Sauber diskutiert!

Wow, das war mal ein sehr interessanter Austausch von Argumenten. Sam Harris vertritt seinen Standpunkt, daß moderate Christen den Fundamentalisten Glaubwürdigkeit verleihen und damit stillschweigend unterstützen. Gegen ihn argumentiert Andrew Sullivan, wie ich finde sehr geschickt, auch wenn er sich dann irgendwann, von Harris' Argumenten in die Enge getrieben, relativ schwach aus der Affäre zieht. Sehr lesenswert und mit kühlem Kopf geschrieben...

"Given my view of faith, I think that religious "moderation" is basically an elaborate exercise in self-deception, while you seem to think it is a legitimate and intellectually defensible alternative to fundamentalism."

"Religious moderates-by refusing to question the legitimacy of raising children to believe that they are Christians, Muslims, and Jews-tacitly support the religious divisions in our world. They also perpetuate the myth that a person must believe things on insufficient evidence in order to have an ethical and spiritual life. While religious moderates don't fly planes into buildings, or organize their lives around apocalyptic prophecy, they refuse to deeply question the preposterous ideas of those who do. Moderates neither submit to the real demands of scripture nor draw fully honest inferences from the growing testimony of science. In attempting to find a middle ground between religious dogmatism and intellectual honesty, it seems to me that religious moderates betray faith and reason equally."