Dennis Prager praises Judeo-Christian civilization for "discovering science and the scientific method, affirming rationality" (among other very controversial claims) but insists on using fallacious logic. He writes

"When people realize this, they may conclude that something that is necessary for society to survive—belief in the God of Israel—may in fact exist."

That's true, of course. Later Dennis makes the odd assertion that the following conclusion is not "fair-minded":

“If humanity can’t survive without a belief in God, this would only mean that a belief in God exists. It wouldn't, even remotely, suggest that God exists.”

That's a very simple statement and it is obviously true. It can be true or wrong. There's nothing in between like "fair-minded". It's elementary logic. The final question is:

"Can you name one thing that does not exist but is essential to human survival?"

There is no such thing. Everything that is necessary for the survival of humanity exists obviously. So it is perfectly correct to make once again the trivial conclusion: If belief in God is necessary for the survival of humanity then belief in God exists. By what reasoning does this suggest the existence of God?

Using "scientific methods" (those by Karl Popper) to decide whether the hypothesis of the existence of God is rational we must look for statements that are falsifiable by observation. If one of these statements turns out to be false then the theory is disproved. If there are many such statements that pass the test, then the theory is considered to be useful. Judeo-Christianity including the Holy Scriptures can be falsified easily. Dropping all falsified statements of Judeo-Christianity will leave nothing that survives Ockham's razor. So science won't help to justify the existence of God, no matter how many scientist are cited that believe in God.

It took the west almost 2 thousand years since Jesus to finally renounce slavery and to begin to give equal rights to women. Still it has not yet come to accept homosexuality. How long will that take? Christianity has been in frequent opposition to scientific progress and even today has a hard time accepting evolutionary theory both biologically and cosmologically.Perhaps attributing our progress in these areas is unrelated to the "grandness" of Christianity.

I ended up here as the result of one of the designers asking for reviews of their work, and got sucked into this article. There's no better compliment to design when your focus is drawn straight to the content, and I've browsed through the other articles and really like the way you guys are addressing your subject.

That said, I have to admit, this exchange was great entertainment, but a very poor debate. My immediate reaction was to yell "Stop it! You guys are what's wrong with belief!" Pitting two polarized ideologues against one another isn't useful; in this instance, they were so clearly convinced of the other's stupidity that they connected only very superficially with the opposing view.

Dennis Prager writes "If we both acknowledge that without faith in God humanity will self destruct." If I'm reading Sam correctly, I think he would argue that even with a faith in God humanity will self destruct.

That takes some serious balls to give religion credit for that.

And taking credit for the scientific method? Ummmm.....that's just downright bizarre.

Great comment, Theo! It was quite frustrating to read Prager's contributions to the debate, so often did he miss points, beg questions, use vague language, and so on. I've seen this sort of thing enough from others too that it makes me suspicious that, at least subconsciously, religious apologists have partitioned their minds so that they can use tortured reasoning whenever they need to protect their faith-based beliefs, but relatively straightforward reasoning otherwise - and not notice that they are doing it! I'd love to see some studies along these lines, tracking degrees of mis-reasoning to various kinds of beliefs.

One comment on Prager's final quote: "The believer in God has to account for the existence of unjust suffering; the atheist has to account for the existence of everything else.”

It is utterly bizarre how the believer is so easily let off the hook for accounting for the existence of God in the first place. Once you manage to believe in God, then he's magically exempt from being accounted for? If one thinks the atheist has to account for "everything else", then one should accept that the theist has to account for God.
-godma

Wow, I'm sorry to inform you of this, but this was such a one sided debate it wasn't even funny. Harris owned Prager with clear, rational arguments, while Prager... well, he talked a lot and gave lots of anecdotes without making any cogent arguments.

Why do i subject myself to this? So frustrating to read the logically coherent arguments of Sam Harris bracketed by the inanities of this Limbaugh-clone.

I find it fascinating that some commenting here claim Prager's arguments are not "logically coherent". Is it distaste for the position he defends or unfamiliarity with logic that make them think this way. Prager is nothing if he isn't clear.

I give Harris a 40 point IQ spread over Prager

For the thinking student (consider the frame of reference):

Sam Harris does not exist

I think that it's undeniable that the framework for the Marxist political view even seems Christianized. A glorious revolution that redeems mankind and brings justice, peace, and equality? Redeams the fall of mankind? They might have been atheists, but the framework for their ideas, I believe in the least, is somewhat Christianized.

If you are sitting in a hospital room with a 2 year old child that may die from open heart surgery, you need someone to believe in.
GOD listens to you when you ask for his help, I cannot prove this, and
even if he cannot help your child, the belief in a spiritual being gives one comfort. It is very lonely in a pediatric waiting room. There weren't any scientists, intellectuals or atheist doling out comfort when I needed it. I trusted in GOD for the skill and technology he
gave the doctors to help my baby.

Irrelevant. IQ and wisdom are not the same thing. IQ is a sharp knife. Wisdom is (in part) about the most effective use of the knife you have. A sharp knife in the hand of a man without wisdom will do far greater damage than a dull knife in the hand of the same man.

Having a higher IQ does not automatically confer wisdom on anyone. In fact, it is quite the opposite for anyone who believes this is so: it means only that you have the capacity to be an even greater fool. I would bet that the overwhelming majority of dictators have/had above-average IQ's.

"the belief in a spiritual being gives one comfort"

And it doesn't matter that god doesn't exist, the human mind is quite adept at creating delusions to help us cope with highly stressful situations.

I hope your child pulled through ok.

Belief is a settlment that avoids responsibility to rationally answer the great existential questions. Rationalism is making progress, however. New discoveries force god from his hiding place to retreat to areas where his great kingdom of mystery still exists. God can only be found in mystery that does not include the cosmos He incorrectly informed us about. Where are You hiding now?
If Prager met Immanuel Kant he would still not see his irrationality. Prager believes development of a logical reticulate is all that is required to form logical certainty as it applies to religion. What he dosen't understand is that logical reticulates can form on any set of assumptions and appear beautiful. It is a false rationalism he will never see because he's too invested. His reticulate can be an interesting taspetry of logic on a level but is formed on assumptions that cannot be proven and, hence, without foundation.
Mr. Harris, thanks for your insightful arguments and leadership on this important subject. I've read some of your books and am delighted to learn of your views regarding the Islamic threat.

“The believer in God has to account for the existence of unjust suffering; the atheist has to account for the existence of everything else.”

It seems that the people who would believe the above statement would also be fans of Dennis. Unfortunately (for everybody), this statement is not very intelligent. For example, wouldn't the believer also have to account for how God came about? (You could just "believe" that God always existed or that God is "uncreated"--whatever that means--but that does not give any good reason for an existance of God.)

Am I the only one that thinks that these comments are made by people with closed minds? All of you have made up your minds about whether God exists or not, and your comments are based on your personal beliefs! To one side, the existence of the Universe means that there is a God, to the other side it means nothing. It's there by chance and that's it. The atheists don't have rational thinking cornered, and neither do people of faith.

On another note, it's flat out dangerous to say that Stalin's philosophy had anything to do with Christianity. It does not matter what he or the philosophy he represented said, but what matters is what he DID! That's what we have to live with, and Soviet Union died in the nineties with the blood of millions on its hands. Those people were killed unjustly for a sick ideology that had nothing to do with Christianity. That faith doesn't only state it's philosophy. If you ever read the New Testament, you would find several commands to live it out, as well. It goes as far as saying that if you don't live it, you don't have it.

Lastly, I am so sorry for the one commentator's child having been seriously ill, and I am sickened by the other person's comment about creating delusions in stressful situations. I can only assume that the person has never had their back against the wall like you have. I hope and pray that your child is well and happy.

I am sorry that the last comment (people,people...) attacked a perfectly reasoned argument. If one posts on these forums, then we must respect them enough to give them honest opinions. This is a hard set of circumstances. But this kind of openness can bring us all to a greater understanding of the many issues raised. If we believe in heaven and hell, then we have to face the fact that our children might not. This leads to what one guy has suggested. namely that our lift marked 'up' watches their lift marked 'down'. Are we really supposed to ascend smilingly into the arms of God knowing the fate of our children? Are we to discuss it with fellow believers for eternity?
This is a critical argument in the heaven hell debate. It does not make sense. My love to you and your child.

"All of you have made up your minds about whether God exists or not, and your comments are based on your personal beliefs!"

Um, isn't that exactly what this discussion (argument, if you prefer) is about? Should people be using impersonal beliefs, or be arguing without any definitive mindset? Even agnostics have a fairly definitive mindset and I'm sure they could argue theirs quite well.

Even though it doesn't seem likely that any side will change its mind, it is still important to understand the perspectives of others - the worst thing that could happen is it could strengthen your own views on the matter.

Oh, also, you really misinterpreted that "other person's comment". It was clearly a very honest and mature response to the affected parent's comment. He/she was simply putting forth his/her own opinion on the subject matter, just as the parent did (and I'm sure that the parent wasn't dumb enough to not realize that there would be some sort of response to their emotional comment about their child's experience as you suggest).

I believe that these last statements have effectively proven that God, in fact, does not exist. Er, something...

ps. That really does suck about your child, I'm really sorry that you had to go through that.

It is utterly bizarre how the believer is so easily let off the hook for accounting for the existence of God in the first place. Once you manage to believe in God, then he's magically exempt from being accounted for? If one thinks the atheist has to account for "everything else", then one should accept that the theist has to account for God.

The theist can account for God precisely by asking the atheist to account for "everything else". Or by doing it for him. Allow me:

I cannot offer any direct evidence for God's existence but the circumstantial case is extremely compelling when viewed in light of the bleak ramifications of there being no God.

If there is no God (or any other supernatural being or beings that infuse the universe with meaning and morality), then you cannot have any sort of objectively based moral code. You can either make up a moral code that everyone knows is a fairy tale and requires the same suspension of disbelief required to watch a movie or play, or you can be honest and descend into a hellish swirl of nihilism and relativism. But you cannot both say there is no God and then declare any acts -- including the acts of Islamo-terrorists -- wrong because you are left with only opinion and taste, which, without a God to create a transcendent moral code, are by definition arbitrary.

