Again, he falsely expresses Harris' words by making it seem as though Harris was speaking against the reality of the experience when in fact he is speaking against the utility of dogmatic interpretation of said experience; and the experience of both individuals, of different religions, cannot possibly authenticate the religious context through which they interpret the experience. Therefore, "religious" experiences are separable from "religions."
Science is an alternate means of knowing truth …… really !!! ok then what are other alternate means
Personal experience ……. What if I had experience of talking to pink fairy then is it true??? Why only religious people have liberty of claiming their personal experiences as something to do with truth?
I belive in GOD. point One, Point Two is that Reza talks so much but Says Nothing!,,, Until Muslims STOP lying to us and telling us that Islam is a religion of PEACE and STOPS Blaming Everyone for Islam's BAD reputation and STOPS Always playing the VICTOM, Nothing is Ever gonna change.
religion is the idiotic, primitive way humans have described their "mystical" experiences. it will give way to science, reason, intellectual honesty, and education.
Right on Reza, Sam should go back and hit the books and may read a little rather than rely on fox news for research. It is becoming evident that Sam is ill suited to deal with Reza's superior intellect, knowledge and fluency. I beginning to feel sorry for Sam, he seeming like a pupil out of his depth with his master.
I was perplexed by Aslan's distinction between "facts" and "truth." As if there is a subset of truth which is not composed of facts. Someone please explain this to me. Is it to distinguish between unutterable experience and that which can be described?
Aslan truly says nothing of importance but spends most of his time defining words, thus avoiding the glaring holes Sam pokes in his arguments. Comparing rigorous scientific scrutiny with religion mumbo jumbo is utter disingenuous and telling of Aslan's realm of reality.
in every one of these conversations i have watched on science v religion. the religious proponent has lost really really badly. im glad we have such logical and coherent people like sam harris to fight in our corner.
I used to think that Reza was a smarter man (based on some of his political views), but defending religion requires this sort of mental gymnastics
Im not sure if we(atheists) have become immune to listening to arguments from religious people, but I am hearing the same basic points from them, but embellished with different and fantastic language. Language that tries to squeeze in everything we know from science, as non-contradictory, but rather in some way inclusive within religious teachings.
What is a rational view of religion? To quote a woman I respect very much "I get it, I don't get it and never will". Reza might just as well speak about a rational view of astrology and vodoo.
He's validating the experiencing, stating them as being real. Now if I was there I'd ask him that if all these experiences are real and if they can be experienced in distinct ways then why is the muslim world hell bent on proving their way is the best. Why would he not believe in any such belief system when the experience is significant and the way you experience them is immaterial.
ive watched too many of these damn debates. its good that people like sam harris are having debates that basically publically embarrass people like reza aslan for being fools. but its gets old having to hear the pseudo-intellectual garbage spewing from the religious side in these debates. its like watching a professional boxer fight an amateur boxer. it just becomes sad, and annoying to watch.
Reza went home thinking that he had done a great job..Hahahaha!!...But then after a good night sleep he must have realized how foolish comments he made..
Monopoly on "facts" but not "Truth"?
He did nothing except obfuscating fairly simple things..
It's actually unimaginable that a Man could be So idiotic..!
Islam is filled with violence..and It has indeed played a Pivotal role in fueling and harnessing terrorism..
Apparently truth and fact are on completely different spectrum's... Its interesting to see how Reza claim's that science has a monopoly on facts but not on Truth. Which "truth" is Reza talking about that religion can provide? And why wouldn't truth and fact go hand in hand? A fact usually is the closest thing to "truth" so I don't know what truth Reza speaks about when he mentions religion. I don't think truth and fact are separable.
Reza, like most apologists, confuses increasing levels of abstraction with nonoverlapping magisteria. If you are playing a computer game, the characters in the game can be referred to as characters, or as differing charges on the computer memory. Those are both valid methods of description that provide valuable illumination of the subject, but they are not fundamentally sperate from each other. Similarly, the higher order abstraction of 'spirituality' is not different from biology.
Reza is an intelligent guy, good interview on the Daily Show, but I would have to say that he isn't necessarily protecting his own personal beliefs because he's too smart for it. I think he is just doing his best to protect what he grew up knowing. Religion will do that. You see him waking up at 5a.m. worshiping every day? I don't
@5paceship Even as an atheist and a huge fan of Sam Harris, I thought Aslan brought up some excellent and challenging points about the tendencies of strident atheists (like myself) to perhaps overstate the portion that religion played in the Middle East. This is not to say he successfully defends the value of religion, but he does successfully dilute its importance by reference to other portions of "identity." And yes Sam Harris is incredibly brilliant.
Reza has just constructed a strawman, no where did Sam argue that physicalism or materialism is the true nature of reality..in fact Sam was just saying that mystical experience should be seriously investigated but with the same rigor and honesty that is present in science. Science is not telling any body what not to believe in, it tells you what you CAN believe in. Supernatural experience is outside the scope of science as it stands today, simple as that.
Something I would like to add for those who claim that Harris knows nothing about the inner workings of Islamic societies (An idea that always makes me smile because of the knockdown answer to it).
Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who has the kind of knowledge and experience with Islam no outsider could ever have, is a board member of Harris nonprofit and agrees with his assessment. I value her opinion more than that of a US citizen who visits the middle east occasionally and gets shown all the sunny spots.
I am starting to think that Sam Harris might have an infinite amount of patience. I watched his lectures for the last 3 days and saw him stay calm in the face of people who I probably would have slapped somewhere along the line.
Definition of Obvious Liar: Pretending there is no God or, pretending anything else that is not based on any evidence. Atheism = greatest and most baseless of all known human superstitions. If there is no God, then no one designed the human brain and thus, my computer, my house and every building in the city I live in designed itself. It isn't being fair to the superstitious, to compare them with atheists, who remain the most naive and superstitious of all beings in the universe and beyond.
Nice try Mr. Reza, you ended up chasing your tail, but you two (Sam) did agree about the personal 'experiences' that people get, but don't necessarily pursue some kind of universal concepts about there religious experiences. Sam explains it so eloquently and in simple ways. Of course Sam has an advantage because he did or still practices a buddhist path, and he seems to do it in a generous open ended way, which is by far the best way "not the only way' but he's cool with that.
Another note, Sam is right about abandoning the extraneous nature of religious vocabulary that Reza is defending. I've had lots of transcendent experiences, through meditation, dance, music - none through religion. In that these transcendent experiences are replicable through mental and physical behaviors and habits, and that science is developing its own vocabulary to describe them, one no longer needs arbitrary religious ideas upon which to meditate to escape the prison of self-awareness.
