Skip to main content

rhetorical move by Sam Harris

When Sam Harris debated Bill Craig, he ignored BC's arguments and talked on and on about the Old Testament.

A theist could do something similar in a debate... just point to the racist things that Charles Darwin said in the Descent of Man and ask on what basis one would disavow CD.
Labels:

Comments

Tim D said…
I have to sympathize with Sam Harris here. The OT difficulties (Jephthah, God's ordering the killing of enemy infants, etc) really do appear to be inconsistencies with Christian claims, and aren't easy to explain. Whereas, even if Charles Darwin were shown to be a racist, or even if evolution were shown to have racist consequences (obviously it doesn't), there wouldn't be any inconsistency with the truth of the theory.
2:16 AM
Leo White said…
It would be a genuine red herring to counter points re Old Testament with stuff on Darwin's racism. But apart from the OT stuff, it's simply very worthwhile to point out that atheists need to explain why they embrace a more "mainstream" understanding of human nature rather than Darwin's. The moment that one asks an atheist to give a positive account of why they live as they do--at that moment the atheist becomes a kind of ally in the sense that he/she (unwittingly) starts providing reasons for believing in God.

As for the Old Testament, that is the one thing that I don't have a reply other than a very abstract-sounding one taken from philosophy. What is needed is an approach to the OT narrative that shows continuity and consistency with the NT. I am not the one to provide such an approach--at least not yet.
8:29 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

response to friend who suggested that the self is a democracy of neural parts

This is a nice way to try to avoid being cornered re the irreality of the self if you're a reductionist, for you can assert that a pattern obtains at the microscopic level that is not all that unlike the pattern found at the societal level.  No need for the one self that does it all: instead, you have many sub-selfs that compete for dominance or take turns guiding the whole. The problem with this is, however, that the voters/officials are all zombies.  None of them thinks about the whole as such.  And perhaps none of them thinks even about themselves (unless one is a panzoist).  None of them makes a comparison of alternatives. The more this proposed democracy seems like a zombocracy, the more consciousness will be seem to be epiphenomenal. Furthermore, if the oneness of the self is less real than the multiplicity of explanatory neural parts, then why can't each of these neural parts be conceived of as democracy as well?  And why not parts of these parts, et...
6 comments
Read more

what is an organism?

How about defining it as an instance of functional complexity? And treating the list of properties as following necessarily from this definition? Okay, this is very diamond-in-the-rough (or perhaps zirconium...) but here goes my thoughts on the matter: (Complexity) Many diverse parts (functional) acting for the sake of the whole I think I need to add something like "not as the instrument of another" or something like that. Given that they act together as one whole and given entropy, etc., the organism will need to posses more order than its surroundings (homeostasis). It will therefore need to take in energy (nutrition), which it will use to sustain its readiness to interact with its environment so as to preserve its own being (homeostasis again?), but which will eventually break down (death), so that in order for that life form to continue it will need to duplicate itself (reproduction), which, upon occurring, will involve both development (growth) to maturity and...
13 comments
Read more

P F Strawson's Freedom and Resentment: the argument laid out

Here is a summary and comments on the essay Freedom and Resentment by PF Strawson.  He makes some great points, and when he is wrong, it is in such a way as to clarify things a great deal.  My non-deterministic position is much better thanks to having read this.  I’ll summarize it in this post and respond in a later one. In a nutshell: PFS first argues that personal resentment that we may feel toward another for having failed to show goodwill toward us would have no problem coexisting with the conviction that determinism is true.  Moral disapprobation, as an analog to resentment, is likewise capable of coexisting with deterministic convictions. In fact, it would seem nearly impossible for a normally-constituted person (i.e., a non-sociopath) to leave behind the web of moral convictions, even if that person is a determinist.  In this way, by arguing that moral and determinist convictions can coexist in the same person, PFS undermines the libertarian argument ...
Post a Comment
Read more