Help
Sign In
atheism
May 2009 
Sam Harris and Dennis Prager in a Huckabees Food Fight
~C4Chaos
(Crossposted from www.c4chaos.com)
Man, Sam Harris is everywhere I look these days. This time Harris is debating with Dennis Prager over at Jewcy.com. Check it. Props to Mr. Dallman for the heads up.
I've read the entire dialogue/debate and I still don't know who did a better job at it. My opinion is that, although both Prager and Harris had some excellent points to offer, they failed miserably from the start because none of them even bothered to define what level of God they are arguing for or against with. It goes the same thing for religion. So I would define it for them so that I could get something useful from both of their arguments.
Sam Harris seemed to be arguing against the mythic belief in God and the mythic level of religion. Fine. If this is the case, then Harris won the debate. Belief in a mythic God is not necessary to be moral. Case in point: Buddhists don't believe in a mythic God, yet you rarely hear news about Buddhist people doing violent stuff and going around converting other people to their religion. But here's my question to Sam Harris: What is beyond Atheism?
Dennis Prager seemed to be arguing for the transrational belief in God and the transrational elements found in religion. Fine. If this is the case, then Prager won the debate. While I don't believe in a personal mythic God, I still find it useful to maintain my sanity by opening up myself to those "awe moments."
I don't care what Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, or Daniel Dennett say. They could ditch faith for all I care. But their uber-rational arguments pale in comparison with that feeling of awe. They can't take that feeling away from me, because that awe is in the realm of the transrational. The trick is to balance those two. To be rational when dealing with extreme religious fundamentalism (including the fundamentalism of Atheism), and to open up to the possibilities of a transrational God--a God that is beyond the mythic and the mental level.
The Harris vs. Prager debate reminded me of the food fight scene from I Heart Huckabees. Watch it. Laugh at it. And weep.
Maybe Harris and Prager are better off hitting each other with a balloon in the face.
P.S. Chris of Indistinct Union has a more succinct criticism of the Harris and Prager debate. Right on.
Access: Public
“Dennis Prager seemed to be arguing for the transrational belief in God and the transrational elements found in religion.”
~C, I disagree here. If Prager was arguing anything transrational, he did a sloppy job, at best. Take the following:
“I have in fact made the case for the unique legitimacy of the Judeo-Christian tradition in 25 essays I wrote in 2005.”-Prager, Day 3.
He's arguing for the unique legitamcy of the Judeo-Christian tradition??!!! This is clearly a mythic level belief. No matter what level Prager is, cognitively, he's still surfing the mythic level religiously. I found most of his arguments confused. Harris clearly won this debate.
As to your point, though, you're exactly right, IMO. Level of “God” needs to be defined. But I found this debate to, very sophisticatedly, serve the purpose of rational deconstructions of mythic belief… mostly due to Harris' perfectly stated arguments and Prager's confused responses.
Don't worry, though. It won't be long before a trans-rational thinker can take the ring with rational powerhouses. But before she/he does, it would be wise for her/him to develop a solid base of rational understanding ala Harris, first. Transformation is no substitute for translation.
As an example of what I mean by that last sentence, take the following into consideration:
If pre-egoic survivalism is one of the early stages of development, then just by identifying with a higher egoic stage doesn't mean that one has conquered the lower facalties. It doesn't mean an intellect can run a four-minute mile, and it doesn't mean that Steven Hawking can chase down a bear with a club. The transrational thinkers who will deconstruct the rational worldviews will be at least as capable in rational arguments as Sam Harris is today.
That's what I think, anyway.