The Promised Blog (or Land)

Ok, so I'm still getting used to the idea that blogs are really designed for you to express your opinion regardless of what other people who read it might think. But, I am getting used to it and so this post might make some people a little bit annoyed at me. I'm going to go ahead with it anyway.

I have read or skimmed a fair bit of the debate I linked to in my previous post. A very brief background is that Sam Harris is a well-published author and atheist arguing against the existence of God. He is debating well-published author and pro-religion Catholic Andrew Sullivan. On Page 4 of the debate, they finally get to exactly what my problem is and I have to say, that from as objective of a viewpoint as I can get, Sam Harris crushes Andrew Sullivan. The quote below is Sullivan (pro-religion) responding to Harris (atheist).

You wrote:"What would constitute "proof" for you that your current beliefs about God are mistaken? (i.e., what would get you to fundamentally doubt the validity of faith in general and of Christianity in particular?)" It's a good question. It prompts me to say something I've been reluctant to talk about for reasons best expressed by Wittgenstein. But here goes anyway.I have never doubted the existence of God. Never. My acceptance of God's existence--of a force beyond everything and the source of everything--goes so far back in my consciousness and memory that I can neither recall "finding" this faith nor being taught it. So when I am asked to justify this belief, as you reasonably do, I am at a loss. At this layer of faith, the first critical layer, the layer that includes all religious people and many who call themselves spiritual rather than religious, I can offer no justification as such. (http://www.beliefnet.com/story/209/story_20904_4.html)

This quote shows the obvious problem. There is very little evidence to support the existence of God but yet, there is nothing that most people of a religious faith will accept as evidence that God does not exist. How can you have a debate if one side won't accept or acknowledge evidence to the contrary? If someone wants to jump in with good evidence that God does exist, I am more than willing to consider it and spend some time thinking about it. I am at a loss to offer much in the way of evidence myself. I can however, offer much evidence to support the idea that God does not exist, yet I think Harris and Sullivan are both right, when they suggest that it wouldn't do any good. I'm already aware of it and those with faith don't care about it.

Ok, so that was me pissing off the religious crowd.