Sam Harris

Does anyone think Sam crossed the line with Scott Atran? (You probably have to watch Atran’s talk to know what Sam was reacting to).

Admin - 06 December 2007 08:05 AM

Does anyone think Sam crossed the line with Scott Atran? (You probably have to watch Atran’s talk to know what Sam was reacting to).

Can you link us to that? How recent is this?

Google is again our friend here, at least for the time being.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cn3CzIl4o4k

et seq.

And, apropos of that, regarding suicide terrorism and the role that the concept of martyrdom plays, Sam makes his very good point yet again.

Mention is made (in Part 1) that it is possible to induce Christians under some circumstances to engage in suicide martyrdom of this kind, but that the “activation energy” is rather greater than for Muslims.

Nevertheless, we see the impulse toward martyrdom among the most fervent Christians every day, though they generally lack the fanaticism (let us thank our lucky stars, to be superstitiously tongue in cheek) to see it through to its ultimate expression. We see it here in the forum with great regularity, as enthusiastic Christians offer themselves up to the lions, such as myself, here. That most of the forum participants be civil and reasonable with them may not be what they desire most.

We can worry about whether Harris is too “hard” on Atran. This will be salutary for some but not for others. Prescribing compassion is delicate, in the sense that G B Shaw intended when he wrote: “Do not do unto others as you would like them to do unto you. Their tastes might be different.”

Based on Atran’s pompous style in offering his objection, one clearly senses that Atran can take care of himself.

Or maybe the following is worth perusing, which is more likely what the OP was referencing:

http://www.edge.org/discourse/bb.html

Admin - 06 December 2007 08:05 AM

Does anyone think Sam crossed the line with Scott Atran?

Of course, it’s impossible to fathom what line anyone might think is being crossed. Are we talking about a crossover into dogmatic support of one’s own ideas? I don’t know!

Atran makes one thing clear: In an irrational world, rationality has an uphill battle. Is that a call to turn up the gain on tolerance of nonsense? Guess what my answer is.

Religious fundamentalism and fanaticism is bad news, and no one but religious fanatics disagrees with this.

The corner into which the religious moderates (and their defenders among non-believers) have painted themselves is readily seen in their inane arguments that making severe criticism of religious nonsense is equivalent to an ambition to stamp it out entirely and a confidence that one can, indeed, do this, a notion that is irrational on its face. But that argument is a Straw Herring™. Of course, one sees through the religious moderate almost immediately, and senses her desperate inner need to cling to that nonsense personally, even while not seeking to convert the entire world to any particular brand of it. This is merely cognitive dissonance at work. That vocal criticism of theism and all other forms of woo-woo actually discomfits any holder of such beliefs is a testament to their manifest ineffectiveness.

A buddhist might tell me to have compassion for people who hold unrealistic ideas in their heads. After all, they deserve to be as happy as anyone else, and my intolerance could make them uncomfortable. I’m not a buddhist. If the aim of existence is to achieve the most happiness at a cost of a minimum of suffering, won’t someone please tell me what she supposes the recipe to be?

Here’s one thing that Harris tells us:

Atran’s approach to solving this problem is to make declarations about the “basic irrationality of human life and society. ” It is true that there is no shortage of people who will applaud this approach. And some of them may even mistake it for science.

1) “If the aim of existence is to achieve the MOST happiness at a cost of a minimum of suffering, won’t someone please tell me what she/he/it supposes the recipe to be?”

2)“If the aim of existence is to achieve the MOST suffering at a cost of a minimum of happiness, won’t someone please tell me what she/he/it supposes the recipe to be?”

3)“If the aim of existence is to achieve the BALANCE of the amount of happiness with the cost of suffering, won’t someone please tell me what she/he/it supposes the recipe to be?”

Which question would you choose to answer if you already have the recipe to the 3 questions???

Finally, “If this so named ‘aim of existence’ only exist in mind and cognition of sentient beings who just asked these questions, what would you suppose she/he/it who is above the level/dimension/intelligence of the questioning sentient beings will say ?”

The problem with Scott Atran and his line of reasoning is an overwhelming naivety towards the whole question of dogma.

And if we did all reason like does in regards to Islam etc, we could just go a head and hand the world over into a theocracy.

He is the worst kind of moderate, the only thing his campaign of political correctness accomplishes is to further shield the lunatics.

Sam Harris: Atran makes insupportable claims about religion as though they were self-evident: like “religious beliefs are not false in the usual sense of failing to meet truth conditions”; they are, rather, like “poetic metaphors” which are “literally senseless.” How many devout Christians or Muslims would recognize their own faith in this neutered creed?

How many is Sam suggesting their need be for Atran’s claim to be supportable?

My guess is that:

1: There are a substantial number of religious people who embrace an approach to their “religion” that is consistent with Atran’s operational definition for “religion”: a world-view that exists in a magisterium that <u>does not</u> overlap with science.

2: There are a substantial number of religious people who embrace an approach to their “religion” that is consistent with Harris’s operational definition for “religion”: a world-view that exists in a magisterium that <u>does</u> overlap with science.

The exchange between Atran and Harris boils down to this, I think:

A: Can there be any value in believing in something that is not factually verifiable or that is otherwise logically invalid?

B: Can that value be achieved without adopting the belief?

I think Atran makes a good case for “yes” to question A, and “no” to question B. But it’s at best a circumstantial approach.

As an analogy: What do you do with a golfer who hits with a consistent slice. No doubt there are circumstances where hitting with a slice is more advantageous than hitting straight, but the evidence is overwhelming that hitting the ball straight produces better results. So, obviously we should teach the golfer to hit the ball straight. But what if the golfer has a big tournament to play in tomorrow? Or perhaps the golfer is not capable of learning to hit the ball straight at all. In either of these circumstances, it is better to teach the golfer to play with the slice.