--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "markmeredith2002" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "markmeredith2002" > > <markmeredith@> wrote: > > <snip> > > > I think everyone here has misread Harris's viewpoints, > > > which might be expected from this type of group. > > > > > Harris does not deny the existence of unbounded eternal > > > divinity or anything else in that realm, he just says > > > you can say with certainty that it exists, or say it is > > > "Truth" that it exists. > > > > I think you meant "cannot say with certainty," right? > > Yeah, sorry. > > > > Harris properly points out the dangers of believing in > > > these sort of absolute unprovable Truths without realizing > > > that they're actually just your own belief systems that > > > you own for whatever reasons, good or bad, but he's not > > > denying anyone the right to hold their belief system - > > > whereas religionists have a tendency to want to deny any > > > other belief system which does not conform to their Truth. > > > > The problem is that you get into an infinite > > regress here. Harris *is* denying religionists > > the right to believe that their beliefs are > > absolute Truth. That is the *foundation* of > > their belief systems. > > > > Sullivan, as far as I can see, is not trying to > > convince Harris that Christianity is Absolute Truth; > > he's trying to show Harris that Harris's reasons > > for asserting that Christianity *cannot* be > > Absolute Truth are not well grounded. > > > > As I said to Barry, the argument isn't symmetrical > > in this regard. > > OK, I see your argument, which only makes me support Harris's > concern about religion more. The typical reasoning of a > religionist is that they must not only be allowed to believe and > practice their beliefs but believe and practice their beliefs as > Absolute Truth. That tendency is what causes trouble.
Well, it *can*, but it doesn't necessarily, depending on the religionist. Harris doesn't seem to be able to make that distinction. If your belief is Absolute Truth > then anything that disagrees with it is absolute falsehood, > sin, the Devil, and so forth, which justifies lots of strife. Again, it *can*, but it doesn't have to, and often is not used that way. > I watch the documentary Jesus Camp last night, about summer camps > training kids to be good spiritual and political evangelicals. The > adults kept talking about being under fire and persecuted in the US > and the need to change the country to end this. I hear this alot from > evangelicals, that they feel persecuted in this country. I not only > don't see any persecution of them at all, I see them having undue > influence in all branches of gov't. What you realize as you watch > this film is that they feel persecuted because they can't force all > their beliefs into the public schools and laws of the land and make > everyone be good evangelicals. This is what happens when your beliefs > become Truths. > > Anyway Judy as you consider your response please be considerate of > these good Christian Truths that are dear to me: Look, I'm not advocating for Christianity or any other religion. I'm not a religionist, as I said earlier in the thread. But I'm not an anti- religionist either. And Sullivan isn't the kind of religionist who, like the evangelicals you describe, wants to impose his beliefs on everybody else. (Sullivan *can't* be a fundamentalist Christian because he's an openly practicing homosexual and an advocate for gay rights.) Yet Harris attacks him with the same fervor (and nastiness) that he attacks the fundamentalist religionists. As I recall, he thinks moderate religionists like Sullivan are at least as much of a threat as fundamentalists. In other words, his stand *against* religion is just as absolutist as that of the fundamentalists. There's a sort of built-in paradox to the stance that everyone should have a right to believe what they wish. If you're going to be absolutist on that score, you can't *exclude* those who are absolutist in their own beliefs, even if those beliefs mandate that they attempt to impose their beliefs on you. Bottom line, I think you have to allow them the right to make the attempt while fighting it tooth and nail--not the right, but the attempt. In this country, both the right and the fight are supported by the Constitution. Religious beliefs, to my mind, are inherently inarguable. And if that's the case, Harris is fighting a losing battle. As a moderate religionist, Sullivan wins by default. > > "Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not > a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in > silence." [1 Timothy 2:11-15] > > "Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted > unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as > also saith the law. And if they will learn anything, let them ask > their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the > church." [1 Corinthians14:34-36] >
