Not the other one.
My far-too-articulate cousin has been on fire since booting up his blog only a matter of weeks ago. His most recent missive points to a Truthdig debate between Sam Harris and Chris Hedges on (such frivolous topics as) religion, politics, and the end of the world. Well worth a watch, particularly Sam’s closing statement where he invokes the good witch/bad witch defense.
Over the past couple of weeks, Beliefnet has been hosting a debate on matters of faith between Sam Harris, author of The End of Faith, and Andrew Sullivan, blogger for Time and author of The Conservative Soul. (No prizes for guessing who’s arguing what.) As well as serving up many of his greatest hits, Harris has dropped some brilliant new, biting quotes, in the articulate manner one comes to expect from him.
On Benedict XVI:
The fact that the current pope freely uses terms like “reason” and “truth” does not at all guarantee that he is on good terms with the former, or would recognize the latter if it bit him. Starting with the (utterly unjustified) premise that one of your books is an infallible guide to reality is not a particularly promising approach to inquiry—be it physical, ethical, or spiritual.
On Vatican II:
Your brandishing of Vatican II is just silly, and only bolsters my argument. Are you saying that for about 1960 years Christians (including all the popes) were mistaken about the true doctrine of Christianity? Would you have our readers believe that Vatican II represents some kind of epistemological breakthrough? In reality, Vatican II was just damage control.
He even invokes the FSM:
Needless to say, your attempt to pull theism up by its bootstraps (”since God is definitionally the Creator of such a universe; and the meaning of the universe cannot be in conflict with its Creator”) could be used to justify almost any metaphysical assertion. “The Flying Spaghetti Monster who created the universe” is also “definitionally” the Creator of the universe; this doesn’t mean that he exists, or that the universe had a Creator at all. Many other chains of pious reasoning could be cashed-out in the same way: “Satan is the Tempter; I find that I am tempted on a hourly basis to eat ice cream and have sex with my neighbor’s wife; ergo, Satan exists.”
It’s a fun read. I sense defeat in Sullivan’s most recent reply — though I’m sure he wouldn’t characterize it as such — as he abandons argument and falls back to what amounts to a “just because” justification. He’s been a good sport, however. The faithful could do worse than having him championing their cause.
