Reza Aslan and the objectivity of 'truth'
their views on religion. I've seen quite a few of debates in a similar nature and usually it
consists of scientist or secularist and a knuckle dragging bible thumper. Why do i say 'knuckle
dragging bible thumper' instead of theist / creationist? Basically because the latter bases his
whole argument on fallacies, raises his voice or does both, nor does he have ulterior reasons
(that i know of).
Reza Aslan is different in this aspect, the man used NO fallacies, NO lies, did NOT raise his
voice and did not interrupt more than generally acceptable. Yet unlike other people who
generally take his view point he makes a strong case against Sam Harris. Especially when it
comes to religion and politics. In fact he did something i really love, he made me re-evaluate
the way i look at the effect of religion on society.
It's not without reason that his book "No god but God" is on my to-read-list now. For anyone
interested in the debate, click
I do have on point of critisism though;
Near the end Reza makes a comment that implies 'truth' is subjective (scientific truth and
religious truth). In my opinion thats bullshit. If i say something is red, and a color blind
person tells me it's purple it does not mean the object is either red or purple because of the
way we perceive it. How we look at it does not make it our personal 'truth' because there is
only one undisputable truth: "we are looking at an object that emits or reflects light in
certain wavelength." How we perceive that wavelength (red or purple) does not change what the
wavelength is. Even though perception is objective, truth and fact are NOT.
Sadly, very few people will read this, and those who do will loose interest after the 3rd
sentence. But thats okay Every time i write something similar to this i'm aware i've grown as a
person, and in the end, thats what i'm writing this for :)
- Jermain link: -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------