I keep wondering how anyone can read the things that Sam Harris writes and not just see another version of Dobson, Falwell, or Mullah Omar? It’s fire and brimstone invective, in which the Chosen People are the ones who share Harris’ ideology of non theism and anyone who doesn’t get on board is literally Left Behind.
It is the same thing. It is the other side of the coin. The rude, condescending and elitist attitude exhibited by Harris and his fans are just atheistic versions of religious fundamentalism, a dogma that relies on faith and the demonization of everyone who disagrees with the faith. That the central belief in this faith is the lack of a divine being or beings is of no consequence, Harris is as certain of the nonexistence of a deity as Pat Robertson is that the end times are nigh. Neither one of them has any sort of proof that would stand up to a scientific test. They’ve got… faith.
Seemingly intelligent people, however, see Harris as the more "rational" of the two camps but in fact though he lacks the power of the religious far right, he’s just the same as they are.
It’s really a sad thing, because there is honest space for people who are believers and non-believers and sort-of-believers to come to common ground and exchange ideas. But the Sam Harris contingent is too busy smelling their farts and becoming entranced with how good their farts smell to engage with anyone who doesn’t believe in their same closed, rigid, belief system.
Harris is as certain of the nonexistence of a deity as Pat Robertson is that the end times are nigh. Neither one of them has any sort of proof that would stand up to a scientific test. They’ve got… faith.
I remember mambochicken had a great explanation for how believing in nothing makes more sense than believing in something. He claims it’s easier: Something to do with parsley, or money. I forget.
Sam Harris can certainly be abrasive and that might be unhelpful. Personally I doubt it, because every movement needs its bomb-throwers to expand the limits of discourse, but it’s at least arguable.
However there’s only so much he can sensibly back-peddle given that he’s right about his key thesis: religious faith _is_ irrational, in that it’s cheerfully ignorant or willfully dismissive of standards of best practice for working with ideas if you seriously want them to be true. In particular, the idea that there’s some sort of symmetry between belief and non-belief in this context is itself irrational. It sounds plausible, but it’s actually akin to “Shape of Earth - Views Differ”. It’s amateurish nonsense which science has had to painfully unlearn to make progress. The guideline worth following is Occam’s Razor: if you can’t find proof for a complex idea, don’t introduce it. And this principle is important because of an objective fact about the world: there are vastly more ways of being wrong than right.
Theology is a perfect example of this. Theology, considered as a pastime that people in every culture have dabbled in, is _normally_ wrong about its subject matter. Different theologies (by definition) invoke gods/Gods but the details are always different. People just like making up god/God stories. And at some level everybody appreciates this. That’s why Harris and Dawkins and Dennett always lead with the observation that, “I’m an atheist for the same reason you are - I just take it one god further.” - to jolt people out of their denial.
If Person A says, “2+2=5. The Bible says so.”
And Person B responds with, “No, 2+2=4.”
Person A will not say, “Oh, you are right. Thank you for the calm discussion.”
People who believe in god(s) are irrational and can not be dealt with rationally. The very fact that religious people celebrate faith proves this.
And you completely fucked up the definition of faith. Faith is believing in something despite the lack of evidence. Not believing in something because of the lack of evidence is not faith, it’s logic.
“The rude, condescending and elitist attitude exhibited by Harris and his fans are just atheistic versions of religious fundamentalism, a dogma that relies on faith and the demonization of everyone who disagrees with the faith.”
This is also 100% crap. Some athests may be elitists, perhaps even most, but religious extremists think they have god on their side when they kill those that disagree with them. That’s a huge difference, you can rationally debate an atheist, if you come up with a rational argument. You can’t do the same with dogma.
“Faith is believing in something despite the lack of evidence. Not believing in something because of the lack of evidence is not faith, it’s logic.”
I agree the not-believing version is tendentious and needs to be slapped down, but it’s worth noting that so is the lack-of-evidence version. Christians do often define it that way, but it’s incomplete and it doesn’t characterize how they normally use the word. Faith isn’t _just_ believing in something despite lack of evidence, it’s believing in something because someone or Someone has a moral responsibility to make it true. That’s where the good vibes come from - the opposite of faith in this moral sense is slander. To lack faith in someone or Someone is to suggest that they will not fulfill their responsibilities. And at least in moderation, moral faith is good and necessary. It’s social lubricant - society couldn’t function if we didn’t have a fair measure of faith in family and friends and colleagues and the system in general. But it’s a moral transaction - you can’t just have faith in the abstract, you have to have faith in another moral agent.
The trouble is, most “religious faith” is either not actual faith or not actual faith in God. First, you can’t sensibly have faith in God to exist. If there’s no God then there’s no God to have committed a breech of faith. You can sensibly have faith in God to honour a covenant, but you can’t sensibly have faith in God that anything that purports to be a covenant is one. The world is full of false religions, so no God can have made a promise to permit only true revelations. You can sensibly have faith in Christians to have correctly transmitted a covenant, at least as far as the definition is concerned. It would just be a dumb idea in practice because Christians are confused about faith and take pride in believing things without evidence.
The guideline worth following is Occam’s Razor: if you can’t find proof for a complex idea, don’t introduce it
Occam must be spinning in his grave at that stretch!
The point is that Mr. Harris, as do most atheists, distort (or fabricate) the “damage” done by religion.
Why should an atheist even care what others believe?
The guideline worth following is Occam’s Razor: if you can’t find proof for a complex idea, don’t introduce it
Occam must be spinning in his grave at that stretch!
