Sam Harris

In the context of Sam's writtings, he ultimately suggest the elimination of religion.  Is this a slippery slope into emotional void?  Are we to expect others will automaticaly accept Buddhism as a moral guide?  Doesn't Buddhism suggest pacifism?  As Sam correctly points out, this is a morally unacceptable path.  Perhaps the violence in the Bible was created to give us the ability to fight back.  If we all disregard religion, and allow the possibility of science to be king, do we face the danger of becoming emotionaly numb, a population of machine like zombies?  Is Sam's proposition a slippery slope into emotional void?

Why Buddhism?

Why not secular humanism?

What makes you think that religion is even related to overall emotional wellbeing?

Look at it this way, bribri:

How do you know the sensations I get from riding a roller coaster are not identical to those you get by going into a religious trance?

Of all the billions and billions of trains of thought and experience that can trigger those brain states, religion has to be among the worst. OK, we don’t really know the answer to that one, but one can make a good case that a few of those triggers will turn out to be more productive and salutary than religion, or at least do much less damage to one’s intellectual self-respect.

If you don’t like the roller coaster imagery, try the traditional mode of “transport”, as I think it used to be called. :D

[quote author=“bribri10134”] Is Sam’s proposition a slippery slope into emotional void?

The elimination of religion would be a delightfully slippery slope into emotional freedom. Sin is fiction. The emotions evoked by the idea of sin are poison.

Without religion, we wouldn’t need to be pacifists. …or Buddhists.

do we face the danger of becoming emotionaly numb, a population of machine like zombies?

We already are. That’s why we should eliminate religion. duh.

[quote author=“bribri10134”]If we all disregard religion, and allow the possibility of science to be king, do we face the danger of becoming emotionaly numb, a population of machine like zombies?  Is Sam’s proposition a slippery slope into emotional void?

Reading some Feynman and Sagan material should take care of that question.

Byron

Bribri10134, there are some assumptions in your post that must be addressed.

[quote author=“bribri10134”] If we all disregard religion, and allow the possibility of science to be king,

Science has never been about supplanting religion, despite the claims of creationists. Science rejects supernaturalism, but that is not the same thing as religion. I’ve long argued that religion should never make claims about the natural world, because that leads to hateful ideas such as natural disasters being punishments from angry deities.

[quote author=“bribri10134”]do we face the danger of becoming emotionally numb, a population of machine like zombies?  Is Sam’s proposition a slippery slope into emotional void?

What do you mean by an “emotional void”? Why would religion deprive people of emotions? As others here have said, emotions are a biological phenomenon.

I find it absurd to think that a lack of belief in fairy tales and mythical beings means that I can’t love people, hate others, and experience the whole gamut of human emotion.

[quote author=“bribri10134”]  If we all disregard religion, and allow the possibility of science to be king, do we face the danger of becoming emotionaly numb, a population of machine like zombies?

I find this part of your question (taking Sam out of it) to be quite meaningful.
First we have to look at the words ‘science’ and ‘religion’ with the meanings implied by your context.
By ‘science’ I think you mean a system of thought which only concerns itself with material cause and effect which can be formulated mathmatically.  That’s why the image of ‘machine like zombies’ comes up.

By ‘religion’ I think you mean traditions concerning the less measurable aspects of existence. Traditions which draw out very subtle emotions of joy and sorrow connected with the human condition. These emotions go beyond our immediate circumstances and moods, and can be quite puzzling, not easily addressed by intellect.

We have a thirst for these feelings, and religion is not the only way to explore them.
SkepticX mentioned Feynman and Sagan, and I also have found in their writings great humanity without religious tradition. They can inspire us with the possibility of discarding dysfunctional beliefs.

bribri10134 - 10 July 2007 07:20 PM

In the context of Sam's writtings, he ultimately suggest the elimination of religion.  Is this a slippery slope into emotional void?  Are we to expect others will automaticaly accept Buddhism as a moral guide?  Doesn't Buddhism suggest pacifism?  As Sam correctly points out, this is a morally unacceptable path.  Perhaps the violence in the Bible was created to give us the ability to fight back.  If we all disregard religion, and allow the possibility of science to be king, do we face the danger of becoming emotionaly numb, a population of machine like zombies?  Is Sam's proposition a slippery slope into emotional void?

This would depend greatly upon whether you were speaking from experience, or simply speculating upon something you have no clear understanding about.