You can pretty much ignore the parts where Reza talks because he's just waving his hands around and making nasally language-like noises that clearly aspire towards the formation of consistent intelligent thoughts, but fail because he doesn't know what he's talking about, at all. Just letting you know ahead of time.
@MrNicMachiavelli You're right. I could have phrased that differently. He's probably very intelligent, otherwise he couldn't formulate these embellished arguments using big words, but he's embellishing bad ideas. He's probably afraid to admit he's wrong. When your whole job is pushing ideas and someone points out that your ideas are wrong, you delude yourself that they're not wrong and build on them hoping people won't notice they were wrong in the first place.
@scientrophic that's among the myriad of problems with religion. Not only does it lead dumb people but it circumvents the thought process of highly intelligent and well meaning people to the point that they perform mental hurdles over the obvious so that their superstitions remain intact.
@farerse Yes. Only a very wise man would have such nice suit. I think we should abandon all public school curriculums and simply teach children: Trust men in suits. That seems to be what's expected of most of the general population. Work like a dog, buy as much shit as is physically possible, and trust men in suits.
The issue, in my view, and based on my own experiences, is that there is NO good way to describe a transcendent experience. All these years of trying to do so leaves us divided and ridiculous. "Whereof one cannot speak one must pass over in silence." Religion claims knowledge that it has NO right to claim.
Reza was being mealy-mouthed or else didn't get it- there are better ways of describing the transcendent/numinous etc in ways which are free of religious dogma baggage that impedes clarity. An analogy wud be talking about medical ailments in terms of possession by spirits- wud reza argue for the validity of this idea?
but what has been causing the trouble is that the "experiences of transcendence" written in the scriptures have been put into laws in many societies. And because of that, it is affecting the society as a whole, such as a person who disagrees end up being punished or an individual is coerced to submit; It is because of this, there is only one thing to blame - the religion (faith) itself.
but what has been causing the trouble is that the "experience of transcendence" written in the scriptures have been put into laws in many societies. And because of that, it is affecting the society as a whole, such as a person who disagrees end up being punished or an individual is coerced to submit; It is because of this, there is only one thing to blame - the religion (faith) itself.
Science has no favorites. science could care less about evolution, or gravity, or the heliocentric theory. A claim is only as strong as its evidence. If evidence against the heliocentric theory arises that is verifiable and substantial and proves it to be false, then science will give a big fuck you to that theory and throw it in the bin. it doesn't care. its concern is with what's true. religion is the opposite, naturally, the anti-science. making claims and saying fuck you to the evidence.
Reza lost it at the end .. He's very well thought and spoken through out the debate but at the end when confronted with the hole scripture and science arguments, he just lost by not admiting AT ALL that the dogmatic aspect of current religions and way that they dictate people's lives and choices is a major problem. I believe is in fact the main problem !
@buffenbison Agreed. Intelligent people with a sentimental (or whatever) attachment to a given religion look to people like Aslan, William Lane Craig, Dinesh D'souza etc. to justify their acceptance of dogmatic bullshit. The fact that they can't see what bullshit these people's defense of dogmatism are is a testament to the crippling affect religion has on (usually reasonable) people. It's sad.
I want to know what reza thinks about the future of fundamentalist in islam now that Bin Laden has be killed. He seems to be sympathetic towards jihadists and i would be interested to see if he still has the same opinions about Iraq as well.
gotta agree with everyone else here, reza was doing a lot of typical apologetics and runarounds with his responses, sam harris was a lot more direct and was able to counter and refute well to what reza said when he was allowed to do so
I like Reza a lot, and I think that here in the debate of science v. religion he is out of his depth. That being said, I think Harris would be out of his depth in that area as well to be honest, but Reza is utterly utterly floundering here. His apologism here pisses me off.
Another Islamic moron. Can't believe Reza says, science is all about facts and religion is all about truth. Huh? Come again! Who invited this confused idiot to a debate? He does not qualify.
Reza did make some legitimate points when the discussion was about Muslim extremists vs. moderates but he is not at all convincing when claiming that science doesn't have a monopoly on describing reality and that it is merely one sort of "language" whereas religion is another. Hogwash. The explanations of religion are by and large the attempts by uninformed people to explain things they don't truly understand. This is why they are routinely CONTRADICTED by science. Reza is just plain wrong.
What language is Reza talking about? Science and religion speak the same language? clearly a vague use of the term language, and even if it were true, they definitely have different interpretations about the world.
I'm getting pissed off with modern apologists. They're so wrapped up in meta-sophistry and the meaning of meaning that they can't think straight. I'd much rather have a debate with Fred Phelps, because at the very least he's honest about what he believes.
I don't think even Aslan knows what he believes, except that he believes that what he believes is mostly good.
Religion is not "another way of knowing" as Reza put it. Religion is a way of brainwashing the world into unknowing the reality of the human struggle.
Any religious story is just that, a story. It is not based on fact, evidence, or scientific inquiry, and should not hold any weight in our understanding of life or the birth of the cosmos.
Aslan tries to defend religion by defining it as purely another "way of knowing the universe" but it is far from being only that. It doesnt try to know the universe, it CLAIMS to know the universe and that nobody should argue it. In what way exactly is that trying to know the universe? It limits any further inquiry, in this way it's the total opposite of science and not at all a parallel way to of learning about what's around us.
Wouldn't it be nice if Reza was right? if religion was just a game of expression? Isn't it wild that the apologists for faith, the only ones willing to take the stage in defense of the project, are practically atheists themselves? I couldn't sit in Sam's chair and exude such serenity in the face of calculating and whimsical obfuscation for a practice that actually motivates murder and suicide. His inner buddha is probably dying to strangle Reza, I know mine is.
What's Reza talking about? Science isn't just a new language, it's the most accurate language! H^2 O is not the same as saying that water is one of four Elements.
That the chemical processes of oxidation is the the same as the element of fire.
damned time constraint! exchanges like this are more useful than hearing Hitch flamboyantly destroy idiots like Boteach for 2 hours -- as fun as that can be. an oh can it be fun! but, enough of that junk food. more veggies please! Reza's right to caution against placing more blame on religion for mideast trouble than on the politics. but Reza, wtf with the suicide bombers? and Sam, i'll grant your pass on ambassadorship when you stop making so much work for them -- not that i want you to stop=)
I'm so sick of creationists /religious people talking for stupid lengths of time, yet answering Fuck All; it's kind of insulting that they sell any books, let alone get places of power.
Reza went wrong when he implied that religion is a way of knowing, Religion can be considered a hypotesis that has never been put to the test. Religion could put under the scientific method, but people dont since it would fail. Science is self-correcting, Religion is self-asserting .
