Confused / Achilles12604 debate : "The End of Faith&quo

[achilles12604]

Confused and I have decided to debate Sam Harris's book, "The End of Faith". I believe that we will be using a similar formate to the recent "The God Delusion" debate. As this is a one on one debate, no one else may post in this particular thread. However, I am creating a "comments" thread in general chat.

As I require some time to read this book, and I am going out of town for 5 days at the beginning of August, I would suggest that this particular debate begin on August 10th or later.

Is this acceptable Confused?

[achilles12604]

I could also agree if he had written something like,"The teachings of the various religions are in stark contrast with one another. Each holy book demands strict adherance, to the rejection of all other teachings. Indeed, these religions try to teach great intolerance to their followers." I could accept this as true.

That is pretty much what he writes on pg 13:

Our situation is this: most of the people in this world believe that the Creator of the universe has written a book. We have teh misfortune of having many such books on hand, each making an exclusive claim to its infallibility.....Each of these texts urges its readers to adopt a variety of beliefs and practices, some of which are benign, many of which are not. All are in perverse agreement on one point of fundamental importance however: "respect" for other faiths, or for the views of unbelievers, is not an attitude that God endorses.......Intolerance is thus intrinsic to every creed.

We seem to be beating a dead horse here because I am viewing what Harris writes as applicable to religion in general, not each individual practitioner of it. You can practice tolerance, but God does not. This is where we seem to differ. Would you agree with this? If so, we will need to decide if it is really important to find a common ground here in order to move on to the next concept Harris addresses in regards to religious moderates.

I am not sure we need to agree to move on, I do however think we have to agree that Harris is addressing religion in its entirety rather than individual religions or practitioners. The premise of this book is an assertion of religion in its entirety. In other words, everything that has been done either by religion or in the name of religion or under the rebellion against religion.

I think we can somewhat agree. I am still having trouble with his insinuation that religious people are violent and dangerous simply because of religion.

I wonder how he marries the ideas he writes on page 13 with those written on page 12

These are mere words - until you believe them. Once believed they become part of the very apparatus of your mind, determining your desires, fears, expectations and subsequent behavior. There seems, however, to be a problem with some of our most cherished beliefs about the world: they are leading us, inexorably, to kill one another. A glance at history, or at pages of any newspaper, reveals that ideas which divide one group of humans from another, only to unite them in slaughter, generally have their roots in religion. - page 12

My point all along has been that this opinion is grossly overstated. I have analyzed the violence over the last 1000 years and found it is not in keeping with this statement. I have examined the Newsweek article and the polls that they took in America and found that his statement is not founded. And I have examined my own experiences and found his statement lacking.


We can move on. I simply wished to make clear that Harris assertion regarding the violence of religion, was not nearly as matter of fact as he stated.

As for tolerance, I can agree that each religion is seen claiming exclusivity. However, I don't agree that this is "at the root of slaughter."

[Confused]

I could also agree if he had written something like,"The teachings of the various religions are in stark contrast with one another. Each holy book demands strict adherance, to the rejection of all other teachings. Indeed, these religions try to teach great intolerance to their followers." I could accept this as true.

That is pretty much what he writes on pg 13:

Our situation is this: most of the people in this world believe that the Creator of the universe has written a book. We have teh misfortune of having many such books on hand, each making an exclusive claim to its infallibility.....Each of these texts urges its readers to adopt a variety of beliefs and practices, some of which are benign, many of which are not. All are in perverse agreement on one point of fundamental importance however: "respect" for other faiths, or for the views of unbelievers, is not an attitude that God endorses.......Intolerance is thus intrinsic to every creed.

We seem to be beating a dead horse here because I am viewing what Harris writes as applicable to religion in general, not each individual practitioner of it. You can practice tolerance, but God does not. This is where we seem to differ. Would you agree with this? If so, we will need to decide if it is really important to find a common ground here in order to move on to the next concept Harris addresses in regards to religious moderates.

