Sam Harris at Idea City 2005

Quoted commentary:
Critical philosopher Sam Harris, author of "The End of Faith: Religion, Terror and the Future of Reason", offers a cogent outline of the dangers inherrent within the ID movement. While the portion of the presentation that he actually discusses the ID movement is brief, maybe 4 minutes or so, he is frighteningly concise and articulate in pointing out the dire ramifications that that this movement has had on both the classroom environment and across the gross politcal spectrum.

That guy kind of looks like Ben Stiller. He has lots of good points. I'd probably pick up his book if I saw somewhere.

Again equating action with person (17 min) - this guy's a rubbish theologian.

Krupo: I don't follow. Can you elaborate on that?

I've read his book, Krupo - and I can guarantee the guy's a better theologian than not just you, but a lot of people.
If it's really "rubbish", then listening to him or reading his book shouldn't threaten you...right? Right?

He claims that "beliefs" are the real problem. But isn't he just spouting his "beliefs" as well? I'm not religious by any means but I don't try to stop others from being so. I don't smoke but I detest all the laws and rules that tell me where and when I can smoke. I agree that more wars than we can count have been fought in the name of God but that doesn't mean all those that believe in such things are wrong or hateful. What is wrong with allowing someone to have his or her beleifs as long as they are kept to themselves? This guy would have you not believe in anything. If that's his thing then so be it but don't tell someone else they can't have their own. When we aren't allowed to do or believe what want, what is the point of living?

I think everyone should be free to believe what gives them peace of mind, a meaning to their life, or w/e without being imposed on them, as long as it doesn't affect directly or indirectly in a negative way the lives of others.

That would be the ideal world, but in reality people do impose their beliefs on others. They do so especially on their children because they strongly believe they are right, and want the "best" for them without giving them different options by telling them what other people believe without dismissing it as 100% false.

It's a vicious cycle.

The problem occurs when people's beliefs inform their understanding of the world -- if the belief system is not rational, their world-view will not be fully rational.
I admit when I first watched Dawkins' _Root of all Evil_ I was uncomfortable with the directness with which he criticizes religion -- in particular, when he directly asks believers to account for their belief rationally. The discomfort was only because I had been pc-trained, I was aware of that, because he won me over easily.
People can believe what they want, but I see no reason to dance around it. Why not ask, "Oh, so you believe that wine actually becomes blood? Really? So you believe in magic?"
Note that Harris is NOT saying people cannot have beliefs or that they are bad -- he is saying we need to allow discussions about beliefs as part of public discourse. It can't be a priviledged taboo topic, above criticism.
I think part of the current mess the world is, and the disastrous policy decisions of the administration, in is directly due to irrational world-views fostered by religion.
Twas ever thus.

Dawkins: http://www.videosift.com/story.php?id=7818

He over-simplifies very complicated concepts to the point of being meaningless. He also uses a literalistic interpretation of the Bible while at the same time criticizing people for doing that.

I respectively disagree with you assessment of theology, or at in terms of least Apologetics, theo.

As for what I meant, Catholics preach hating the sin, not the sinner.

Of course, this is misinterpreted on a regular basis, for an obvious reason: the recurring theme due to gay-rights activists' strong attachment between their "self" and their sexuality. If you criticize acting on it, they assume you're criticizing them, whereas responsible Catholics do no intend to say any such thing.

In the end, you have two sides criticizing each other for misinterpretations of each others' beliefs.

And then there's the whole condom issue. If a man only has sex with his wife, then the risk of getting AIDS is restricted bad transfusions unless, of course, he was born with it.

If you're going to fornicate, you're already breaking Church rules, so does it really matter if you're breaking more rules? The phrase, "in for a penny, in for a pound" comes to mind.

The other day I was introduced to a book called "A Course In Miracles" by my sister and I'm loving it because it gives a very RATIONAL explanation about this "real" world, what God is supposed to be about, what Jesus really was trying to tell us, and who we really are and where we come from.

Something that really got me thinking was that this book says that sin is the absence of love and nothing else. So any kind of act that lacks love would be a sin.

In that case, just to take the sexual preference example, being gay or straight or bisexual or whatever wouldn't really be considered a sin if there's real love involved, would it?

And what Krupo says that Catholics preach hating the sin and not the sinner, if sin is the lack of love then hate is already a sin, so you're just feeding the sin even more and giving it more power by hating it. The only cure for sin would be to bring love where it's been "replaced" by sin.