The comments on these videos are, for the most part, pathetic.
I side with Harris in this debate, as do most of you, but the reasons many of you side with Harris, as stated in this comment board, are just as dogmatic and dubious as one who would side with a religious authority.
Dogmatism is science is even more pathetic than dogmatism in religion. There is nothing wrong with saying "I don't know", and if you don't then acknowledge that and continue to educate yourself.
@Drgamedood Perhaps you are, but many people posting on this video are simply band-wagoners. I completely support Sam in this argument, but you should at least understand a position before you support it.
@RJhasFLOW I understand Sam's position completly. Reza's as well. Reza kept ignoring Sam's points and constantly said "its politics, not religion", even though sam points out that support for suicide bombing in the islamic world goes up when you correct for literacy. Reza also falsly states that alzawahiri became a jihadist after he was tortured.
Regardless if one uses the Language of Christianity, the language of Buddhism to contextualise it and understand it. Wtf is this guy on about, the Language of science is the only real way!
The language of Christianity says nothing about the experience? Really Reza? This experience makes ME feel so good, and if you don't agree, you'll have to die. I think it says everything and defending these mutually incompatible claims is absurd on every level.
This Reza guy completely blew it with his hopelessly misguided notion of what science is.
Science is NOT a means of probing reality the way religion is; it is not a mode of telling people what to think. Science is a mechanism which allows different arguments with variable strengths of logic to weigh against one another in order to produce the one with the highest logical strength. Even that "best" argument is not irrefutable, and can be nullified in the face of evidence.
You have a gross misunderstanding of what he said. He never said it was, as you say, "a mode of telling people what to think". He states, as you've also stated, that science is a mechanism through which we can tangibly measure the strengths of particular phenomenons, and then also adds that such mechanisms do not take away from the reality of human experience. What's so misguided about that?
Reza just said that scientists are the ones who are attempting to describe reality in the 21st century, whereas to an extent it was prophets who did that thousands of years ago. Obviously the methods are different but he didn't exactly equate them did he.
Oh boo ya! I wrote that comment before I heard sam harris respond. I also wrote that comment before seeing Raza's argument starting at 6:50, where he manages to logically destroy himself and render all of his previous points worthless within seconds. He knows this. You can hear it in his voice. Incredible.
Raza doesn't know what religion is. If religion "is the language that describes these experiences" then we know that science gives the most accurate description. "And that language will change...just as religion will change" .....yes, it will, when we finally get rid of religion and just use science. What the hell is this man arguing about? Why is he so confident. He's spinning in circles.
6:47 What a jackass, Fact and Truth are interchangeable. Very weak way to imply that religion is truth despite scientific lack of evidence. Religion remains rooted in just as wild a theory as the most OUT THERE metaphysics.
Fact : something that actually exists; reality; truth
i loved how respectful and kind harris and aslan were to each other, even when you could obviously tell they have differing views. this whole subject of religion usually brings such vehemence on the sides of both parties, and to see such well educated adults rationally and respectfully conversing on this subject is something i think we shouldn't take for granted. it is discourse like this that will advance our understanding on everyone's grounds.
This was a very good debate until part 5. I think Reza dropped the ball. He lost me when he said. "I don't see how understanding how something works makes it any less real." when speaking about the transendence of religious individuals. It is the responsibility of theologists to bring to the discussion how science is wrong in its "interpretation" of the human condition, not science to bring itself into the vaccuum of certain religious dogma and explain itself from that perspective.
Sam usually points out that the problem is the sanctification and protection of religious, and therefore irrational, discourse. Religion per se isn't the source of the problem. It does, however, preclude moving towards a reasonable solution that most certainly has many complex human causes, as Raza points out.
But, again, the rational conversation cannot start until the stone age magical thinking is seen for what it is; irrelevant stories told by scared, ignorant ancestors.
The problem with religion is that it is an indiscriminate motivator of people both rich and poor. It is a mechanism or tool by which cultural institutions in power are able to breed ignorance in a way that reinforces their power.
The moderation of this debate was weak, Sam wasn't on his game, and Reza goes on and on with no point. Religion isn't the source of the problem. It is the sanctified means by which the problem is perpetuated.
Not a very strong debate on anyone's part...That woman's last question was actually one of the more salient points that I'm surprised Sam didn't capitalize on.
Sam is much weaker than Hitchens. Hitchens would argue that certain ideas, concepts, laws, and lines in these divine texts are inescapable. How can a religious Jew, Christian, or Muslim allow homosexuals to have sex or get married? Nothing to do with fundamentalists or aggressive fundamentalists... If you would like to do as Thomas Jefferson did and cut out most of the Bible and leave all that is moral and reasonable, then everyone would respect the religion a little more.
if Science is just Religion in a different language, what are we still doing with Religion? we all know that Medicine is better than Exorcism in treating ailments...and if that is the case, we might as well go with the one that actually works, which is science
I think Sam touched on something when he went into the Christian physics part of his rebuttal. There was no holy book that claimed to know everything about ancient physics, let alone modern physics. There was no scripture that explained how to produce automobiles and to develop the road and highway systems in which to travel on. There were no blue prints for air travel and the machines that would safely transport us from one part of the globe to the next.
All of these fields evolved from ideas in the realm of discovery that became mutually supported by scrutiny and application. We don’t navigate from charts from the dark or bronze ages anymore either, so why do we still subscribe to it’s philosophy? Couldn’t it, instead, be the Model A, or the Wright Brother’s plane, to evolve from? Why do we still have to make these ancient maps our today’s moral compass? Or were we all made to be like sheep and let our thinking to other’s?
You have to love apologists and their “reasoning”. He calls religion a language we use as a specie, to describe some type of “experience”, and he prophesise that this language will never die out. How ignorant and arrogant of him? Isn’t it lovely how confidently he speaks about religion as a constant variable. He ignores just how much we have changed, how much we changed the planet itself, our environment and our understanding for the past few millennia. Lunatic.
harris is saying that once you remove religious motivation for crimes, the criminals are no longer jihadists, martyrs, saints, heroes, crusaders, etc. they're just criminals
Reza might make more sense if he replaced the word religion with philosophy. We can probe the immaterial world through art, language, fiction and philosophy. There is no need to affirm unsubstantiated “truths” about the world and then impress them on others. Religion should be put to bed for good.
"Science has defined as mystcism as A, B, and C in the brain...So? I don't see how understanding how something works--", Aslan gets cut off. This guy is an idiot. No one is disputing that these spiritual experience, or whatever you want to call them, are real. They are most certainly real, but it doesn't validate the religion they belong to. Aslan should take a science class.