I am not sure we need to agree to move on, I do however think we have to agree that Harris is addressing religion in its entirety rather than individual religions or practitioners. The premise of this book is an assertion of religion in its entirety. In other words, everything that has been done either by religion or in the name of religion or under the rebellion against religion.

I think we can somewhat agree. I am still having trouble with his insinuation that religious people are violent and dangerous simply because of religion.

I wonder how he marries the ideas he writes on page 13 with those written on page 12

These are mere words - until you believe them. Once believed they become part of the very apparatus of your mind, determining your desires, fears, expectations and subsequent behavior. There seems, however, to be a problem with some of our most cherished beliefs about the world: they are leading us, inexorably, to kill one another. [b:43c078fe9f]A glance at history, or at pages of any newspaper, reveals that ideas which divide one group of humans from another, only to unite them in slaughter, generally have their roots in religion.[/b:43c078fe9f] - page 12

My point all along has been that this opinion is grossly overstated. I have analyzed the violence over the last 1000 years and found it is not in keeping with this statement. I have examined the Newsweek article and the polls that they took in America and found that his statement is not founded. And I have examined my own experiences and found his statement lacking.


We can move on. I simply wished to make clear that Harris assertion regarding the violence of religion, was not nearly as matter of fact as he stated.

As for tolerance, I can agree that each religion is seen claiming exclusivity. However, I don't agree that this is "at the root of slaughter."

I will agree that Harris may have made his claim a bit strong in regards to the roots of violence, but he did add the quantifier (though weak) "generally".

But lets move on.

Harris asserts that the strength of religious beliefs can be measured on a scale of continuum. It would appear that at one end one would have the religious "moderates" while at the other end would be the "extremists". The Moderates he defines on page 14 are those who would draw solace and inspiration from a specific spiritual tradition and yet remain fully committed to tolerance and diversity. The extremists he seems to go further and say they would be those believers who would "burn the earth to cinders if it would put an end to heresy". Obviously, the moderates would be the peaceful denominations while the extremists would be the suicide bombers etc.. However, Harris makes the claim that the moderates are just as dangerous to mankind as the extremists. On pg 15 he claims 2 myths keep faith beyond rational criticism and foster both extremists and moderates:

1) Most of us believe that there are good things people get from religious faith (strong communities, ethics,etc..) that cannot be had elsewhere
2) Many of us beleive that the terrible things that are sometimes done in the name of religion are the products not of faith per se, but of our baser nature--Forces like greed, hatred and fear-- for which religious beliefs are themselves the best (or even the only) remedy.

Now, before I continue, would you agree that both ends of the spectrum would agree with these two assertions? In other words, would both extremists and moderates agree?

I am not sure that some of those I would consider "moderates" would agree with the first myth. I can think of 2 Christians I know who work in the field of psychology who would state that religion may help guide us on what might be ethical or moral, but that both nature and nurture play a large role in defining morality and/or ethics. However, both would say that ultimately, mankind learned ethical and moral behavior from religion. In other words, they would say that without Gods direction, society wouln't have ever evolved into being moral or ethical.

Obviously this has many areas of dissection so I would like your input before I try to continue further.

[achilles12604]

Harris asserts that the strength of religious beliefs can be measured on a scale of continuum. It would appear that at one end one would have the religious "moderates" while at the other end would be the "extremists". The Moderates he defines on page 14 are those who would draw solace and inspiration from a specific spiritual tradition and yet remain fully committed to tolerance and diversity. The extremists he seems to go further and say they would be those believers who would "burn the earth to cinders if it would put an end to heresy". Obviously, the moderates would be the peaceful denominations while the extremists would be the suicide bombers etc.. However, Harris makes the claim that the moderates are just as dangerous to mankind as the extremists. On pg 15 he claims 2 myths keep faith beyond rational criticism and foster both extremists and moderates:

1) Most of us believe that there are good things people get from religious faith (strong communities, ethics,etc..) that cannot be had elsewhere
2) Many of us beleive that the terrible things that are sometimes done in the name of religion are the products not of faith per se, but of our baser nature--Forces like greed, hatred and fear-- for which religious beliefs are themselves the best (or even the only) remedy.

