I thought it was.
Partly because it’s easy.
They promote Christianity in general, and faith as a virtue. Both are bad. I already told you that.
Liberal Christians, assuming they “promote” any sort of belief or faith, promote liberal Christian beliefs and faith in liberal Christian thinking. Why is that bad? Again, in particular.
Faith is foolish. Foolish is bad. Promoting faith promotes all kinds of Christianity, even the kind you think is bad. Liberal Christians are hypocritical, hypocrisy is bad…
I didn’t ask what you think is bad; you’ve told us that many times. I asked why.
And so you don’t misunderstand me again, I mean in a real-world sense, rather than as something that displeases and annoys you. I am displeased and annoyed by LOL cats; that doesn’t make it logical for me to decry LOL cats and all who promote or enjoy different kinds of cat pictures.
And in case you mean to just tell me again that my being Episcopalian somehow helps the religious right or promotes their social and political aims, I’d appreciate your providing some evidence of that.
Bad is what lessens well being. By believing in old ancient morals (like gays are an abomination, and euthanasia is murder) Christians lessen well being. They do this in part because of faith and part because of indoctrination that faith is good. Even liberal Christians who do not accept all those ancient morals promote faith as good. Thus they help to support bronze age morals that are bad. I’m sorry this is so hard for you to understand.
What are your thoughts on gays and euthanasia?
Do you think faith is a virtue? Do you think the Bible is written or inspired by God?
Not sure what my thoughts on gays or euthanasia have to do with my question or your answer, but one of my kids is gay, so is my bishop, why do you ask? As to euthanasia, I do not have any difficulty with the idea of withdrawing life support under appropriate circumstances, I’m much less comfortable with taking active steps to end a life.
Again, I’d like to know what evidence you have for your statement that liberal Christians lessen anyone’s well being, promote the beliefs of the religious right, or promote “bronze age morals” (I’d also like to know which morals you mean).
You are not at all difficult to understand, you’re just making statements not supported by facts or logic.
Again I’ll ask you, do you think faith is a virtue? Do you think the Bible is written or inspired by God?
Why are you asking me questions instead of answering the one I posed?
I think faith has been a good thing for me and I know a number of people of faith who do a lot of good. I don’t think it’s a virtue in itself.
I think the bible is an interesting book containing beautiful poetry, many powerful stories and many horrifying ones (some are both) and some passages that are inspiring. Whether any parts of it were inspired by God I do not know, nor does it matter much to me.
Again, why do you need to know those things before you answer my question?
Cause I asked you first.
Dodgy answer, is Christian faith a virtue?
Another dodgy answer. Do you think the Bible tells you what God wants? Does it tell you how to get to heaven? Does Christianity matter much to you?
I don’t need anything but I figure tit for tat.
Actually, I asked you first, and the answers I gave you were direct and fully responsive.
You, on the other hand, have not given any answer at all.
Good night, I’ve got work to do. I really would be interested in hearing the basis for your statements, should you happen to think of any.
I answered you, sorry you had trouble understanding.
OK, go back and look if you want. I’d be interested in hearing a straight answer to if you even the words of Jesus in the Gospel are the words of God. But my guess is you would be dodgy on that too. Seems being dodgy is about all you self proclaimed liberal Christians have.
So, I am in a Catch-22 here. If I don’t do the research, I can reasonably accused of not having done due diligence, but if I do, I’m more at risk for cherry-picking? That dog won’t hunt. In my 25 years of experiences reading and discussing the scriptures, it is obvious to me that those who cherry-pick are those who only start with a handful of notions, and keep select quotes as memes to be trotted out over and over again. Of course, YMMV.
So, I’ve read Sam Harris’s “Free Will”, and I’ve started his “A Letter to a Christian Nation”.
Mr. Harris is a respected, established, qualified neuroscientist. He writes in an engaging, absorbing manner, and has a high felicity of expression. The basic idea he expresses, as I understand it, is that Free Will is an illusion because at a very basic neurological (or even more primal) level, we are presented with stimuli that guide our every choice.
An example (mine, not Mr. Harris’s):
If you are snack hungry and go to a vending machine for a candy bar, you will be provided with perhaps eight choices. Without consciously thinking about it, your memory may tell you that three of those you don’t really care for, and that you already had an Almond Joy once today, and so your taste for that has been satisfied, especially since there are still four other possibles. Again unconsciously, part of your brain remembers that when a woman you carpool with got in the car this morning, and noted that she had a Snickers in her purse, and that, coupled perhaps by the fact that you saw a Snickers commercial last night, causes you to unconsciously punch F-4, and get the Snickers. Or any number of other similar permutations.
