I don't get it. ... the fallacy of saying “that all faith claims are in some sense equivalent” is not a fallacy. Hence the equivalence class of faith claims. It certainly wasn't Harris' position. You sound very muddled on the details and sense of the issue.
I was attempting to point out that Sam Harris was warning against the fallacy of saying “that all faith claims are in some sense equivalent” yet, moments later, Christopher Hitchens commits the fallacy, "they're all equally..."aDios,Mariano
Mariano: Not the same thing at all. If there is such a thing as a group of "faith claims" at all then there must be at least some statements that pertain to all members of the putative class. Saying that the claims must in some sense be equivalent is not a fallacy but it does not imply that such claims are equivalent in all senses.Its a question of the general case versus specific instances. I can say that all claims about mammals are in some sense equivalent and be correct while somebody else might say that all mammals have antlers and be quite wrong. Saying I believe in God and I believe in Santa Claus are both faith claims and are both in some sense equivalent in that they are both faith claims bereft of supporting evidence.Second, I don't see where Harris calls it a fallacy. The words you quote are '... almost an ontological commitment ...', not the same thing at all.