Now, before I continue, would you agree that both ends of the spectrum would agree with these two assertions? In other words, would both extremists and moderates agree?

Interesting. I think that the majority of moderates and extreme believers would agree with these statements. I however, only agree with the second. I have seen many atheists who were kinder and more helpful than any of the Christians standing around them.

But to answer your question strictly, yes both ends would probably agree, although I do not.

[Confused]

Harris asserts that the strength of religious beliefs can be measured on a scale of continuum. It would appear that at one end one would have the religious "moderates" while at the other end would be the "extremists". The Moderates he defines on page 14 are those who would draw solace and inspiration from a specific spiritual tradition and yet remain fully committed to tolerance and diversity. The extremists he seems to go further and say they would be those believers who would "burn the earth to cinders if it would put an end to heresy". Obviously, the moderates would be the peaceful denominations while the extremists would be the suicide bombers etc.. However, Harris makes the claim that the moderates are just as dangerous to mankind as the extremists. On pg 15 he claims 2 myths keep faith beyond rational criticism and foster both extremists and moderates:

1) Most of us believe that there are good things people get from religious faith (strong communities, ethics,etc..) that cannot be had elsewhere
2) Many of us beleive that the terrible things that are sometimes done in the name of religion are the products not of faith per se, but of our baser nature--Forces like greed, hatred and fear-- for which religious beliefs are themselves the best (or even the only) remedy.

Now, before I continue, would you agree that both ends of the spectrum would agree with these two assertions? In other words, would both extremists and moderates agree?

Interesting. I think that the majority of moderates and extreme believers would agree with these statements. I however, only agree with the second. I have seen many atheists who were kinder and more helpful than any of the Christians standing around them.

But to answer your question strictly, yes both ends would probably agree, although I do not.

You offer a complex answer here. You agree that the atrocities committed under the guise of religion are really just mans faults expressing themselves under the banner of God, yet somehow, the banner that is being used to disguise mans baser nature is the best or only remedy? So, I kill in Gods name yet it is only God that offers me hope to not kill in His name?

[achilles12604]

Harris asserts that the strength of religious beliefs can be measured on a scale of continuum. It would appear that at one end one would have the religious "moderates" while at the other end would be the "extremists". The Moderates he defines on page 14 are those who would draw solace and inspiration from a specific spiritual tradition and yet remain fully committed to tolerance and diversity. The extremists he seems to go further and say they would be those believers who would "burn the earth to cinders if it would put an end to heresy". Obviously, the moderates would be the peaceful denominations while the extremists would be the suicide bombers etc.. However, Harris makes the claim that the moderates are just as dangerous to mankind as the extremists. On pg 15 he claims 2 myths keep faith beyond rational criticism and foster both extremists and moderates:

1) Most of us believe that there are good things people get from religious faith (strong communities, ethics,etc..) that cannot be had elsewhere
2) Many of us beleive that the terrible things that are sometimes done in the name of religion are the products not of faith per se, but of our baser nature--Forces like greed, hatred and fear-- for which religious beliefs are themselves the best (or even the only) remedy.

Now, before I continue, would you agree that both ends of the spectrum would agree with these two assertions? In other words, would both extremists and moderates agree?

Interesting. I think that the majority of moderates and extreme believers would agree with these statements. I however, only agree with the second. I have seen many atheists who were kinder and more helpful than any of the Christians standing around them.

But to answer your question strictly, yes both ends would probably agree, although I do not.

You offer a complex answer here. You agree that the atrocities committed under the guise of religion are really just mans faults expressing themselves under the banner of God, yet somehow, the banner that is being used to disguise mans baser nature is the best or only remedy? So, I kill in Gods name yet it is only God that offers me hope to not kill in His name?

I assume you are referring to point number two.

For clarification, my opinion is that people have both a good and an evil side to them. These two sides are in conflict with each other on a moment by moment basis.

