Sample clip of my debate with an
atheist on the issue of morality.
Find the whole debate at this link
Sam Harris: Instigator At Large
This essay is parsed as follows:
Part 1: Introduction and Circular Illogic
Part 2: Concoction of Confused Condescension
Part 3: The Biblical Point of View
In his book Orthodoxy, G. K. Chesterton wrote a chapter entitled The Suicide of Thought wherein he makes quick work of secularism's fallacious worldview. He writes:
"But the new rebel is a Sceptic, and will not entirely trust anything. He has no loyalty; therefore he can never be really a revolutionist. And the fact that he doubts everything really gets in his way when he wants to denounce anything. For all denunciation implies a moral doctrine of some kind; and the modern revolutionist doubts not only the institution he denounces, but the doctrine by which he denounces it...In short, the modern revolutionist, being an infinite sceptic, is always engaged in undermining his own mines. In his book on politics he attacks men for trampling on morality; in his book on ethics he attacks morality for trampling on men. Therefore the modern man in revolt has become practically useless for all purposes of revolt. By rebelling against everything he has lost his right to rebel against anything."1
In many instances, Sam Harris appears to fit this description. In the Rediff India Abroad interview with Sam Harris, Religion Gives Good People Bad Reasons To Be Good, he besmirches Mother Theresa, perhaps the greatest example of humanity's humanity towards humanity because she did not support the brutal and painful murder of innocent and defenseless human beings: abortion. He besmirches the Bible for not being moral enough, then present his view of a higher morality, but then he also besmirches that. Also, he engages in very confused attempts at linkage and reasoning, while exposing his ignorance of that which he is vehemently against i.e., the Bible.
Here we will focus upon the moral issue and his confused concoction of besmirching which he combines with Biblical illiteracy. The title of the interview, Religion Gives Good People Bad Reasons To Be Good, is taken from a statement by Sam Harris. We have written an essay that responds to a very common presumption and misconception that states Only Atheists Have Pure Motives.
It is important to note that since, for example, Christians have an ethical system when they behave immorally they are in violation of the ethical system. Yet, since the atheist has no such system, certainly not one that goes beyond their personal preferences and certainly not one in which there is ultimate accountability, when they behave immorally they are not violating anything (short of their unaccountable personal preference the morality de jour).
Sam Harris stated:
"Mahavira, the founder of Jainism, surpassed the morality, of the Bible in one, in just one sentence: Do not injure, abuse, oppress, enslave, insult, torment, torture or kill any creature or living being."
There you have it, one single sentence outdoes the Bible's moral teachings. But not so fast, Sam Harris then states, "I am not a pacifist." Surely, this is the same Sam Harris who believes that "Some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them. This may seem an extraordinary claim, but it merely enunciates an ordinary fact about the world in which we live."2 A man who seeks to "present an argument for the use of torture in rare circumstances."3 He also looks forward to a time when "making religious certitude look stupid will be exploited, and we'll start laughing at people who believe...We'll laugh at them in a way that will be synonymous with excluding them from our halls of power."4
In this instance, Sam Harris stated:
"I am not a pacifist. I don't want Gandhi or Mahavira to decide our response to someone like Hitler. If we had listened to these two men, we would have continued to be ruled by the Nazis for another millennium."
Reasonable enough, but what happened to the great moral one liner? Sam Harris doubts not only the institution he denounces, but the doctrine by which he denounces it. But if the one liner, the doctrine by which he denounces it, is invalid then he has not succeeded in denouncing the Bible.
It may be republished in part or in its entirety on websites, blogs, or any
print media for whatever purpose (in agreement or in order to criticize it) only as
long as the following conditions are met: