Sam Harris Talks about the Defence of Religion

[_Calculus Crusader]

No, I thought it was properly descriptive.

You probably did, which is why you aren't nearly as smart as you seem to think you are.

It's funny to me that you would claim intelligence, and yet regularly display such a lack of it. The claim belies the evidence. Good times indeed.

And we return to my original post in this thread; you are not in a position to judge intelligence.

[_Chap]

Read for comprehension, please. I have taken some courses in Greek. (Mostly Attic Greek.)

There is a deliciously owlish solemnity here which is quite beguiling.

Calculus Crusader takes himself with utter, utter seriousness, and cannot grasp why others do not see him in quite the same way.

[_Some Schmo]

Sadly, I believe that. What we've seen in this thread likely is you at your most gracious.

LOL. Some Schmo insinuates that CC isn't very gracious.

Can the irony possibly get any richer?

Easily. I don't remember claiming grace.

Glad you were entertained.

And we return to my original post in this thread; you are not in a position to judge intelligence.

Let me see... CC thinks he's in position to judge intelligence, but doesn't think I am. I think the exact thing about him, although I've never made a claim that I am smart, or even a great judge of intelligence.

Clearly, he must be right, because he says he's smart. How could anyone dispute a claim like that, despite the lack of evidence? I mean... he said it. What more do we need? Next, I'll start believing in god, just because he says god exists.

Here's one thing we likely agree on: whatever the other person thinks makes not one iota of difference to each. At least, what he thinks make no difference to me.

ETA: ...Although I must admit, he does make me laugh.

[_dartagnan]

Back to the subject of Sam Harris. Have any Harris fans here redirected their skepticism towards Harris? What makes this guy worth listening to?

Hell, even the atheist Margaret Wertheim urges us to take Sam "Derrick Zoolander" Harris with "considerable skepticism." Meera Nanda (http://newhumanist.org.uk/973) tells us how this Stanford drop- out, who is now trying to get a graduate degree in neoroscience for the sole purpose of furthering his bigotry campaign (his "pie in the sky" is to one day show how religion originates in the brain) really hasn't the faintest clue about how unscientific his arguments are, and why he is a hypocrite for attacking religion while adhering to spiritualism which also lacks scientifc grounding.

Someone who is actually qualified to speak on the matter of Religion (Harris is too dumb to understand what religion is), anthropologist Scott Atran, thinks Harris is not up to the task to address the subject of religion on an intellectual, let alone scientific level (http://www.edge.org/discourse/bb.html#atran2):

I object to [Harris'] manner of combating such beliefs, which is often scientifically baseless, psychologically uninformed, politically naïve, and counterproductive for goals we share....

Harris and partners ignored the increasingly rich body of scientific research on religion. They ignored the vast body of empirical data and analysis of terrorism — a phenomenon they presented as a natural outgrowth of religion. The avowedly certain but uncritical arguments they made about the moral power of science and the moral bankruptcy of religion involved no science at all. Some good scientists stepped out of their field of expertise, leaving science behind for the unreflective sort of faith-based thinking they railed against. Sadly, in this regard, even good scientists join other people in unreason....

An increasing body of scientific research on religion suggests that, contrary to Harris's personal and scientifically uninformed intuitions about what religion consists of, the apparent invalidity of religious thought is insensitive to the kind of simple-minded disconfirmation through demonstrations of incoherence that Harris and others propose.

No data by Harris or others was offered to suggest that the naturalistic worldview they mean to replace religion with would be, or could be, successful; or that such a worldview would generate more happiness, compassion or peace

Sound familiar? This pretty much is what I have said of Harris and his fellow "horsemen." At least Dawkins has the Oxford prestige factor working for him. Dennett is merely Dawkins' "lapdog," as Stephen J. Gould put it. I guess Harris doesn't even rank that high among the four horsemen, although he at least has company with Hitchens.

A few months ago I noted a stupid argument he put forth in his book about how republican states had higher crimes, therefore religious people aren't necessarily moral. He wrote an entire chapter using such convoluted pseudo-scientific arguments. He selectively chose what he would consider as pertinent data, distorted the data and then expectedly pulled illicit conclusions from his atheistic hat. This guy is fringe even from within his little circle of horsemen. But the funniest thing is that he wouldn't know a proper scientific study if it knocked him in the forehead, and yet peope act like he is an intellectual and proponent of science. He has no credentials to speak on the subject of religion or any other related subject, so why is he embraced by the internet atheists? Are they really that desperate for spokespersons? He and Hitchens are two intellectual peons so why are they even attending these conferences among scholars? Because they are atheists? That is all people know them for.

