I finished reading "Letter to a Christian Nation" by Sam Harris
I could go through and respond page by page but a lot of what Harris wrote I agree with.
However we fundamentally disagree on some things which makes his arguments agreeable yet irrelevant to me.
If morality is simply about increasing happiness and decreasing suffering then our world would one day look exactly like the world of Wall E.
Morality is more than eliminating suffering and increasing happiness. What a horribly awful existence we would live in a world where morality was defined by Sam Harris. Everything would be rated by less suffering and more efficient.
Growth is in the suffering.
Growth is in the rain.
Growth is in the pain.
Growth is in the drops like stars.
I am opposed to suffering for the sake of suffering but dodging pain only to increase happiness or at the cost of our environment and others I would not consider morality. Telling me the only purpose of my being here is to stay a bit longer.
Harris does make some sort of attempt to disprove the existence of God in a very strange way. First he attempts to make the point that if we were created by Intelligent design it is not very intelligent. This is a strange point because it would mean that intelligence is dependent on efficiency. What Harris is saying is instead creation wasn't efficiency designed which is very different from intelligently. The Sistine Chapel wasn't efficiently designed but it certainly was intelligently, beautifully.
The other point he tries to make has to do with the contents of the bible:
I do agree with a lot of what Sam Harris believes as far as our "Christian Nation" goes. As I've been reading my July packet for the Parish Farming Internship I found exactly what Harris is trying to say written by Christians.
Love does not demand its own way
-1 Corinthians 13
Wild Child - This Place
I could go through and respond page by page but a lot of what Harris wrote I agree with.
However we fundamentally disagree on some things which makes his arguments agreeable yet irrelevant to me.
Questions of morality are questions about happiness and suffering. This is why you and I do not have moral obligations towards rocks. To the degree that our actions can affect the experience of other creatures positively or negatively, questions of morality apply.I think at this point in the letter, on page 8, Harris based his whole argument off this definition of morality which I do not agree with. Because of this linchpin point I found myself agreeing with him along with finding his points irrelevant.
-Sam Harris
If morality is simply about increasing happiness and decreasing suffering then our world would one day look exactly like the world of Wall E.
Morality is more than eliminating suffering and increasing happiness. What a horribly awful existence we would live in a world where morality was defined by Sam Harris. Everything would be rated by less suffering and more efficient.
Growth is in the suffering.
Growth is in the rain.
Growth is in the pain.
Growth is in the drops like stars.
I am opposed to suffering for the sake of suffering but dodging pain only to increase happiness or at the cost of our environment and others I would not consider morality. Telling me the only purpose of my being here is to stay a bit longer.
Harris does make some sort of attempt to disprove the existence of God in a very strange way. First he attempts to make the point that if we were created by Intelligent design it is not very intelligent. This is a strange point because it would mean that intelligence is dependent on efficiency. What Harris is saying is instead creation wasn't efficiency designed which is very different from intelligently. The Sistine Chapel wasn't efficiently designed but it certainly was intelligently, beautifully.
The other point he tries to make has to do with the contents of the bible:
A book written by an omniscient being could contain a chapter on mathematics that, after two thousand years of continuous use, would still be the richest source of mathematical insight humanity has ever known...Why doesn't the Bible say anything about electricity, or about DNA, or about the actual age and size of the universe? What about a cure for cancer? When we fully understand the biology of cancer, this understanding will be easily summarized in a few pages of text. Why aren't these pages, or anything remotely like them, found in the Bible?Mathematics and cures in the bible? What sort of existence would we be living in if God functioned this way? There is so much more to life than math and cures. So much more to life can prolonging existence and making everyone comfortable.
-Sam Harris
I do agree with a lot of what Sam Harris believes as far as our "Christian Nation" goes. As I've been reading my July packet for the Parish Farming Internship I found exactly what Harris is trying to say written by Christians.
If they cannot play fair and persuade or convert everyone else in America to their point of view, they will force all of us to adopt their view through legislation...Christian ethics only make sense from the point of view of what we believe has happened in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth.I agree with Harris that it isn't right to throw your weight around as a religion in legislation because you have the votes and the money to do so. We as Christians should live out or convictions without forcing those who do not value the same ethics to do the same by means of controlling the laws of the nation in which we all live.
-Resident Aliens: A Provocative Christian Assessment of Culture and Ministry for People Who Know that Something is Wrong by Stanley Hauerwas and William H. Willimon
Love does not demand its own way
-1 Corinthians 13
Wild Child - This Place