Letter to a Christian Nation

[Spinyn00bman]

Has anyone else read this tripe?

I am only a quarter of the way through and enjoying it's absurdity thoroughly.

My favorite part so far was his argument that Christians who oppose abortion based on the fact that the blastocyst will become a person eventually are completely in error because with our advances in genetic engineering, ANY cell on our body is a potential human being. So every time I scratch my nose I am aborting thousands of potential human beings. I had a good laugh over that one.

Anyone else read this "book"?

[Soundsurfr]

Has anyone else read this tripe?

I am only a quarter of the way through and enjoying it's absurdity thoroughly.

My favorite part so far was his argument that Christians who oppose abortion based on the fact that the blastocyst will become a person eventually are completely in error because with our advances in genetic engineering, ANY cell on our body is a potential human being. So every time I scratch my nose I am aborting thousands of potential human beings. I had a good laugh over that one.

Anyone else read this "book"?

Yeah. I liked it.

JP Holding wrote a formal response to it, here (http://www.tektonics.org/gk/harrisletter.html), if you're interested.

[Spinyn00bman]

Yeah. I liked it.

JP Holding wrote a formal response to it, here (http://www.tektonics.org/gk/harrisletter.html), if you're interested.


Thanks.

I know he did and I will read it, but I like to read books for myself before reading other viewpoints. When I am finished, I will check out JP's article.

[lao tzu]

Has anyone else read this tripe? Greetings, SpinyNorman,

I've read the book, twice now. I disagree with your characterization of it as tripe.

I am only a quarter of the way through and enjoying it's absurdity thoroughly. So long as you're enjoying it.

My favorite part so far was his argument that Christians who oppose abortion based on the fact that the blastocyst will become a person eventually are completely in error because with our advances in genetic engineering, ANY cell on our body is a potential human being. So every time I scratch my nose I am aborting thousands of potential human beings. I had a good laugh over that one. I'm glad you had a good laugh. In theory, however, it is quite correct. Every cell in your body includes a complete copy of your genome.

In fact, it is only through our medical advances that this subject has meaning. A generation ago, the idea of fertilization outside the body was probably just as laughable. Now that it is commonplace, you laugh at the next obvious advance at the same time that others are using this capability to press for an end to embryonic stem cell research exactly because these other cells are capable of performing the same function.

This strikes me as cognitive dissonance at best.

More, in drawing this caricature of his position, you neglect the strongest part of his argument, even on this restricted subject. The arithmetic of fertilized ova and "souls," whatever those latter might be, is tortuously indefinite given the tendency for blastocysts at this stage of development to both split into twins, or even to join together in what are known as "chimera," as he is at pains to describe.

It is simple to attack a misrepresentation, and it appears this is what you are doing.

Anyone else read this "book"? It calls itself a letter.

As ever, Jesse

[Raptor]

Has anyone else read this tripe?

I am only a quarter of the way through and enjoying it's absurdity thoroughly.

My favorite part so far was his argument that Christians who oppose abortion based on the fact that the blastocyst will become a person eventually are completely in error because with our advances in genetic engineering, ANY cell on our body is a potential human being. So every time I scratch my nose I am aborting thousands of potential human beings. I had a good laugh over that one.

Anyone else read this "book"?
I'm about to. I have to write a 5 page review over it for a comparative religions class.

[Sir-Think-A-Lot]

Yea I wrote my response to it here: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=86847&page=5 (spread out over several posts)

Now I hope nobody decides to ressurect that thread.

[Lili]

My favorite part so far was his argument that Christians who oppose abortion based on the fact that the blastocyst will become a person eventually are completely in error because with our advances in genetic engineering, ANY cell on our body is a potential human being. So every time I scratch my nose I am aborting thousands of potential human beings. I had a good laugh over that one.Ick. I hate that stupid argument.

[beoba]

Solution: Make a counter-argument!

[Sir-Think-A-Lot]

Solution: Make a counter-argument!

No need, Harris misrepresents the issue. It's not a question that a cell has the potental to become a living being, but that a fertalized egg is a human being with a soul.

Note that I'm not necessarly pro-life, but Harris has little to add to the debate if he cant even understand his oppents.

[lao tzu]

No need, Harris misrepresents the issue. It's not a question that a cell has the potental to become a living being, but that a fertalized egg is a human being with a soul.

