As I've said before, I think Rabbi Wolpe does a good job of presenting a reasonable theist perspective in the debate and invite you to listen to it again if you are interested in that perspective.

PairTheBoard

And if you do rewatch it and still disagree, well, try some Acme brand Heart Softener, guaranteed to keep you regular and tastes great too!

You don't have to agree with it. But in my opinion it is an intelligent presentation of a coherent and robust perspective. You are making a mistake to think your viewpoint is so intellectually superior that you can simply dismiss the theist with ridicule. That's a bad road to go down and I hate to see SMP taking it.

PairTheBoard

Where do you think it fits in best? S M or P?
serious question.
I took catechism, ate the cookies, drank the wine, so I don't need any basic introduction to the concept. Just not sure what's left that's interesting after 5000 years of creator myths. It feels uncomfortable dealing with it under psychology with the subjects present.
suggest something useful... you can whine and rant at me in the next thread.
Do you want me to share my dreams in a sychronistic jungian way or ??

( You've been asked in several ways to present the excellent rational argument Wolpe put forward, but you prefer just to repeat .. he made an excellent argument, he made an excellent argument, he ma... , which is rather hard to debate. You have this strange fixation that people should just take your word for everything and get quite offended when they don't. Tell us about your childhood...).
Do you feel up to starting a thread on "why ridiculing theistic claims has no/little value?" Keeping in mind that it does produce results of various kinds. You'll notice that some candidates are including "even those who don't believe" rather than "I don't know that atheists should be regarded as citizens, nor should they be regarded as patriotic." just a couple decades ago. for example. Neoatheists on the best seller lists, talk shows, blogs, magazines.
luckyme

I'll agree that the perspective that he proposed is not ridiculous and certainly not one that I would approach with ridicule. That being said, I still regard it as an irrational perspective. At your suggestion, I rewatched the video, and this time I tried especially hard to view it as if I were coming from a theist point of view. Now, I still don't know what you believe since you seem to treat your own beliefs with utmost secrecy, but if your views are aligned fairly closely with the Rabbi's then I would say that they're a weak argument for the existence of a God.

First of all, I think that many of the issues that were discussed simply weren't relevant to the question of whether or not a God exists. As Harris pointed out, utilitarian arguments (which are debatable in and of themselves) don't have any bearing on the truth of the claims about God. Realistically, it seemed that the only argument that the Rabbi provided was that he somehow "experienced" or "felt" God, which really doesn't qualify as good (or any) evidence. Either way, unless you actually want to present your own arguments or at least restate which particular points the Rabbi made that you thought were compelling, this discussion is bound to be fruitless.

You got that backwards. We're disagreeing with your viewpoint and you are considering your own so superior that we must have closed our minds or else we'd be able to see it. I'm simply trying to plea to be able to make my own case, and for you to similarly make yours.

Has PTB on any occassion provided his argument for why he believes in god?

I'm sure he has in the past, although its not strictly relevant to this thread. He has not, to my knowledge, provided any sort of specific explanation or defense of the Rabbi Wolpe points he finds particularly illuminating.

So, you guys are just saying you "disagree" with the rabbi?

Because, from things I have seen previously from Sam Harris (and things I have read on this board), it seems like you all think the rabbi, and those who think like the rabbi, are blithering idiots devoid of rationality. I could probably find something along these lines in this thread.

I believe PTB is saying the Rabbi's position is at least sensible, and you should be able to at least understand what he's getting at, even if you disagree.

The problem is, Harris et al. seem to take it a bit farther and compare a philosophical statement on the existence of God to a philosophical statement on the existence of an all powerful being that is made of an Italian dish. I'm fairly certain this is a bit stronger of a statement than "oh, I disagree, but I see how a theist can be rational". Or, "oh, I disagree because I personally have not had those experiences."

I think this is similar to something that PTB alluded to at some point in the near past, about strong atheists hiding under the guise of weak atheism when they actually are pressed to take a position. It appears that some like to call theists ******s in one breath, then when they get called on it, feign ignorance and start saying things like "we aren't allowed to disagree?" Well yeah, you can disagree, sheesh. Just don't call everyone who disagrees with you a brainwashed fool because they don't think exactly like you.

PTB, is this what you get out of it? This is what I am seeing, but I could be wrong.

Are you offended by the insensitivity of the Italian dish comparisons or do you honestly think they are incorrect?

Here's PTB's first comment ( which I then asked to just point to the parts, no comment needed).
His reply to that was
that was the extent of his "argument". Yeah, I guess you could call that "at least sensible"
Mind you, he did back up his claims with the " you don't understand it because your mind is closed" rock-solid proof, although he does make it difficult to refute even that when he won't even point to a spot in the tape and say .. "THERE, is an excellent answer to a tough question" and "HERE, is another one".
sensible? well, the rabbi may well be, but there is no evidence that PTB has been.

luckyme

They're obviously incorrect.