This book has really opened my mind and now I see the world in a whole different way. Highly recommended for the open-minded who like to compare different perspectives of life.

Krupo, can you provide good reasons to hate gay sex and extra-marital "fornication" other than because it's in the Bible?
That's how the rest of us in the real world debate. Logic and reason, not just because some book or authority figure tells us to believe.

krupo:

His message isn't one to the religious, which from your argument I assume you are, but to those who are secular. If you come from the position that religion is true, then his argumnet won't make sense.

Whether or not people take the bible literally, people do use it as a guide to their choices in life. While you can find clearly good moral lessons in the bible, the bible itself is not a text that comes from reason, but one that was developed to promote a certain type of belief. When you base your decisions on something without reason, your decisions themselves are without reason.

Your argument against homosexuality, contraception, and pre-marital sex is an example of this. There is no reason to believe that any of these things are wrong, yet many people argue against them on the basis of religion.

One of the major arguments he makes is that religious moderates are afraid to take on those who base their opinions on religious belief, because attacking someone's belief is not PC. This emboldens religious extremists to push their views on others, and while they can argue against the evils of athiesm and homosexuality, secular people can't argue against the evils of religion. Certainly religious people also have to mask some of their message with political correctness as well, but it seems for many secular moderates this has gone further than just the message. They have developed fundamentally flawed logic that it is necessary to 'respect' other peoples religion in order to achieve social harmony.

"He claims that "beliefs" are the real problem. But isn't he just spouting his "beliefs" as well?"

His issue is not with beliefs in general but rather with unreasoned, dogmatic beliefs. Something he alludes to in this lecture and fully explains in his book is that beliefs are essential to human existence. Without belief we cannot comprehend reality and are therefore incapable of functioning in it. Belief then, is necessary for human existence.

What then makes a belief "good" or "bad"? The reasons one has for holding the belief. For example, pretend you are explaining the force of gravity to someone who has never considered the concept. "I believe there is a force called gravity that pulls objects toward the earth," you say. "Why would you believe that?" says the person who has never heard of gravity. "Because when objects are released from a height they ALWAYS fall to the earth, therefore a force must be causing the objects to do so," you respond. In this example you have evidence that clearly supports your claim, so any reasonable person will be inclined to agree with you.

Dogmatic belief however does not have that standard of evidence. To use Harris' "diamond buried in the backyard" example, if you were able to dig that diamond up then everyone would agree with your belief that there is in fact a diamond buried in the backyard. However when the evidence is something like "I have a special book that tells me that I have a diamond buried in the backyard" the belief becomes much less convincing. If one were to ask "Have you ever been able to dig up the diamond?" and you responded "No, but the special book says it is buried out there so it must be there," then everyone would think you are an idiot.

The point Harris is trying to make is that you cannot have a dialogue with someone who holds a dogmatic belief. Someone who holds a dogmatic belief selectively filters out all evidence to the contrary of that belief. Therefore any conflicts that result over dogmatic belief cannot be resolved rationally; irrationality becomes the dominant force in potential conflict resolution.

The next point that leads from this conclusion is that the dogmatic religious beliefs held by religious fundamentalists lead to violent conflict. The text of the Bible and Koran are replete with examples of divine endorsment for killing non-believers, and the rewards that await those who do the killing. In Harris' book there is a 10 page section of quotations from the Koran; I challenge anyone to read those quotations and still argue that Islam is a religion of peace. If the actual text of scripture isn't evidence enough one need only turn on the news to see how much killing occurs in the name of God, whether that be suicide bomber blowing up a bus or some southern redneck murdering a homosexual. The point is that religious fundamentalists hold dangerous, violent and intolerant beliefs that cannot be reasoned with because they are held dogmatically.

We can probably agree that Religious Fundamentalists are dangerous. Harris' point is that Religious Moderates are equally dangerous. The reason being that Religious Moderates have made the criticism of religious belief a taboo subject. Think about it for a moment, if I were to claim that Islam is a violent, dangerous and, dare I say, evil religion, you would likely respond that I am intolerant. When criticising religious belief is taboo, then the beliefs that need the most criticism are off limits. When religious fundamentalists pose so much danger to the world we have to be willing to directly criticise the beliefs that make them dangerous. Religious moderation has made such criticism taboo.

"He also uses a literalistic interpretation of the Bible while at the same time criticizing people for doing that."

What he is doing is forcing people to own up to what the Bible, Torah and Koran actually say. Religious moderation has lead to the inability to accuse the Religions of the Book of being violent or dangerous. If one were to say that Islam is an inherently violent religion then one would be accussed of intolerance. A reading of the Koran however easily supports such a claim.

The point is not that religious fundamentalists are right, but rather that if you believe that scripture is God's word then scripture supports fundamentalism and not moderation. Therefore, religious moderates are on theologically shaky ground because their primary source of evidence, scripture, supports fundamentalism and not moderation. This however is all a moot point because any reasonable mind can see that there is no evidence to suggest that scripture is actually the word of God.

Frankly it's the fault of bible that the bible is being read as litreal fact. When I was in Africa I went to a school called Lake Round High School, there one of the classes that was mandatory was Religious Studies. It was a thorough discussion and analysis of Old and New Testament. That was the best class ever, approaching the bible as a work of fables, that teaches you moralistic choices. But at the same time we looked at the contradictions in it.

One of the biggest contradictions especially in Catholism is
that if you do not believe in God you are damned forever. You can commit robbery, killing, adultery but if you confess your sins you will be forgiven and you will be allowed into heaven. The same thing goes for homosexual's, yep damned forever!

Come stop treating the bible like a time capsule from God. Because it's not.

i've been after this for ages but didnt know the guys name. thanks loads!

*long

This video has been marked Long (called by gold star member calvados)

*promote

Re-promoting this video to the front page as a VideoSift Classic. Originally published on Monday 14th August 2006 (promotion called by gold star member gluonium)

Sam Harris states: "I don't know how many more engineers and architects have to hit the wall at 400 miles an hour for us to realize that (the problem of homicidal religious fundamentalism) is not simply a matter of education" and to anyone observing recent events in the UK, he is utterly vindicated in this reasoning. Of the eight people arrested thus far for the attempted London and Glasgow bombings, FULLY SIX are doctors and one was a laboratory assistant. "It is actually possible to be so well educated (whilst simultaneously religiously deranged) that you can build a nuclear bomb, and still believe you're going to get the 72 virgins. That's how balkanized our discourse is and how easily partitioned the human mind is."

He said that in no other area besides religion do we "respect each others beliefs", we demand proof. Not true, scientists DO respect each others beliefs even when they disagree with them, this is particularly true in cosmology, quantum physics, string theory, etc. etc.

And what was that at the very end about a quality of spirituality in life. He believes in something called "spirit" yet he condemns people for holding religious beliefs?

Lastly, Mr. Harris is a closet Buddhist, he extols the virtues of meditation and "looking within" to find some magical mystical introspective "consciousness" when logical rational 1st person thought fails to answer every question.

Sam Harris - Hypocrite.
http://www.slumdance.com/blogs/brian_flemming/archives/001340.html

Memorare, scientists don't have 'beliefs', they have well-founded hypotheses that can be proved or disproved by observation.

he explains that his use of the word spiritual is for lack of a better word meaning - nothing supernatural, just a word for describing deeper levels of consciousness.

he just thinks there are a few practices in buddhism that the west could learn from, like having a deeper sense of self through meditation.

logical rational 1st person thought can answer every question, religiousos just wouldn't want to accept that it can. because they'd then have to come to terms that they've been livign a lie for their whole lives!

Nice video... Incidentally, this should be *religion for sure, and in my view, *canada since this video is from IdeaCity, an annual Canadian conference much like TED where people get together to exchange ideas.

http://www.ideacityonline.com/08-contact-us.html

However, SiftBot will undoubtably tell me I lack the power, a little help?

Invocations (canada, religion) cannot be called by fizziks because fizziks is not privileged - sorry.

*relgion *talks

Adding video to channels (Talks) - requested by Zonbie.

Allow me to lend a hand to my less-privileged and illiterate fellow sifters.

*religion *science *canada

Adding video to channels (Canada, Religion, Science) - requested by xxovercastxx.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'religion, faith, dogma, rationalism' to 'religion, faith, dogma, rationalism, idea city' - edited by xxovercastxx

*dead

This video has been declared non-functional; embed code must be fixed within 2 days or it will be sent to the dead pool - declared dead by Fletch.

eric3579 has fixed this video's dead embed code - no Power Points awarded because eric3579's points are already fully charged.