Why is rape or murder or the sexual torture of infants or genocide – or any other crime that the average atheist and theist would agree is heinous – wrong? If all we have is amoral atoms and dust, then all of these “crimes” are just atoms and dust rearranging other atoms and dust. Where is the crime? For that matter what IS a crime -- and who decides? To what authority do these atoms and subatomic particles appeal to determine which random movements of other atoms and subatomic particles are criminal?

This is the very thing Sam Harris and friends are never asked to account for. Harris has a problem with Islamo-fascism and all those beheadings and massacres but never tells us why. He apparently assumes that because the average atheist and theist agree that the things the Islamic terrorists do are bad that he doesn’t need to explain why they are bad. Faulty logic in light of this topic. But whatever – so why are they bad? Because Sam Harris says so? The atheist cannot believe in a transcendent moral code, he can believe only in a series of temporarily pragmatic ones that have no objective basis while pretending whichever one is current is transcendent. In other words, if the atheist is to be taken seriously, whatever is good or great or noble or beautiful about the human spirit is all based on a lie, because these very concepts are themselves lies.

And then finally, the atheist has to account for why anything even matters at all. What difference does it make if a child lives a full life and dies in bed at 100 or if the same child is thrown in a dumpster in a Boston alley moments after birth to slowly freeze to death? You might answer because the child might grow up to make a difference in someone else’s life, find a cure for a disease. Then the question is why should a difference in this other person's life be made? Why should this or any disease be cured? To save humanity? To relieve suffering? Why should humanity be saved? Why should suffering be relieved? Why should there be any ‘should’ at all? Why does it even matter whether the universe exists or not? These are the questions that the atheist must either give a compelling answer for or admit that if there is no God, acts of good and evil ultimately have no meaning at all because life itself is ultimately meaningless.

The only rational response to the discovery that life is meaningless is despair, which cannot be reasonably relieved from an honest and logic-oriented mind without knowledge (or at least a knowledge-based hope) that this scenario is false. Atheists argue as if there is no real difference between a human being and a computer, by which I mean that there is no other form of knowledge than the purely academic. Yet we see a very different knowledge in all the other life forms around us – instinct. A deer in the wood knows it needs to drink water. It doesn’t know why. Yes, we humans know why but that is irrelevant to the point because the deer doesn’t know why. It only knows that it needs to drink this stuff (water) or it will start to feel really bad, and – to the point – it knows this from birth without having to consult a book on biology or read a periodic table or go to college or to engage in any sort of logical/cognitive thinking at all. It just knows, and this ‘just knowing’ allows it to live.

I submit that humans likewise have instincts, to which any biologist would agree, but where I’m sure most part company with me is that these instincts include a homing device for God. There has been only one civilization that was based on the belief that there is only physical matter, and it lasted only 74 years – the Soviet Union. The rest all believed in God or gods or some form or plane of existence beyond the purely physical, and that both the physical and the spiritual planes were infused with transcendent meaning and morality.

If this high a ratio of anything were found anywhere else in the world of science, it would be trumpeted that we were on the verge of a major scientific discovery. But because it points to God, it is cancelled out by an a priori assumption that there is no God.

This is what Dennis meant when he said that the believer has to explain some very difficult things, that it is not as difficult as explaining what the unbeliever has to explain. The believer has to account for why God allows unjust things to happen; the unbeliever has to declare that life is meaningless but that we must pretend otherwise so we can continue to enthusiastically rearrange deckchairs on the Titanic. That, ladies and gentlemen, is the ultimate blind faith.

Thanks for the comments, keeps things alive!

First, my comment about personal beliefs just intended to put both sides on the same line, not to change the topic of the debate. I wanted to point out that both the atheist and the believer come in from a faith standpoint. So, I indeed appreciate both sides of the argument and the people who hold such views. So, I state it again: Both the atheist and the believer have made up their minds. One side believes in God and the other denies God. This does not negate in any way the importance of understanding and respecting the way the other side thinks.

Second, I was commenting on "the human mind is quite adept at creating delusions in stressful situations". In context it was an answer to the hospitalized child's parent, and it does not sound like a "perfectly reasoned argument" but a rejection of the parent's right to believe in God, whether the situation is stressful or not. As the parent confessed that they trusted God, the comment stated "delusions in stressful situations." How would an atheist like such a comment about their "faith?"

Third, our debate does not prove the existence of God either way. If he exists, he is a being outside of us, and our writing doesn't do anything either way...

Thanks for the challenges, appreciate your response!

Prager's closing paraphrase of Milton Steinberg states that the onus is on the atheist to account for the existence of everything apart from evil. In his Evil and the God of Love, John Hick, himself a devout Christian, refutes this argument decisively:

"[T]he atheist is not obliged to explain the universe at all. He can simply accept it at its face value as an enormously complex natural fact. It constitutes an environment that is for him partly pleasant, partly unpleasant, and partly neutral; but he need find no special intellectual problem either in its pleasantness or in its unpleasantness."

