Sam Harris

Silver Bullet - 10 July 2009 01:08 AM

Jefe - 09 July 2009 11:54 PM

Silver Bullet - 09 July 2009 10:57 PM

SkepticX - 09 July 2009 05:36 PM

it’s about the fact that sometimes religion includes dogma that isn’t in conflict with science.

Such as?

“The sky is above the earth.”

Why do you consider that a religious dogma?

I was thinking along the lines of science confirming religious dogma. For instance, science seems to now endorse the benefits of circumcision. This is confirmation in a very loose sense, but nevertheless, one could consider this a scientific success that does not come at the expense of that particular religious dogma.

This changes the parameters of your question.

Now it seems as if you’re asking:
In what ways is [Sam claiming] faith-based, definitively unscientific religious dogma compatible with science?

You seem to be defining any possible rational answer out of the equation (and/or forcing Sam to be in error by definitional fiat).

At least that’s the way it’s starting to look ...

Byron

SkepticX - 10 July 2009 02:23 PM

Silver Bullet - 10 July 2009 01:08 AM

Jefe - 09 July 2009 11:54 PM

Silver Bullet - 09 July 2009 10:57 PM

SkepticX - 09 July 2009 05:36 PM

it’s about the fact that sometimes religion includes dogma that isn’t in conflict with science.

Such as?

“The sky is above the earth.”

Why do you consider that a religious dogma?

I was thinking along the lines of science confirming religious dogma. For instance, science seems to now endorse the benefits of circumcision. This is confirmation in a very loose sense, but nevertheless, one could consider this a scientific success that does not come at the expense of that particular religious dogma.

This changes the parameters of your question.

Now it seems as if you’re asking:
In what ways is [Sam claiming] faith-based, definitively unscientific religious dogma compatible with science?

You seem to be defining any possible rational answer out of the equation (and/or forcing Sam to be in error by definitional fiat).

At least that’s the way it’s starting to look ...

Byron

That’s not my intention, but maybe that’s the problem I’ve been having with understanding Sam’s concept, (though I doubt it).

I think he probably had in mind some specific examples explaining why he believes that the conflict between science and religion is not exactly zero-sum.

Silver Bullet - 14 July 2009 04:24 AM

That’s not my intention, but maybe that’s the problem I’ve been having with understanding Sam’s concept, (though I doubt it).

I think he probably had in mind some specific examples explaining why he believes that the conflict between science and religion is not exactly zero-sum.

You’ve seen some of the more obvious examples in here ... quite simply the Bible gets some of its facts right. Names and locations of cities and weather patterns and such ...

Byron

Silver Bullet - 08 July 2009 08:14 PM

Sam has written the following in an essay (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-harris/science-must-destroy-reli_b_13153.html), and if I’m not mistaken, this quote also appears in “Letter to a Christian Nation”:

“The conflict between religion and science is inherent and (very nearly) zero-sum.”

Why does he write, “very nearly” zero-sum?

What are the exceptions to the concept that this has been a completely zero-sum conflict?

I would suggest thas some religious practices generate a sense of awe that can encourage its practitioners to investigate reality rationally and methodically. People like linnaeus come to mind. Likewise, the sense of awe felt with great scientific discovery at the limits of the investigators understanding can encourage a turning to the god of the gaps mentality. These are small, but important exceptions to the zero-sum game that I think need to at least be acknowledged before you can proceed rationally. I think Neil Tyson explains this very well: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJyShsxMTeg