This is a blog to discuss philosophy, chess, politics,
C. S. Lewis, or whatever it is that I'm in the mood to discuss.
For being supposed "experts" on religion, it is quite amazing how ignorant these guys are at times about Christianity. Both Harris and Dawkins have repeatedly confused the Immaculate Conception (the birth of Mary) with the Virgin Birth (the birth of Jesus). Dawkins has been corrected on this (I don't know whether Harris has been), yet he still confuses them. Again on the Colbert show, Dawkins shows how little he understands the First Cause argument with his infantile "Well then, who made God?" comment.
I am curious to see how many jump on this bandwagon -- that Harris was fairly represented in this little youtube diatribe. Here's a hint: when it comes to using demonstrative pronouns, antecedents matter. But when you desperately want Harris et al. to be wrong, you'll jump on anything, I suppose.
So, you are saying that what he meant was that anyone who believes in the virgin birth based on the Bible will spend eternity in hell? Then why didn't he say that was what he meant?
VR: "So, you are saying that what he meant was that anyone who believes in the virgin birth based on the Bible will spend eternity in hell?"No. Have you listened to the whole interview? Do you really think that in this interview, and that in any of his talks and books, Harris believes that there are meaningful distinctions to be made between competing religious theologies? If you do, you don't understand Harris's criticisms of religious beliefs. VR: "Then why didn't he say that was what he meant?"I think Harris made himself abundantly clear in the entire interview. It seems obvious to me that you haven't listened to the exchange with Harris and Colbert, preferring to post a section that takes what -- a five second snippet out of a 6 minute interview? -- and then drones on about imagined grievances based on not understanding how pronouns and antecedents work.
Nice to see that Cal has joined Papalinton and im-skeptical in his unwavering faith in the inerrancy of Dawkins and Harris. I wonder, does he also regard Loftus as error-free?
Planks: "Nice to see that Cal has joined Papalinton and im-skeptical in his unwavering faith in the inerrancy of Dawkins and Harris."I see that straw manning what I wrote is how you choose to defend your premature gloating. Telling.
Post a Comment