This is one of the best atheist vs. theist debates I've seen. The Rabbi articulates just about the only way one can justify theism, though I'm not sure it's a viewpoint that's entirely compatible with the religions of the Book--more with 19th century Transcendentalism or Theosophy. In reply, Sam Harris responds with fairly good lines of argument which follow more or less straightforwardly from an empiricist viewpoint.

The one thing I would like to see Sam Harris do would be to clarify that it's not science specifically which he's using to attack theism, but the philosophical position underpinning science--empiricism. The real substance of the disagreement between Rabbi Wolpe and Harris is a disagreement about the importance of empirically justifying one's beliefs.

Wolpe is correct when he says that belief in God is a philosophical claim. Harris could more effectively respond by showing how it is that philosophical claims fail when subjected to adequate philosophical attacks.

>> Particularly the "Seperation of Church and State" bit.

For example, John Locke's essay Concerning Human Understanding, his Two Treatises on Government, and his Empiricism in general were all touching on the subject of how religion and government should interact. In essence, he was dubious of revelation as being a grounds for evidence, since two people could have disagreeing revelations, which made an especially bad grounds for government. He also rejected rather fully the divine right theory of government.

Of course, nowadays we see these ideas as being firmly atheist ones, but they're basically inherited from the Enlightenment. Fundamentalist Christianity, of course, stems from a charismatic tradition rather than an intellectual tradition (like the Lutheran and Catholic churches) so they reject claims like this... but it would be a mistake to confuse Fundies with Christianity in general (though atheists often do -- it's their favorite straw man).

I agree, "collusive" (what you normally see in aikido)practice is useless. Forget about all that stuff they teach about ki and inner power. all it amounts to is good balance, and attacking the attacker.

I do like good discourse about the difference between art and discipline.

MMA is sport, as is kendo (fencing) and there are rules, as in all things. But in real "combat" (rare) there are no rules, and if only we could train like that can we be sure of any thing.

BTW That video below ... is really funny.

In reply to this comment by chilaxe:
Thanks for your response. I think if practitioners are used to their opponent giving them an arm to manipulate and not putting up resistance, they'll be very surprised if they're ever in combat with a determined attacker.

I think the momentum in the martial arts world is in favor of MMA, and the challenge for Aikido in the modern scene is to prove to skeptics it can be effective in that context. Relaxing the taboo against competing with other disciplines would probably go a long way. Also, the UFC has no rules against most Aikido moves, so if they were as effective as they're supposed to be, one would expect there would be at least one UFC fighter training in Aikido rather than the usual striking arts combined with submission wrestling/BJJ.

My concern is just that most people would be better off studying MMA-proven, combat-oriented disciplines .

In reply to this comment by NordlichReiter:
The aikido you see on youtube is demonstration. This Kiai master is not Aikido. He is Ki society. Until you have trained for a class in aikido Hapkido, or any of these types you cant understand that in certain holds you cannot fight without loosing a limb in the process.

I can speak for my school that there are serious students and there are the "I want a black belt type." Most of the time people are "I'm a black belt type." These people diminish the training. In the classes that I attend there are 2 wrestlers(judo), 4 bjj guys, several karateka(Japanese Schools), and 2 boxers. The rest are martial undergrads with no previous experience.

The one thing I have learned in 15 years of martial training, is that you cannot train to win, only train to survive. No situation is a surething, you may think you will win but even then you could trip on a pebble and fall on face.

In reply to this comment by chilaxe:
Don't be fooled. In aikido practice, if you resist the moves they're doing on you, they don't work and it's just embarrassing for everybody. Kind of like this classic vid: http://www.videosift.com/video/Kiai-Master-Gets-Owned

Empiricism is better than faith

Thanks for your response. I think if practitioners are used to their opponent giving them an arm to manipulate and not putting up resistance, they'll be very surprised if they're ever in combat with a determined attacker.

I think the momentum in the martial arts world is in favor of MMA, and the challenge for Aikido in the modern scene is to prove to skeptics it can be effective in that context. Relaxing the taboo against competing with other disciplines would probably go a long way. Also, the UFC has no rules against most Aikido moves, so if they were as effective as they're supposed to be, one would expect there would be at least one UFC fighter training in Aikido rather than the usual striking arts combined with submission wrestling/BJJ.

My concern is just that most people would be better off studying MMA-proven, combat-oriented disciplines .

In reply to this comment by NordlichReiter:
The aikido you see on youtube is demonstration. This Kiai master is not Aikido. He is Ki society. Until you have trained for a class in aikido Hapkido, or any of these types you cant understand that in certain holds you cannot fight without loosing a limb in the process.

I can speak for my school that there are serious students and there are the "I want a black belt type." Most of the time people are "I'm a black belt type." These people diminish the training. In the classes that I attend there are 2 wrestlers(judo), 4 bjj guys, several karateka(Japanese Schools), and 2 boxers. The rest are martial undergrads with no previous experience.

The one thing I have learned in 15 years of martial training, is that you cannot train to win, only train to survive. No situation is a surething, you may think you will win but even then you could trip on a pebble and fall on face.

In reply to this comment by chilaxe:
Don't be fooled. In aikido practice, if you resist the moves they're doing on you, they don't work and it's just embarrassing for everybody. Kind of like this classic vid: http://www.videosift.com/video/Kiai-Master-Gets-Owned

Empiricism is better than faith

The aikido you see on youtube is demonstration. This Kiai master is not Aikido. He is Ki society. Until you have trained for a class in aikido Hapkido, or any of these types you cant understand that in certain holds you cannot fight without loosing a limb in the process.

