Comments on: Sullivan’s Meaninglessness about Meaningfulness

By: Vioxx recall southern california.

Vioxx recall southern california. — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 21:20:28 +0000

Vioxx side effects….

Vioxx lawyers houston. Vioxx. Vioxx settlements. Vioxx side effects….

By: coco floor mats car

coco floor mats car — Sat, 15 Sep 2007 06:54:21 +0000

coco floor mats car…

news…

By: Nicholas Kershaw

Nicholas Kershaw — Thu, 14 Jun 2007 09:17:39 +0000

This one makes sence “One’s first step in wisdom is to kuesstion everything - and one’s last is to come to terms with everything.”

By: Mexxml

Mexxml — Wed, 18 Apr 2007 22:52:24 +0000

test

By: Fresh Bilge » Truth, Beauty, Goodness, Meaning

Fresh Bilge » Truth, Beauty, Goodness, Meaning — Sat, 10 Mar 2007 12:57:36 +0000

[...] Watch Will Wilkinson trying to mediate between Sam Harris, Andrew Sullivan, and one of Sullivan’s more literate readers. Someday there will probably be a version of Godwin’s Law for arguments ad 9/11. Meanwhile we can still puzzle over its meaning. Here’s Wilkinson’s contribution: The 9/11 terrorists were religiously motivated, and no doubt did what they did not out of a sense of secular nihilism, but out of deep and no doubt meaningful religious conviction. I think part of Harris’ point is: what’s so meaningful about a system of beliefs for which there is no evidence? Well, there’s no doubt that people find meaning in all sorts of false things, and those false things don’t have to be true to find meaning in them. If Sullivan is a Catholic, then he believes that all other religions are false. Does he deny that they are meaningful? Is his point just that you have to believe that the false thing you believe is true in order to find meaning it? But Muslim suicide bombers, and suicide pilots, believe, too. More importantly, if you believe that something is true, and it is, then why can’t you find meaning in that? It almost seems like Sullivan thinks that you have to believe something that is false is true, and also sort of believe it is false, but beautiful or good, at the same time, in order to draw meaning from it, which makes no sense. [...]

By: M. Pengo

M. Pengo — Thu, 22 Feb 2007 22:14:21 +0000

As Chris said above, it’s difficult to neatly divide acts - both individual and collective - into ‘religious’ and ’secular’ in motivation, rationale, and (why not?) meaning. The Crusades had plenty of religious content, mixed with a tremendous amount of secular interest. Did Christian Europe go to war with the muslims because they wanted to make God happy? By contrast, did America enter into World War II because we wanted to make the world safe for freedom and liberty? There’s an idiotic, incorrect reply to both of these questions, and it happens to be a simple ‘Yes’.

I find Harris not worth listening to - too much righteous rage, which fellow atheist Billy Joel commented on nicely in ‘The Angry Young Man’ - and Andrew Sullivan hopeless for reasons beyond this incident. But the content of his reply hints at something that hits closer to home with Harris than we’d take at first notice: If life was a cosmological accident, the universe ‘just is’ and holds no real purpose for us or actual moral truth, then Harris’ “I’m an atheist who, gosh darn it, likes to be nice, and I don’t need noodles for that” isn’t praiseworthy, as nothing truly can be. By extension, there’s nothing wrong with Peter Singer’s utilitarianism, Marx’s communism, or even Joseph Smith’s mormonism. They’re all essentially equal, because there’s no objective standard of measurement to speak of.

Unless you clench your fists, close your eyes, and really, really mentally ‘feel’ that - despite the ’sad cosmological accident’ nature of our existence, the pointlessness of the universe, and the oblivion that waits every man, woman, and child - some things are morally wrong and that’s obvious and there’s nothing more to say on the subject. In which case it just proves that, somewhere in the closet, atheists keep a shrine with a pasta statue on it.

By: Chris

Chris — Thu, 01 Feb 2007 21:29:03 +0000

I don’t actually read Sullivan, and I can’t stand Sam Harris, so I haven’t really paid any attention to this debate. Clearly, Sullivan’s retort to the letter was, well, stupid. But I did want to say one thing about your response. The role of religion in suicide bombings (including, presumably, the suicide attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon) is a bit more complex than Harris would have us believe, than Sullivan’s reply implies, and than your reply to Sullivan takes for granted. Specifically, according to the work of Scott Atran and others (see, e.g., this paper), religion plays a much less causal role in determining who becomes a suicide bomber than most of us would (understandably) believe.

By: asg

asg — Thu, 01 Feb 2007 20:21:29 +0000

I gave up on Sullivan for good several months ago, and this post gives me no reason to regret that decision.