I’m surprised no one has brought up sam harris’s latest attack on religion in his paper titled “science must destroy religion”. I’m assuming the reason its not being discussed is that its a banned topic here. If it is does anyone know where Catholics are discussing it? So far i’m seeing it largely unchallenged on the internet and wondering why Catholics are ignoring it.
On what grounds would you challenge it? I read it and wanted to applaud…
I’m not ready to respond yet. i’m doing alot of reading right now. I just find it curious that for the most part Catholics and Other people of faith are letting it stand unchallenged for the time being.
It might well be the case that Harris’s article represents a more substantial public attack upon religion than has generally been encountered. He is not simply questioning the value or veracity of religious faith - he is actively calling for it to be quashed. That is quite confronting for a society that is used to granting at least tacit respect to religious beliefs in general.
I never want people to lose their faith. It’s this faith that is keeping me and my children safe. According to many posters of faith here - mostly Christian - if they didn’t believe in their Deity, they would murder, rape and pillage all the day long :eek: Their faith is the only thing stopping them. :eek:
Long may they continue to believe - well, at least until my kids are grown and can take care of themselves :eek:
Because Catholics have no need to challenge it. Its basic premise, namely that:
The conflict between religion and science is inherent and (very nearly) zero-sum. The success of science often comes at the expense of religious dogma; the maintenance of religious dogma always comes at the expense of science.
is inherently flawed and does not stand up to scrutiny. The Catholic Church does not hold that science and religion are incompatible. If it did, then it certainly wasted a lot of time and effort setting up the modern university and hospital systems.
Sam Harris is free to proclaim whatever he feels. The Church has bigger fish to fry at the moment than some guy spouting off patent absurdity over on HuffPo.
I like that and your right. In addition, the influence of christians on society would also be lost.
Just a thought but you think like a catholic.
Lol, iI dont thinks Christians have cornered the market on murder, rape, and pillaging. While a bit of an exageration it is the human condition. Kinda why we needed divine intervention, otherwise we are stuck this way.
The Vatican has also has it’s own observatory.
It seems that this sort of thinking has gone on for centuries - at least since the “Age of enlightenment” - and the Church is still around…
Sam Harris is well known for spouting nonsense. I haven’t found any of his arguments to be more valuable than water in a flooded house…,:choocho:
Perhaps the best rebuttal to a heretic of science should come from arguably the most brilliant scientific mind we’ve ever known :
Dr. Albert Einstein said , " science without religion is lame , religion without science is blind."
Not even the Occupy Movement can destroy the Catholic Church.
This, is awesome.
It also gives me an idea about using a quote of Michael Coren from his book “Why Catholics are Right”. o:
The romans tried, napolean tried, the communists tried… And that’s just Christianity. Hitler didn’t have success with the Jews either. Based on history that is a virtual impossibility… Half the planet worships the God of Abraham. Then there are the Hindus and Buddhists. Good luck with that one sam, you’re gonna have to build an awful lot of ovens.
Precisely. As both a scientist and a Catholic I have to say that the so-called New Atheists make themselves sound more ridiculous every day (ok, this particular article is from 2006, old hat). Their sheer ignorance of theology, philosophy and history is staggering, but they try to compensate for it with a big mouth.
As to the religion-science issue, see also my recent post:
I applaud Sam Harris and his contributions. It only highlights the moral comtemptibility of his worldview and discredits atheism.
From the article:
“To win this war of ideas, scientists and other rational people will need to find new ways of talking about ethics and spiritual experience. The distinction between science and religion is not a matter of excluding our ethical intuitions and non-ordinary states of consciousness from our conversation about the world; it is a matter of our being rigorous about what is reasonable to conclude on their basis. We must find ways of meeting our emotional needs that do not require the abject embrace of the preposterous. We must learn to invoke the power of ritual and to mark those transitions in every human life that demand profundity — birth, marriage, death, etc. — without lying to ourselves about the nature of reality.”
Yeah, this translates to:
Let’s all worship at the altar of Science, with Darwin as the Patron Saint *) and Richard Dawkins as the High Priest. Sheesh.
*) Not that I have anything against Darwin the scientist.
Link or it didn’t happen.
I recall there being a thread or two where some individuals indicated they would be less inclinded to moral behaviour if there was no God.* Ostensibly, these sorts of statements are hyperbole intended to illustrate a point*. There are a number of studies that demonstrate that religious people versus non-believers are less likely to lie, cheat or perform a number anti-social acts. This, of course, is a generalization and not specific to a person.
On a personal note, I know a number of “Christians” who are not particularly nice and an atheist friend who is quite a decent individual who does substantial charity work.