We Really Do Finish the Harris Book

But we will be referring back to him, I'm sure.   We are addressing huge questions in a very short time -- we could spend a decade reading books that spring from any of our books.  But time is short.  So I encourage you to read further on your own on any of the topics we raise.  The next book continues the general, foundational issue of just how we think, how we use "reason" in faith, how we view reality, including the possibility of religious reality.


Here are some reflections on this morning's discussion, and an assignment for what comes next:

The summer goes on, and so do we . . . a good discussion this morning finishing up the Harris book.   A number of us faulted Harris primarily because of his narrow (to us) use of the word "faith."   When he speaks of "faith" he means -- and this is a reasonable, historical use of the word -- the acceptance of and commitment to traditional articles of faith, including accepting the sacred books (Bible, Koran) as literal, inerrant revelations from God.   We moderates, on the other hand, have for some time (liberal theology took root in the 19th century) understand the Bible to be a human document, do not take in literally, and in fact reject large tracts of it as being decidedly not "the Word of God."

Still Harris' question is a good one -- if we don't have a sacred, inerrant book from which we can derive our morality, how can we know what is right and wrong?  He maintains that morality can be found through reason, and surely there are plenty of people in the world who profess no faith (certainly not in Harris' sense of that word) but who without the benefit of Church or Imam are able to live lives at least as morally as religionists, sometimes more so.  Religion is not necessary for some -- many? -- people to know what is the morally right thing to do -- they just know it inside.   St Paul, no less, acknowledges that in Romans 1 and 2.  The doing the right thing, living ethically, may be another thing, and for many people in history religious faith has helped that, either by threatening Judgment or by affirming that the other person is a "child of God" just like me and therefore deserving right treatment.  But such statements of faith are not necessary motivators, and Harris may be right that there are other -- better? -- ones to be found.

We seem to agree that the kind of faith Harris describes in such detail is NOT the faith we would profess.  The ongoing question will be:  what IS the faith I am comfortable professing -- to what am I willing to commitment myself as being of ultimate importance . . . what expression of faith seems reasonable to me?  If God's "revelation" is ongoing, how can I spot it?

We finished with a poem about the ongoing search for ultimate meaning, "the secret" of life:  See what you think: http://www.panhala.net/Archive/The_Secret.html

The next book is Is Nature Enough? You can get it at http://www.amazon.com/dp/0521609933?tag=faitorno-20&camp=14573&creative=327641&linkCode=as1&creativeASIN=0521609933&adid=0Z5TBQJKAQBKP7PZDEP3&. Haught is going to argue that "naturalism" is not reasonable, and that there are other ways in addition to empirical "scientism" to know reality.

Let's read Chapters 1, 2, and 3 -- that's 23% of the book, says my IKindle.