Prager,

You must not have read Harris' email or not read it throughly.

a) Harris' does dismiss your rejection of his zeus through his example by using mormans as another example in his last email. The fact is any believer in a religion knows what its like to be dismissive of and to know that other gods do not exist with certainty. Everyone but a morman knows that mormanism is crap. Everyone but a scientologist knows that scientology is crap. Everyone but someone who believes in zeus knows zeus isn't god.

b) Harris' reference to the "strawman" was in reference to your claim that atheists were certain they knew how it all began. That was a lie. Harris called you on it and now you are trying to confuse the issue with the zeus issue. The 2 have nothing to do with each other. Atheists and scientists and general are much more likely to admit they don't know how it all began where the theist is the one who will claim with certainty how the universe was made.

c) The teapot argument applies to you because your entire claims about your God and Jesus are the same as the argument for the teapot. It's an analogy about how your belief system is outright silly and shouldn't be accepted. Its meant to show how silly and irrational your beliefs actually are. I am sorry you failed to see how it applies to your own personal beliefs, but it does.

d) For whatever Bertrand Russell was or did he was a great thinker with some great ideas. As Harris pointed out the teapot argument has never been refuted. Personally attacking Russell doesn't change the fact, it doesn't make Russell's argument irrational or silly. It does however show your predication for using fallacies. You've used many so far, but the attack on the character of Russell is uncalled for especially since you have no apparent point. The whole bit is just un-called for un-focused vitriol.

e) The entire last part of your email has nothing to do with atheism, morality or the absence of God in our schools. It's about political correctness. Even the scripture you quote is vague and one is lost on your point. Are you saying atheism is the cause of political correctness? un-Godliness is the cause of PC in schools? what is your point? Could you find a better scripture possibly? Maybe one that talks about the differences in the brains of men and women? Something that's actually relevant.

Goodthink

I would have hoped that this discussion would have requried that Mr. Prager have some background in the work of Mr. Harris. HIs accusations of atheism are thoroughly inappropriate. Mr. Prager also seem utterly incapable of taking thepoints of Harris's arguments. His responses seem to almost be to letters other than the ones Harris actually wrote. I'd like this to be a serious debate but Mr. Prager apparently has another agenda. His steadfast refusal to take on the logical challenges of Mr. Harris's challenges is getting to be truly aggravating by day 2. Mr. Prager, please show us all enough respect to taek these issues head on. Your rote responses are doing nothing to shed light. Perhaps I should have expected no less from someone who believe that the true value of faith lies in one's believing is in inverse relationship to the evidence to support it.
Jimerie

It is somewhat interesting when theists invoke one or two key religious scientists who claim to have evidence supporting gods existence.

As we know, all science relies on reproducible experiments. If the geneticist Collins which you mention has seen "scientific evidence" that supporting the theory of the existence of god then it must, by definition, be reproducible. As any discovery with such profound importance would be investigated independently, could you tell me which research groups have independently verified these god experiments and where can I find their publications?

I see by yesterdays' note the consequences of writing in anger. Let me be more to the point and more literate today.

Dennis, if this debate is to be taken seriously, then you are going to have to start answering the issues posited by Sam. I see two possibilities here. You may feel that since there is no acceptable logical response, the best plan is to detour the debate by trying to change the subject. Possibility #2 is more damning. Perhaps you are just not philosophically sophisticated enough to understand the propositions. You seem to feel that your responses are devastating to Sam's propositions, e.g. your response to the Teapot conundrum. Unfortunately you missed the point entirely and I have to wonder if this was intentional on your part. You are like a blind dog that is certain it is thrashing the leg of some intruder when what you actually have is a piece of PVC tubing. And you're not even in your own yard any more.

