Sam Harris has come up with a great list of questions based on his dialogue with Andrew Sullivan.

[More Than A Feeling]

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/214/story_21446_1.html (about half way down the page is the list of points that Harris feels that Sullivan hasn't adequately answered.)

I can't really summarize, except to say that if you haven't been following this debate, you've really been missing out. Read Harris' list of points, and read the whole thing if you haven't already.

[cain_7777]

1. Religion always loses to logic.

Harris takes him to town

[kiahzero]

2. I'm amazed... Harris actually offers a few reasonable arguments.

The contingency of your own faith: As you said, if you'd been raised a Buddhist, you'd probably be a Buddhist. And yet, you also believe that Christianity is really true. This seems to entail that, by sheer accident of birth, you were raised and culturally conditioned to believe the one true faith. Do you really believe this? Doesn't it seem more likely that you just happen to subscribe to the religion into which you were born (as most people do) because of social pressure, emotional consolation, attachment to tradition, etc.?

The troublesome example of other religions: Don't you think Mormons and Muslims have similar stories to tell about feeling consoled in the presence of death, hearing voices, etc.? Can't both Mormons and Muslims use the same argument you have used about the cultural success of their faiths to vindicate their own truth claims? How is it that you reject their claims, and how is it that in rejecting them you don't find your own religious beliefs coming under pressure?

Of course, these arguments would seem to only really apply to people who argue that they have "the one true religion."

[Evoman]

3. I have heard this point before, and I have a problem understanding it.

"Of course, these arguments would seem to only really apply to people who argue that they have "the one true religion.""

Why would you believe something if you did not believe it was the truth? And how could you believe in a religion and argue that it was not the "one true religion"? I mean, almost every single religion contradicts other religions, so by saying you believe in one thing, your saying you don't believe in something else. And if you have enough doubt about your religion that it stops you from saying it is "true" or even "probably true", then how do you justify believing in it.

You can't say "I believe Jesus Christ is the son of god" in one breath, and then say "there is no "true religion", they are all celebrating the same thing" in another....that just doesn't jive brother.

[kiahzero]

5. I'm a dirty dirty relativist.

Remember, you drew a 'comic' with someone shooting what was presumably an analog of me in the head? :D

The way it generally works is that the person believes that the divine exists, but that it is unknowable in a direct manner - this is where the parable of the elephant and the blind men comes into play. My view is a little different, because it's less about different "parts" and more about understanding in a way that makes the most sense to an individual person.

UUs are a good example, though. As I understand it, UUA was formed by combination of two beliefs: a belief in a unitary divine entity (as opposed to the Trinity) and a belief in universal salvation. As an implication, your specific beliefs about the nature of this divine entity don't have to match others.

[Evoman]

6. That cartoon was awesome. nt

[Evoman]

4. I'm suprised people like Sullivan even bother...I mean, don't they get embarrased?

Do they realize their lack of reason or logic, and try to hide it? Do they realize that there arguments are incredibly weak? Or do they honestly think that they are making a point, and not having their asses handed to them?

I read the whole thing....Harris slaughtered him.

[NMMNG]

7. Very astute questions

It would be intriguing to see Sullivan's answers.

[skepticscott]

8. Harris was right

to upbraid Sullivan (albeit gently) about dancing around a lot of his direct questions and challenges. He had to constantly bring Sullivan back to the main theme of the debate, which was whether religion is based on lies or whether it has a factual basis. Sullivan seemed to want to linger on how deep and serious his own faith was and how good Christianity makes so many people feel, which Harris kept pointing out was irrelevant to the truthfulness of its claims. Sullivan is at least polite (which is something to respect in a conservative commentator these days, though it shouldn't be), but he is frankly a much better writer than he is a thinker. He expended most of his rhetorical gifts in this debate dodging and weaving, but he didn't score many points, IMO.