Since you only said that to think yourself witty and cant demonstrate how thats stretching the point, I wont ask you to show how unproveable ideas are equally valid to proveable ones.
The point is that Mr. Harris, as do most atheists, distort (or fabricate) the “damage” done by religion.
I have argued that religion is not necessary to commit good or bad deeds, since people of faith and without faith will do and have done so since time immemorial. Religion also provides post-facto reason and justification for said actions, though, which is key since while good deeds don’t need justification for sake of being self-evidently beneficial, evil deeds desperately do. As I say before, Religion can only be demonstrated to publically justify and legitimize hatred and cruelty by casting such as being done “in God’s name” as a (tragically successful) effort to silence debate. As a result of as much the atheists who actually want to have the debate are either heretics a century or three ago, or today they’re somehow assholes for wanting to talk to people.
I keep wondering how anyone can read the things that Sam Harris writes and not just see another version of Dobson, Falwell, or Mullah Omar?
Here’s a handy guide:
“There is no question that many people do good things in the name of their faith — but there are better reasons to help the poor, feed the hungry and defend the weak than the belief that an Imaginary Friend wants you to do it. Compassion is deeper than religion. As is ecstasy. It is time that we acknowledge that human beings can be profoundly ethical — and even spiritual — without pretending to know things they do not know.”
Positive language about the human condition, clearly intent on bringing people together and promoting dialog.
“I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way — all of them who have tried to secularize America — I point the finger in their face and say, ‘You helped this [the 9-11 attacks] happen.’”
Negative language about a tragedy intent on casting blame, intent on dividing people.
I hope that I’ve helped other confused people see the difference.
“Occam must be spinning in his grave at that stretch!”
It’s not a stretch at all - that’s exactly what Occam’s Razor is about: not introducing ideas into general circulation until you’re forced to by specific positive evidence.
“The point is that Mr. Harris, as do most atheists, distort (or fabricate) the “damage” done by religion.”
I agree he oversells it. The Koran really is a bloodthirsty book. So’s the Bible. But fortunately religions aren’t defined by their holy books. Arguably as a matter of intellectual propriety they should be, but they’re not. People are commonly ignorant of their holy books and have faith in all sorts of random stuff. Religions are always smorgasbords, even when fundamentalists protest mostly loudly that they’re not. Sometimes the worst bits get selected, sometimes the best bits. I think it’s a net negative, but it’s not a huge net negative. The worst bits tend to get emphasized when communities are under stress.
“Why should an atheist even care what others believe?”
Because in many parts of the US, believers go out of their way to make life miserable for atheists. Atheists are less trusted than homosexuals, even though there are more religious people in prison than atheists.
Since you only said that to think yourself witty and cant demonstrate how thats stretching the point, I wont ask you to show how unproveable ideas are equally valid to proveable ones.
Gee, thanks, Rex. For a minute, I thought I was a goner! /sarcasm
You are such a tool, I swear to God…
It is not necessary to show how unproveable ideas are equally as valid as proveable ones, because I made no statement about that.
What I said was that to contend that “Occam’s Razor” says that “if you can’t find proof for a complex idea, don’t introduce it,” was a ridiculous stretch of its meaning. And it is. *
Did I mention you were a tool?
You’re a tool.
* From The Skeptic’s Dictionary
My two cents:
There’s a ’something’ in a certain group of people that make them overbearing *ssholes. That ’something’ is not eclipsed by religion, atheism, political ideology - whatever. The people who have this ’something’ almost always tend to be strident, egotistical extremists.
Note that the discussion in the Sceptic’s Dictionary quote has been been rendered irrelevant by increasing knowledge. The idea of “God” has no meaning or explanatory power except by analogy to a human mind, and the human mind turns out to be implemented by the human brain, which is the most complex mechanism in the known universe. Dualism is dead. Science killed it. Materialism implies that the brain implements the mind. Dualism implies that the brain is an antenna for the mind. Contrary to what many would wish, this is a perfectly simple structural problem of the sort science solves everyday, and it falls to a standard technique: break the system, or let Nature break it, and see what happens. The human mind breaks like a computer, not an antenna. Moreover, now that we have the metaphor of the computer, it’s clear that the complexity is necessary, not a distraction. Therefore any God theory that tries to get around Occam’s Razor by proposing that God is infinitely simple is just sawing off the branch on which it’s sitting. Simple is not a euphemism for stupid for nothing.
I think Mark misuses Occam by leaving out a deceptively critical bit at the end of it now that I come to read it again. Should have said something to the effect of “If you can’t find proof for a complex idea, don’t introduce it if a simpler idea provides a better explanation,” which is a more accurate rephrasing of what is the conventionally applied translation/rephrasing “All things being equal, the simplest solution tends to be the best one.” God, an infinite consciousness, is by necessity of the very definition of his existence a vastly more complex idea than anything science could ever come up with., so in a sense, the God hypothesis fails at the starting gate. Your selective quoting does not change this, and only says what is already known: that in spite of lack of evidence and logic, theists see God’s existence as being necessary, whereas empiricists disagree.
“All things being equal, the simplest solution tends to be the best one.”
Sure, but there _is_ a much simpler solution: a random universe generator. In combination with the Weak Anthropic Principle, this trivially explains the otherwise remarkable fact that the universe has just the properties required for us to exist. I’m not particularly endorsing this theory, because there may be constraints I’m unaware of that force a more complicated solution, and there may be an even simpler solution that we haven’t thought of, but it beats the God theory hands down.
I have to wonder, does Willis know how much he sounds like Pat buchanan screaming his head off about “reverse racism”?