Sam, I suspect that if Dennis can't play the game any better than this you may well be wasting your time. You start out explaining why the term "atheist" is invalid and Dennis begins his response by calling you a smug and arrogant atheist. Coherent debate doesn't seem to be his strong suit.
Jimerie

Dear Dennis,

You are about as ignorant as every other religious person I have ever met. You have not countered any of the arguments posed by Sam at all. Besides the Zeus one, which you clearly misunderstood, you have had irrelevant topics, some supported by scriptures which atheists clearly dismiss if they don't believe in God.

You obviously missed most of the points Sam was trying to make. The teapot is obviously talking about your God. Immorality in Bertrand Russel doesn't mean immorality in all atheists, just like immorality in real Christians (oh let's say those child raping preists) doesn't mean immorality in all Christians.

I recently read an argument between Dr. Collins and Richard Dawkins, where Dr. Collins countered everything with a simple "I believe it is possible..." and I could have argued with him just as well as anyone. The fact that he has the intellectual power to figure out such complex things, really disappears when he argues about God, or so it did in that Time Magazine article.

Please, Mr. Prager, try understanding these arguments and countering them effectively, or you will do nothing to prove atheism wrong, but rather show the stupidity and arrogance of your religion. You are much more arrogant than Mr. Harris by any means.

-Disappointed Reader

Dennis has done a great job on refuting Sam's so-called arguments....Sam's favorite thing is to confuse the issue or argument presented by Dennis and putting a label on him as to marginalize him. The Zeus argument was ridiculous as was agreeing the scientists who believe they will have sex in heaven with virgins are the same as scientists who believe in a Judaeo-Christian God.

Prager puts a lot of weight in the idea that someone like Collins could be a believer, because he is a scientist! And not just any scientist but the guy (one of them anyway) who sequenced the human genome. Wow! Collins is an eminent biochemist who knows just about everything there is to know about the chemistry of DNA and the machines that are used to sequence long strands of the stuff. Also, give him credit for being a competent administrator - he had lots of help and probably didn't get his hands wet.

But what does he know about the MEANING of the DNA sequences? That project is just getting underway. It involves evolution. It involves doing comparative studies of human DNA with chimp DNA with mouse DNA, etc. Collins is a scientist. But he isn't interpreting the genome, he just unraveled the code. Now others, indeed people like Sam Harris, will get to work to decode the code.

So you see, Mr. Prager, your argument is empty. I know many physicians (who even do clinical research on diseases) who are every bit as devout as Dr. Collins. Sure they can be believers. Because, as of right now, medicine is not as impacted by genetics or evolution theory as, say, ecology or the behavior and brain sciences. Please, earnestly study biology, esp. evolution and then come back and refute the idea that life does, indeed, not need an intercessor to grow in complexity.

If only Prager would have found the time at Columbia to take a freshman course in logic.

Mr. Prager is using a tactic many conservatives rely upon. Since he can't win a debate on the merits of his argument, he is trying to reframe the debate.

Also, I must say it is kind of embarrassing to see him keep missing the point. I've never heard his radio show but something tells me he's not used to engaging intellectuals, but then again, he knows his audience.

That is the question for Mr. Prager.

He is a consumate debater whose exponent goal is to win at all costs! He will obfuscate, decieve, obscure, confuse and concoct in any way that serves his goals. He -- the expert debater -- already 'KNOWS' he has the truth. Anything done in the service of his truth is done right!

Mr. Sam Harris, you are much smarter than not to realize that Prager is not interested in a genuine debate and argumentation whose main objective is to serach for truth and honesty.

Mr. Prager, you know you are good in having an audience. So, you will continue to proffer your preumptuous and disingenuously humble thoughts to your radio audiences. There is no hope for you.

Thank you for saying it.

Yes, and maybe you can tell me wich research groups have reproduced the so called evolutionary chain.

I may only be a young student, but I do love science, and I know what a scientist is. A scientist is someone who is willing to change their belief no matter what when evidence of anything is found. They also only believe in things that have proof of some sort. Finally, they test that idea or hypothesis to prove themselves wrong, or to find they were correct. Therefor, any scientist who claims to believe in God, is not a scientist at all, but just a person who knows things about the sciences... Unless they have found, tested, and proved that God is real while I wasn't looking.

