaughtered 20million of thier fellow russians under Stalin.
Hat-tip: CarbonShidduch
posted by BTA at 2:35 AM
6 Comments:
Blogger Carbon Shidduchim said...
BTA,
No sense bringing up Hitler as an example of X/T-anity. he was
as much into Norse mythology and paganism [as any player of
Castle Wolfenstein can tell you]. Marx was the progenitor of
communism which begat Lenin and Stalin. I don't think Marx, Pol
Pot and Mao could be considered faithful servants of JC either,
so the balance of 20th century genocide was presided over by
non-practicing secularists, with at least a strong
athiest-bent.
Regarding Christianity vs. Judaism, ironically, I will say that
they [Christians] have a much stronger tradition of encouraging
scientific discourse, at least since Galileo. Various Popes
from Pious to Paul have endorsed the major scientific
breakthroughs from evolution to the Big Bang - arguably the two
thorniest issues for dogmatic followers of Orthodox Judaism.
Catholicism, at least, is the only religious organization to
fund an astronomical observatory
(http://clavius.as.arizona.edu/vo/R1024/VATT.html) as well as
numerous conferences on evolution and science. Can you imagine
the Agudath Israel Observatory?!
In fact, the 'father of the Big Bang' and the 'father of
genetics' were both a Catholic priests: George Lemaitre and
Gregor Mendel. We often hear, via email, about the
disproportionate number of Jewish Nobelists, but none in the
physical sciences are observant. I guess we also find out in
the same emails that luminaries like Geraldo Rivera and
Scarlett Johansenn are Jewish too...
We [Jews] owe a lot to the non-Jews. We recon our calendar
thanks to the goyim. We only "know" it's the year 5767 thanks
to the work of the Romans around the birth of JC which was only
reconciled by Hillel II 400 years after JC's birth.
Hmmm...that's *exactly* the time when Christianity was
legalized by Constantine. Coincidence?!?!
It seems that Christianity is less obsessed with literalist
dogma than OJ. So maybe, ironically modelling OJ on
Christianity, at least as far as harmonizing religion and
science, would be a step in the direction.
-Carbon Shidduchim
12/05/2006 10:17 PM
Blogger BTA said...
"No sense bringing up Hitler as an example of X/T-anity."
I didn't. My statement was trying to show that even if Hitler
or Stalin were themselves atheist, the majority of their
stormtroopers were christian. It's never been established that
WWII-era germans or russians had any greater representation of
atheists than at any other time.
This is the section I believe you were referring to, which
should hopefully be clarified now:
"However, virtually all of the Nazis who killed and tortured
and horded all the innocents in WWII most likely considered
themselves christian! Same for the Russians who slaughtered
20million of thier fellow russians under Stalin."
In other words, don't talk about Hilter and Stalin in a vacuum,
since they relied on the evil acts of their hitmen.
My point wasn't christianity vs. judaism, you have to read the
interview section where Prager talks up Collins. My point was
that, while Prager's deferring to Collins as the ultimate
arbiter of the "evidence" for God, why not defer to him in
christianity as well?
12/06/2006 1:23 AM
Blogger Carbon Shidduchim said...
"In other words, don't talk about Hilter and Stalin in a
vacuum, since they relied on the evil acts of their hitmen."
there's little evidence that Hitler's, and especially Stalin's,
henchmen were *practicing* christians either. the Church was/is
all but banned in most communist countries, even til today -
China is the perfect example.
Also, what about the genocide of Pol Pot, Mao, etc? There's
little semblence of christianity there. what matters was/is the
leadership...which in most communist countries is athiest, with
the exception of western hemisphere countries like Cuba which
-are- christian and also largely free from genocide.
at any rate, you don't need to look to modern, christian
examples of genocide perpetrated by the pious...just read the
torah.
it's clear that the majority of murderers/violent criminals in
america are 'christian', but by default since the vast majority
of the population considers themselves to be 'christian'. the
same way nazi germans considered themselves to be 'christian'.
but there's a distinction between this level of 'observance' of
the population and collins. this is why i brought up the
example of jewish nobelists. you wouldn't consider the majority
to be religious practitioners, even at the level of a Collins.
prager doesn't use collins to prove god ['arbiter of the
evidence...'], nor does -collins- seem to try to prove god,
only explicate his reasons for believing in the "trinity". it's
pretty clear he admits it's faith not proof. FYI: Prager claims
Dawkins refused to come on his show, likely b/c Dawkins refuses
to debate and therefore lend credibility to creationists as a
policy.
also my point, above, is that by not focusing on the old
testament dogma christians are free from defending against
attacks from science. all they need to fend off are attacks on
their own plot-lines! OJ shields itself from such topics by
considering Genesis from a literal, and thus sacrosanct,
standpoint not permissible to discuss.
-Carbon Shidduchim
12/06/2006 3:46 AM
Blogger BTA said...
CS- you're missing the point. Believers are fond of pointing
out that mass murdering politicians were atheist, and often
cite Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, etc. I suppose they are trying to
say that without belief in the ultimate authority of a god, you
are free to do any kind of cruel, amoral thing you wish.
My point about their henchmen being believers totally undercuts
that silly argument. It's that simple.
You and I could agree that it's irrelevant, because that's how
I feel. However, my argument is the perfect counterargument,
and there are several others: 1) Popes have either decreed mass
murder or looked the other way 2) religious muslims like
Hussein, the hezbolites, bin laden, do plenty of mass murder
while believing in god.
"Prager claims Dawkins refused to come on his show, likely b/c
Dawkins refuses to debate and therefore lend credibility to
creationists as a policy. "
Thas can't be true, since Dawkins debated Collins as the cover
story on Time magazine. To imply that Dawkins is shying away
from Prager is simply absurd. Prager tried the same line with
Harris (saying he'd be afraid to debate Collins) and was
destroyed by Harris.
"OJ shields itself from such topics by considering Genesis from
a literal, and thus sacrosanct, standpoint not permissible to
discuss."
Christian fundamentalists number in the 10s of millions in the
US alone. They are quite literalist, especially when it comes
to homosexuality and stickng the 10 commandments in every
courthouse possible.
12/06/2006 12:51 PM
Blogger DK said...
BTA,
I would argue that the Communist and Nazi architects, though
not the soldiers, were fundamentalists, just secular
fundamentlists, not religious fundamentalist.
Fundamentalism of any kind is dangerous. It is doubt that
encourages better behavior.
12/07/2006 3:24 PM
Blogger Pinky said...
I am on this site for the first time, but if you want real,
studied philosophical and theological (scientific) debate, you
have to look into Rabbi J. Emmanuel Shochet, not Dennis Prager.
12/15/2006 12:53 AM
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
No comments:
Post a Comment