American Jewish University presents best-selling authors Sam Harris and Rabbi David Wolpe in a debate about the existence of God and the role of religion and faith in society. Sam Harris is a renowned atheist and author of The End of Faith and Letter to a Christian Nation. Rabbi David Wolpe, of Sinai Temple, is the author of Teaching Your Children About God and Why Be Jewish. This debate is moderated by Los Angeles Times religion editor Steve Padilla.
On June 5, 2010, In Uncategorized, by admin
American Jewish University presents best-selling authors Sam Harris and Rabbi David Wolpe in a debate about the existence of God and the role of religion and faith in society. Sam Harris is a renowned atheist and author of The End of Faith and Letter to a Christian Nation. Rabbi David Wolpe, of Sinai Temple, is [...]
If you enjoyed this article, please consider sharing it!
Wolpe says that religion is an imperfect institution although theists claim that their values come directly from a perfect being who wrote their holy books. So holy books are supposed to be perfect and yet, they are the biggest pieces of convoluted, self-contradicting bs that we can be sure were written by some immoral asscracks who had too much time to spare in the ancient world
@Ruben0918 – Indeed!
i think you are being a little disingenuous to the rabbis arguments. This debate was great because both came up with very compelling arguments. the arguments the rabbi used constituted a kind of anecdotal evidence which is perfectly legitimate. The fact that religious views on the value of life is much more effective in society as a whole gives it much credibility, over against social Darwinist view of life as a product of random mutations led by the blind process of natural selection.
@InSaneTK
how is it perfect? Elvis was material. therefore we determine his existence based on our understanding of the material world. God, however, is an entirely different situation altogether. Genesis tells “in the beginning (time), God created the heavens (space) and the earth (matter). God, therefore, CREATED everything that constitutes a material world and therefore is above these. God is not material so we cannot determine his existence based on our understanding of the material world.
@flwagr
agreed.
Harris owns nothing. The Elvis example is absurd. Elvis is alive in the hearts of many, yes, but his physical body is no more. All knowledge we hold, all art and science we behold is because others came before us. In that sense, they are still alive.
@tonyschmoeredux I disagree. The Elvis analogy is perfect. It puts things in the right perspective. Many don’t want to see it for what it is. People have a special relationship and acceptance to exactly the same things but only when they hear the magical name or word that shuts of their rationality.
@HConstantine Jefferson yes, Lincoln and Gandhi no. Lincoln appealed to a deity, and I’ll go so far as to say the Christian God, in his speeches. If he really didn’t believe (which I guess is possible), then those references would be hypocritical. Gandhi started out rather agnostic-ish, but his satyagraha movement of non-violent protest was inspired by Hindu philosophy from the Bhagavad Gita and Ramayana which he learnt, oddly enough, from theospohists from the US.
This rabbi is well out of his depth.
@tonyschmoeredux That’s the point
You can actually see “Hatred” in the Rabbi’s eyes. He would never admit it, but you sure can see it. Sam just destroys the Rabbi!
why do they also use Stalin and Mao as examples of Atheist leaders? Why not Jefferson, Lincoln, and Gandhi?
@RhapsodyOfHammerfall Wolpe is ALWAYS like this. he has no manners in his debate tactics. He is overly emotional and attempts to win the debate by getting his panties in a bunch.
BTW: as a gay man, i intend no homophobic implication with this observation, but: Wolpe is a huge closet case. I suspect that his ability to delude himself about his sexuality has served him well in deluding himself about a supreme being.
Everything is either physical, or descriptive of something physical. How can one say that we, as physical creatures, somehow can see beyond the physical realm, and view the transcendent; the transcendent, of course, being immeasurable, and undetectable. Wolpe goes on to talk about the metaphysical nature of goodness. This is, of course, absurd to anyone who has the smallest understanding of neuroscience. There are many explanations for this phenomenon.
I wonder if Mr Wolpe has heard of Western Europe. The most well-functioning societies and the least religious societies on the planet.
History doesn’t doesn’t prove religion is good. I just proves atheism is worse when it gets into power.
Harris is factually inaccurate about the sex abuse problem in the Catholic church. It was not about an “army of child rapists” as he said. 90-99% of the cases involved homosexual men and underage teen males.
The Elvis analogy is irrational.
This rabbi reminds me of a slightly more intelligent jewish version of Bill O’Reilly
It bothers me to no end when people claim that the existence of God is not a scientific claim. Especially when they equate value judgements with religious statements of fact.
If God acts on reality then His existence is a scientific claim. If He does not, His existence is of no consequence.
KO in the 7th round!
If the force WERE to be measured it would do nothing but reinforce the belief in the force. If the force is NEVER measured then the force can never be dis-proven as it is an unmeasurable force.
It is a one sided coin.
The bypass lies in saying that an unmeasurable force affects our measurable forces in unmeasurable ways.
Art without religion??? Can anyone name one good artist in poetry, music, visual art, theater, who is a devout evangelical? no one who does good art does it in gods name.
Personal experience alone does not collaborate at all with the general population. The Rabbi clearly doesnt understand science.
In this argument I’m going to admit that I tilt towards Atheism though I am Agnostic, but regardless of who I believe got their point across best I’m glad that this topic can be discussed by two different points of view in a dignified, eloquent, and (somewhat) respectful manner by two people. that is very rare in my experience