It is easy to be a pundit and a critic as we read this mess on the screen and I would hope that everyone here has the guts to even get into one of these debates.
That said...
Prager has no argument. He has missed every point Harris has made. He's sort of like the Black Knight from Monty Python's The Holy Grail. He's had his virtual arms and legs cut off but he's still barking about the triumph of his position. So rarely have I seen someone as inept as him get into a debate this public and be so poorly prepared. I'd at least hope for someone who could do better than the reminding us of how they demolished atheist'sarguments in high school and then can't do it how.
Consistently, knowing (I suspect) that he can't possibly win this debate on its own terms, he has tried to move the goalposts in the hope that changing the objectives will win the day. Oh the sopphistry and the arrogance of the ignorant. It sort of...well...reminds me of the current U.S. president.

dear goodthink:

Well put! may I add that in (e), its also about lack of all around intelligence, or seykhel that this was done to Lawrence Summers, not to mention leftwing dogmatism which matches religious dogmatism for unswerving fervor.

nyapikores.blogspot.com

the problem of dogmatism in religion is an issue untouched by Prager.  Harris notes that the legions of devout have some inane beliefs, and that's true.  At the same time the militant secularists of the left have their own unswerving faith.

nyapikores.blogspot.com

How anyone can read Dennis' comments and think he has offered ANYTHING to the defense of religion is beyond me.

This is as much evidence for Zeus' existence as there is for the Judaeo-Christian god... the rantings of the ancients.

The claim that Bertrand Russell was "morally confused" or "immoral" is preposterous.
Russell felt that with two world wars in less than thirty years, a third world war was likely in the near future, and that with the advent of nuclear weapons, such a war would probably end life on earth.
Russell advocated the internationalization of nuclear weapons as the most assured way to prevent such a war.
He also felt that while it enjoyed a monopoly of nuclear weapons and incontestable military supremacy, the US should exploit its historically unique position to force such internationalization by threatening any recalcitrant governments with war. Only if such threats went unheaded did Russell advocate a preemptive nuclear strike.
Although it's debatable whether this would have been the best policy, it is not a "morally confused" position.
It is a canard that Russell ever advocated unilateral disarmamament for the West. He advocated mutual disarmament with reliable verification procedures. I challenge Mr. Prager to cite one original quote of Russell's in which he recommends unilateral Western disarmament.

Prager keeps attempting to deduce the scientific or metaphysical truth of religious beliefs (such as the Christian belief that Jesus was divine---or was it the Jewish belief that he was a false prophet and hence non-divine----or the Muslim belief that he was a true prophet but non-divine)from the ostensible moral superiority of their adherents. This is logically fallacious reasoning. That a virtuous person believes the earth is flat doesn't make it flat.
Moreover, the moral superiority of the religious is dubious.
Harris is right that our religions' moral precepts sprout from our moral intuitions primarily, and not the reverse. Hence, it's absurd to attribute the abolition of slavery to Judaism or Christianity. There were many adherents of both superstitions that approved of slavery and felt buttressed in their approval by their faiths, just as there were no doubt those who opposed slavery and felt buttressed in their opposition by their faith.
In other words, people on both sides of the issue felt "inspired" by their religion(s). Since the religious texts generally support slavery, the true inspiration for the abolitionists must have been non-religious in origin.

Bertrand Russell's argument about the levelling effect of internationalizing nuclear wepaons (i.e. all nations possessing nuclear weapons) as a guarantee against nuclear war suffers from one fatal flaw. Think on this:-

Many people's views of lifeforms scattered throughout the Universe is based on StarTrek, where aliens often walk upright on two legs, (learn to) speak English in an American accent, are essentially benign unless subjected to extreme provocation, and are ultimately reasonable and willing to compromise.