Attacking the powerless for their anger is a con game. I don’t know if Willis knows this or not, but it is. Of Course the powerless are angry, they are ill treated and stripped of their humanity. It’s natural for them to be angry and bitter. I suppose he thinks Malcom X was just George Wallace with dark skin too? Willis sound like a christian scared his special privileges might get taken away and he might have to actually listen to people who don’t believe.
I grow weary of this “faith is irrational/stupid/bad for you” canard.
Life would be quite boring if we didn’t enjoy at least 7 irrational things before breakfast, to paraphrase lewis carroll. What is rational about loving the music of Thelonious Monk or the plays of Shakespeare?
Faith is not a scientific proposition. The earth being flat or round is, and thus can be proven scientifically. All of Harris’ and Dawkins screeds against faith depend on the supposition that God is a scientific hypothesis, which proves only that (a) they have accepted a fundamentalist definition of god; and (b) they have no concept of what faith means.
Most people do not have faith because their parents told them to, or because they are afraid of the big father figure in the sky. Nor is faith belief in something without evidence. Rather, faith is belief based on experience, rather like trusting your friends, neighbors, family as pointed out above.
I am aware of all of the so-called “rational” arguments against God. I choose to have faith because it makes my life richer, and because it is more, well, logical, in light of my personal experiences.
I am aware of all of the so-called “rational” arguments against God. I choose to have faith because it makes my life richer, and because it is more, well, logical, in light of my personal experiences.
Don’t you mean “easier” instead of “logical”.
honestly, as an atheist myself, i would like to see more people exposed to religious virtue.
religion at its core is not a bad thing. for the most part, it’s good for those that choose to partake in it.
my job as an atheist is to point to churchly organizational hypocrisy. no matter what your religious structure, even atheism, there is room for bad decisions and rhetoric.
the choice ultimately isn’t about whether or not you believe in god. it’s about whether or not you are a decent person who is accepting of others at their own value points.
personally, i do not like Sam Harris’s writing & debate style. but that’s more of a personal disagreement that i have with his personal version of atheism in society.
an outright ban on religion? not in my book.
tax the religious marketing organizations just like my advertising agency gets taxed.
as an american citizen & taxpayer, i want to have NOTHING to do with organized religious forces in this country. my tax monies should not be provided in the form of exemption or block ‘faith-based’ federal grant money.
i think it’s the only fair way for all religions, both past and future evolving groups, to operate in the USA.
Nor is faith belief in something without evidence. Rather, faith is belief based on experience…
Perception of experience actually. Here’s an example: When I was five years old I was in the basement and saw a beetle the size of a dinnerplate climb up the wall and disappear, I was convinced, climbing up the interior walls of the house. I believed that it existed, in spite of it being impossible for a thousand reasons, not least of all that beetles dont grow that big, that there was actually no hole for it to disappear into, that something that big would have had to make any noise as it moved and yet didnt, etc. So there’s no evidence of it happening, but I still believed it must have because I saw, I swear to you I SAW the damn thing why wont you believe me?!
And then I realized something important. Personal experiences and perceptions of them are severely biased things. The senses and the mind can be decieved into experiences that are not real. Occam again, the simpler explanation is that somehow, likely a trick of the light and my being only 5 at the time, I was led to believe I saw something that doesnt exist, rather than I actually saw a biologically impossible creature that exists where it could not live or even fit.
I dont want to go to far deep into your own personal experiences, but the important bit of introspection (one which the devout are inherently resistant to) is this: Whatever your experience is, is there a simpler explanation for them than the existence of a necessarily infinitely complex “God”?
Sounds like he’s channeling Thomas Paine.
What is so dogmatic about denying the existence of something about which there is not only no proof, but which proof would literally require palpable divine intervention and displays? Faith is another word for wishful thinking. That’s fine, people can engage in that as much as they want. After all, that’s why we’re in Iraq. It’s what got us the rack, burning at the stake, hanging millstones from people’s to see if God would allow them to float, countless pogroms, Omagh,the Assissination of Ghandi and Sabra and Chatilla. Those people who dislike religion really are off the deep end.
To lack faith in someone or Someone is to suggest that they will not fulfill their responsibilities. And at least in moderation, moral faith is good and necessary. It’s social lubricant - society couldn’t function if we didn’t have a fair measure of faith in family and friends and colleagues and the system in general.
Hold on a second. With respect to the existence of God, there’s no gray area correct? Either God exists or He does not. Atheists don’t believe in God because they say there’s no evidence that God exists and that to have faith in God is irrational.
But here you’re saying that faith in some instances is acceptable. Sorry, but I don’t see how you can reconcile those two viewpoints. If it is irrational for somebody to believe in God, then it is irrational for you to say, have faith that your spouse is not cheating on you.
One might argue that is an issue of trust, but anybody can trust their spouse. It doesn’t mean they’re not screwing around. However, how would really know that your spouse wasn’t screwing around unless you had verifiable evidence to back it up?
Even believers have doubts from time to time (Matthew 8:26), but atheists have no doubts. There is no God and faith is irrational. Therefore, I don’t understand how one could have faith in anything.
Southern Quaker,I agree with you.
I’m wondering which atheist experienced (or proved, for that matter) the non - existence of God. Did they look up to the heavens and see a big hole?
Or a sign that said, “Going out of existence — everything must go.”
I’m curious: Did the Random Universe Generator stop working after it popped out our Universe?
God.
Hahahahahahahah
God.
That’s a good one.
Lettuce made fun of God. How brave!
Lettuce
Hahahahahahahah
Lettuce.