You agree that the atrocities committed under the guise of religion are really just mans faults expressing themselves under the banner of God,

Yes I agree with this.

yet somehow, the banner that is being used to disguise mans baser nature is the best or only remedy?

The banner has no power what so ever. It is the force behind that banner. A terrorist can wrap himself in the flag of The united States, or Russia, or Israel, or any other nation they want to. This doesn't mean that the country encourages, supports or even condones the actions of that person.

You must differentiate between sheep, and wolves in sheep’s clothing. Or as Jesus put it, judge a tree by its fruit.

[Confused]

You must differentiate between sheep, and wolves in sheep’s clothing. Or as Jesus put it, judge a tree by its fruit.

My favorite saying.

Ok, Harris goes on further on page 15 saying that "moderates" have taken the high road of pluralism, asserting the equal validity of all faiths, but in doing so they neglect to notice the irredeemably sectarian truth claims of each.

First let me say that I am not sure that moderates have taken to pluralism and/or assert the equal validity of all faiths. I think that Harris is correct when he says that it isn't possible for this to be done. However, Harris asserts that it is done. I am not sure where his validation is for making this assertions, however, it brings up some good points:

Here, I think we will both agree, moderates cannot respect the beliefs of others that contradict the beliefs of their faith, they can however tolerate it. For example, you may not believe that the Jewish nation is correct in their belief that Jesus is not the Messiah. Being Christian, you cannot respect that notion because it directly contradicts your faith. However, you can tolerate the belief and respect the person. I think Harris is going broader however and stating that while you personally may do this, your religion doesn't allow you to. In other words, it directly contradicts the teachings of Christ for you to say it is ok for Mr X to believe we are still waiting for the Messiah because the teachings of Christ direct you to spread His message and to correct the erroneous belief that contradicts such teachings. So perhaps one can personally tolerate other faiths, however, I don't believe that the teachings of the other faiths allow for them to do so. In other words, those who say they respect the beliefs of others are either ignoring the teachings that state they must correct such erroneous beliefs or they are simply lying to avoid conflict. Taking Christianity as the example here: Christians are directed to spread the teachings of Christ, not say to an Islamic man, "This is what Christ says, but if you choose to believe otherwise, I will respect your beliefs and consider them equally as respectful as my beliefs." In other words, both faiths cannot be equal, one must be superior while the other is inferior. No religious doctrine allows for another religious doctrine to be superior to it.

Thus far, I think you can see where I am going in regards to supporting Harris in his assertions that "moderates" are simply mythical beliefs because in reality, religion doesn't really allow for moderates to respect any other belief than the one in which their doctrine espouses as truth. But thus far, I have merely been addressing moderates in general. How moderates cannot truly exist in a form that accepts the pluralistic view that Harris suggests. One doctrine cannot give respect to another doctrine because it would be giving it equality. Christianity cannot give Islam equal validity, therefor, it cannot truly respect the beliefs of its followers. One might respect a follower of Islam, but they don't respect the beliefs of that follower. Does this makes sense thus far? I ask because I am about to completely switch my analysis to go from the existence of religious moderates to what Harris says is merely a myth of moderates. On page 16, Harris applies the myth of moderates in all of religion period. Not simply narrowing it down to moderates in Christianity, moderates in Islam, or moderates in Judaism. But he attacks moderates of religion, period.

I want to make sure we are on the same page before we get into this part. Because I think Harris changes his focus here to challenge religious doctrine against religious doctrine rather than one persons religious belief over another persons.

[achilles12604]

You must differentiate between sheep, and wolves in sheep’s clothing. Or as Jesus put it, judge a tree by its fruit.

My favorite saying.

Ok, Harris goes on further on page 15 saying that "moderates" have taken the high road of pluralism, asserting the equal validity of all faiths, but in doing so they neglect to notice the irredeemably sectarian truth claims of each.

