You Talkin' to Me?

This is a generally fascinating and occasionally disturbing interchange between two very smart, committed men regarding (ostensibly) whether or not God exists. In point of fact, it seems to be really about whether belief in God does more good or more harm, today and in the past.

Sam Harris avows that belief in God is uniformly nonsensical, that there is no value whatsoever in it, and that human life is in immediate danger from all of its manifestations, not just the ones that encourage people to fly airplanes into great public buildings.

Dennis Prager avows that belief in God is true and factually based, that no moral system can survive without it, and that human life is in imminent danger from atheism in all its forms.


My many millions of readers know by this time that I believe in God and that I seek (with varying degrees of success) to live a Jewish life. I've never heard of or met Sam Harris, except in his appearances on Salon and The Huffington Post; on the other hand I have a nodding acquaintance with Dennis Prager and disagree with his politics, except where Israel is concerned.

Both of these guys are smarter, better read and more skilled in argument than I am, which may explain why their rhetoric is so fractious. The question of whether or not God exists - whether or not belief in God promotes good individual or collective life - is an important one, so both Mr. Harris and Mr. Prager seem to have acted accordingly. They've rolled out the big guns and attacked both each other's arguments and each other personally, which I've always found a little distasteful in spiritual discussions, but that's just me.


Anyway, the most fascinating thing about this interchange is that Mr. Harris and Mr. Prager spend much of their time accusing each other of the exact same things! Observe; here and there you find them both saying "You have neither disproved my arguments nor presented any new ones of your own," and "What you're saying has nothing to do with the subject at hand," and doubtless a few other things you can find for yourself.

I make no claims for my own ability in this kind of argument, and if I found myself sitting across the table from either one of them I know I'd lose; Dennis has demolished me once or twice in the past. That doesn't stop me from noting that they don't seem to be listening to each other very carefully. Neither Mr. Harris' devotion to reason and scientific clarity, nor Mr. Prager's devotion to truth and moral clarity, seem to have led either one of them to much respect for the opponent. (Of course, respect for the opponent is not very popular these days, but I like it.)

Well, maybe they're both bumping up the intensity because they're in a public forum and want to sway the audience if they can. Maybe if they met one-on-one, they'd take a less confrontational tone. Makes sense, but doesn't that mean that they're not really talking to each other? They're talking past each other to the audience. So they're neither talking to each other nor listening to each other, and what's the point?


I once saw a panel discussion on television between a pro-lifer and a pro-choicer, moderated by a specialist in conflict resolution. The first thing the moderator did was require both parties to present the other side's argument, without comment or objection. The remaining discussion actually led somewhere, if memory serves.

Zealots may not believe that such a tactic is either useful or moral - why spend time detailing a point of view you know to be wrong? - but it works for me.

Benshlomo says, If you want to discuss something with me, you can start by remembering that you're discussing something with me.