As for myself, I'm a deist. I see in the order and beauty of the natural universe evidence (though not 100% proof) of a creator. However, I find no credible evidence whatsoever that this creator cares whether I eat pork or not; whether I follow the Torah, Christian Bible, Qur'an, or Communist Manifesto; or whether I worship that being. In other words, I believe that God is independently real but that religion--all religion, organized or private--stems from the creative imagination of humans. Religion is a tool, like an axe. An axe can be used either to build housing for the homeless, or to commit murder; it is therefore inherently neither good nor evil. So too can we use religion either to bring comfort to suffering parents and children, or to murder them. Thus both Prager and Harris miss the point: religion is no more "the answer" than secular materialism is.

I believe that Sam Harris decidedly came out on top in the argument, but neither side presented anything that was bogus with this one exception. Prager claims that Judeo-Christianity is responsible for equal rights. I open my Bible and I don't even know where to start. Apologists like to claim that the Old Testament counts for nothing, so let's have a look at the New Testament:

Ephesians 5:24 (Paul’s epistle, New Testament)
Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.

1 Corinthians 11:3, 8-9 (Paul’s epistle, New Testament)
Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God . . . For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.

1 Corinthians 14:34-35 (Paul’s epistle, New Testament)
Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.

1 Timothy 2:9-15 (Paul’s epistle, New Testament)
I also want women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God. A woman should learn in silence and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. But women will be restored through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.

Now what, exactly, was it about Christianity that influenced women's rights? If my member is serving me correctly, Susan B. Anthony was a pretty staunch atheist.

I will try to be brief in responding to the above comments. Sam did not have time to cite the many biblical commands by "higher powers" that nearly everyone today would consider highly immoral- including killing your own child or wife for various transgressions which today illicit a time-out or slammed door. Morality defined by humans means so much more, just because it is not forced upon us by an outside "authority". Doing good because it helps people or animals or nature is pure goodness. Doing it because you fear for your own safety in an "afterlife" seems more selfish than altruistic.

Appreciating beauty in nature is also unconnected to belief in a creator. I am a nature photographer. I also find the concepts of physics, biology, chemistry, astronomy, etc. fascinating, and worthy of study because we don't yet have all of the answers. If your answer is "God created it all and watches over it", that kind of takes the fun out of the searching for knowledge.

For the record, I come from a Jewish family, but found it depressing and sexist (for starters). They are clever tho- you can still be "Jewish" and do nothing about it. Guess I'm in trouble either way- if the anti-semites come around, they probably won't be too fond of atheists either...

Hello.

Your Bible quotes beg for comments, and I'm not the one who you commented on earlier.

You have successfully done what is so common - picked and chosen quotes from the Bible that are completely out of context. It is amazing that this is done all the time, yet great care is often taken in providing the context for quoting other writings.

Example: All the above quotes regarding the dress and conduct of women were written by Paul in a letter directly to specific churches, where women were behaving inappropriately and in relation to the societal norms of the times. Just as men were required to behave well, women were, too. The Bible is full of warnings and correction to men, and this is one of the few spots where women are corrected directly. Do you suggest that women should be allowed to run around in bikinis at church? That's what their conduct was analogous at the time... The message was modesty for all, not suppressing women.

It is easy to find justification to any thought by quoting out of context. Understanding the Bible takes understanding the context as well as the meaning of the original languages of Hebrew and Greek. It also takes reading the whole Bible, not just parts of it.

Hope this helps you to sooth your distaste for the way the Bible instructs us to treat women. Here is another quote from the New Testament: "And husbands, love your wives just as Christ loved the church and gave His life for her." In other words, the same Paul told men to love their wives and sacrifice themselves for them. In this way, it's a union of mutual love and respect. The key is to think that the other one is more important than self, also known as selflessness.

It would be interesting to know more about the nature of beliefs and how they can change (both for born again christians and those losing their faith) as I believe (sic) that this is one of the central problems that faces man.

Never mind changing the beliefs of others. As an individual I can not even easily change my own irrational beliefs that lead to me being anxious in certain situations even though I know on a rational level that the belief or world view that causes my behaviour is false and counter-productive.

It seems to me that religion shares many characteristics with phobias in that there is rational thought on one level and a deeper belief that you actions and thoughts must somehow be consistent with on a lower level, no matter how much they confict with reason. To gain temporary control over my anxiety I have to struggle to tell myself that I have no reason to be fearful. I just wonder if Prager and those like him are not trying hard enough to see that they have no reason to fear the lack of god.

If we could unlock this and more easily changes our beliefs I believe on one hand the world world have far less fear of irrational things that lead men to do the most awful things and yet the threat of having our beliefs more easily controled by those that master this power.

thank god I was born in secular Europe !! we had had this kind of discussions in the XVIII century, and we won the battle ;-) good luck !!

I would like to make a some points regarding atheism that I rarely (or never) see addressed in discussions such as this. Firstly, atheists do not declare life to be meaningless. I would argue that matters are quite the opposite. A theist believes that a life of piety is sufficient to earn them the ultimate reward (like 70 virgins) and as such is not obligated to partake of anything except their religion. On the other hand, an atheist must accept that the little time given to him is all there is and so he must make as much of his life as possible. An atheist must account for every moment of his life. The only concern of a theists is getting into heaven.