Aslan is not a complete moron. We cannot totally right off religion. It would be hard to justify existence, morality and goodness on a large scale if not for religion. The puzzle as with anything is finding a way to maintain a way to balance out its affects in our lives. I might be way out of of sorts in my ways of thinking.
But Dawkins did not in any way address the same experience Sam was referring to which is a SPIRITUAL experience, which is not a result of beliefs that one holds but a result of a long, diligent and consistent practices of introspection like meditation or yoga. Spiritual experiences, that sufi poet rumi perhaps had, and the scientific explanation of hallucinations that Dawkins refers to are not referring the same experience.
> the scientific explanation of hallucinations that Dawkins refers to are not referring the same experience
The point is that differing explanations for phenomena X are not equivalent just because they both refer to X. That's a complete non-sequitur. Reza is essentially appealing to emotion when he asserts that if you tell someone their *explanation* for an experience is not correct, that you're saying the experience is not 'legitimate'. "Who are you to say my experience wasn't real?"
You are right that he is wrong when he said differing explanations to the same phenomena are equivalent. However, the confusion he had is that he thinks Dawkins was explaining spiritual experiences when in fact he was addressing hallucinations which are not in anyway the same phenomena.
"the confusion he had is that he thinks Dawkins was explaining spiritual experiences when in fact he was addressing hallucinations which are not in anyway the same phenomena"
They are both subjective experiences. Both are subject to interpretation. People who interpret their hallucinations or spiritual experiences as evidence of gods/ghosts/aliens/etc. are very likely wrong, given the ease which which these experiences are produced *without* the need for external agency.
You got one thing right, they are subjective experiences. But they are NOT the same. If you have read Sam Harris book, in the last chapter on Consciousness, he clearly elucidates the nature of spiritual experiences. If there is an experience that is truly scientific, then it MUST be replicable so that anyone who trains their mind can have that experience. Spiritual experiences are these experiences, everyone, given that they practice meditation, can have that experience.
"You got one thing right, they are subjective experiences. But they are NOT the same."
I didn't say they were the SAME, so suggesting I didn't is either disingenuous or a reading malfunction. My point is that, for the purpose of this discussion -- distinguishing the legitimacy of an experience form the legitimacy of it's explanation -- it doesn't matter if we're talking about a spiritual experience or a stubbed toe.
But you said since such experiences are subjective they can't in anyway be brought into discussion regarding the existence of god or a transcendent spirit b/c they are open to many interpretations. You have just displayed your naivety and ignorance. Spiritual experiences are not open to many interpretations, there is only one interpretation of it.
"But you said since such experiences are subjective they can't in anyway be brought into discussion regarding the existence of god or a transcendent spirit b/c they are open to many interpretations."
I said no such thing.
"Spiritual experiences are not open to many interpretations, there is only one interpretation of it."
*rofl* Are you kidding? ALL phenomena is open to many interpretations, despite the fact that only ONE interpretation can actually be correct.
Spiritual experiences are not produced with ease, it requires a high degree of clarity of mind, concentration, diligent practice of meditation. Spiritual experiences can be triggered through drugs, but they only give a temporary experience, the experience does not last forever.
And Since you are a 2nd grader in the subject of consciousness and spirituality, let me elucidate what I meant. Spiritual experiences are not easy to generate if you want to have a permanent experience of them, but you can still trigger them through drugs to have subtle glimpses of them only temporarily.
Sam Harris actually states that the fact that such SE, since they are replic., should not be considered subjective they are rather empirical. If you know about spirituality when one breaks the identification with thought and sees thoughts as thoughts and do not identify themselves with it a great sense of relief is possible This is the beginning of realizing the illusion of reality (dualism) and to see everything in the universe as one So I don't completely agree that these are merely subjective
"Sam Harris actually states that the fact that such SE, since they are replic.,? should not be considered subjective they are rather empirical."
*facepalm* I can only hope that you're misreading Sam Harris, as you've misread me, because that's retarded. The fact that I can replicate the experience of tasting ice cream doesn't mean that the experience is not subjective. Yes, all experience has an empirical component, in that it's ultimate source is a physical organ.
Sam Harris does say it is empirical, meaning that meditation can be experimented with anyone's mind just as you would do experiments in labs. When you repeat the same science experiment, you will have the more-or-less the same results. The same thing in spirituality, when you break identification with thought a different kind of transcendent experience is possible in everyone who does it. That's what makes it empirical.
> When you repeat the same science experiment, you will have the more-or-less the same results.
The fact that you can REPEAT the production of a SUBJECTIVE EXPERIENCE does not magically transform it into a NON-SUBJECTIVE EXPERIENCE. Subject meaning "internal, in one's mind", rather than external to one's self, directly available to an outside observer.
The definition of Empirical: "Verifiable or provable by experience or experiment"
No one here claimed that the experience is TRANSFORMED into an empirical one, the experience in essence is always subjective but it does have empirical properties to it.
It was not an adhominem attack, it was an obvious truth you don't really know anything about spirituality.
Let me rephrase my point again, Spiritual Experiences are not produced with ease by the individual himself since it requires long periods of concentration, meditation and effort. It requires many years of training to have that permanent and ultimate experience.
"Let me rephrase my point again, Spiritual Experiences are not produced with ease by the individual himself since it requires long periods [...]"
More accurate: "Let me change what I originally claimed. I said that Spiritual Experiences (which I capitalize because I'm a retard) are not produced with ease, then I contradicted myself by saying they are easily produced with drugs. What I SHOULD have said was that it's difficult to produce long last spiritual experiences without drugs."
hmmm....I never changed what I originally claimed, since you are new in this subject, I had to rephrase my point so you could better understand. And You like to take unimportant elements in a debate and exaggerate them; elements that have no relevance to the actual topic, which was consciousness and empirical experience.
YOU: "Spiritual experiences are not produced with ease"
Oh really?
YOU: "spiritual experiences can be triggered through drugs"
It doesn't get much easier, except perhaps magnets (Persinger). Very easy to 'trigger' or 'produce'. When I called you on this contradiction, you changed your statement to "Spiritual experiences are not easy to generate IF YOU WANT TO HAVE A PERMANENT EXPERIENCE", which is a *different claim. Backpeddle more.
I'm amazed at your childish behavior, arguing over something so irrelevant to the topic at hand.
If you realli know spirituality, you would've already understood what I meant when I say SE's are not produced with ease. That fact that you didn't proves that you truly are ignorant on this subject. People who practice spirituality or understand the subject realli well do not engage too much in irrational religious activities and so by you calling me religious nutbag is an ad hominem attack.
I haven't heard that since grade school. It really doesn't *get* more childish. Hypocrite much?