First let me say that I am not sure that moderates have taken to pluralism and/or assert the equal validity of all faiths. I think that Harris is correct when he says that it isn't possible for this to be done. However, Harris asserts that it is done. I am not sure where his validation is for making this assertions, however, it brings up some good points:

So long as we both see that Harris suffers from slight schizophrenia regarding this subject, we can move on . . .

Here, I think we will both agree, moderates cannot respect the beliefs of others that contradict the beliefs of their faith, they can however tolerate it. For example, you may not believe that the Jewish nation is correct in their belief that Jesus is not the Messiah. Being Christian, you cannot respect that notion because it directly contradicts your faith. However, you can tolerate the belief and respect the person. I think Harris is going broader however and stating that while you personally may do this, your religion doesn't allow you to.

Sounds good for the most part. In other words, we can respect one another despite the fact we all think we are right and everyone else is wrong. Just as a point of clarification, I don't strictly adhere to this principle as evidenced by my own research on THIS and THIS thread. However, as we are not debating me per se, we can move on.

In other words, it directly contradicts the teachings of Christ for you to say it is ok for Mr X to believe we are still waiting for the Messiah because the teachings of Christ direct you to spread His message and to correct the erroneous belief that contradicts such teachings. So perhaps one can personally tolerate other faiths, however, I don't believe that the teachings of the other faiths allow for them to do so. In other words, those who say they respect the beliefs of others are either ignoring the teachings that state they must correct such erroneous beliefs or they are simply lying to avoid conflict.

Be careful with the word tolerate. Perhaps we should just say that "those who say the respect the beliefs of others are not actually respecting the beliefs as they disagree with them, but rather are tolerating the beliefs with respect for the person."

Am I splitting hairs here?

Taking Christianity as the example here: Christians are directed to spread the teachings of Christ, not say to an Islamic man, "This is what Christ says, but if you choose to believe otherwise, I will respect your beliefs and consider them equally as respectful as my beliefs." In other words, both faiths cannot be equal, one must be superior while the other is inferior. No religious doctrine allows for another religious doctrine to be superior to it.

Total agreement at last.

Thus far, I think you can see where I am going in regards to supporting Harris in his assertions that "moderates" are simply mythical beliefs because in reality, religion doesn't really allow for moderates to respect any other belief than the one in which their doctrine espouses as truth.

I lost you. How can a person be a mythical belief? Did you mean that the moderates possess mythical beliefs because what they espouse is in actuality impossible and contradictory?

But thus far, I have merely been addressing moderates in general. How moderates cannot truly exist in a form that accepts the pluralistic view that Harris suggests. One doctrine cannot give respect to another doctrine because it would be giving it equality. Christianity cannot give Islam equal validity, therefor, it cannot truly respect the beliefs of its followers. One might respect a follower of Islam, but they dont respect the beliefs of that follower. Does this makes sense thus far?

Yes once again we are back on track.

I ask because I am about to completely switch my analysis to go from the existence of religious moderates to what Harris says is merely a myth of moderates. On page 16, Harris applies the myth of moderates in all of religion period. Not simply narrowing it down to moderates in Christianity, moderates in Islam, or moderates in Judaism. But he attacks moderates of religion, period.

I want to make sure we are on the same page before we get into this part. Because I think Harris changes his focus here to challenge religious doctrine against religious doctrine rather than one persons religious belief over another persons.

I think we are on the same page.

Moderates do not accept other beliefs as valid or true, but respect them none the less for the sake of the person, and harmony among men. We have also established that many religions (not all) are exclusive in their claims of truth and validity. I would like to add a trailing remark that in Christianity, this claim of exclusivity is much weaker than in Islam or Judiasm. The passages which make this claim read, "No one can come to the father except through me." and others like this. However, there are multiple interpretations of these passages which Harris is neglecting.


To defend Harris, I must admit that he is challenging the mainstream accepted interpretation of these passages. However, other interpretations, such as those I suggest in the above links, negate Harris assertions with regards to Christianity. If the path to the Father lies in Jesus, not in praying a certain prayer or believing the correct assemblage of traditions, but rather through his saving grace and forgiveness for sins, and to access this we must simply follow his example and teachings, then Harris has no case.