That’s a good one.
Even believers have doubts from time to time (Matthew 8:26), but atheists have no doubts. There is no God and faith is irrational. Therefore, I don’t understand how one could have faith in anything.
I think this has to do with confused definitions of faith, which we have to take out of the exclusive context of havine solely to do with God. If we’re talking faith-as-inference, then the explanation is simple, and goes to your earlier example.
If it is irrational for somebody to believe in God, then it is irrational for you to say, have faith that your spouse is not cheating on you.
Not necessarily. Based on my observation of her behavior, what I am given to know about her personally, how she responds to me personally, and other such evidence I, while I cannot say conclusively without observing her every waking moment, can infer that she is not cheating on me. Thats not an issue of faith because its based on previous evidence and trends. Strictly speaking, when we throw a ball in the air, there is no apsolute guarantee that it will fall back down when it reaches its apex, perhaps a random bird will grab it out of the air. However, the logical inference is that it will, given the unlikelyhood of ball-grabbing birds (close relatives of the coconut-laden swallow) and the observed fact of gravity we make the inference.
If Faith is not inference, then things get tricky, because it can only then be defined as belief in that which has no supporting empirical evidence whatsoever (or alternately, it does have empirical evidence against) in which case it correlates to Wishful Thinking, which again, most people are capable of, but the self-aware tend to stop themselves short of when they catch themselves doing it.
Wishful thinking isnt inherently bad in my opinion, nor is faith-as-inference. The problem comes when we shift from philosophy to action and people doing deeds “in God’s name” in which case, even though wishful thinking should never be seriously considered, it is for the simple reason that faith-as-inference tends to fail so often to rational argument and evidential proof.
The problem comes when we shift from philosophy to action and people doing deeds “in God’s name”
You mean like visiting the sick or imprisoned, comforting the elderly, feeding the hungry, building schools and hospitals?
That kind of horrible stuff?
One thing I don’t understand is why people like Harris come off as being so angry. I’ve had similar experiences with other atheists. Many are passive. “Oh you believe in God? I don’t.” But guys like Harris seem to be so incensed that somebody else believes in God, that their only reaction is to lash out at them.
Quite frankly, I don’t see how Harris could make somebody “see the light” by basically telling them that through a “this bone is connected to that bone” scenario, they’re in part responsible for suicide bombers and the Fred Phelps contingent. In addition, name calling won’t get him anywhere.
I consider myself an atheist. I also consider myself a good and moral person. In that regard, I consider myself a better Christian than a whole bunch of people who call themselves Christians. Talking to born-again baptists just give me the heebejeebes. Having faith in god is one thing; turning your life over to that God and professing that you don’t do anything without Him is something else. God and faith should be an intimately personal thing.
Whoever said God is in the details knew what he was talking about.
Interesting, Oliver. Have you read his books or heard him speak? Harris recognizes it’s essential for freethinkers and religious moderates/liberals to come together to stave off the political forces of fundamentalism both here and abroad. His complaint is that we should not treat the religious (liberal or otherwise) with kidgloves and provide their belief system some sort of insulation from the kind of critical analysis and common sense that we otherwise should or do apply to all other claims. If a person makes a claim that the supernatural or extraordinary is real, whether or not this/these being(s) manifest physically or are some transcendental energy or whatever, that person’s perception and experiences should be questioned with the same degree of cynicism with which we would treat a person’s claim that a vampire-lycan war is responsible for all the mysterious homicides in Boston last year.
Accepting that mutually exclusive claims of the extraordinary must not be dismissed as harmless, and instead must be examined and defended by those who make these claims isn’t rigid or closed. It’s probably the most sensible idea vis a vis religion I’ve heard in a long time. THAT is the kind of discussion freethinkers and the religious community must have.
Comparing Harris to Falwell, Dobson or - even worse - Mullah Omar is absurd. You compare a man who practices a tolerant, ethical life, who preaches skepticism and intellectual curiosity with men who see to subjugate the entire female sex to patriarchal rule, second class citizenship and socioeconomic dependency on men? You’re comparing him to someone who advocates the killing of Americans on their own soil? You’re comparing him to people who believe the political systems of their nations should be vehicles of theocracy?
You’re kidding me, right?
That’s disgusting.
One thing I don’t understand is why people like Harris come off as being so angry.
I know what you mean. I had a similar discussion with my girlfriend about it just the other night. It seems to be very difficult for atheists to express themselves without resorting to condescension. I’ve done it myself. Can’t help it. when you talk to a religious person about their “imaginary friend in the sky,” it’s only natural that they would feel defensive and that you are calling them stupid for believing what they do.
That’s what we should be guarding against.
One thing I don’t understand is why people like Harris come off as being so angry.
I have to say that I dont see it either, but for the quite different problem of I dont see how you can call that angry. While he is justifiably hostile to fundamentalist zealots that want to criminalize homosexuality, in that article he simply makes the case that people in general, by regarding “religion” as an inherent virtue irrespective of the stripe, are facilitating such zealotry that they do not even agree with. This is perhaps hostile to concepts, such as willful ignorance and inaction, but not necessarily hostile to the specific people who posess them.
I may be wrong about this and welcome evidence to prove me incorrect, but I dont think Dawkins or Harris are really that hostile to believers as much as they are to the structure which they subscribe to, hence their, and my, marked hostility to religious institutions that provide nothing that a secular one could not, and their arguing about the superfluity of same. I really dont want to be glib by pithing off about how “It only seems hostile because its the truth” but really, how else are they that bad? I’m just not seeing it.
a person’s claim that a vampire-lycan war is responsible for all the mysterious homicides in Boston last year.