Secondly, atheism is not equivalent to lack of moral character. The very specific conflicts that I have with theists pertain to stem cell research, evolutionary theory and science education, other scientific matters in general, and religious wars. What men like Sam Harris hope to achieve by engaging in debates such as this are, for example, an end to ridiculous policies such as government bans on stem cell research, with the ultimate goal of ending human suffering. What could possibly be more moral than that? Not ending human suffering?

For Sam Harris's sake it is Moroni not Maroni and it wasn't the "Final Revelation." That is confusing Muhammed and J Smith. But as for evidence what about 3 men seeing an angel come down from the sky and show them the gold plates and tell them it was from God? And everyone of them claimed it was true to their death beds even after having a falling out with Joseph Smith? How about 12 other men seeing those gold plates and not one of them denying it to his death bed? Is that evidence? What about the purported translation of those plates (the Book of Mormon) that was analysed by a group of objective linquists who determined that it was most likely a translation of a multi author manuscript by an author of limited vocabulary (Joseph Smith). These things are evidence aren't they?

Collin Simonsen

I think it's sad that we must still debate this.

1. We must come to terms with our equally incompatible religions.

2. Atheism is a default position, and we are all atheist in regards to many religions.

3. The burden of proof is given to he/she that makes claim of something other than what is proven by the scientific method.

4. The existence of god can not be proven. Atheism doesn't need to be.

To clear something else up: Anyone claiming evolution is based on coincidence doesn't know what evolution means, and the assumption that it is random is even dismissed by Darwin.

There is no difference between Zeus and the Abrahamic God, other than the fact that it was a different myth. They are equally unfounded, and should be equally critizied.

Hi,

Have you ever spent time with a theist? First of all, a theist is a person who believes in a god of some sort, but you can't generalize a Muslim terrorist believing in receiving 72 virgins for murder to represents all people of faith! An agnostic is a theist - believing in a God of some sort.

The last century was the most secular so far, and more people were killed by secular tyrants than by any religion ever. As a matter of fact, more people were killed, period.

Your claim "A theist believes that a life of piety is sufficient to earn them the ultimate reward (like 70 virgins) and as such is not obligated to partake of anything except their religion." Where is your proof that any or all theists live their lives like this? Here's an example of the Christians: The Bible has specific commands to bless the poor, the widows and all those who are vulnerable. Jesus went as far as to say that those who don't will not get to heaven.

Here's the latest stats from the US: Those active in a religious way are 25% more probable to give to charity than those who are not. They also outgive the non-religious by 4 times.

Your other factual error is in stem cell research. There was never a policy to ban it by the government. Private parties and states have full freedom to raise and use funds in any which way they want. The government just stated that it will not give tax dollars into stem cell research that uses new lines. It even allows the use of existing lines for research. Also, many scientists are saying that the true potential of stem cell research is way smaller than the hype. I'm not discounting the research, I'm saying that it's probably not an end-all cure for cancer. We would need one, though.

You have to back up your claims by facts, not by feelings...

Your comment about this debate being sad is pretty darn patronizing. If we all just believed what you said would make you happy and the world a dandy place, is that it? I wanted to comment on some of the emoted statements you presented above:

"Atheism is a default position, and we are all atheist in regards to many religions."

That's a bit confused. "Atheism" means believing that there is no God. How can all then be atheists in regards to many religions, if some believe in God, however different their image of him might be? What makes atheism the default position? It might be for you, but there's 6 billion plus people here.

"The burden of proof is given to he/she that makes claim of something other than what is proven by the scientific method."

Science is not the ultimate gauge. It is only our incomplete picture of a much greater Universe that we're a part of. Until science has ALL the answers, it shouldn't be used as a crutch by those who deny the existence of a greater power. We are a long way from figuring everything out scientifically, and it cannot explain everything. And I have a Master's degree in engineering with plenty of physics & chemistry to know that to be a fact.

"There is no difference between Zeus and the Abrahamic God, other than the fact that it was a different myth."

Prove it. Your claim is as much a faith statement as faith in God. The only problem is that you won't acknowledge it. You claim it to be the only truth just like many believers in God do. I believe in God, but I have many doubts regarding the details. Maybe you could learn something from me.

“If God created the universe, what created God? To say that God is uncreated simply begs the question. Why can’t I say that the cosmos is uncreated?”

Some comments on this statement from Sam Harris:

- We have learned that Mr. Harris is pursuing a degree in biology. However, the above statement betrays a lack of scientific knowledge on his part concerning physics and astronomy. In those scientific disciplines, the evidence continues to accumulate that the universe is finite in extent – it has finite boundaries in both space and time. Apparently everything in it (including itself) decays.

- Therefore, our universe must necessarily have been “created” or instantiated within some other enclosing system, either physical or metaphysical (beyond physical). It is illogical to say that the cosmos is uncreated.