"If you realli know spirituality, you would've already understood what I meant"
Yet ANOTHER shifting of the goal posts. Now I should have just *known* what you meant. After all, you were perfectly clear, right? Never mind that you contradicted yourself in the space of a single paragraph.
@ReductioAdAbsurdum He's not contradicting himself. Lets move away from spirituality for a moment as you seem to have an issue with the subject. Imagine unimind24 said:
1) Gaining big muscles in the gym is not produced with ease.
2) Big muscles can be triggered by taking drugs.
There is no contradiction whatsoever. The natural way is the hard way, and the cheat way is the easy way. That's basically all he's saying.
> There is no contradiction whatsoever. The natural way is the hard way, and the cheat way is the easy way.
The contradiction exists when you're claiming that the experience is not produced by the body, but in fact represents evidence that you're in contact with an external magic realm. My point is that FEELING this is the case isn't evidence; we can turn that FEELING on and off at will by stimulating your neurons magnetically or chemically.
That you're a fanatical ideologue? Agreed. Phrases like "obvious truth" and "you don't really know anything about spirituality" are the stock and trade of religious nutbags.
The fact that you already presupposing that subjective experiences are not a testimony to the existence of supernatural proves that you are even a bigger nutbag than others like muslim fundamentalists
> The fact that you already presupposing that subjective experiences are not a testimony to the existence of supernatural
*lol* You ARE a religious nutbag.
The word "supernatural" literally means "beyond nature", it is *defined* as something that violates physical law.
If someone claims to have made a perpetual motion machine, I *presuppose* that they are wrong until contrary evidence is presented, because such a machine defies the first and/or second laws of thermodynamics laws.
Again, he falsely expresses Harris' words by making it seem as though Harris was speaking against the reality of the experience when in fact he is speaking against the utility of dogmatic interpretation of said experience; and the experience of both individuals, of different religions, cannot possibly authenticate the religious context through which they interpret the experience. Therefore, "religious" experiences are separable from "religions."
blitzel3 2 days ago
Science is an alternate means of knowing truth …… really !!! ok then what are other alternate means
Personal experience ……. What if I had experience of talking to pink fairy then is it true??? Why only religious people have liberty of claiming their personal experiences as something to do with truth?
engrfurqan 2 days ago
I belive in GOD. point One, Point Two is that Reza talks so much but Says Nothing!,,, Until Muslims STOP lying to us and telling us that Islam is a religion of PEACE and STOPS Blaming Everyone for Islam's BAD reputation and STOPS Always playing the VICTOM, Nothing is Ever gonna change.
rjdrjd22000 6 days ago
This fucking idiot said that science has a monopoly on facts but not truth....???? WHAT??
phillylion215 1 week ago 3
alternative modes of knowing? that's just an excuse for those who think it's ok to make shit up and then claim it as fact.
wubbadubdub 2 weeks ago in playlist Sam Harris Debates/Lectures 4
religion is the idiotic, primitive way humans have described their "mystical" experiences. it will give way to science, reason, intellectual honesty, and education.
wubbadubdub 2 weeks ago in playlist Sam Harris Debates/Lectures
This has been flagged as spam show
Right on Reza, Sam should go back and hit the books and may read a little rather than rely on fox news for research. It is becoming evident that Sam is ill suited to deal with Reza's superior intellect, knowledge and fluency. I beginning to feel sorry for Sam, he seeming like a pupil out of his depth with his master.
arraba99 2 weeks ago
I was perplexed by Aslan's distinction between "facts" and "truth." As if there is a subset of truth which is not composed of facts. Someone please explain this to me. Is it to distinguish between unutterable experience and that which can be described?
wealthychef 2 weeks ago
Aslan's rhetoric makes me want to put a bullet inside myself or in him, and I would much rather put it in him. Jesus bloody mythical Christ.
Calliope222 3 weeks ago
Same old scientist vs. social scientific debate... slightly annoying to hear them debate at cross purposes all the time.
willhum 1 month ago
Hitch would have let Texas have it...Sam has an unlimited supply of patience...
enyskept 1 month ago
Comment removed
kalbahamut 2 weeks ago
Resale constructed so many strawmen I don't even know where to begin...
enyskept 1 month ago
religion is irrational at its core, so there can't be a rational version of it.
and you can't change bin laden's mind, since he's dead. like he should be.
karlsmith00 1 month ago
Aslan truly says nothing of importance but spends most of his time defining words, thus avoiding the glaring holes Sam pokes in his arguments. Comparing rigorous scientific scrutiny with religion mumbo jumbo is utter disingenuous and telling of Aslan's realm of reality.
FreeTibetChinaOUT 1 month ago 2
in every one of these conversations i have watched on science v religion. the religious proponent has lost really really badly. im glad we have such logical and coherent people like sam harris to fight in our corner.
reelbiglurch 2 months ago
I used to think that Reza was a smarter man (based on some of his political views), but defending religion requires this sort of mental gymnastics
Im not sure if we(atheists) have become immune to listening to arguments from religious people, but I am hearing the same basic points from them, but embellished with different and fantastic language. Language that tries to squeeze in everything we know from science, as non-contradictory, but rather in some way inclusive within religious teachings.
test123ok 2 months ago
reza vs the other crazy ben henderson
QuarterHater9 2 months ago in playlist More videos from warisforsuckers
"Science a monopoly on facts but not on truth?"
Fact
- noun
a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true: Scientists gather facts about plant growth.
Truth
- noun
conformity with fact or reality; verity: the truth of a statement.
Awesome stuff.
AntitheistPOV 2 months ago
@AntitheistPOV Really? You don't understand the difference beween fact and truth? Wow.
Giby86 1 month ago
@Giby86
Clearly not. That's must be why I quoted Aslan and then posted the definitions of the two words to demonstrate the difference.
AntitheistPOV 1 month ago
@AntitheistPOV Actually, you posted the definitions to argue that the two are actually the same concept, in order to ridicule Aslan's point.
Giby86 1 month ago
you can't change osama's mind lol he's dead now so let's not worry about him no more lol
Atheist603 3 months ago
What is a rational view of religion? To quote a woman I respect very much "I get it, I don't get it and never will". Reza might just as well speak about a rational view of astrology and vodoo.
PeterK1984 3 months ago
Now he called religion a language?
bhriguaneja 4 months ago
He's validating the experiencing, stating them as being real. Now if I was there I'd ask him that if all these experiences are real and if they can be experienced in distinct ways then why is the muslim world hell bent on proving their way is the best. Why would he not believe in any such belief system when the experience is significant and the way you experience them is immaterial.
bhriguaneja 4 months ago
Shit - I'm freaked!
I just realized that Reza's name spelt backwards is 'nalsa azer', which is arabic for 'balloon knot'. Spooky...