Ahh, but can you prove there isn’t?
“Atheists don’t believe in God because they say there’s no evidence that God exists and that to have faith in God is irrational.”
Yes. Specifically, it’s epistemologically irrational - it’s a bad idea if your primary goal is for your beliefs to be true.
“But here you’re saying that faith in some instances is acceptable. Sorry, but I don’t see how you can reconcile those two viewpoints.”
I can reconcile it by pointing out that what’s rational depends on what the goal is. While having true beliefs is a worthy goal, it’s not the only thing that’s important. In particular, for successful social interactions, it’s often important to believe, or at least to act as if one believes, that other people are more trustworthy than one has evidence for. It’s not that one has to throw evidence totally out the window, but one has to err on the side of trust, because trust breeds trust, whereas cynicism breeds cynicism. I suggest that it’s faith in this virtuous-cycle sense that accounts for the good vibes that the idea of faith has, and at least in moderation in a social context, I approve. Let’s call this being morally rational.
“If it is irrational for somebody to believe in God, then it is irrational for you to say, have faith that your spouse is not cheating on you.”
It’s epistemologically irrational in both cases, unless you’ve locked your spouse up in the house or set private detectives to watch them. It’s not morally irrational to have faith in your spouse, because if you set private detectives on them it will poison your relationship and probably drive them away. Some evidence is better off not collected.
However it’s irrational to believe in (the existence) of God. The concept of moral rationality doesn’t help, because a God is under no moral commitment to exist, and if no God exists, no breech of faith has been committed. Even if we suppose there is a God, it’s not morally rational to believe that They will uphold some covenant mentioned in the Bible because it’s not epistemologically rational to believe They had anything to do with the Bible.
Rex, look at the title and sub-title of the piece. In it, he calls believers dupes and says they’re delusional. That’s not hostile to the structure but to the individual. Continuing on he calls them deranged (he merely says that those who want to blow things up are more deranged), intellectually dishonest, etc.
In addition, I find it to be absurd this notion that everyday believers are somehow facilitating the violent zealots of the world. As if such hatred stems only from religion. There are people who hate, and profess no belief in God or merely use the illusion of faith as an excuse for their behavior. To examine them deeply finds there is no true belief in God, Allah, or Jesus but rather the emptiness of a person who just needs, like I said above, an excuse to carry out something they want to do anyway.
After all, two atheists, Pol Pot and Joseph Stalin were responsible for millions of deaths. Where did they get their cover?
Frank: “Did they look up to the heavens and see a big hole?”
What exactly do you see when you look up “to the heavens”? Is there some big bearded guy in a robe smiling down at you saying, “good job, Frank.”?
Rex: “The problem comes when we shift from philosophy to action and people doing deeds ‘in God’s name’”
Frank: “You mean … That kind of horrible stuff?”
Maybe Rex meant things like starting wars because God tells you to. (You know, like your Dear Leader did. Twice.)
Duros62
Yes, I can prove a vampire-lycan war is not responsible for the homicides, because after examining the crime scenes, reviewing the related data and manner of deaths there’s no evidence to suggest that vampires exist, that lycans exist, that if they do they’re in Boston, that they would know how to shoot semi-automatic weapons or that they would have any ability to appear and disappear without being seen by the people in the area during the drive-bys. I can prove they did not do it, the same way I can prove that Santa Claus did not kill Nicole Brown Simpson.
Your question all goes back to the “you can’t disprove a negative” argument, right? That because in the realm of the universe people can make claims as to anything they want which may not be refuted (like, I’m really an animagus spy for Hogwarts) that somehow we must equate the validity of that claim with something reasonably provable (I’m a spy for the CIA). By that method, the flying spaghetti monster, Zeus, Zoroaster and Pan are as likely as God to exist. So if you believe a particular god’s existence is possible because one cannot disprove its existence, then you must believe the existence of ALL claims of god are possible - in which case, God wouldn’t really be God because he would have to compete with other deities for control of the universe, now wouldn’t he? So, for example, if someone claims the evangelical Protestant God cursed the people of New Orleans and brought them Katrina, how can that person not also have to accept the claim that Vishnu, Hindu destroyer god, didn’t do it? They BOTH couldn’t do it. Only one could, and yet there are two competing claims as to the actuality of which deity sent Katrina. Or maybe it was a different deity. Who knows?
All we do know, is that a reasonable life requires giving legitimacy to those things for which we have evidence or can discern via the scientific method; otherwise, there is no such thing as reality because a disreality would be just as probable and reliable as the scientific method, which is crazy.
Jay,
There are other prominent, published atheists who do not take the tone that Harris does, nor do they make the same arguments he does. There’s much more diversity in the freethought movement as to how to talk about religion with liberals and the kind of language skeptics should use when approaching believers on these topics. I can’t find the link, but there’s a panel that Sam Harris is on at a convention - I think last year - where two other speakers differ with him, and they end up bringing Richard Dawkins on stage because he’s discussed so much. Very interesting.
Wondering - what kind of language would you find more appropriate to the discussion? If I were in a discussion with you, trying to convince you to look more skeptically as your religious beliefs, what’s the kind of tone or argument you’d prefer to hear? What wouldn’t turn you off?
Had I not plenty of evidence for the existence of God, I wouldn’t believe in Him.
Maybe Rex meant things like starting wars because God tells you to. (You know, like your Dear Leader did. Twice.)