Do you see how the statement, "belief in God is completely irrational and comparable to belief in a flying spaghetti monster" is a stronger statement than "I disagree with theists?"

lucky,
I didn't say anything about PTB's argument, as I don't think he made one. I said PTB made the claim that the Rabbi's argument is sensible, yet some or most of you are treating the Rabbi like he's stupid. PTB did NOT say you have to agree with the Rabbi if you "just open up your mind". Talk about a strawman.

Nobody is literally equating the belief in God to a belief in an Italian dish. That analogy is used purely to demonstrate the illogicality of the argument that science can't "prove" that God doesn't exist. Are all theist beliefs completely ridiculous? I would say that they aren't, and I certainly wouldn't approach all of them with ridicule. Are many theist beliefs completely ridiculous? Yes, some certainly are. Although I disagree with bunny, for example, he is a fairly sensible theist, but I don't give fundamentalists the same kind of respect. Just so I understand where you're coming from, are you challenging atheists on the point that they too often lump all theists together unfairly?

I'm not sure where you're getting this from. The definition of a good debate is that the sides are close to evenly matched and good points are brought up by both.

There are subtleties that perhaps you're not appreciating.

Not quite. No one is taking Pastafarianism seriously. The point of the flying spaghetti monster is to get theists to refute it (since they know it's absurd), and in doing the logic of that refutation, they discover that most of those points also apply equally to the logic they use to justify belief in God or his crucified zombie-son who was born of a virgin (or Muhammed or Vishnu for that matter).

PtMx,
I think that's a fair representation. For example, it seems like a lot of people in this thread are treating the Rabbi as if he has comparable religious beliefs to the fundie preachers you see on TV. Maybe they aren't claiming they have the same beliefs, but that their beliefs are equally ridiculous.

One thing I would like to point out (not directly to you, but in general):

"That analogy is used purely to demonstrate the illogicality of the argument that science can't "prove" that God doesn't exist."

I think most reasonable theists, and definitely the Rabbi would agree with you. The Rabbi (and me) claim that the existence of God is NOT EVEN A SCIENTIFIC QUESTION. It is a philosophical one. I watched about 1/2 the video a few days ago, but wasn't Sam arguing against this point fairly adamantly? This of course is ridiculous, unless he's holding out on some idea to empirically test God's existence. Or was he just making the claim that SOME religious claims can be framed as scientific questions? Well yeah, duh, so what? If he's making the latter claim, this is, again, an example of where he's treating the Rabbi like a fundie, as I'm pretty sure the Rabbi never made the claim that all religious beliefs must be absolutely correct.

Phil,
2 examples off the top of my head:

Roland32's comment on page 1, about Harris' Elvis comment being "hilarious and crushing" when the Rabbi actually proved that Harris' point was incorrect and a very very bad analogy.

The other post with the pictures of the Rabbi's "demeaner". While I didn't exactly get the joke, it appeared he was saying that the Rabbi looked utterly confused and unable to comprehend what Harris was saying. Maybe this is an inside joke that I missed from the forums though?


But more to the point, in general it is obvious that tons of people on here believe that theists, by definition, are completely irrational. I have seen this direct statement many times. Even if there was no direct statement that "the Rabbi is stupid" in this thread (I will look again), it is clear that Harris and his followers think that religious people are, in fact, stupid or brainwashed.

Am I losing it, or does he not say that an open minded person would see that Wolpe has made "an excellent answer to the tough questions". It's not agreement with Wolpe that is in contention, it's agreement with PTB's claim.
The existence of "excellent answers to tough questions" that an open minded person would agree they are excellent but still wrong ( your spin on PTB's claim it seems) is rather a side issue. We could dumb down 'excellent answer' to "the best defense of position X available" even if it's garbage. There are excellent defenses of every position in that sense.
But it's NOT what the exchange has been about!

The claim PTB made was .. Rabbi made excellent answers and you don't think so because you're closed minded. Where's the opportunity to refute PTB's claim .. with " you call THAT excellent? What about this problem with it .... " It's a two hour video. cheeesh.

I fail to see why he can't be your "brain-washed fool" if we're allowed to be "closed minded" as the reason we don't instantly agree with it ( PTB needs to at least send the walking-on-water evidence to achieve that status).
Did you watch the video? Do you know where those "excellent answers to tough questions" are? What they are? Why there is no sound challenge to them ( not whether Harris necessarily did that)? Why they're not 'an excellent answer based on there being a giant hole in middle-earth' type of answers?
luckyme

Whether or not theism is irrational, most theists have ridiculous reasons for believing the particular brand of religion they believe. The fact that most Iranians are Muslim and most Americans are Christian is a slam dunk proof of that. It's not even up for debate.