BeyondTheTreeline 4 months ago
Could Allah microwave a burrito so hot that he himself could not eat it?
BeyondTheTreeline 4 months ago
Reza goes full retard at the end of this.
chapaev36 4 months ago 5
ive watched too many of these damn debates. its good that people like sam harris are having debates that basically publically embarrass people like reza aslan for being fools. but its gets old having to hear the pseudo-intellectual garbage spewing from the religious side in these debates. its like watching a professional boxer fight an amateur boxer. it just becomes sad, and annoying to watch.
kirkelie666 4 months ago
Reza went home thinking that he had done a great job..Hahahaha!!...But then after a good night sleep he must have realized how foolish comments he made..
Monopoly on "facts" but not "Truth"?
He did nothing except obfuscating fairly simple things..
It's actually unimaginable that a Man could be So idiotic..!
Islam is filled with violence..and It has indeed played a Pivotal role in fueling and harnessing terrorism..
baristha 4 months ago
How do two knobs like this even get on the same stage as Sam Harris?
dpowens 4 months ago 4
@dpowens I agree 100% this guy Reza Aslan just comes across as the usual odeous Islamic apologist!
greeny202a 4 months ago
@greeny202a Anybody that disagrees with you is an apologist, I hate when people use that. It's stupid silly and meaningless.
Giagantus 3 months ago
@Giagantus No anyone who simply will not accept any kind of criticism of that disgusting cult of Islam is an apologist!
greeny202a 3 months ago
Apparently truth and fact are on completely different spectrum's... Its interesting to see how Reza claim's that science has a monopoly on facts but not on Truth. Which "truth" is Reza talking about that religion can provide? And why wouldn't truth and fact go hand in hand? A fact usually is the closest thing to "truth" so I don't know what truth Reza speaks about when he mentions religion. I don't think truth and fact are separable.
LogicSpeaks 4 months ago
Reza, like most apologists, confuses increasing levels of abstraction with nonoverlapping magisteria. If you are playing a computer game, the characters in the game can be referred to as characters, or as differing charges on the computer memory. Those are both valid methods of description that provide valuable illumination of the subject, but they are not fundamentally sperate from each other. Similarly, the higher order abstraction of 'spirituality' is not different from biology.
16randomcharacters 4 months ago
Reza is an intelligent guy, good interview on the Daily Show, but I would have to say that he isn't necessarily protecting his own personal beliefs because he's too smart for it. I think he is just doing his best to protect what he grew up knowing. Religion will do that. You see him waking up at 5a.m. worshiping every day? I don't
kperez151 5 months ago
That Reza guy clearly LOVES to hear himself blabbering on and on and on …
macmarine 5 months ago
Sam Harris should not have to suffer these two buffoons, aslan in particular is an embarrassment. Crap debate, if it can be called a debate at all.
5paceship 5 months ago 22
@5paceship why are they both buffoons? The moderator so far has scarcely spoken.
MrNicMachiavelli 3 months ago
@5paceship Even as an atheist and a huge fan of Sam Harris, I thought Aslan brought up some excellent and challenging points about the tendencies of strident atheists (like myself) to perhaps overstate the portion that religion played in the Middle East. This is not to say he successfully defends the value of religion, but he does successfully dilute its importance by reference to other portions of "identity." And yes Sam Harris is incredibly brilliant.
wealthychef 2 weeks ago
i think it would be great if we could tell god he doesn't exist, but that would require his existence...
papelhojas 5 months ago
6:47 "While science unquestionably has a monopoly on facts, it has no monopoly on truth."
WOW. Fact = Truth
SourcesAreEverything 5 months ago
@SourcesAreEverything
Precisely what I was thinking when I heard that. If facts don't compose truth, then what the hell does (for Reza)?
l3lip 4 months ago
"...fanatics of the south..." ... i'm from texas and unfortunately this is somewhat true :*(
Although, talk to the younger generation and you'll see a much more liberal attitude than, say, 20 years ago. It's fantastic.
SanguineBullet667 5 months ago in playlist Sam Harris Debates/Lectures
Reza has just constructed a strawman, no where did Sam argue that physicalism or materialism is the true nature of reality..in fact Sam was just saying that mystical experience should be seriously investigated but with the same rigor and honesty that is present in science. Science is not telling any body what not to believe in, it tells you what you CAN believe in. Supernatural experience is outside the scope of science as it stands today, simple as that.
ElectricQualia 6 months ago
from the whole 10 minutes clip, Harris talks for just over 1 minute!! from 5:10 to 6:29!! what a fucking joke of a "debate".
P4PMike 6 months ago
Comment removed
P4PMike 6 months ago
everyone agrees that reza is an islamic apologist, idiot, and hair and eyeglasses model. what a waste of time for sam harris.
dantes731 6 months ago 3
Something I would like to add for those who claim that Harris knows nothing about the inner workings of Islamic societies (An idea that always makes me smile because of the knockdown answer to it).
Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who has the kind of knowledge and experience with Islam no outsider could ever have, is a board member of Harris nonprofit and agrees with his assessment. I value her opinion more than that of a US citizen who visits the middle east occasionally and gets shown all the sunny spots.
PeterK1984 6 months ago
I am starting to think that Sam Harris might have an infinite amount of patience. I watched his lectures for the last 3 days and saw him stay calm in the face of people who I probably would have slapped somewhere along the line.
PeterK1984 6 months ago
How did the moderator not let Sam respond to that final, ridiculous tirade?
merckens 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Definition of Obvious Liar: Pretending there is no God or, pretending anything else that is not based on any evidence. Atheism = greatest and most baseless of all known human superstitions. If there is no God, then no one designed the human brain and thus, my computer, my house and every building in the city I live in designed itself. It isn't being fair to the superstitious, to compare them with atheists, who remain the most naive and superstitious of all beings in the universe and beyond.
richardaberdeen 6 months ago
Like how you n your forefathers have been doing with the Bible....
809srk 6 months ago
check out sam's raised eyebrow at 7:34 after asking 'When did i say that?'
uknichu 6 months ago
Nice try Mr. Reza, you ended up chasing your tail, but you two (Sam) did agree about the personal 'experiences' that people get, but don't necessarily pursue some kind of universal concepts about there religious experiences. Sam explains it so eloquently and in simple ways. Of course Sam has an advantage because he did or still practices a buddhist path, and he seems to do it in a generous open ended way, which is by far the best way "not the only way' but he's cool with that.
beaudashing 6 months ago
Another note, Sam is right about abandoning the extraneous nature of religious vocabulary that Reza is defending. I've had lots of transcendent experiences, through meditation, dance, music - none through religion. In that these transcendent experiences are replicable through mental and physical behaviors and habits, and that science is developing its own vocabulary to describe them, one no longer needs arbitrary religious ideas upon which to meditate to escape the prison of self-awareness.
scientrophic 7 months ago
You can pretty much ignore the parts where Reza talks because he's just waving his hands around and making nasally language-like noises that clearly aspire towards the formation of consistent intelligent thoughts, but fail because he doesn't know what he's talking about, at all. Just letting you know ahead of time.
scientrophic 7 months ago 37
@scientrophic lol,well put.
andthereisntone 4 months ago
@scientrophic he strikes me as highly intelligent. You disagree with everything then?