That’s a pretty amazing accusation. You should be able to find the appropriate statement from Pres. Bush, somewhere on the Internet, where he claims that “God told him to go to war.” (Not hearsay, of course. That would be cheating, and good atheists never cheat, do they?).
Had I not plenty of evidence for the existence of God, I wouldn’t believe in Him.
…wow. I’d been trying to ignore your random trolling and baseles insults Frank, but you’ve just dropped a goddam bomb on us here. You have empirical proof that God exists? *Grabs popcorn, pulls up a chair* Valid proof that withstands scientific and logical scrutiny? *Grabs the Raisinettes* By all means, man, this is the greatest discovery of all time. Please share with us.
Oh, and for the record Palistinean Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas quotes the president as saying: “God told me to strike at al Qaida and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East.”
fd10801 -
AMAZING. You should get this evidence directly to the scientific community and communicate it to the world, immediately.
Deep 6:
I was kidding. That’s what I do, it’s my thing.
I agree with you. If one can believe in the existence of one supreme being which cannot be proved to exist, I would be hard pressed to discount all the others.
Frank? We’re all ready for you now.
Go ahead.
“I’m curious: Did the Random Universe Generator stop working after it popped out our Universe?”
No, by hypothesis it produces an infinite number of universes with all possible different combinations of physical laws and constants, all causally independent of one another. The few that permit intelligent life have intelligent life forms in them wondering “Why us?” And the answer is because the failures are hidden.
Of course, this is very expensive in universes, but it’s very cheap in terms of ideas, which is how Occam’s Razor is scored. Provided you don’t need any coordination between the universes, infinity is a very parsimonious number. Having just one universe is twice as complicated, because first you need a principle permitting a universe and then you need a second principle to shut the first principle off after a single application.
Frank,
Here is a link to the GWBush quote that I was referring to, and that Rex provided.
Now, what do you see when you look “up at the Heavens”? Do you see God whispering in GW’s ear, telling him whom to invade next?
Well, it’s good to know that God speaks to Pres. Bush.
Too bad He never spoke to Presidents Carter or Clinton…
No, I see God telling me what to type next.
My inaugural address at the Great White Throne Judgment of the Dead, after I have raptured out billions! The Secret Rapture soon, by my hand!
Read My Inaugural Address
My Site=http://www.angelfire.com/crazy/spaceman
Your jaw will drop!
Did atheists or agnostics slaughter each other, or anyone, for religious differences? Otherwise, why fret over this?
Rex, look at the title and sub-title of the piece. In it, he calls believers dupes and says they’re delusional. That’s not hostile to the structure but to the individual.
I disagree, and think our shared problem here is that you think “Delusional” is insulting whereas I do not. In the example I gave earlier, when I saw the impossible insect, in that very instant I saw it and every second thereafter that I believed it existed, I was, in the strictest definition of the term, “Delusional.” If I had been convinced of it by someone else telling me so, then too I would haved been “Duped.” These are not inherently offensive words I think, they refer to the condition of being mistaken. I’ll grant that the words carry a connotation with them that is considered derogatory but it is not a warranted one, since I was not a lesser being for having been merely mistaken about the insect.
Deep6’s question is one I would greatly like an answer too though, if you think its offensive to use terminology like “Deluded” and “Duped” when atheists describe their take on theists, then what language do you think would be appropriate? What is the better way to say “I think your belief that God exists is incorrect, and is based on your own mistaken interpretations,” that wouldnt offend the person to whom it was directed?
My main point is this: prove that God does not exist. You can’t, no more than you can prove he or she or it doesn’t. Saying someone is “irrational” because they believe in a high power is just another form of bigotry. If someone makes a disprovable notion - ie. the world is made of green cheese - then yes, that is irrational because it’s easy to prove otherwise. But instead, Harris is just being an ass here.
As I’ve said elsewhere, I’m more of a non-believer than believer, but not 100% so. If science proves or disproves something, I believe it over a religious text. But there’s a point where belief explains to people what science can’t. There’s nothing wrong with that.
My main point is this: prove that God does not exist. You can’t
I refuse to believe that such a thing would be improveable, and that if it seems such its because the question is being framed in the intentionally obfuscatory “Prove that the unproveable is proveable” sort of language which theists go to as a last resort. Here’s a dissection of the problem of proving a universal negative, but the important thing I think deals not with the belief itself but actions derived from said belief. If I believe that Bertrand Russel’s teapot is somewhere out in space, then your argument says that belief ought to be respected. If I say that that teapot speaks to me and tells me to do… well forget good and bad examples, if it tells me to do anything, shouldnt that belief be questioned? Challenged? Disputed?
But there’s a point where belief explains to people what science can’t.
You left off the crucial “Yet” at the end. To paraphrase Richard Dawkins, God isnt an answer, its just rephrasing the question.
“Why does the sun go round the Earth like that”
First answer: “God does that”
Second Answer: “Well now that we know better, its actually that the Earth is spinning”
If I say that that teapot speaks to me and tells me to do…
You could be schizophrenic. As could our President.
You should get that checked out.
“My main point is this: prove that God does not exist. You can’t, no more than you can prove he or she or it doesn’t.”
We get it that that’s your point, and our point in reply is that it’s irrelevant, because it is not rational to put the burden of proof on the people who doubt the existential claim. If there hasn’t been any specific positive evidence (and there hasn’t been), then nothing follows from a lack of specific negative evidence, especially not the rationality of believing in the entity.
Saying someone is “irrational” because they believe in a high power is just another form of bigotry.”
