This is a really good debate on the issues of religion. And Sullivan makes probably the most convincing argument about religion that I've ever seen, and he's greatly increased my understanding of people of faith.
On the other hand, Sam Harris pretty much demolishes him in the reason department, and Sullivan basically concedes the debate in his last post, saying that he is unequal to the arguments presented (or somesuch). I shan't make this another self-righteous atheist post crowing about some victory or other, though. I'm more interested in Sullivan than I am in Harris, although Harris is making clearer and better arguments.
Sullivan's argument cuts to the chase of a religious person's faith. He writes of the serenity of knowing that a benign power guides our lives, and that the keystone of that belief is that such a power demonstrated its concern by becoming human. If nothing, that is a beautiful, comforting belief. I can and do admit that much.
Let me offer my alternative though: I believe in the fundamental goodness of human beings. I believe that that goodness reveals itself when we submit ourselves with humility to the truth that we discern with our reason. We have never experienced a better way to do things. Sullivan argues that the point of our existence cannot be reduced to a quest for truth: ultimately, in the moment of death, we must have made peace with existence. Or, to put it another way, that the need for happiness, not the need for truth, is the most fundamental human need. Sullivan uses that to justify religion, which I don't agree with, but I agree with the principle. However, I think, as does Harris, that you can't untangle happiness from the truth. I have lived by this principle and it has never failed me.
Adam
No comments:
Post a Comment