DFT,

I think Sam is prepared to make the distinction between moderate and radical Islam - and I believe he does. Still, it is true that he writes that religious moderation creates the foundation for religious extremism.

The problem is Hedges is greatly misrepresenting Sam's sentiment. He does not present the scenario in the detail or terms that Sam does in regard to the nuclear first strike or the use of torture. To generalize as he has done paints Sam's comments as advocating for a nuclear first strike against 'muslims'. That simply isn't true.


I think Sam would say if any group (religous, political, ideological) came to power somewhere in the world and had the means and will to deploy WMD we may be forced into a 'First Strike'.

I agree with you that the Middle East despises the US for its constant violence and meddling in their affairs. However, it seems that a perverted form of Islam is still used to motivate many of the 'foot soldiers.' It really isn't an either/or. You have blow back that expresses itself through the regional religion.

Chris Hedges, like David Eagleman, wants to represent the 'new atheists' as something that they are not - closed minded zealots with a blood-thirst. Having read of Sam and Hitchens' work do you really believe that represents them?


The smearing that Hedges is doing is similar to how atheist were dealt with near the turn of the 20th century when they were grouped with the unpopular fascist, socialist/communist, and darwinist. "Stalin was a socialist atheist, look what he did!"

Are Sam and Hitchens intolerant of people or of bad ideas? There is a big difference, and I reckon it is the latter.



Furthermore - Hedges here states that there is nothing in "human nature or human history to support that we are collectively morally moving forward as a species." (2:01 in the video) Really? Has Hedges bothered to read Sam's book Moral Landscape?

Steve Pinker on the Myth of Violence

Does Hedges posit then that we cannot progress morally? Slavery has been abolished, women were finally given the right to vote and equal rights, violence is on the decline globally... yet we are not collectively improving morally? Sorry Chris but the evidence is not in your favor.



I am pleased to see atheist coming back out. Thomas Paine, Walt Whitman, Thomas Huxley, Richard Ingersoll...Harris, Hitchens, Dawkins. Marching foward.

In closing - All opinions matter, but informed opinions matter more. That is why knowledge is good and ignorance is evil.

-Kevin

Chris Hedges and David Eagleman should take a critical reading class together.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

@ MaxWilder
I would like to propose a slight edit to this. There is only strong and weak agnosticism, not atheism. The question of "Do you believe in a deity" only has 2 answers; yes and no. Now, you can not believe because you didn't know of an idea like God. This is implicit atheism as opposed to explicit atheism.
Or more to the point, atheism only pertains to the question of do you believe, agnosticism relates to what can be known. Atheism is a theological position, Agnosticism is an entomological position.
This is the condensed version of my comment here

You are correct, though, Possibilianism is a form of explicit atheistic weak agnostic position.


That's why I put "Agnostic" in quotes. Everybody uses it incorrectly, and I believe they do so because the word Atheist has such a stigma amidst those who have only heard of "strong" atheism.

*citation needed*

How can you assert that "they surely did a part"? I call BS unless you can provide some historical evidence.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

>> ^bobknight33:
Very interesting and worthy of watching. There is more than we don't know than we do know.

More to the point, how do we know what is known is truly known (by knowledge, I might right and true belief). Epistemology is my favorite philosophical topic

@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/hpqp" title="member since July 25th, 2009" class="profilelink">hpqp
Many of the Greek city states pledge to a Patron God: Poseidon at Corinth, Hera at Argos, Zeus at Kos, Athene at Sparta, Tegea and Athens. Different parts of the Nile also had the same type of Patronage. It is debatable how much of a role they played in war, but they surely did a part.

Based on what little we know scientifically, it's possible there's no objective physical reality at all, just patterns of matter and energy shifting in density. Now of course to us it's a silly statement, because we live in macro-reality with physical laws that safely never break.

At the quantum level there is simply too much going on (and nothing going on at all) to totally rule out the possibility of an existing higher intelligence unbound by linear time.

Religion often concerns the morality, needs and wants of such a Being, and that begins the debate.



>> ^FishBulb:

>> ^quantumushroom:

While quantum mechanics doesn't "prove" there is a God, there's enough going on with matter and energy at that level--where mere observation changes outcomes--to suggest it would be easy for a supreme intelligence to "hide".

Observation of a quantum system changes the outcome because at a quantum level the mere act of observing the system interferes with the very system you're trying to observe. While such results can be weird, it's not magic.

>> ^quantumushroom:


While quantum mechanics doesn't "prove" there is a God, there's enough going on with matter and energy at that level--where mere observation changes outcomes--to suggest it would be easy for a supreme intelligence to "hide".


Observation of a quantum system changes the outcome because at a quantum level the mere act of observing the system interferes with the very system you're trying to observe. While such results can be weird, it's not magic.

My opinion is Eagleman is wrong to think that "knowing too much" (science) means it's not possible to commit to a particular religion. Otherwise, he's articulated some good points.

While quantum mechanics doesn't "prove" there is a God, there's enough going on with matter and energy at that level--where mere observation changes outcomes--to suggest it would be easy for a supreme intelligence to "hide".

>> ^Deano:

>> ^quantumushroom:
Eagleman: "Our ignorance of the cosmos is too vast to commit to atheism, and yet we know too much to commit to a particular religion. A third position, agnosticism, is often an uninteresting stance in which a person simply questions whether his traditional religious story (say, a man with a beard on a cloud) is true or not true. But with Possibilianism I'm hoping to define a new position -- one that emphasizes the exploration of new, unconsidered possibilities. Possibilianism is comfortable holding multiple ideas in mind; it is not interested in committing to any particular story."
I would amend this to say that any religion, properly focused, is a legit Path to the same Source.

I'm not sure what you're saying. A religious position is just one of the many dots in the possibilian sphere. As he says you need scientific tools to knock out the ones that don't hold water.
An interesting takeaway from this is this question - are those possessed of a religion willing to say "I don't know"? Because if not then they're mighty sure about their tiny little dot.

>> ^bobknight33:

Very interesting and worthy of watching. There is more than we don't know than we do know.


More to the point, how do we know what is known is truly known (by knowledge, I might right and true belief). Epistemology is my favorite philosophical topic


@hpqp

Many of the Greek city states pledge to a Patron God: Poseidon at Corinth, Hera at Argos, Zeus at Kos, Athene at Sparta, Tegea and Athens. Different parts of the Nile also had the same type of Patronage. It is debatable how much of a role they played in war, but they surely did a part.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Eagleman: "Our ignorance of the cosmos is too vast to commit to atheism, and yet we know too much to commit to a particular religion. A third position, agnosticism, is often an uninteresting stance in which a person simply questions whether his traditional religious story (say, a man with a beard on a cloud) is true or not true. But with Possibilianism I'm hoping to define a new position -- one that emphasizes the exploration of new, unconsidered possibilities. Possibilianism is comfortable holding multiple ideas in mind; it is not interested in committing to any particular story."
I would amend this to say that any religion, properly focused, is a legit Path to the same Source.


I'm not sure what you're saying. A religious position is just one of the many dots in the possibilian sphere. As he says you need scientific tools to knock out the ones that don't hold water.

An interesting takeaway from this is this question - are those possessed of a religion willing to say "I don't know"? Because if not then they're mighty sure about their tiny little dot.