I can speak for my school that there are serious students and there are the "I want a black belt type." Most of the time people are "I'm a black belt type." These people diminish the training. In the classes that I attend there are 2 wrestlers(judo), 4 bjj guys, several karateka(Japanese Schools), and 2 boxers. The rest are martial undergrads with no previous experience.

The one thing I have learned in 15 years of martial training, is that you cannot train to win, only train to survive. No situation is a surething, you may think you will win but even then you could trip on a pebble and fall on face.

In reply to this comment by chilaxe:
Don't be fooled. In aikido practice, if you resist the moves they're doing on you, they don't work and it's just embarrassing for everybody. Kind of like this classic vid: http://www.videosift.com/video/Kiai-Master-Gets-Owned

Empiricism is better than faith

Don't be fooled. In aikido practice, if you resist the moves they're doing on you, they don't work and it's just embarrassing for everybody. Kind of like this classic vid: http://www.videosift.com/video/Kiai-Master-Gets-Owned

Empiricism is better than faith

Reminds me of that revered Chi Master getting his teeth knocked out by an MMA fighter who somehow failed to succumb to the Master's magic.

(See Empiricism!)

rougy:

So, in your complete inability to appropriately argue your point, you've resorted to simply plastering those who don't agree with you with abuse, denying the very existence of prosaic explanations for the collapses and denying straightforward facts. I never thought it'd be appropriate to quote Choggie, but "Denial", indeed, "is a motherfucker."

You seem to be labouring under the misconception that making assessments based on the available evidence is somehow a moral or epistemological failure on my part. However, it's difficult to see why adhering to such an enlightenment principle -- one essential to the very foundations of empiricism and science -- should rightfully be considered so ignominiously.

Yes I have read it - cover to cover! As I have said before on the Sift:

Dawkins is a good scientist - I would not deny that - but over the years he has moved from being a scientific sceptic to a preacher of intolerance. This move from scepticism to intolerance may have been motivated by the many vocal religious fundamentalists he met on his way who regulalry condemned him. But one should never respond to intolerance and bigotry with more intolerance and bigotry.

My charge against the God Delusion is precisely that in many of his arguments Dawkins abandons empiricism and reason in favour of simplistic generalisation and rants against the evil of religion. As Francis Collins, Director of the Human Genome Project has argued: "Dawkins has abandoned his much cherished rationality to embrace an embittered manifesto of dogmatic atheist fundamentalism." Or as Owen Gingerich, Professor of Astronomy at Harvard, has argued, Dawkins reasoning is full of "gaps, inconsistencies, and a suprising lack of depth of argument".

As Alister McGrath has argued: "The total dogmatic conviction of correctness which pervades some sections of Western atheism today - wonderfully illustrated in the God Delusion - immediately aligns it with a religious fundamentalism which refuse to allow its ideas to be examined or challenged. Dawkins is resistant to the calibration of his own certainties seeing them as being luminously true, requiring no defence. He is so convinced that his own views are right that he could not bring himself to believe that the evidence might legitimate any other options - above all religious options. What is particularly worrying is that, without seeming to realise it, Dawkins simply treats evidence as something to shoehorn into his pre-conceived theoretical framework. Religion is persistently and consistently portrayed in the worst possible way, mimicking the worst features of religious fundamentalisms portrayal of atheism. When some leading scientists write in support of religion, Dawkin retorts that they simply can't mean what they say. Dawkins clearly feels deeply threatened by the possibility of his readers encountering religious ideas or people that they might actually like - or even worse, respect, and regard as worthy of serious attention."

Dawkins is a good scientist - I would not deny that - but over the years he has moved from being a scientific sceptic to a preacher of intolerance. This move from scepticism to intolerance may have been motivated by the many vocal religious fundamentalists he met on his way who regulalry condemned him. But one should never respond to intolerance and bigotry with more intolerance and bigotry.

My charge against the God Delusion is precisely that in many of his arguments Dawkins abandons empiricism and reason in favour of simplistic generalisation and rants against the evil of religion. As Francis Collins, Director of the Human Genome Project has argued: "Dawkins has abandoned his much cherished rationality to embrace an embittered manifesto of dogmatic atheist fundamentalism." Or as Owen Gingerich, Professor of Astronomy at Harvard, has argued, Dawkins reasoning is full of "gaps, inconsistencies, and a suprising lack of depth of argument".

As Alister McGrath has argued: "The total dogmatic conviction of correctness which pervades some sections of Western atheism today - wonderfully illustrated in the God Delusion - immediately aligns it with a religious fundamentalism which refuse to allow its ideas to be examined or challenged. Dawkins is resistant to the calibration of his own certainties seeing them as being luminously true, requiring no defence. He is so convinced that his own views are right that he could not bring himself to believe that the evidence might legitimate any other options - above all religious options. What is particularly worrying is that, without seeming to realise it, Dawkins simply treats evidence as something to shoehorn into his pre-conceived theoretical framework. Religion is persistently and consistently portrayed in the worst possible way, mimicking the worst features of religious fundamentalisms portrayal of atheism. When some leading scientists write in support of religion, Dawkin retorts that they simply can't mean what they say. Dawkins clearly feels deeply threatened by the possibility of his readers encountering religious ideas or people that they might actually like - or even worse, respect, and regard as worthy of serious attention."

Dawkins would like to say that religion is only responsible for ill. He conveniently ignores the fact that people like Muhammad Yunus - founder of the Grameen Bank and winner of the Nobel Peace Prize 2006 - were inspired to lift millions of people out of poverty by their religious beliefs and convictions which taught them to devote their lives to the upliftment and empowerment of some of the world's poorest and most impoverished people.