This comes back to the scientific claims point. The question of existence may ultimately be philosophical, as may the question of a God that doesn't intervene in the universe or human affairs in any way.

But most of the claims made about God are scientific claims. Whether or not a historical person called Jesus got on a cross, died and was resurrected is an entirely scientific claim. Whether Vishnu once walked the Earth is a scientific claim. Whether God intervenes to change the course of events, or heals sick people that are being prayed for, are scientific claims. The only thing the Rabbi can claim to be philosophical and practically outside the realm of science is a God who has no impact on this universe or human affairs. Yet Harris correctly points that most people would reject that conception of God.

On the one hand, the Rabbi and his congregation want to believe that the actual events in the bible actually transpired and were God given. If you want that, you are subjecting yourself to scientific scrutiny. You can't have it both ways, or dance back and forth (ironically like PTB claims that atheists are doing in SMP).

I can't speak for the poster, but it seemed merely a joke about their demeanors and had no bearing on the debate. The Rabbi is a passionate and enquiring and politcally aware guy, and it makes for some funny faces.

I don't think there was a real winner if you didn't have a horse in the debate, but the Rabbi coming completely undone at 58:00 tipped the scale in favor of Harris, imo.

luckyme,
Yes or no: PTB said that atheists MUST AGREE with the Rabbi if they only opened their minds.

After you answer that question, reread my responses carefully, perhaps a little more slowly. Notice I didn't mention anything about PTB's claim that "Harris wasn't listening to the Rabbi".


It would actually be more useful if you pointed out where the Rabbi's answers were ridiculous. For example -- if I agree with a claim and think that someone gave an "excellent answer", yet someone disagrees with me, it is pretty clear to me that the person who disagrees with me should point out WHY the answer is terrible. After all, I am agreeing with the other person, no? Otherwise I would just be rehashing the argument. You are basically asking PTB to type out a transcript of the exchange, and you haven't even pointed to one "tough question" that the Rabbi failed to answer yet.

Could you point out WHY they are incorrect? Shouldnt take more than a sentence or two since its so obvious. They seem correct to me, although as mentioned insensitive.

EDIT: Sorry too slow

Phil,
Fair enough. The one thing I disagree with is this:


"But most of the claims made about God are scientific claims. Whether or not a historical person called Jesus got on a cross, died and was resurrected is an entirely scientific claim. Whether Vishnu once walked the Earth is a scientific claim. Whether God intervenes to change the course of events, or heals sick people that are being prayed for, are scientific claims."

I would say that some are scientific claims, some are not, and some probably never will be. In order for it to become a scientific claim (even IF it's a claim about the physical world), someone will have have the ingenuity to create an experiment to TEST the claim. Just because someone makes a claim rooted in say, medicine, does not mean it's scientifically testable. This is because you cannot repeat an individual case. So, I think that some of the examples you are thinking of are perhaps still philosophical claims. Like the claim, "God healed me." Science can't necessarily disprove that, they can only give a reasonable alternative hypothesis, unless they had probes sticking in someone's body while the cancer disappeared, or whatever. Of course, I don't think this is evidence FOR God intervening either, it's just a philosophical stance that I think people should be free to believe if it doesn't harm others.

As far as the "people in this thread thinking the Rabbi is an idiot" thing goes, you definitely aren't one of the people I was referring to. It was just a general observation about posts I see in here.

As the rabbi made EXTREMELY clear in his debate, there is no difference between the two, fundamentally. I mean he might not like to come right out and say that, and clearly there is a pragmatic difference, but he vehemently defended the individual path to capital T truth and explained how it was not amenable to science or reason. That seems like an ironclad defense of the beliefs of....everyone.

Why is this a legitimate caveat? They unscientifically came to the conclusion that they were correct, and the rabbi makes it quite clear that this is a legitimate path to truth, so why does it matter who they harm?

vhawk,
The definition of spaghetti from dictionary.com is "a white, starchy pasta of Italian origin that is made in the form of long strings, boiled, and served with any of a variety of meat, tomato, or other sauces."

The definition of spaghetti has absolute nothing to do with abstract, all-powerful entities. So the combination of the terms "spaghetti" and "all powerful invisible being" doesn't make any sense together. If you can rationally combine the two concepts, I'm all ears. I just don't see it.

Just drop the words flying, spaghetti, and monster when you are talking about a metaphysical entity and it will make more sense. Just call it "God" or something, since most theological definitions claim God is purely abstract and without physical properties. I think it may be more useful.