On Harris and Sullivan


The recent blogalogue between Sam Harris and Andrew Sullivan is a fruitful source for analysis of the debate between the "new atheists" and moderate religionists...

First off: the complete debate between Sam Harris and Andrew Sullivan is here as a PDF file, and here is the original link to the debate on 'BeliefNet'.

The debate shows more than anything else the different cognitive styles of the religionist and the scientist. Sam's comments and remarks ask for precision and clarity, while Andrew is content to evoke imagery. It is never clear how much Andrew really believes in the pictures he paints and the metaphors he composes - and this is precisely the point of religious moderation. Example:

"I do believe in the empty tomb as much as I believe in the cramped manger. They go together--marks of an appearance in human history as mysterious as the divine must always be to human minds."

Is a "mark of an appearance" the same as a real event? I get the feeling that Andrew resists playing the videotape in his mind of what he must believe happened. He would rather just have his story, with its lessons and its meanings (there's nothing wrong with liking a story, but imagine a serious debate 500 years from now between an atheist and a Harry-Potterite), and not have to acknowledge what it implies about the actual events that occurred 2000 years ago to real men and women living in Palestine. But let's put a hidden camera in Jesus's tomb, along with some flood lights, and let it record... you see a body wrapped in a shroud, it stays there decomposing for a few days, and then... what? What, according to Andrew, is on the damn tape? A "mark of an appearance in human history" or a flash of light and a choir of angels? Andrew will never publicly or privately commit an answer to this question, as it forces the absurdity to the surface -- which is of course Sam's preferred tactic. Every single time Sam asks Andrew to take a stand on something miraculous, Andrew dithers.

The debate was a good example of a believer honest enough to at least engage with the strongest arguments for atheism, and it will probably be remembered as the one of most civilized, productive exchanges on this subject - but the outcome was the same as it always is.

Posted: Sun - April 22, 2007 at 12:18 AM | | | |

©