MrNicMachiavelli 3 months ago
@MrNicMachiavelli You're right. I could have phrased that differently. He's probably very intelligent, otherwise he couldn't formulate these embellished arguments using big words, but he's embellishing bad ideas. He's probably afraid to admit he's wrong. When your whole job is pushing ideas and someone points out that your ideas are wrong, you delude yourself that they're not wrong and build on them hoping people won't notice they were wrong in the first place.
scientrophic 3 months ago
@scientrophic that's among the myriad of problems with religion. Not only does it lead dumb people but it circumvents the thought process of highly intelligent and well meaning people to the point that they perform mental hurdles over the obvious so that their superstitions remain intact.
MrNicMachiavelli 3 months ago
@scientrophic but he has a suit and a tie .. that makes him credible doesn't it
even better if he would have a wise beard too
farerse 2 months ago
@farerse Yes. Only a very wise man would have such nice suit. I think we should abandon all public school curriculums and simply teach children: Trust men in suits. That seems to be what's expected of most of the general population. Work like a dog, buy as much shit as is physically possible, and trust men in suits.
scientrophic 2 months ago
The issue, in my view, and based on my own experiences, is that there is NO good way to describe a transcendent experience. All these years of trying to do so leaves us divided and ridiculous. "Whereof one cannot speak one must pass over in silence." Religion claims knowledge that it has NO right to claim.
JoshwithaJ 7 months ago
Reza was being mealy-mouthed or else didn't get it- there are better ways of describing the transcendent/numinous etc in ways which are free of religious dogma baggage that impedes clarity. An analogy wud be talking about medical ailments in terms of possession by spirits- wud reza argue for the validity of this idea?
mutbutyt 7 months ago 2
but what has been causing the trouble is that the "experiences of transcendence" written in the scriptures have been put into laws in many societies. And because of that, it is affecting the society as a whole, such as a person who disagrees end up being punished or an individual is coerced to submit; It is because of this, there is only one thing to blame - the religion (faith) itself.
SEEANDPEA 7 months ago
but what has been causing the trouble is that the "experience of transcendence" written in the scriptures have been put into laws in many societies. And because of that, it is affecting the society as a whole, such as a person who disagrees end up being punished or an individual is coerced to submit; It is because of this, there is only one thing to blame - the religion (faith) itself.
SEEANDPEA 7 months ago
Science has no favorites. science could care less about evolution, or gravity, or the heliocentric theory. A claim is only as strong as its evidence. If evidence against the heliocentric theory arises that is verifiable and substantial and proves it to be false, then science will give a big fuck you to that theory and throw it in the bin. it doesn't care. its concern is with what's true. religion is the opposite, naturally, the anti-science. making claims and saying fuck you to the evidence.
millrice 7 months ago 2
Reza lost it at the end .. He's very well thought and spoken through out the debate but at the end when confronted with the hole scripture and science arguments, he just lost by not admiting AT ALL that the dogmatic aspect of current religions and way that they dictate people's lives and choices is a major problem. I believe is in fact the main problem !
- I was impressed by Reza for the first 4 parts.
- MAJOR thumb up for Sam Harris, Very impressive
= Exellent debate overall
Cheers
659851 7 months ago
we don't get rid of religion because of people like you reza
buffenbison 7 months ago
@buffenbison Agreed. Intelligent people with a sentimental (or whatever) attachment to a given religion look to people like Aslan, William Lane Craig, Dinesh D'souza etc. to justify their acceptance of dogmatic bullshit. The fact that they can't see what bullshit these people's defense of dogmatism are is a testament to the crippling affect religion has on (usually reasonable) people. It's sad.
JoshwithaJ 7 months ago
5:44-6:29... incredible...
JakeTheDisciple 7 months ago
I want to know what reza thinks about the future of fundamentalist in islam now that Bin Laden has be killed. He seems to be sympathetic towards jihadists and i would be interested to see if he still has the same opinions about Iraq as well.
jstratman68 8 months ago
@jstratman68 I think we need to listen to so called jihadists, just listen, that doesn't mean you agree with them.
Giagantus 3 months ago
gotta agree with everyone else here, reza was doing a lot of typical apologetics and runarounds with his responses, sam harris was a lot more direct and was able to counter and refute well to what reza said when he was allowed to do so
h1roshi918 8 months ago
I like Reza a lot, and I think that here in the debate of science v. religion he is out of his depth. That being said, I think Harris would be out of his depth in that area as well to be honest, but Reza is utterly utterly floundering here. His apologism here pisses me off.
StigRossi 8 months ago
7:35 - What is he waffling on about, he's just repeating himself. And he's not even making sense.
DUB8leA 8 months ago
Reza looks here like a bloviating idiot...
ppervy 9 months ago
Mystical scientists... LAWL
nastyjman 9 months ago
Another Islamic moron. Can't believe Reza says, science is all about facts and religion is all about truth. Huh? Come again! Who invited this confused idiot to a debate? He does not qualify.
roshmalai 9 months ago
"Science has a monopoly on facts but it does not have a monopoly on truth"...eh, what?
Hatetherapy 9 months ago 3
@Hatetherapy i said the exact same thing haha
ffgew22 8 months ago
We should all just follow Sam's suggestion on how to look at religious people like Reza. Look at them like they have lost their mind.
icemaneu 9 months ago
Proof of religion dumb your mind, just watch how Reza trying to justify his religious believes.
icemaneu 9 months ago
Proof of religion dumb your mind, just watch how Reze trying to justify his religious believes.
icemaneu 9 months ago
Reza did make some legitimate points when the discussion was about Muslim extremists vs. moderates but he is not at all convincing when claiming that science doesn't have a monopoly on describing reality and that it is merely one sort of "language" whereas religion is another. Hogwash. The explanations of religion are by and large the attempts by uninformed people to explain things they don't truly understand. This is why they are routinely CONTRADICTED by science. Reza is just plain wrong.