If it’s conceded that there’s no specific positive evidence for a higher power, then no, it’s not bigotry, it’s just a correct understanding of what rationality is. It is rational to withhold belief in an existential claim until such time if any as there is specific positive evidence for it. It is irrational to go around believing in entities for which there is no specific positive evidence. You _must_ skew the rules like this, especially for invisible things, because of the unfortunate fact that people are much better at thinking up non-existent things than existent ones. This is not seriously debatable. Most gods that people have dreamt up are non-existent. Everybody understands that, it’s just lots of people just want to carve out an exception for Yahweh/Allah the deity of Judeo-Christiano-Islam. Yet evidentially, Yahweh is not interestingly different all the other deities. Therefore Yahweh is unlikely to exist, and it’s irrational to believe in something that’s unlikely to exist.
Of course, lots of otherwise respectable people go around saying that it’s equally rational to believe as not to believe, especially the token theists that have to be shoved into the front ranks of evolution defenders to give the impression that it’s not all an atheist plot. But it’s a double standard - nobody in science seriously takes that attitude to anything except God - it’d be crazy.
You could be schizophrenic. You should get that checked out.
How dare you sir, to insult my belief like that. Simply because you are not a teapotist and therefore destined for an eternity in that hellish afterlife we call “the gas burner” does not give you the right to be so hostile toward me simply because I believe that The Great Pot herself insists that I brush my teeth seven times a day while standing on my head. To suggest that the only reason I think a teapot in space would command me to turtlewax my own face may have some kind of mundane clinical explanation? Dont realize how much youre like Osama bin Laden by challenging my belief in the will of The Great Teapot?
I apologize for being, as Tom Cruise would say, “glib.” I realize I don’t know anything about psychiatry and would never attempt to trivialize your beliefs in a giant Teapot in the sky.
How irrational of me.
Mark. Its all about framing the debate isn’t it? Why isn’t there some evidence of a higher power -a prime mover? What is the universe, who created it, who created its creator, where does it end, what is on the other side, why isn’t there another side) etc. Our earthly laws tell us matter can neither be created nor destroyed. Either this immutable law of science is mutable, or there is some higher power (one that deals in universes) out there.
Everyone shoulders the burden of proof. The believer and the non-believer. I’m not saying things shouldn’t be questioned, we should question everything. If I say Jessica Alba is the living incarnation of God - I need to prove that. If you say she isn’t, you have to prove it too.
(That’s sort of a trick question because she’s more of a goddess)
There is a world of difference between saying “I think your world view is unprovable, here’s why and the evidence” versus “You fucking idiot why can you believe such insane nonsense?”. Yeah, it won’t work with a religious fundamentalist - but most things won’t. But for the religious moderate at the heart of Harris’ piece, it just might versus just dismissing someone for not adhering to your dogma.
Let’s re-phrase the question to give it some perspective.
“Prove the unprovable when the unprovable could, in the logic suspending, reality bending situation find it was proved, render itself unproved, thereby cementing its status as unprovable.”
Of course, for a super charged, infinitely powerful deity to “find it was proved” would imply surprise, meaning that such a situation escaped the omniscient attention of our cosmic referee, which is, by definition, impossible.
Really, how would you prove God doesn’t exist? Produce a corpse? “See God doesn’t exist…anymore. Wait, God can’t die…oh shi…*”
“Prove the unprovable when the unprovable could, in the logic suspending, reality bending situation find it was proved, render itself unproved, thereby cementing its status as unprovable.”
Easy. This sentence is false, therefore it isn’t, and so it must be. QED.
If I say Jessica Alba is the living incarnation of God - I need to prove that. If you say she isn’t, you have to prove it too.
…no, actually I dont need to prove that she isnt because it is the de facto assumption (goddess angle aside) that she isnt. Occam again, the simple answer is that she isnt, as the opposite assumption demands more complicated declarations and arguments. If I told you I was a talking chimp, I should have to prove that, but you shouldn’t have to disprove it because of the massive unlikelyhood that its the case. God as a logical hypothesis is a vastly more complicated answer than the self-regulating system of evolution for example, so evolution is accepted as the correct answer for the “Thumbs” question among others. I dont need to prove it wasn’t invisible fairies from Neptune.
There is a world of difference between saying “I think your world view is unprovable, here’s why and the evidence” versus “You fucking idiot why can you believe such insane nonsense?”
Part of the problem though is that the faithful will hear the second if you tell them the first. Evidence is so antithetical to debate that they get offended if asked to prove the basis for their beliefs.
…Speaking of which, I believe Frank had some sort of conclusive prof that God exists and I’m still eager to know what it is, what with the whole science-world-on-its-ear-turning and all. You still there buddy?
“Mark. Its all about framing the debate isn’t it?”
I don’t know about “framing”. Setting sensible ground rules, yes.
“Why isn’t there some evidence of a higher power -a prime mover?”
Basically because there’s nothing that we see that is clearly explained better by the idea of a God than anything else. Note that we have a pretty good explanation of a very large amount of what we see. Provided only that the universe was in a very hot, dense, uniform state about 12.8 billion years ago, then the rest should have unfolded pretty much as we see it, according to laws of physics we understand. We know how elements and stars and galaxies and planets and rocks and oceans formed. We don’t know how life first started but we know in considerable detail how it developed. This is pretty parsimonious: the observed laws of physics plus hot, dense and uniform (and a particular ratio of photons to a particular class of particle called baryons). I don’t know about you, but I don’t naturally leap to the idea of an superintelligent creator to explain hot, dense and uniform plus one other apparently contingent quantity.
“What is the universe, who created it, who created its creator, where does it end, what is on the other side, why isn’t there another side) etc.”