For the sake of moving on, if we can agree on the above, then we can move on.

[Confused]

The "myth" of moderation in religion. On page 16, Harris starts his opening with a blow to religion in regards to its validity. He states there is no more evidence to support Yahweh and Satan than there was to keep Zeus on his throne or Poseidon churning the seas. When push comes to shove, I think he may be correct here in that scriptural evidence is all we have to support either Yahweh or Zeus. He opens with this but then applies it to the present day world. Using the Gallop poll, he essentially shows how reason is thrown out the window when we can say "120 million of us (Americans) place the big bang 2,500 years after the Babylonians and Sumerians learned to brew beer". He thens states 230 million Americans believe that a book without unity of style or internal consistency was authored by an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent deity. The reasons he states these are important because it is with the above information that Harris reasons any person must decide what it means to be a religious moderate in the 21st century. I think it is important for Harris to get the average person thinking rationally, along these lines in order for him to make his case of religious moderates. Before I go on, would you say that Harris has set up a false platform to release his assessment? Is there anything I have stated thus far or that you have seen in the book up to the last paragraph on pg 17 that you have major issue with? I ask this, because from this point on, Harris essentially takes the moderate and makes them into a product of society, evolution, and technology.

[Confused]

So what are todays moderates? Essentially, Harris has said they are a product of todays society. They loosely interpret some canon while simply ignoring others in an effort to live in todays world. We see this often. The Christians who adhere to seeing some things in scripture as literal and some as metaphorical. The Christians who decide that despite what scripture says, a God that is loving must have meant something else or have some other ways of judging because He couldn't possibly condemn a woman who divorced her husband after he nearly killed her beating her up and molesting their 2 year old daughter.

Harris makes the claim on pg 17 that the the moderates first retreat from literalism is because of cultural developments that make much scripture difficult to interpret. We know this to be true considering how many different interpretations currently do exist. The various denominations give at least a mild amount of credibility to this assessment. The more interpretive differences, the more denominations we find of each religion.

Harris goes on on to quote an example using Deuteronomy 13:7-11 as one example of ignoring canon. If one was to follow this canonical law, we should be stoning people to death. However, being moderates, we can say this was meant to be "symbolic" not literal. However, as Harris states, Deut 13.1 blocks man from making it symbolic when God declares "you must keep and observe, adding nothing to it, taking nothing away". In other words, Harris is saying that God doesn't give moderates the choice to pick what is "symbolic" and what is "literal". Which canon is still to be followed and which is no longer required to be upheld. Harris sums it up saying that "moderation in religion has nothing underwriting it other than the unacknowledged neglect of the letter of the divine law".

Harris continue on with arguing that moderates is a product of knowledge and evolution. He strongly states on pt 21 that "religious moderation is the product of secular knowledge and scriptural ignorance".

While we may not wish to acknowledge some of this as true, the truth of many of his claims cannot be ignored. Moderates essentially pick and choose what they will follow and ignore or pretend to not think of the parts that todays society would consider barbaric, such as stoning a person to death. What Harris make a point of is that religious moderation is a myth. What he considers to be a religious moderate seems to be what many would consider a "hypocrite". One who says they are Christian and believe in the teachings of Christ as well as follow those teachings, yet divorces the man who beat them up every night, allows for other religious institutions to exist within their neighborhood despite the fact that they teach false doctrine (teach of a God not of Christianity), etc....

Would my assessment of the position Harris has taken here be incorrect?

