I’m a huge fan of Sam Harris, whose writings are strident, polemic and urgent. I’ve read Letter to a Christian Nation, and I feel it’s a book everyone should read whether they’re religious or not. Admittedly, Harris is one of the outspoken atheist triumvirate that’s in the press today, alongside Richard Dawkins and Daniel C. Dennett.
Newsweek recently hosted a debate between Sam Harris and Rick Warren, a very well-known Christian pastor who started Saddleback in 1980. The question was simply this: does God exist? It’s a civil debate that has some friendly back-and forth, and it’s fun to watch two smart guys go at it.
Rick, if you had been born in India or in Iran, would you have different religious beliefs?
WARREN: There’s no doubt where you’re born influences your initial beliefs. Regardless of where you were born, there are some things you can know about God, even without the Bible. For instance, I look at the world and I say, “God likes variety.” I say, “God likes beauty.” I say, “God likes order,” and the more we understand ecology, the more we understand how sensitive that order is.HARRIS: Then God also likes smallpox and tuberculosis.
WARREN: I would attribute a lot of the sins in the world to myself.
HARRIS: Are you responsible for smallpox?
This is a fantastic read, and as you might imagine, you find yourself empathizing with Harris or Warren more than the other — whichever side more closely mirrors your own beliefs. Warren is a smart, eloquent man, but I find it disappointing that he ends his debate with Pascal’s Wager — to me, that’s always been a cop-out.
10 responses so far ↓
Paul // April 10, 2007 at 2:59 pm
What’s wrong with Pascal’s Wager? I think that this is still a valid point: you need to do something irrational (i.e. surrender your heart) before you can experiencde deeper spiritual truths. Why not take the risk? What do you have to lose?
Jeff Ventura // April 10, 2007 at 3:01 pm
Paul: I’m sorry, but I don’t think that being “spiritual” requires one to do something “irrational” or accept something on insufficient evidence.
Spirituality != religion.
overthinker // April 10, 2007 at 4:26 pm
Additionally, there is the risk that you pick the wrong God. Then you are in deep… sin.
Brian Purkiss // April 10, 2007 at 5:18 pm
I must point out one thing.
You cannot prove that there is no God.
Why?
Logic.
In order for me to prove that there are poodles in China, all I need to do is find one poodle.
In order for me to prove that there are no poodles in China, I would have to examine every speck of China at the same time.
It simply cannot be done.
So whether you believe in God or don’t, you cannot prove that he doesn’t exist.
Likewise, it is easy to prove that he does exist.
I, personally, believe does exist.
Why? The Bible says that God exists.
I believe that the Bible is true. If you don’t, check out my article examining the Reliability of the Bible.
If you have any questions, feel free to drop a comment on my blog.
JLH // April 10, 2007 at 6:43 pm
Nice presentation, I’ve read you off and on and have to say I’m pleasantly surprised by this. A little less caustic and opinionated, leave the rest to the readers. I might have to get your feed soon. Hope this one doesn’t flame you started it nicely. Good luck.
Jeff Ventura // April 10, 2007 at 9:20 pm
JLH: as you know, I don’t shy away from difficult topics on this blog. Not because want to be inflammatory, but because I enjoy seeing people engage and have a real conversation.
Thanks for your comments. Get my feed — you can always unsubscribe if you find you can’t stand me.
Steve P // April 11, 2007 at 6:19 pm
Brian,
Your statement doesn’t make sense to me. The first part is correct. But you then violate your example in saying that you CAN prove that god exists. From your own argument this would only happen if you found at least one god. “Believing” in a god is no more “finding” one for the sake of “proof” than believing you have found a poodle in china - that without examination may only be an animal that somewhat looks like a poodle to naive eyes.
And, Jeff, is != an accepted form to mean not-equal in the absence of the correct symbol? It tends to make your statement seem to equate spirituality and religion rather than the opposite. (Though I knew what you meant.)
matt // April 12, 2007 at 12:39 pm
Jeff,
Warren is a very well spoken man, and he is very compassionate and kind. That said, there were many Christians who could have given better debates. Warren himself claims to take the Christian message and simplify it to the masses. He is by no means a scholar, and as proven by your points, his arguments were weak.
Me // May 27, 2008 at 1:36 am
I agree with Matt. I’d like to see Harris debate someone like Ravi Zacharias. Although, this I can be thankful for: at least they didn’t have Harris debate someone like Creflo Dollar or Benny Hinn. *shivers from the thought*
Gina // August 16, 2008 at 3:59 pm
How credible can Obama’s current religious statements be, when they follow a 20 year track record as a disciple of radical leaders like Wright, Farakan, Moss, and Phleiiger? Since Obama has done virtually nothing as a senator, is being a community organizer enough of a qualification to be President of the United States? Instead of listening to Obama’s words, we should look at his deeds, which are pretty empty. When you compare Obama’ resume to McCain’s, with decades in the military, and decades in the senate, it’s obvious that Obama is merely an empty suit, who will say, or do anything to get elected.