- Since the scientific method is limited to operate within the boundaries of our universe, it will never be able to provide information about the properties of the enclosing system.

- Therefore, through the operation of science, we have discovered that science can never provide a complete description of physical reality.

- It is reasonable for a rational person to seek a complete description of physical reality – a complete worldview.

- Therefore, it is not unreasonable for otherwise rational scientists to seek a complete description of physical reality, even though nonscientific knowledge is required, and even though that nonscientific knowledge can never be verified in a laboratory.

- At this point, many people, including presumably many scientists, will “throw in the towel” and adopt an agnostic stance, saying in effect, “I prefer not to think about this.”

- A few people (atheists) will adopt an arguably unreasonable stance, and say “I will never accept anything but scientific statements, even if science can’t (and never will be able to) explain some of the things around me.”

- Many other people will adopt a nonscientific belief system to “fill the reality gap” in pursuit of a complete worldview. They will complete their worldview by finding a system of nonscientific thought promulgated by an individual or a religion. Arguably, there is a human instinct to seek a complete worldview. One can say therefore that man is a “religious” animal.

- Now, a fair question is “where did the promulgator of a particular nonscientific belief system (religion) get information?” A good question, since science itself can’t get any information outside this universe. Is this information just made up?

- The great monotheistic religions, building on Jewish thought, get around this by saying that the information was injected from outside our universe from the system that encloses our universe. The information was “revealed”.

- The Jewish revealed information starts with the messenger identifying itself as “I am who am” – which tends to indicate that the enclosing system where the messenger exists is meta-physical (beyond physical) in that it does not exist in time or space, and that the messenger is uncreated. The Jews name this messenger or being “God”.

- How does the person hearing this revealed information judge its veracity? On the authority of the messenger, or the authority of the parties relaying the message.

- This is of course the very means that nearly all individuals get their knowledge – even Sam Harris, in pursuing a degree in biology, is getting 99.9% of his biological scientific knowledge on authority from teachers and textbooks. He accepts the scientific credentials of those parties.

- What is the authority of the Jewish prophets, and Jesus Christ, who is to many, the final Jewish prophet? To assess the authority of a messenger, you check his credentials, which involves getting to know him or her.

- Jesus apparently said that if are willing to get to know him (even though he is not physically present at this time), that he will give you – person-to-person – absolute assurance that his credentials are bona fide (“I am the way, the truth, and the life”). How this happens is a mystery, but billions of people throughout history have accepted his credentials.

- This Christian variation of the Jewish solution has the advantage of being ontologically and methodologically complete, with the caveat of the above-mentioned final step, which involves a person-to-“person” transaction with a messenger who is currently beyond this universe. If this is criticized as unscientific, note that we left the realm of science behind at the beginning of this argument.

- So in summary, the choices are (A) Decide to live in willful ignorance (atheism), which is unreasonable; (B) Not think about it (agnosticism), which is lazy; (C) Accept a body of revealed knowledge to complete your worldview (theism), at the cost of accepting the credentials of some individual or religion, which requires faith. The only easy out is (B).

First, to the parent with the sick child. I do not (yet) have children of my own, so I cannot begin to know what you went through. And with all respect, I hope you understand when I say I hope I never do have to know what you went through.

That being said, I did lose my mother to a heart attack when she was 49. I saw her at midnight and she was fine, then at 3:00 in the morning my father woke me up to tell me he had called the ambulance because of the heart attack. She was never alive after that.

The whole thing hurt immensely, as I'm sure everyone can imagine. For me, I found the watershed moment of coming to grips while watching a nature documentary about the African savannah. A lion killed a zebra. The zebra died because that is nature. Nature is both beautiful and cruel - at least as we humans interpret it. But in fact, there is no love nor is there malice. It's just the way it is. My mother didn't die for a reason - she wasn't being punished, nor was I being tested. It's just the way life is. I could either look for an excuse or accept the reality and move on. I chose to move on - of course with the love and support of my family and friends.

Please understand I'm not saying that you or anyone should be the same as me. I'm only saying in times of sorrow, not everyone needs to look elsewhere for solace. Some look at the loss as part of the highs and the lows that is reality and continue living to create more highs.

Now, to the author who wrote "What atheists have to account for..." on November 27, 2006 - 8:00pm:

In my opinion, you have made the strongest arguments yet of anyone arguing for the existence of God. Thank you. It is borderline painful to read so many seriously flawed arguments for the existence of God. But I think there are a couple of things you are missing and I'm naive enough to think that I can do an accurate enough job to explain them properly, so I'll give it a shot.

You write, "If there is no God (or any other supernatural being or beings that infuse the universe with meaning and morality), then you cannot have any sort of objectively based moral code." I agree. There is no *objective* moral code. I argue that a moral code is firmly based on a time and a place. Killing is a terrible thing under almost every circumstance. But I say almost because there are times when killing is necessary. We can argue about what those times are, but what's important is to note only that the moral code regarding killing another is relative to the situation. Other things like rape are never justified - at least not in any situation I can conceive, but I reserve the right to be wrong.