For me, the most convincing alien was portayed in the film Alien, which was absolutely hostile to other lifeforms and could not be reasoned with or even approached. The same is true of religious fundamentalists of all complexions but in particular Muslims who would convert the world to Islam or, failing that, kill or subjugate all infidels (i.e. non-Muslims). Could you imagine nuclear weapons in the hands of people who claim that their religion is demonstrably stronger than other religions because Muslims love death more than others [Christians, Jews, etc.] love life? The primary reason Muslims cannot achieve this today is because of their relative weakness militarily.

I have just read a very scary and thought-provoking book called 'August 21st 2010' by English writer Bill Ashley which predicts just such a confrontation between religions. Bill Ashley's view of religion is similar to Sam Harris's but it comes from someone who believes in God. I'd recommend it to anyone interested in the subject, you won't be disappointed. It can be ordered from the publisher's website at www.rubicon-books.com

Hilly from Minnesota

I was listening once his radio program as he interviewed a polish nun who saved the lives of six jews by hiding them during WWII. Dennis saw the hand of god acting through the woman but missed the minor detail that in the meantime six MILLION perished in the concentration camps with god's obvious knowledge.( His chosen people by the way) Why debate this pompous moron?

I wonder if he really read Sam's response carefully. I get the impression he wanted to be biting but ended up sounding foolish, missing the fact that many of his "non-refuted" statements were actually adressed. He also again used the old "you were obviously wrong" statement without actually backing it up. Surprisingly weak.

Just one thing:

Bertrand Russell was not an atheist, but an agnostic. Within this context, I believe it is important to note that.

Regards,
Ervin

Last I checked, WWII military strategy and cold war disarmament were political positions, not moral failings.  Perhaps in your first draft of this email, you called Russell a sodomite, but your editor said that piece of right-wing vocabulary was too "on message."

I'm curious why people think it is even possible to Prove or Disprove the existence of Gd? That is, prove it or disprove it in such a way as to convince someone else, to encase this belief in a logic so compelling that another person must change their mind. To me, this is like building a car with square metal wheels.

It's ultimately an argument that is completely internal, and is frequently resolved in surprising ways--that are all meaningless to every other person walking around.

I personally do not see a schism between religion and science. I think they fit very comfortably next to each other and even interweave more than a few times. But to get to this conclusion I was driven by my own curiosity, no one was pushing me but me.

Often, it is rightfully said that science is figuring out the objective little details and religion is dealing with larger, more philosophical questions. This is, in a basic sense, true. For that reason, science and religion can get along while they explore their strengths.

However, each time scientists seek out, or more often stumble across, information that overlaps the domain of religion, there is definitely a conflict.

We saw this in the most famous example of Copernicus and Galileo overturning the old Kepler position that the earth was central to everything. The discovery that the sun was central to our solar system stepped on religious toes because the religious leaders had overstepped when the pretended to know how God built the earth and the heavens.

We see this again with evolution. For 150 years, people have been learning that evolution is a better explanation for how life, especially the diversity of life, came about. It provides the opportunity for testable hypotheses, all of which end up supporting Darwin's general idea of evolution by natural selection. Since a major tenet of religions is the large philosophical assertion of creationism, their toes are once again stepped upon by science. There is no longer a debate about the shape of the earth or the structure of the heavens. God no longer lives in the clouds. Now, the debate is over our origins.

Religions still maintain that morality and purpose are their domains. But science is eating away at this God of the Gaps. This creates conflict. You are absolutely correct that nobody can prove the existence or non-existence of God. But the advance of science provides more and more evidence against God, at the same time, eating away at the reasons for belief in him. This is the conflict we are seeing in our lifetimes.

and don't forget Ecclesiastes.

he who increases knowledge increases sorrow.

implying that intelligence is a bad thing. you can't cherry pick the bible just for your ad hoc approach to god. even christ both says to follow the old testament to a t, then proceeds to try and change it. the whole of the bible is sordid. you can't possibly use the moral ambivalence of the bible and hope to not be confused.