[Vision2020] Sam Harris's Screed

[Phil Nisbet]

Ted

Did you read his materials?

First, he completely mischaracterizes Judaism.

While Christianity and Islam are both exclusivist, believers that only one 
door exists to contact with G-d, that has never been Jewish belief.  All the 
righteous, regardless of faith, can and do have contact with G-d and are 
just as likely to win his approval in Jewish thought.

Further, Jewish thinking has always been something that progresses and is 
not burdened by lack of dealing with modern issues.  Harris looks to sole 
sourcing in Tanakh, an error that seems to be common amoung many even here 
on V2020.  The institution of the Beit Din has existed for 2500 years 
because it is clearly understood that G-d is Justice and religion must 
indeed consider technology and changing world situations and understandings 
to insure that justice in his name prevails.

Next, Harris argues that religon alone relies on tradition.  As a scientist, 
I found that completely off the wall.  How is anybody to understand geology 
if he has no knowledge of Hutton?  Can a physicist understand the universe 
if he is not grounded in Newton?  Science is grounded in the work that has 
come before us, not some sort of instant aquired knowledge suficient only to 
today.  Thats why we constantly cite references of previous work, 
establishing the bona fides of our studies.

This is equally true of law.  Most of US law is based on English Common Law 
and that traditional structure is why we have jury systems rather than Roman 
Court systems.

As for Harris's concept that war is the result of religion, people's of the 
same religon have often fought wars, as have people's with absolutely no 
religion.  Harris's attempt to reconcile that by suggesting that dogma was 
the factor falls on its sword, since his own system of values is as dogmatic 
and lacking in facts as any of the others.  Narrow minded dogmatism is a 
human condition which can only be battled by toleration.

In general I find the guys work less than scholarly, very superficial and as 
dogmatic as the groups who he opposes.

Read his blog and you will see that his adherents even kick into suggestions 
that Blood Liable is a Jewish Truth.  It reminds me of the old Joke, "Thats 
how Nazi Germany got started", but in this case it is not funny.

So do you find Harris's work to be something you wish to adhere to Ted?  Do 
you think that people like Rose, who is a member of a moderate religious 
group like the Quakers, are the cause of wars?

Phil Nisbet


>From: Tbertruss at aol.com
>To: chasuk at gmail.com, pcnisbet1 at hotmail.com
>CC: vision2020 at moscow.com
>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Earmark and intial comments on Ralph's Religion 
>and morality
>Date: Sat, 1 Oct 2005 22:06:48 EDT
>
>
>chasuk at gmail.com wrote on 10/1/05:
>
>"My second comment: would you kindly attack the substance of
>Mr. Paul's study, rather than his reputation?  I don't remember the
>Latin which describes this type of fallacious logic; maybe Nick can
>help me out here."
>
>I'm only a lowly former student of the illustrious Nick Gier, but perhaps 
>the
>Latin phrase you seek to describe an attack based on reputation is 
>"argument
>ad hominem."
>
>http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=ad%20hominem
>ad hom·i·nem    ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (hm-nm, -nm)
>adj. Appealing to personal considerations rather than to logic or reason:
>Debaters should avoid ad hominem arguments that question their opponents'
>motives.
>[Latin  : ad, to + hominem, accusative of hom, man.]
>
>Odd that dictionary.com offers the advice to avoid argument ad hominem, 
>when
>the evidence is clear that it is often a very successful tactic to negate 
>the
>effectiveness in real terms in society of any argument based on reason and
>fact, thus the "politics of personal destruction" that appears to dominate 
>our
>political discourse, indeed, in discussions of all sorts between people
>everywhere.
>
>Ted Moffett

_________________________________________________________________
Don’t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! 
http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/