At times in history, slavery was accepted - even endorsed by the Bible (and other holy books). Does that make everyone immoral who didn't actively condemn slavery? I argue that they aren't. They were living in their reality. It is unfair for us to judge them on our morals as it was a different time and place. I am grateful that our morals have evolved since then and the idea of slavery now sickens us. However, I would think that at some point in the future, history will look at us in 2006 with disgust at some of our practices - global warming is the issue that springs to mind, but over population might also be one. I don't think it would be fair for future generations to think that everyone who drives an SUV in 2006 is immoral, nor anyone with more than two children. It may be that neither of these is important to future generations, but surely there is something that we justify now that will not fit into future moral codes.

Now, to answer WHY these things are wrong. We are primates. Primates are social animals. I read somewhere that "a lone primate is a dead primate." We have to get along with the people around us. If we kill or rape those around us, they are likely to do the same to us. I don't want to be raped or killed, so I don't do it to others. This pattern of behaviour is so ingrained in us though natural selection (those who regularly kill others are either VERY successful or very dead) that it has become instinct - or at least something we learn at an early age. (As an example, I was told that as a baby, I was a biter - until a little girl a couple of years older than me bit me back and I "realized" that it's better to neither bite nor be bitten.)

You write, "The atheist cannot believe in a transcendent moral code, he can believe only in a series of temporarily pragmatic ones that have no objective basis while pretending whichever one is current is transcendent."

I agree with the first half (i.e. no transcendent moral code, only temporary pragmatic ones) but I disagree that these temporary morals (temporary is an overstatement, but the basis is accurate) do not have an objective basis. Quite the opposite, because they are based on the current reality, they are very objective. I also disagree that I "pretend" that human morals are transcendent. I think killing is terrible, but if it was a choice between going to war to defend my freedom or being enslaved, I could see killing another under that circumstance.

You further write, "In other words, if the atheist is to be taken seriously, whatever is good or great or noble or beautiful about the human spirit is all based on a lie, because these very concepts are themselves lies."

I disagree with this too. Whatever is good or great or noble or beautiful about the human spirit is all based on human perception, not on some divine doctrine. I think it's important to note that I am using the word "spirit" as "free will" not "soul". I think there are a great many things that are good or great or noble or beautiful about the human spirit because, as a human, I share the same evolutionary past as you and other humans that admire these qualities.

You write, "And then finally, the atheist has to account for why anything even matters at all. What difference does it make if a child lives a full life and dies in bed at 100 or if the same child is thrown in a dumpster in a Boston alley moments after birth to slowly freeze to death? You might answer because the child might grow up to make a difference in someone else’s life, find a cure for a disease. Then the question is why should a difference in this other person's life be made? Why should this or any disease be cured? To save humanity? To relieve suffering? Why should humanity be saved? Why should suffering be relieved? Why should there be any ‘should’ at all? Why does it even matter whether the universe exists or not? These are the questions that the atheist must either give a compelling answer for or admit that if there is no God, acts of good and evil ultimately have no meaning at all because life itself is ultimately meaningless."

This is the argument that you make that is the hardest to counter. Perhaps you are very close to being correct. I very much agree that good and evil ultimately have no meaning - at least not the innate meaning that so often accompanies these terms. Good and evil are human constructs. But from nature's point of view, they are neutral.
In a sense, it doesn't matter if the universe exists or not. But it does exist without a reason why in terms of a moral justification. (I am sure there is an answer to "why" in terms of a scientific explanation, but I am also sure I don't know it. I think it is accurate to say that no one knows it yet, but many smart, dedicated people are rationally searching for the answer.)

I very much disagree with your conclusion that life (for an atheist) is ultimately meaningless. The strict answer meaning of life is the same for all organisms - from bacteria to oak to mushroom to human - is to procreate and continue the species (well, genes really, but the point here is the same). But I assume you are also talking about the "greater" meaning. I answer that because we have evolved intelligence, reason, imagination, and a host of other more or less unique traits, we are built to enjoy their use. Humans cannot survive "in the wild" solely based on the physical abilities of our bodies. Pound for pound, humans are the slowest, more awkward terrestrial mammal. We have become as successful as we are because we have this big, energy sucking brain in our heads which allows "higher" functions such as reason that we must use to survive. Like having sex and eating fatty foods, we have evolved to "enjoy" the use of something that is beneficial to us. This is not too far from your "deer / water / instinct" example. We instinctively think.

Which leads me to your next point: "The only rational response to the discovery that life is meaningless is despair..." Not so - my response is to create my own meaning. The proverbial "when life gives you lemons, make lemonade." I create my own meaning for my life by using the thought, reason, imagination, etc. that evolution has endowed me with. I do not look for someone else to provide it to me (supernatural or otherwise). I'm very happy to engage in discussion to see what you have to offer, then I take it, process it, see if it makes sense, and incorporate it into my life if it does.

Which leads me to your last point: "the unbeliever has to declare that life is meaningless but that we must pretend otherwise so we can continue to enthusiastically rearrange deckchairs on the Titanic. That, ladies and gentlemen, is the ultimate blind faith."