Note that I'm not necessarly pro-life, but Harris has little to add to the debate if he cant even understand his oppents. This is a misrepresentation of Harris. The similarities of this criticism to standard YEC quote-mining are almost eerie. He addresses this issue directly, immediately after the nose-scratching Holocaust passage.

But let us assume, for the moment, that every three-day-old human embryo has a soul worthy of our moral concern. Embryos at this stage occasionally split, becoming separate people (identical twins). Is this a case of one soul splitting into two? Two embryos sometimes fuse into a single individual, called a chimera. You or someone you know may have developed in this way. No doubt theologians are struggling to determine what becomes of the extra human soul in such a case.

Isn't it time we admitted that this arithmetic of souls does not make any sense? The naive idea of souls ina Petri dish is intellectually indefensible ...

I'd imagine there is valid criticism to be made of Harris, but it is presently being lost in these flights of intellectual dishonesty.

As ever, Jesse

[SteveF]

I haven't read the book, or indeed much by Harris, but this caught my eye:

Sam Harris's books "The End Of Faith" and "Letter To A Christian Nation" have established him as second only to the British biologist and author Richard Dawkins in the ranks of famous 21st century atheists. The thrust of Harris's best-sellers is that with the world so crazed by religion, it's high time Americans stopped tolerating faith in the Rapture, the Resurrection and anything else not grounded in evidence. Only trouble is, our country's foremost promoter of "reason" is also supportive of ESP, reincarnation and other unscientific concepts. Not all of it is harmless yoga class hokum — he's also a proponent of waterboarding and other forms of torture.

http://alternet.org/story/46196/

Is this an accurate representation of his beliefs? If it is, then I might be inclined to take him somewhat less seriously.

[Lili]

But let us assume, for the moment, that every three-day-old human embryo has a soul worthy of our moral concern. Embryos at this stage occasionally split, becoming separate people (identical twins). Is this a case of one soul splitting into two? Two embryos sometimes fuse into a single individual, called a chimera. You or someone you know may have developed in this way. No doubt theologians are struggling to determine what becomes of the extra human soul in such a case.
He makes a good point. This is precisely the reason why I do not believe that human life starts at conception. I believe it starts around the time that twinning is no longer possible.

[lao tzu]

I haven't read the book, or indeed much by Harris, but this caught my eye:

http://alternet.org/story/46196/

Is this an accurate representation of his beliefs? If it is, then I might be inclined to take him somewhat less seriously. No. It's a hack job, filled with partial quotes finished by the author of the article, and excuses for failing to substantiate the more outrageous claims.

"We should say we don't do it," Harris says of torture. "We should say it's reprehensible." And then do it anyway, he says.

Two quotes by Harris, followed by a vilification not based on any quote. This is the modus operandi of the entire article. The author's got a bee in his bonnet about the war, and is apparently ready to wage jihad on anyone who doesn't fall in line.

As ever, Jesse

[SteveF]

No. It's a hack job, filled with partial quotes finished by the author of the article, and excuses for failing to substantiate the more outrageous claims.
"We should say we don't do it," Harris says of torture. "We should say it's reprehensible." And then do it anyway, he says.
Two quotes by Harris, followed by a vilification not based on any quote. This is the modus operandi of the entire article. The author's got a bee in his bonnet about the war, and is apparently ready to wage jihad on anyone who doesn't fall in line.

As ever, Jesse

What about the paranormal stuff? Harris claims in the interview that he is open minded about psychic phenomena and would like to see the data.......

[lao tzu]

He makes a good point. This is precisely the reason why I do not believe that human life starts at conception. I believe it starts around the time that twinning is no longer possible. How interesting. I would say instead that human life is continuous throughout all of these transformations: from the parents to their spermatazoa and ova, from these to the fertilized egg, from this to any twinning or joining, and on throughout the entire growth process, both inside and outside the womb.

The muslims are actually quite explicit about when the embryo becomes a human, 40 or 80 days after fertilization, I forget which. Unfortunately, it's wrapped up in a theory of embryology which is factually in error. Nutfa, alaqa, ... yeah, I think it's 80 days, complete with a ceremony of angels coming down and determining gender and such.

But in any case, so as to avoid going off topic, it is false to say that Harris did not address this issue, as has been claimed.

As ever, Jesse

[lao tzu]

What about the paranormal stuff? Harris claims in the interview that he is open minded about psychic phenomena and would like to see the data....... Are you referring to this quote, expressing his actual position?

"I've received a little bit of grief for that," he says. "I certainly don't say that I'm confident that psychic phenomena exist. I'm open-minded. I would just like to see the data."

Or are you referring to this representation, contradicted by the above quote?

Only trouble is, our country's foremost promoter of "reason" is also supportive of ESP, reincarnation and other unscientific concepts.

If anything, the author is attacking Harris for failing to be dogmatic in his atheism. Apparently, in Gorenfeld's us-against-them view — itself a virtual mirror of the president's supporters in his policies in Iraq — anything not firmly antagonistic must be supportive.

I've seen real interviews, and I'm sure you have as well. When have you ever seen one composed of nothing more than snippets, with no opportunity for the subject to respond, (outside of right-wing talk radio, that is)? Wait, you're a Brit, and don't have the privilege of ready access to Rush Limbaugh and his ilk. Why do you think this interview lacks this balance?

Maybe because it's a hack job? Wait, are you familiar with the term? A "hack job" is a polemic composed for the purpose of wounding an opponent in reckless disregard of any standards of either fairness or honesty.

As ever, Jesse

[SteveF]

Are you referring to this quote, expressing his actual position?

"I've received a little bit of grief for that," he says. "I certainly don't say that I'm confident that psychic phenomena exist. I'm open-minded. I would just like to see the data."

Yes, I am referring to that (in addition to the extracts from the book which may or may not be in context). I wonder what data Harris would like to see where the paranormal is concerned? The quote leaves open the very real possibility that Harris is sympathetic to the sort of thing that would have Carl Sagan spinning in his grave.

As I say, I haven't read his books so am not reaching any conclusions. I just find those sort of statements a little odd.

[Sir-Think-A-Lot]

I haven't read the book, or indeed much by Harris, but this caught my eye:



http://alternet.org/story/46196/

Is this an accurate representation of his beliefs? If it is, then I might be inclined to take him somewhat less seriously.


He does speak out in support of psycic phenomen, and eastern philosophy in End of Faith. He doesnt say as much about it in LEtter though.

[Spinyn00bman]

Cool.

My little thread here has gotten some action.

Sorry I have been away. Ice and snow storms have made life the past few days difficult. But I will check in soon and respond. I finished the "letter" and I am glad I did. I am going to re-read it again before I comment further.

Thanks to all who who have chimed in. Surely more on this board have read it and can comment.

Till we meet again....:spiny:

[lao tzu]

Yes, I am referring to that (in addition to the extracts from the book which may or may not be in context). I wonder what data Harris would like to see where the paranormal is concerned? The quote leaves open the very real possibility that Harris is sympathetic to the sort of thing that would have Carl Sagan spinning in his grave. That's the purpose of the citation, as far as I can see: to leave room for invidious interpretation. I can't imagine why it would cause Carl "He should have given me better evidence" Sagan to start spinning in his grave. Being open-minded in the face of too little information is the default position of any scientist.

Remember that Harris is a grad student in neuroscience. A dogmatic position about the capabilities of the human mind would be counterproductive in his field.

As I say, I haven't read his books so am not reaching any conclusions. I just find those sort of statements a little odd. I'm not much of a fan of any kind of apologetics, but the attention around Harris was enough to get me to check out his "Letter" from the public library. I find the entire article by Gorenfeld to be egregiously slanted. I didn't miss the fact he seems to take personal offense to Harris' criticism of the old testament in comparison to eastern statements of morality.

Unlike Gorenfeld, however, who seems to believe a loud harumph is sufficient, Harris actually backs up his claim:

Mahavira, the Jain patriarch, surpassed the morality of the Bible with a single sentence: "Do not injure, abuse oppress, enslave, insult, torment, torture, or kill any creature or living being."