[achilles12604]

The "myth" of moderation in religion. On page 16, Harris starts his opening with a blow to religion in regards to its validity. He states there is no more evidence to support Yahweh and Satan than there was to keep Zeus on his throne or Poseidon churning the seas. When push comes to shove, I think he may be correct here in that scriptural evidence is all we have to support either Yahweh or Zeus. He opens with this but then applies it to the present day world. Using the Gallop poll, he essentially shows how reason is thrown out the window when we can say "120 million of us (Americans) place the big bang 2,500 years after the Babylonians and Sumerians learned to brew beer". He thens states 230 million Americans believe that a book without unity of style or internal consistency was authored by an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent deity. The reasons he states these are important because it is with the above information that Harris reasons any person must decide what it means to be a religious moderate in the 21st century. I think it is important for Harris to get the average person thinking rationally, along these lines in order for him to make his case of religious moderates. Before I go on, would you say that Harris has set up a false platform to release his assessment? Is there anything I have stated thus far or that you have seen in the book up to the last paragraph on pg 17 that you have major issue with? I ask this, because from this point on, Harris essentially takes the moderate and makes them into a product of society, evolution, and technology.

I would of course take the position that Harris claim that

there is no more evidence to support Yahweh and Satan than there was to keep Zeus on his throne or Poseidon churning the seas.

is given rather rashly and matter of fact-ly. I do not agree with this cornerstone of his argument at all.

Of course we could begin debating all the proofs, but this would take far to much time. Instead I will simply point back to another thread of mine, where several non-theists concurred that there WAS evidence, but that it was not enough to convince them. . .

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... php?t=5323

If there was NO evidence to debate, I don\'t think this site would have made it very long. Obviously there is SOME evidence. So Harris claim that there is no evidence is blantently wrong.

Now if he had said there is no concrete proof, I would have agreed. If he had said, The evidence presented doesn't convince myself and many other highly intelligent people, I would have agreed.

However, let me throw this out to you. If there is in fact NO evidence at all to support any of the claims of the bible, then why are so many highly educated and respected scientists, philosophers, historians, etc. still Christians after seeking the evidence? Why would Sir William Ramsey, have changed his perspective concerning the validity and accuracy of Luke and become a Christian himself, if the bible had no backbone?


Harris claim is not accurate. Therefore, any conclusions drawn from this claim, can not be accurate.


I also observe that on page 17, Harris does tend to focus on the extremists. He then proceeds down the page to compare them to moderates, and he writes

Moderates in every faith are obliged to loosely interpret (or simply ignore) much of their canons in the interests of living in the modern world.

I find this sentence a little amusing because I'm fairly sure he is talking about me here. For example, my interpretation of Genesis, would probably fall into his category of "loose interpretation."

But I ask you, is my interpretation really that far fetched, or is Harris building a strawman? For Harris point to be correct, it must first be established that these so called "loose interpretations" are in fact incorrect and invalid, and used solely for the purpose of circumventing the obvious problems with a literal translation.

I don't believe Harris is able to make this point, nor does he try. He assumes this point in order to build upon his own preconceptions that moderates are simply trying to slide past both religion and reality. If my "loose interpretations" are in fact valid, then there is no problem with me believing in them at true. If there is no problem with my believing in them as true, then Harris point that I have been forced to this position because of the weakness of the position of religion in general, is incorrect because in actuality I would be standing on a solid base for my beliefs.

Harris write

"The first thing to observe about the moderate's retreat from scriptureal literalism is that it draws its inspiration not from scripture but from cultural developments that have rendered many of God's utterances difficult to accept as written."

Using Genesis as our example, I do not agree with Harris here. My basis for interpreting Genesis as poetic, is based on the facts:

1) that much of the bible is in poetic form
2) that there are two different accounts right next to each other
3) that the bible was never meant to be a science book ****


This last point is one that I think Harris uses for his strawman construction. His attack upon moderates as written above, is based on the idea that they should have started as extremists and been toned down by society and knowledge. But this is a load of huey. He is taking the position that the bible is read as a science book as the standard.

This is just not so, and it was seen as such over a thousand years ago with St. Augustine of Hippo. Harris is using a position debunked by church father millennia ago as his standard, and then saying that people who don't take this default position must have had their minds changed because of society and cultural changes.


Can this position of Harris be correct if a person alive well before ANY cultural or technological or social changes ever took place, falls into his "moderates" category?