OJ, where *do* you find stuff like Sam Harris' website. I clicked on it and all the usual suspects were touting his book: Richard Dawkins, Peter Singer, The San Francisco Chronicle, The Observer....

"By their fruits you shall know them."

Here is an interesting passage from McGrath's "Breaking the Science-Atheism bond"

The scientific method simply does not allow us to adjudicate the existence of God, and those who force it to do so (on either side of the debate) have pressed it beyond its acceptable limits. In one sense, both theism and atheism must be recognized as positions of faith, belief systems that go beyond the available scientific evidence.

This conviction naturally brings me into conflict with thinkers like Dawkins and his circle, who argue that the natural sciences in general—and evolutionary biology in particular—force us to atheism. Their highly contentious argument rests on decidedly shaky logical, philosophical, and evidential grounds; far from being an intellectual superhighway to atheism, it gets stalled at agnosticism, and is moved beyond that point by an aggressive use of rhetoric alone.

This is about right. Science can't prove or disprove God's existence, and scientists should not use their science either endeavor.

So OJ, you have no desire for security and no qualms with messy freedom? For a man who won't leave his time-zone, your rhetoric is awfully bold.

Interesting to note Harris' inclusion of Allah among his targets, though I doubt it's much more than a rhetorical flourish. Folks like that usually are only concerned with the elimination of Judeo-Christian culture in western civilziation, because such a call is merely brushed off as the writings of a crank by the vast majority of people who have better things to do with their lives.

It would be interesting to see if Harris was willing do his preaching against religion in areas where a mesaage like that would be met with something less benign than indifference by the general public.

I find it interesting that McGrath credits Post-Modernism with the revival of religiosity and the decline of atheism. I have to agree. Modernism was built upon the assumption that truth is objective and is discovered by the enterprise of science. Religion was defended as long as it's revealed truths were confirmed by science. Atheism became the de-facto religion of modernity when science overthrew the revealed truths of Christianity. To re-emerge, religion has had to dispense with the idea of objective truth.

The biblical literalists are still trying to defend objective revealed truth by denying objective scientific truth, but the post-modern religious like McGrath have given up on such quaint notions. Religious truth is all about what you feel, there is no need for an objective verifiable basis in fact for its claims.

Why oh why did Lennon have to make that turn in his life, the one that led him to write a lyric like that of "Imagine"?

I've long suspected that the radical hat he wore from '69(ish) onward covered what had always been a fairly prosaic conservative sensibility, or at least as much of one as could be expected from a born-and-bred art student. The song "Revolution," in its first incarnation, openly mocked the activist movement; many of his earlier Beatles songs even bore inescapable themes of misogyny (no, it's not that misogyny is a conservative trait, it's that an Enlightened Liberal would never flaunt it).

Certainly in his personal life he unabashedly embraced big-money capitalism; in fact, Mark David Chapman would cite Lennon's acceptance of that lifestyle as one of the prime reasons he was provoked to murder.

"Imagine" is one of the best songs of the past century ... once you take out the words.

(OK, back to the regularly scheduled discussion about those icons outside the pop sphere...)

Note how precisely atheism fits with the desire for security and the terror of messy freedom?

Hmmm, isn't that also what atheists say about believers...?

We don't have to 'Imagine'--the Soviets already did.

"(All We Are Saying is) Give Re-Education Camps a Chance"--somehow that doesn't quite carry the same moral punch, does it?

I actually like those early misogy-songs like "You Can't Do That"--at least they show some life in there. Johnny would have done well to have hung on to a little of that, versus the primal screaming of "Mother", the femininnyism of "Woman (is the Nigger of the World)"--and letting Yoko anywhere near a microphone. btw, Chapman was not 'provoked', at least not by any human. btwbtw, one of the creepiest pictures you'll see is of a feral wanna-be John Kerry stalking Lennon at some airport.

Baalism is the cult of temple prostitutes; I think the hearings are scheduled for January. And Molloch, the god of child sacrifice, can be found in the Yellow Pages under "P".

As for the 'terror of messy freedom', faith is the opposite of terror, not its precursor. Our idea of freedom is based on a Christian understanding of the dignity & worth of the individual. And Reason is just another fish swimming in the sea of Faith.

SP:

His whole life was wasted.

Robert:

No, post-modernism is the third option. Judeo-Christianity depends on revealed truth. Rationalism claimed truth could by found simply by the operation of the human mind. Post-modernism claims nothing can be known true. What post-modernism did though is demonstrate, from within the secular Academy, that rationalism is total nonsense and that the only possible basis of truth is faith.

Robert:

To the contrary, all men want security. Likewise they all want freedom. Only Judeo-Christianity though requires freedom.

What is it about oj not wanting to leave his time zone? Have the PC police put him under house arrest?

erp:

There's nothing worthwhile outside it.

But one can circumnavigate the planet within that time zone, no?

No. It includes never leaving US soil.

Are the erstwhile Confederate states in the zone?

SP:

Sorry, "Imagine" sucks. Even the melody is boring, never mind the insipid lyrics. The continued popularity of that song truly baffles me.

ditto the entire Beattles catalogue

The reviewer has mangled Harris's book almost beyond recognition.

First of all, the book is far from atheistic.

Secondly, his primary thesis is that putting religious belief beyond criticism in the quest for "tolerance" is to shield fanatics behind the moderates.

Why is this a problem? Because moderate religious belief is only possible through selectively, and extensively, ignoring passages in revealed texts.

Islamists have not distorted the Quran; rather, they are its truest believers. Moderate Muslims can only be that way by ignoring huge swaths of the Quran.

Similarly with Christianity. Read Deuteronomy, for just one example.

In his view, it is the universal tendency of revealed religions to exclude others from moral consideration that is at the root of a great deal of evil.

Until recently, that caused merely a great deal of pointless bloodshed.

Now, however, should the Islamists ever get their hands on nuclear weapons, it could shake civilization to its foundations.

And their wasting of entire cities will be completely justified by their perfect faith in their holy book.

Jeff:

Yes, there aren't moral considerations absent God.

OJ:

There aren't moral considerations with God.

Oh geez, are you guys still on about that bit of sophist nonsense? No one's taken it seriously for thousands of years:

http://www.brothersjudd.com/blog/archives/2005/08/here_i_staaaaaaaaaaaaannnnnndd_1.html

The general strategy used to defeat a dilemma is to show that it's a false one. There are not two options, but three.

The Christian rejects the first option, that morality is an arbitrary function of God's power. And he rejects the second option, that God is responsible to a higher law. There is no Law over God.

The third option is that an objective standard exists (this avoids the first horn of the dilemma). However, the standard is not external to God, but internal (avoiding the second horn). Morality is grounded in the immutable character of God, who is perfectly good. His commands are not whims, but rooted in His holiness.

Could God simply decree that torturing babies was moral? "No," the Christian answers, "God would never do that." It's not a matter of command. It's a matter of character.

So the Christian answer avoids the dilemma entirely.

BTW -- I'm looking forward to your review of Harris' book.

Jeff:

I'll read Harris right after Mein Kampf.

Well, I'll keep that in mind next time you condemn religiously motivated terrorism.

Oh, no, you hate Bonhoeffer too?

No.

But Sam Harris makes a powerful, well argued case.

Not preferring an echo chamber, I look forward to someone both well read and analytical from the other side to challenge it.

I figure you, if anyone, can do it.