So far we don’t know enough to sensibly ask most of these questions.
“Our earthly laws tell us matter can neither be created nor destroyed. Either this immutable law of science is mutable, or there is some higher power (one that deals in universes) out there.”
No. There are lots of other possibilities. It could be that the universe is infinitely old and has always contained the same amount of matter as it does now, just in a radically different arrangement. It could be that the universe is only finitely old because there was no time or causality or opportunity for creation before a certain point in the past. (This sounds weird but it’s actually a natural possibility in General Relativity, our preferred theory of time and space.) It could be either of the preceding with matter being created by some as-yet-undiscovered mechanistic process. Etc, etc etc.
Been at a psych conference, sorry to be tardy to the party.
Oliver, you keep asserting this analogy between Harris/Dawkins and Falwell/Robertson. I keep telling you that the only common ground these men share is their abrasiveness to people who think differently. One camp has a reasonable view of the world, and one does not. If you’re not sure which one is which, refer to my earlier posts on similar threads.
Frank: It wouldn’t be tough to look up the definition of parsimony, would it? You’re hopeless, you’re an idiot, and to top it off, you’re proud of your wrongheadedness. You’re the consummate unreasonable religious fool. You’re not interested in an honest, logical discussion of relgion and God’s existence, so you might as well just not bother engaging with others on this topic.
Enjoy the rest of your life on Earth, because afterwards you’re just worm food, buddy.
I don’t think either side is being reasonable. One side has a lot of power, but both sides are preaching absolutes.
Well, okay, then. That is a perfectly reasonable way to frame it.
Simply put, there are asshats on both sides of the fence.
My best friend is agnostic(or as atheists tell him: Your a pussy because you can’t believe in “nothin”…whatever that means)I think some of the atheists on this board miss the point SLIGHTLY. Harris’s crap is NOT equal to Falwell, but it still doesn’t make it alright. They are both ideologues but claiming that Harris is “abrasive” and calling those who are not atheists “irrational” is absurd or at least fool hardy, because thier answer is no ‘better’ than any others. I look at this predicament in the light that I can’t PROVE a Christian god exists but atheists cannot prove everything in this universe to be absent of God. Science and humans will never be able to understand every aspect of being. When God is physically proveable to atheists, I bet they change thier minds, just as if an atheist can prove, master, and know every facet of existence and the absence of God, I will become an atheist. This is why I can’t stand asshat guys like Falwell who are unquestioning in Christian doctrine(add any religious leader)and guys like Harris who believe that I am just a dumb-ass yokel child addicted to fairytales. The fact is that an answer is not simple and I question my faith everyday and yet do not abandon my faith because I can’t comprehend everything.
Our Host (no, the earthly one) wrote:
There is a world of difference between saying “I think your world view is unprovable, here’s why and the evidence” versus “You fucking idiot why can you believe such insane nonsense?”. Yeah, it won’t work with a religious fundamentalist - but most things won’t. But for the religious moderate at the heart of Harris’ piece, it just might versus just dismissing someone for not adhering to your dogma.
Hey, you finally came around to a reasonable position on this - namely that it might be counterproductive of Harris to come across as an insulting jerk.
I hope Our Host can see the world of difference between being an insulting jerk and being a religious fundamentalist who tells people not merely that they are wrong and foolish, but that they are scum not worthy of breath and condemned to an eternity of torment because an all-powerful god says that that is the Way things are and all good people should make an effort to bend personal, church, and governmental power toward giving such scum a good taste of that torment even before god has a chance to step in and pronounce divine judgement. Whew.
Unless your sensitivity meter gets pegged by an insult, Harris is nothing like a Dobson/Falwell/Omar.
Yep. And so is Dawkins (who is even worse, if only because his English accent makes him sound even more condescending).
I read an interview with Harris in the Sun Magazine, and was shocked as to the level of self-delusion and the uncertainty of his opinions.
Personally, I don’t believe in God and my Atheism is an important part of my identity, but Harris and Dawkins are certainly not my spokespeople.
“My main point is this: prove that God does not exist.”
My main point is this: It’s not mu fucking job to prove god does not exist. You have to prove it does. Shifting the burden of proof is intellectually dishonest.
Prove to me the bible is not the word of Satan put on Earth to con people into following a false god?
Oliver, if I say that Apollo and Zeus don’t exist, what evidence would you need to prove what you already know: that they don’t exist?
What evidence is different in the case of the God of the Bible? Not popularity - popularity of a belief is not evidence of its truth.
Mark if the universe is infinitely old, you still have a problem. You defined it in terms of infinity - a concept beyond our parameters. And if we don’t know enough to even sensibly ask those questions, we can still rule out a ‘God’ of some sort.
“God” is flexible, and need not be the Muslim or Christian or Greek or whatever God. “Prime Mover” is as good as anything else.
I’m not saying the forever unrealizable concept of infinity ‘proves’ God, merely that it offers a possible rational explanation for theism.
Thus if I have faith, I also have a pathway of logic to support my belief (and a pathway that does not support my beliefs, but if I were a believer -had faith- I would be looking for reinforcement - not doubt).
“Mark if the universe is infinitely old, you still have a problem. You defined it in terms of infinity - a concept beyond our parameters.”
I’m not sure what problem you think remains. Note that I wasn’t proposing a point of time that could sensibly be labeled minus infinity, which would certainly be a strange beast with no clear relationship to ordinary time. I meant infinity in the limiting sense: that for every time in the past, there was a time one year earlier.
“And if we don’t know enough to even sensibly ask those questions, we can still rule out a