Out of curiosity, what do we (Christians) do with the evidence of our faith? After all, Jesus was a real person who lived in a real Palestine at a real time, who (according to real historical records) performed miracles, and (according to historical records) died an 'ignominious' death.
Furthermore, after his death, instead of dispersing in shame, fear and horror, his followers not only claimed to have seen him raised from the dead, but multiplied in numbers so quickly, that within 200 years, 10-15% of the Roman empire followed his teachings.
I agree that we don't have scientific evidence, but historical evidence is not less valid.
David: I haven't read the End of Faith, and don't have any great interest in defending the "radical atheist" wing, but I think you fail to engage here with what Harris seems to be saying.
(1) Yes, in one sense it is silly to use this "but you don't stone adulterers" schtick. But it only has purchase because Christians themselves are so inconsistent in their use of the OT. The Reconstructionists are, of course, a lunatic fringe (albeit a growing one) within evangelicalism; and they insist that the whole of the Law is to be preserved. But many evangelicals are willing to reach for Leviticus when issues such as homosexuality are under consideration.
(2) As I understand Harris on mysticism, he seems to be saying: there are certain mental phenomena/states of consciousness that are so well-attested throughout the human race that it is sheer prejudice to discount it as "unscientific"; these states of consciousness are most accessible phenomenologically - through accounts written by those who have experienced them; in fact, it may be that it is only through analysis and comparison of such accounts that these experiences are empirically accessible; Buddhist scriptures (and, presumably, Upanishadic, Taoist etc.) provide extraordinary accounts of phenomenological reality, and such accounts are not found in the Bible.
Now, I go along with some of this, but not all of it. In particular, he makes the same uneducated error of Dawkins etc. of taking the Bible as synonymous with Christianity (and I say this as a non-Christian). If he were to read around in, say, pseudo-Dionysius, John Scotus, Meister Eckhart (showing my Platonist sympathies here!) he might find "empirical evidence" just as compelling as that of the Buddhists.
In any case, there is plenty here which merits serious discussion. Simply "calling his credibility into question" and mocking him is not sufficient engagement.
Altabin,
The reconstructionist movement peaked ten to twenty years ago. It is shrinking, not growing.
I agree that a case may be made in the single issue of homosexuality that many are willing to apply Leviticus only to that isolated question.
If it were simply the case that Harris argued "given the documented practices of eastern mystics, states of conciousness is worthy of study" and was done with it, then I'd agree. Instead he writes extensively and lovingly about the rationality and empiricism of Buddhism-way, way above and beyond what is needed to express a scientific interest. The excerpts I qouted are not a cold scientific case for studying mysticsim, but a proponent's passionate justification for practicing it.
For example, he equates these altered states with "enlightenment." However, there is no way to justify, rationally, that such states are more enlightening than those achieved during religious experiences, long distance running, drug taking, brain injury, etc.
The reconstructionist movement peaked ten to twenty years ago. It is shrinking, not growing.
My mistake - as an outsider, I freely acknowledge that most of my knowledge of the evangelical movement is from sources entirely hostile to it, where Reconstructionism is presented as a real, antidemocratic threat.
You make a certain case: the Law of the Old Testament was abrogated in favor of a higher, spiritual law. I imagine you would go on to say that Christ confirmed the Law -- human beings are not suddenly permitted to commit adultery, or steal -- but took upon himself, through his Passion, the penalties that would have accrued. Is that right?
Is it the case, then, that the Old Law has purely historical interest, after the Incarnation? A genuine question - it often puzzles me why Christians retain these bizarre books at all.
But back to the original point. I'm trying to assess the evangelical movement from outside, and obviously failing. The panicked accounts I've read of Dominionism/Reconstructionism etc. seemed plausible because the public face of evangelicalism seems more and more inclined towards extreme literalism, intolerance and boldness in trying to get their religious values imposed legally onto all of us.
Now, if your position on the Law represents the "real" Christian position, then obviously Harris's "why don't you stone adulterers" jibes are silly. But, as someone in a better position than I to judge, do you think your position on the OT is the majority position, or is mainstream evangelicalism less nuanced? We agree that they reach for Leviticus when homosexuality comes into view (that, in itself, is a disturbing lapse from your NT position). Is this the only case? If Christians do use the OT laws as a basis for morality (selectively, of course), then Harris's argument does need to be attended to.
Keep in mind, too, that Harris is addressing the "evangelical masses," at least as he imagines them. I don't think it's too much to assume that many in the big evangelical churches haven't read Augustine, or Calvin, to use the examples you put forward. A surprising number haven't even read the Bible, for goodness' sake! Christ's moral advice is subtle -- a lot more subtle than a list of several hundred laws. Given the choice, which do you think the "evangelical in the street" reaches for?
Most evangelicals that I know haven't read any theologians other than Rick Warren (and others at his level of marketing), but to say that even a small fraction haven't even read the Bible is silly beyond comparison. If you meant "the Bible in its entirety", you are probably right because there are large parts (Like Leviticus) that are slow going. Most evangelicals that I know are much more familiar with the NT, so arguments against homosexuality, for instance, are most likely to come from Paul's discussion of sin in Romans and Jesus's teaching on marriage. In fact, I can hardly think of a Chrsitian group less likely to base their practices on the OT.
When you refer to Jesus's words as "subtle", I assume that you mean "difficult to understand". I'm surprised that you think this - unlike Gnosticism, Christianity is a straight-forward religion. The Gospels, certainly, and Paul's letters were meant to be read and understood. It would take a Ph.D. to be confused by them 
As to teachings of the Gospel versus the Law, the whole Evangelical paradigm is to leave legalism behind and embrace grace.
Attabin - you also mention that Evangelicals are trying to force their religious beliefs on everyone. Please name one legal goal of Evangelicals that wasn't accpted law 50 years ago.
Since you yourself state that you don't have firsthand knowledge of Evangelicalism, don't you think it's possible you've got the whole thing wrong? That your stated description of Evangelicals is actually opposite to the way we really are? Maybe someone is feeding you a line to mistrust and fear Christians for their own political purposes? Maybe?
Altabin:
"You make a certain case: the Law of the Old Testament was abrogated in favor of a higher, spiritual law. I imagine you would go on to say that Christ confirmed the Law -- human beings are not suddenly permitted to commit adultery, or steal -- but took upon himself, through his Passion, the penalties that would have accrued. Is that right? "
Close. With regards to the moral law, Christ has made it harder. He emphasizes this by saying that, not only is adultery adultery, but just contemplating it is. Exactly what that means is debatable, buy clearly we are not free from the moral law. The real issue here is the contrast between “under the law” in the OT and “under grace” in the NT, and the subtlety that while no longer under the law it still serves to convict us. So it is not true that the law has purely historic interest, while it is true that we view it quite differently from our OT counterparts. Paul gives the best exposition of this in Romans.
I don’t know if my position is the majority position. The radical movement known as reconstructionism, which did not come from fundamentalists but from reformed intellectuals, continues to wane. It sometimes gets confused with neverending efforts of fundamentalists to, for example, teach creationism in public schools. One truly is advocating theocracy—the other is debating where to draw lines and how to interpret what the constitution allows, not to overthrow it. But in all matters, across all fields, it is often the more radical that get the ink, leaving us with a distorted view of other groups. For that reason, I’m confident that someone like Sam Harris, who argues against accommodation, represents a minority among atheists. As in all things, it’s a minority, radical viewpoint that is sexy and sells books.
Mr. Scott,
I'm not trying to start a long conversation on this, but this nugget caught my eye.
"Attabin - you also mention that Evangelicals are trying to force their religious beliefs on everyone. Please name one legal goal of Evangelicals that wasn't accpted law 50 years ago."
Even if that is true, does it matter? The law 50 years ago did force a certain religious belief system on people (Christian prayer in schools for instance.) Simply because that was the law doesn't mean that their goal is somehow more pure.
Altabin: You are correct, in that the "Evangelical in the street" (well put, by the way) is a large part of the political problem for evangelicals. People, by and large, prefer simple, easy to remember rules. People also like bright lines of separation, us and the others; if the "us" group can be seen as superior to the "others" in some way, so much the better.
The Jesus of the Gospel does not share this approach, especially the us vs them bit (Samaritans as heroes?). His take on the Law seems to have been: 1) Discover God's purpose in implementing the law; and 2) Take action to achieve that purpose. For instance, Jesus appears to have healed on the Sabbath in preference to other days (at least in the Gospels far more healings occur on the Sabbath than can be ascribed to chance). Presumably, this was because the Sabbath was established for the purpose of allowing men to rest, relax, and generally gain renewal (both physical and spiritual) and healing promoted these ends.
What Jesus requires is much more demanding than the OT Law: It requires thinking, and drawing judgments and distinctions. Many people are not comfortable with these things, and would prefer a simple "If A occurs, then you must do B" sort of code to follow. This is a forlorn hope, and not just for the reasons Paul outlines in Romans, but for the practical reason that there are always instances that will fall between the gaps of the laws, not matter how detailed.
Interesting discussion, thanks to all.
Harris is being just plain arbitrary and silly. The reality of Christ healing your own soul and helping you turn your moral life around (and thereby allowing you to directly experience the truth of "Blessed are the clean of heart, for they will see God") is just as empirical and scientific as anything the Eastern mystics have to offer. I've done the experiment. I've taken the taste test. I'll take Christian mysticism (and historical evidence) over Eastern mysticism any day!
GCT -
I do see your point. While I disagree that it forced a particular religious view on people, that is the liberal viewpoint and those are the very people with whom I am arguing. So it wasn't a good argument on my part.
Just out of curiosity, and forgive me if you mentioned this somewhere else, but what do you think are some of the reasons for faith in God? I ask as someone who used to consider himself a Christian, but who has lost confidence in what used to sustain his faith.
Cheers,
Dave
Commenting by HaloScan