This is perfectly reasonable, and practically admits to no opposing argument.
From similar examples Mr. Harris shows in his book, he goes on to provide evidence from neuroscience and previous discussions on the subject with other respected authorities (most notably Daniel Dennett) that the stimuli doesn’t stop at this obvious level, but continues much more deeply, down to the neural synapses of the brain.
Where the crux of the argument really lies is this: Harris reaches the admittedly counter-intuitive conclusion that there is only responses to stimuli that causes our choice, whereas Daniel Dennett and others feel that there as a central “you” (not necessarily a soul, but a distinct persona) that ultimately guides these stimuli.
Harris, as I’ve mentioned, is a persuasive writer, and his arguments are cogent and well-determined.
I have a few concerns (no surprise there, I’m sure):
-
Although being part of an ongoing dialogue, this scant work (66 pages) presents itself in the main as a stand-alone work. Hence, it doesn’t reference the centuries-old debate of Determinism vs. Free Will at all, and the beginning reader is left with the impression that that is over and done with, and the matter has been firmly decided once and for all up to this detail.
-
Mr. Harris is a respected neuroscientist. He applies neuroscience to this question, which is at least as much a philosophical one as it is scientific. I have a hammer, this must me a nail.
-
He has redefined Determinism in a way not previously used in the centuries-old debate. Check out Wikipedia’s article on Determinism in its many flavors for details. I did, along with other sources, because I don’t accept any one opinion uncritically. This change in definition may or may not be a case of “moving the goalposts”, as nearly every scholar will adjust a definition to be in accord with his principles and findings, and that’s not only a common practice, it’s a reasonable one. Future study is warranted.
-
He has not redefined Free Will, however. As a matter of fact he never defines it within his work at all, and considers it as a concept that cannot be nailed down to more than the vaguest of descriptions. This isn’t moving the goalpost: this is tearing the goalpost down, so the other side can’t score.
I am still considering his arguments, as I do not come to snap decisions on subjects such as this. Thank you, Kable, for introducing me to this field of inquiry. It’s gonna take a whole lot more reading.
But my opinion is only one. There are a large number of reviews for Harris’s “Free Will” that can be found with some quick Google-Fu. Mr. Dennett is expected to reply to it sometime this year.
Since the bulk of interest for this subject in this thread comes from non-religious/agnostic/atheist viewpoints, the following links to reviews are not those of Christians:
The American Humanist’s review.
Scientific American’s review.
Russell Blackford’s review. Mr. Blackford is is co-editor of 50 Voices of Disbelief: Why We Are Atheists and author of Freedom of Religion and the Secular State.
For your consideration.
So no refutation? I think it’s pretty cut and dried too. I discarded the free will concept after reading Voltair’s “Philosophic Dictionary.” Excerpts already posted.
I think you need to cast a wider net in your research.
Your notions all seem “Christian friendly” in one way or another, though I must say, are not particularly Christ like.
What part of “It’s gonna take a whole lot more reading.” is unclear? And did you read the linked reviews?
I was hoping for at least some objection to keep this going. If you don’t have any, I can see why you might want to postpone things.
I read the first and second, half of the 3rd, then I got bored. A lot of beating around the bush, and no reason better than vanity to believe in free will. I figure you not only have vanity to contend with but also you need to believe in free will, as you think it is your solution to the problem of evil. The latter especially keeps you from accepting the obvious. This cause of that…
Maybe in the meantime Professor, you could go back and answer the questions you ignored in post #497.
Oh, I can see where you’d find the third boring, as it is the most critical of Harris’s approach to the subject. The fact that he finds Free Will too vague a concept to define, then continues to use it throughout the book, is suspect: it’s patently easy to disagree with something that you don’t bother to explain. As Harris states, this book is part of a continuing discussion he’s been having with others, most notably Dennett. I dislike coming into the middle of a discussion and making decisions not based on all available facts, so I’m going to trace this back to at least Dennett’s prior discussion. Have you read Dennett?
Sure, but what would be the point? You have shown yourself not to be interested in civil debate on the matters. When huck asked you why you attacked her ideas, you replied because it was easy. When she asked why you think Christianity is bad, you did not even bother to quote or paraphrase from Harris’s “A Letter to a Christian Nation”, but blew her off.
I have answered repeatedly all questions about the OP I’ve been asked. It’s your thread so you’re allowed to ask off-topic questions, but I’ve seen no evidence from you that any answers I provide will be treated with simple common courtesy, so: No. It’s not that I can’t answer, it’s that the whole process has become obviously pointless.