As I said above, life is not meaningless - we are here to procreate and use our big brains. And if we do too much of the first and not enough of the second, your prophecy might just come true as we’ll destroy our children's future with illogical, selfish, blind faith. (Sorry to have to steal your final two words, but nothing else will do.)

I have a lot of questions I would like to ask theists, so perhaps you can answer me this: What would it take for you to not believe in a god? Is there (theoretically) something I could show you to make you not believe? There are many, many things you could show me to make me believe in a god - pretty much anything the Bible claims Jesus did - water into wine, curing diseases with a touch, coming back to life days after dying, born to a virgin, etc. (Please don't tell me these things have already happened. I don't want to get into mythology as fact.)

Morgan

This debate was centered around the question, "Why are atheists so angry?" These two men never really answered the question, so let me make an attempt. If the word "god" refers to the ultimate power in the universe, then I believe the "god" of the athiest is the scientific method. God has built within man a great desire to prove things. That is why faith is so difficult, and why the scientific method is so desirable. Unfortunately, there are so many areas of life which can not be proved by scientific method (i.e. Why do I love my wife? Why do some children misbehave? etc.) These areas are those areas that deal with the spirit of man. It is in the area of spiritual matters where those whose "god" is scientific method become so frustrated. Why are they so frustrated? Because this is the area in which their "god" - scientific method - utterly fails, and the Creator God of the theist prevails, as it was He who created the spiritual side of man. Only by a greater understanding of the creator God, can an individual better understand the spiritual side of man

It is the failure of the scientific method to explain the spiritual side of man that makes atheists angry.

EVEN if everything you say is true (which I don't think it is, but that doesn't matter), how does this in any way prove that God exists?

All it can possibly hope to prove is that people who believe in God are nicer than people who don't. (I don't agree with that either, but also doesn't matter for this argument.)

And it can't even prove that, because you haven't proven a cause and effect, just given questionable examples. For instance, your "more people were killed in the last century" argument - there were more people alive in the last century so all things being equal, you would expect more people to be killed. Factor in there were more powerful weapons allowing the same number of "killers" to kill more people more quickly, and your argument is just pointless.

But again, it doesn't really matter because your argument completely misses the question of the existence of God in the first place.

You're a generic apologist who nothing more than to shun all biblical quotes off as "taken out of context."

I'm sure that we are all mature adults here, so I'd like to point out that this is not some contest to see who knows more about the Bible. However, I've been studying the Holy Book regularly for the past three years, and I know what context passages are meant to be taken in. These passages do, in fact, single women out as inferior to men - I don't quite see how you could even attempt to refute such a fact.

I never claimed that the Bible called women the scum of the earth or said that husbands should beat them. I claimed that the Bible called women inferior to men.

"Do you suggest that women should be allowed to run around in bikinis at church?"

No. But you should be careful to avoid the straw man argument. That has nothing to do with "Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church."

That passage is not taken out of context, no matter how you try to misrepresent the quote. Church is meant to be a place of leadership, and the Bible considers it a disgrace for women to assume any kind of leadership whatsoever.

The Bible claims that women must let their husbands rule over them as a punishment for falling first into original sin.

Genesis 3:16 "To the woman he said, 'I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.'"

Make no mistake about it - women are to be submissive to their husbands. Just because something quoted from the Bible sounds bad does not mean that it was quoted "out of context". No where in my rant have I claimed that the Bible encourages men to abuse (physically or emotionally) their wives.

"And husbands, love your wives just as Christ loved the church and gave His life for her."

Most definitely. This, however, does not change a thing about my stance. "For God so loved the world" does not mean that the world is equal with God, and you know it. Love is a universal command by the Bible, as everyone is supposed to love everyone. This, however, does not change the patriarchical hierarchy that God allegedly set up among his followers.

1 Corinthians 11:3, 8-9
Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ [Christ loves man, but Christ is superior to man], and the head of the woman is man [man loves woman, but man is superior to woman], and the head of Christ is God [God the father loves Christ the son, but God the father is superior to Christ the son] . . . For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.

I know of the instructions that Paul gave to man, and although they do give a code for how to live, they do not speak of inferiority to anyone by God and Christ. Men are to have more responsibilities (just as God has responsibilities over men) and women are to submit to men. I never called women scum, so you need a lesson in keeping ME in context. The point is that Judeo-Christian tradition had nothing to do with anything but the perpetuation of female inferiority - Christians were the ones crying out that God made a role for women and that they should always adhere to that role. The next generations of those same radicals can be seen today holding up anti-homosexual signs that say things like "Turn or Burn" and "God Hates Fags". Many modern day Christian anti-feminists even blame 9/11 on homosexuals and feminists while they quote passages from the Bible that are similar to the ones I quoted.

Amen!!

I do have to say, that despite me being a professing Christian, Sam was pretty darned funny! I disagreed with much of what he said and assess that he fell victim to at least one of the fallacies he accused of Prager (response to Prager on “religiously active”), but I respected at least his achievement of a cogent argument. The problem, of course, is that he was so overly dismissive of religious beliefs that he lends himself to be incredulous. Of course, I can overlook that because I thought he was so humorous. If only all atheist were so funny!