Thursday, March 22, 2007

From Andrew Sullivan's Blog

Andrew Sullivan has a good well maintained Blog I like to look at once in awhile. He wrote this there:



"Some readers have asked when I'm simply going to surrender to Sam. Well: in many ways I have surrendered. I'm fascinated by what reason can illuminate about faith - and have found Sam's arguments enriching to my own faith. But I can no more be reasoned out of faith than I was reasoned into it. I really have no choice in the matter. But I hope to understand it better and to see it in the truest light possible."

2 comments:

upinVermont said...

What does *this* mean?

"But I can no more be reasoned out of faith than I was reasoned into it."

This is one of those tossed off phrases that, on close study, makes no sense. Is he saying that he "was not reasoned into faith" or that it is not possible to "reason one into faith"? Is he then saying that faith is unreasonable?

Looks like Sam took Andy by the throat and shook hard. What came out was nonsensical drivel. I'm guessing that Sullivan's "reasons" for being a gay Republican are equally opaque.

He could no more be reasoned out of being Republican than he was reasoned into it!

Aaron said...

I think that what is happening in this debate is that Sullivan is allowing himself to be bludgeoned because part of himself is sympathetic to Harris' arguments. He has admitted as much. Either this or it is the most one-sided debate I've ever seen. Andrew is caught in a pickel, and the lengthy duration of the debate has only exacerbated the labyrinth of sketchy arguments he has half-heartedly tried to defend himself with. I get the feeling that all along Andrew has felt comfortable in knowing that he can evaporate his position into a ghost which cannot be harmed by mere mortal weapons. Faith is not reasoned into, therefore reason cannot damage it. But, as all faithful do when engaged in a debate, they try their damndest to use reason where it might support them.

This debate is almost...bizzare how it has played out. I would expect more from Andrew or anyone really for that matter. He just isn't bringing anything to the table. But you know, it's what I've written about before- I've read just about everything out there about Sam's arguments, and I haven't seen anyone bring anything to the table. The default cry is merely that "Sam Harris is dogmatic". How can well reasoned arguments without any serious rebuttal be accused of being dogmatic? Reza Aslan adds the variation- "your understanding of the dynamics of Islam is sooo obtuse". A courtiers reply which, even if it were true would have no power of argument considering what Muslims are doing under their obtuse understanding of their own religion.

All one can do is keep crying in the wilderness. I think people are catching on. New stats showed that gen Y is less religious than gen x and gen x less religious than those before it. We are making progress, buut will it be fast enough?