It is undeniable that some of Harris' quotes are taken entirely out of context, even within the confines of the article, and I've already given an example. An open-minded call for evidence prior to forming an opinion is not "support." Other quotes cited by Gorenfeld are also noticeably dishonest:
"Nonbelievers like myself stand beside you, dumbstruck by the Muslim hordes who chant death to whole nations of the living," he writes.
Is this a call "for something of an alliance with the Right against Muslim Arabs"? No, it is not. This is a quote-mine, taken from Harris' concluding remarks in the Letter, not from the "recent editorial" Gorenfeld implies as a source. Gorenfeld is dishonest. It is actually a call for embracing tangible reality.

Nonbelievers like myself stand beside you, dumbstruck by the Muslim hordes who chant death to whole nations of the living. But we stand dumbstruck by you as well — by your denial of tangible reality, by the suffering you create inservice to your religious myths, and by your attachment to an imaginary God. This letter has been an expression of that amazement — and, perhaps, of a little hope.

As ever, Jesse

[SteveF]

That's the purpose of the citation, as far as I can see: to leave room for invidious interpretation. I can't imagine why it would cause Carl "He should have given me better evidence" Sagan to start spinning in his grave. Being open-minded in the face of too little information is the default position of any scientist.

Remember that Harris is a grad student in neuroscience. A dogmatic position about the capabilities of the human mind would be counterproductive in his field.

Well, claims regarding paranormal activity have been around for a while and so I imagine if Carl Sagan were quite as open to the notion as Harris then he would have mentioned it. From my recollection of Demon Haunted World (was a long long time ago that I read it), he wasn't too keen.

Indeed, I'd generally be somewhat shocked if your average neuroscientist were quite a paranormally inclined as Harris appears to be. There is open minded and then there is credulity.

Look at the way your average atheist goes after promoters of the paranormal (quite rightly); as a rule they tend to be pretty unforgiving. I'm not suggesting that Harris is in the same league (or indeed in the same sport), but I wonder if he has maybe had a slightly easier ride regarding this than he might otherwise have had, if he hadn't been attacking major religions. I dunno though.

[lao tzu]

Well, claims regarding paranormal activity have been around for a while and so I imagine if Carl Sagan were quite as open to the notion as Harris then he would have mentioned it. From my recollection of Demon Haunted World (was a long long time ago that I read it), he wasn't too keen. How open is Harris? I think I've shown Gorenfeld is not a credible source. On the contrary, he has shown himself willing to exaggerate and misrepresent in the article you cited. I know of no other sources for these claims. I note that STAL also supports these claims, but having read his review of the Letter, I do not give him much credit for honest representation either.

Indeed, I'd generally be somewhat shocked if your average neuroscientist were quite a paranormally inclined as Harris appears to be. There is open minded and then there is credulity. "Show me the data" is credulous? Okay, if you say so.

On the same point, note how Gorenfeld misrepresents Harris on this issue as well.
"I've received a little bit of grief for that," he says. "I certainly don't say that I'm confident that psychic phenomena exist. I'm open-minded. I would just like to see the data."

To see the "data" yourself, "The End of Faith" points readers to a slew of paranormal studies.
Right. Harris is unconvinced and wants to see the data he has already seen. Not only seen, but cited. And we're supposed to not notice this glaring contradiction? Gorenfeld then goes on to cite examples, not from the actual texts cited by Harris, but from a work by the same author:
One is Dr. Ian Stevenson's "Unlearned Language: New Studies in Xenoglossy." The same author's reincarnation book presents ...
This can't even be laid to sloppy journalism. It is purposely deceitful. I could just as easily attack someone citing the Principia by noting Newton's forays into the most bizarre forms of spiritualism. But by actually citing these other forays, I can no longer hide behind the veneer of ignorance of my purpose as a hatchet man.

Look at the way your average atheist goes after promoters of the paranormal (quite rightly); as a rule they tend to be pretty unforgiving. I'm not suggesting that Harris is in the same league (or indeed in the same sport), but I wonder if he has maybe had a slightly easier ride regarding this than he might otherwise have had, if he hadn't been attacking major religions. I dunno though. Harris is considerably better read in eastern philosophies and religions than the average theist. While this allows the ignorance of his critics free rein, it is not support for their theses that he is being inconsistent.

Likewise, I give absolutely no credit to Gorenfeld's claims that Harris is in favor of accepting substitute messiahs. This is the standard theistic projection, "You must have a messiah, because I do!" Consider for a moment the mindset necessary for such a flagrant misrepresentation of the atheist worldview, and I think you'll begin to see why I find no reason to credit anything approaching good faith to this article.

As ever, Jesse

[SteveF]

"Show me the data" is credulous? Okay, if you say so.

I don't think I'm expressing myself properly. My issue is not with "show me the data" per se (this is a reasonable position), rather how this statement fits into the wider context of Harris's beliefs on paranormal activity. This statement alone is not necessarily adequate to characterise a particular position. Sagan would also no doubt say "show me the data", but was scathing about the veracity of paranormal claims. Is Harris similarly scathing or does he express sympathy for xenoglossy etc? If he does, I then find it somewhat strange that he is currently being held up as some sort of icon for rationalism. Thats all I'm wondering.

I agree that Gorenfeld does seem somewhat untrustworthy, so I'm prepared to discount much of what he writes. Obviously this whole thing would be sorted if I simply read Harris, but thats too easy!

[Sir-Think-A-Lot]

How open is Harris? I think I've shown Gorenfeld is not a credible source. On the contrary, he has shown himself willing to exaggerate and misrepresent in the article you cited. I know of no other sources for these claims. I note that STAL also supports these claims, but having read his review of the Letter, I do not give him much credit for honest representation either.

I dont recall insulting harris for holding to such things in my review of Letter, indeed, I wasnt even aware of his views on these subjects at the time, since as I already pointed out he made no mention of them in Letter(and I hadnt read End of Faith).

[lao tzu]

I dont recall insulting harris for holding to such things in my review of Letter, indeed, I wasnt even aware of his views on these subjects at the time, since as I already pointed out he made no mention of them in Letter(and I hadnt read End of Faith). Having read your review of Letter, I question your honest representation of Harris' views, and extend this skepticism to your claims that he "speaks out in support of psychic phenomena." No one has accused you of insulting Harris. Your implication that someone has done so gives me further cause for skepticism.

As ever, Jesse

[ChosenOne66]

Has anyone else read this tripe?

I am only a quarter of the way through and enjoying it's absurdity thoroughly.

My favorite part so far was his argument that Christians who oppose abortion based on the fact that the blastocyst will become a person eventually are completely in error because with our advances in genetic engineering, ANY cell on our body is a potential human being. So every time I scratch my nose I am aborting thousands of potential human beings. I had a good laugh over that one.

Anyone else read this "book"?

I have. it was terrible.

The Rev. Douglas Wilson will be publishing a book-length rebuttle in April, titled Letter of a Christian Citizen. Wilson has a mind sharper than a diamond saw, and a highly refined sense of humor. Here's an exert:

In response to Sam's complaining about nasty Christians, Wilson writes:

In different ways this same issue is going to come up again and again as I respond to different portions of your book. You want Christians to stop behaving in certain ways. But why? You want them to write nice letters to atheist authors, and you want them to stop turning America into a big, dumb theocracy. But why? If there is no God, what could possibly be wrong with theocracies? They provide high entertainment value, and they give everybody involved in them a sense of dignity and high moral purpose. They get to wear ecclesiastical robes, march in impressive processions, and burn intransigent people at the stake, believing that they are better than everybody else and that God likes them. Further, the material universe doesn't care about any of this foolishness, not even a little bit. So what's wrong with having a little bit of fun at the expense of other bits of protoplasm? Hitler, Ronald Regan, Pol Pot, Mother Teresa, Mao, Nancy Pelosy, Stalin, Ted Haggard, and the Grand Inquisitor are all just part of this gaudy and very temporary show. Sometimes the northern lights put on a show in the sky. Sometimes people put on a show on the ground. Then the sun goes out and it turns out nobody cares. Given your premeses, this has to be the way it is.[/quote]

Again, you are using words like should be. Not only do you have an ought going on here, you have one you are quite willing to impose on others who differ with you (which can be seen in your goal of "arming" secularists). But what is the difference between an imposed morality, an imposed religion, or an imposed secular ought. Why is your imposition to be preferred to any other? ... Christianity is injurous you say, but I would want to inquire why it is bad to be injurous. What standard are you appealing to here? And retrograde means that we are sliding backwards in some sense. Why are we not allowed to slide down it? I am not trying to be cute here. I think these are central questions in the discussion.

I'm really looking foreward to reading Wilson's whole book.