In any event, it seems there are plenty of people who are qualified to make judgments similar to mine. Schmo just doesn't happen to be one of them. For Schmo, Harris is one of the "greatest thinkers" of our time! It just doesn't get any better than this folks!

I challenge Schmo to come up with a single "original" thought forwarded by Harris. Not dozens, as would be expected from "great thinkers," but rather just one. After all, what makes a thinker "great" if they aren't coming up with newer, innovative ideas? I think what Schmo really means to say is, "Damn, this guy says exactly what I think!" Dooooooooh!

Schmo isn't bright enough to realize it, but Harris just regurgitates bile from bigots before him. That doesn't make him a thinker, let alone one of the greatest. There is nothing new in his rants, even his contempt for proper scientific study. I guess if he should be known for anything, it is his revealing statement to the effect that it would be ethical to kill people who hold certain religious beliefs. Probably a Freudian slip, but that is what he said.

[_EAllusion]

.

Well, it's disappointing (to me, anyway) that you would quote such a mischaracterization of the guy.

I think it's pretty dead on. I would describe him as dogmatic, intolerant, quasi-religious, and morally sketchy. Sort of Bill Maher like, I guess.

I've never heard him describe himself as a "spokesman for atheists" so perhaps he's not trying to be?

I don't think he's trying to become the voice of atheists. But he is a major voice among atheists, often called a leader of atheists for some reason, and volunteers himself to be the token nonbeliever in all sorts of media venues. He's out there writing books, making speaking engagments, giving interviews, and so on. Regardless of intent, that's a function he fills due to the choices he's made and those who've invited the role upon him. People like the dudes who do "The Atheist Experience" out of what appears to be their mom's basement would be far better suited for such a cultural role, but that's the way it is.

Given that he doesn't like the word "atheist," that would make sense. I see him as simply trying to point out the obvious problems with religion and god belief. I don’t really like the term “atheist” either, and don’t refer to myself that way. I understand his point about it.

Just because he advocates dropping the label atheist, that does not mean he is not one. He clearly is. I don't agree with him on the utility of the term, but the label is only descriptive of a conceptual category he belongs to regardless of whether he likes it.

I've heard him talk about the value of meditation, but I wouldn't call that a religious view, so I imagine that's not what you're talking about.

Sam Harris is defensive of a variety of paranormal, new age, and Eastern religious views. Reincarnation is probably the most famous of the bunch. Do a quick search on it. I wouldn't go so far as to say he believes in reincarnation, but he does spend time arguing that those who defend it are putting on a persuasive case that needs to be treated seriously. He contrasts this against religions like Christianity and Islam which he thinks are decisively proven false and childish.

[_Chap]

bigotry ... dumb ... lapdog ... stupid ... peons ... bile ... rants ... (and so on and so forth).

This must-read post would be even more interesting if it was written in Old Mon. Can you help us there, Calculus Crusader?

[_dartagnan]

Wow. Do self-identifying terms leap out at you? That was a pretty quick scan. I choose my terms according to the audience. When in Rome...

by the way, I'm just relaying what others (even atheists) have said. It was Stephen Jay Gould who gve a blistering assessment of Dennett's science, and referred to him as Dawkins' lapdog.

[_marg]

bigotry ... dumb ... lapdog ... stupid ... peons ... bile ... rants ... (and so on and so forth).

This must-read post would be even more interesting if it was written in Old Mon. Can you help us there, Calculus Crusader?

Well said Chap.

[_dartagnan]

So CC knows Greek. What's the big deal?

[_EAllusion]

Gould called Dennett Dawkin's lapdog because he thought that Dennett was too focused per Dawkins on explaining evolved traits in terms of adaptational utility. Dawkins and Gould were on different ends of the spectrum when it came to understanding how much natural selection drives the products of evolutionary change. It was a petty jab, but really limited in scope and not what Kevin might think or imply by his statement.