UnclePutin 9 months ago
What language is Reza talking about? Science and religion speak the same language? clearly a vague use of the term language, and even if it were true, they definitely have different interpretations about the world.
enfomy 9 months ago
I'm getting pissed off with modern apologists. They're so wrapped up in meta-sophistry and the meaning of meaning that they can't think straight. I'd much rather have a debate with Fred Phelps, because at the very least he's honest about what he believes.
I don't think even Aslan knows what he believes, except that he believes that what he believes is mostly good.
dorsk188 9 months ago
"science and theology are alternative modes of knowing"
now if that doesn't set some alarm bells off...
kantastisk 9 months ago
Religion is not "another way of knowing" as Reza put it. Religion is a way of brainwashing the world into unknowing the reality of the human struggle.
Any religious story is just that, a story. It is not based on fact, evidence, or scientific inquiry, and should not hold any weight in our understanding of life or the birth of the cosmos.
northoforacle 9 months ago
Comment removed
northoforacle 9 months ago
No person, agency, or group has a monopoly on facts or truth!
And neither does his invisible sky daddy.
Why does that cretin Reza WASTE EVERYONE'S TIME with this gibberish?
sejembalm 9 months ago
Aslan tries to defend religion by defining it as purely another "way of knowing the universe" but it is far from being only that. It doesnt try to know the universe, it CLAIMS to know the universe and that nobody should argue it. In what way exactly is that trying to know the universe? It limits any further inquiry, in this way it's the total opposite of science and not at all a parallel way to of learning about what's around us.
2CSST2 9 months ago
Wouldn't it be nice if Reza was right? if religion was just a game of expression? Isn't it wild that the apologists for faith, the only ones willing to take the stage in defense of the project, are practically atheists themselves? I couldn't sit in Sam's chair and exude such serenity in the face of calculating and whimsical obfuscation for a practice that actually motivates murder and suicide. His inner buddha is probably dying to strangle Reza, I know mine is.
Reerrpad5515 9 months ago
Religion is to Science what Baby Talk is to English
Setzer 10 months ago
What's Reza talking about? Science isn't just a new language, it's the most accurate language! H^2 O is not the same as saying that water is one of four Elements.
That the chemical processes of oxidation is the the same as the element of fire.
annata12 10 months ago
damned time constraint! exchanges like this are more useful than hearing Hitch flamboyantly destroy idiots like Boteach for 2 hours -- as fun as that can be. an oh can it be fun! but, enough of that junk food. more veggies please! Reza's right to caution against placing more blame on religion for mideast trouble than on the politics. but Reza, wtf with the suicide bombers? and Sam, i'll grant your pass on ambassadorship when you stop making so much work for them -- not that i want you to stop=)
shacoca 10 months ago
raza aslan just talks rubbish to burn up the time to stop harris talking- what an arsehole
ciroth22 10 months ago 2
sam harris feeling defensive at the end. he got owned!
JennaSmith987 10 months ago
@JennaSmith987
Is that the only reason you came to watch this, was to try to tease out a moment of "weakness" through your own viewing bias?
Binkyboy34 10 months ago
I'm so sick of creationists /religious people talking for stupid lengths of time, yet answering Fuck All; it's kind of insulting that they sell any books, let alone get places of power.
Rhoky 10 months ago 2
@SymmetricStrings
Touche.
l3lip 10 months ago
Reza went wrong when he implied that religion is a way of knowing, Religion can be considered a hypotesis that has never been put to the test. Religion could put under the scientific method, but people dont since it would fail. Science is self-correcting, Religion is self-asserting .
cuevasdecamuy 10 months ago
The comments on these videos are, for the most part, pathetic.
I side with Harris in this debate, as do most of you, but the reasons many of you side with Harris, as stated in this comment board, are just as dogmatic and dubious as one who would side with a religious authority.
Dogmatism is science is even more pathetic than dogmatism in religion. There is nothing wrong with saying "I don't know", and if you don't then acknowledge that and continue to educate yourself.
RJhasFLOW 11 months ago
@RJhasFLOW we're just stating that sam pwned reza. its nothing to do with science.
Drgamedood 10 months ago
@Drgamedood Perhaps you are, but many people posting on this video are simply band-wagoners. I completely support Sam in this argument, but you should at least understand a position before you support it.
RJhasFLOW 10 months ago
@RJhasFLOW I understand Sam's position completly. Reza's as well. Reza kept ignoring Sam's points and constantly said "its politics, not religion", even though sam points out that support for suicide bombing in the islamic world goes up when you correct for literacy. Reza also falsly states that alzawahiri became a jihadist after he was tortured.
Drgamedood 10 months ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
@Drgamedood "Perhaps you are..."
Yeah...
RJhasFLOW 10 months ago
Regardless if one uses the Language of Christianity, the language of Buddhism to contextualise it and understand it. Wtf is this guy on about, the Language of science is the only real way!
AdamDLDixon 11 months ago
The language of Christianity says nothing about the experience? Really Reza? This experience makes ME feel so good, and if you don't agree, you'll have to die. I think it says everything and defending these mutually incompatible claims is absurd on every level.
dwolfcoach 11 months ago
Has Reza deluded himself to the point where he can't see the difference between an explanation by scientific theory and by a faction of Islam?
l3lip 11 months ago 49
Debates are better without moderators who cut it short.
ReadingMostly 11 months ago
i'm sorry i can't take anyone who has the same name as a lion from narnia seriously!!!
alywilliams1985 1 year ago
Sam: "spiritual experiences are real"
Reza: "How can you say spiritual experiences aren't real?"
Sam: "I didn't--"
Mod: "lets move on"
Anyone else notice this?
Reerrpad5515 1 year ago 4
@Reerrpad5515 wait wuh? sam said they ARE real. why did reza claim he said the opposite?
ThatGuyWhoSucksBoobz 11 months ago
@ThatGuyWhoSucksBoobz Excellent question, glad I wasn't the only one to notice :)
Reerrpad5515 11 months ago
This Reza guy completely blew it with his hopelessly misguided notion of what science is.
Science is NOT a means of probing reality the way religion is; it is not a mode of telling people what to think. Science is a mechanism which allows different arguments with variable strengths of logic to weigh against one another in order to produce the one with the highest logical strength. Even that "best" argument is not irrefutable, and can be nullified in the face of evidence.
firefumedale 1 year ago 58
@firefumedale THANK YOU!
polix 11 months ago
@firefumedale
You have a gross misunderstanding of what he said. He never said it was, as you say, "a mode of telling people what to think". He states, as you've also stated, that science is a mechanism through which we can tangibly measure the strengths of particular phenomenons, and then also adds that such mechanisms do not take away from the reality of human experience. What's so misguided about that?
MrBeeflomein 8 months ago
@firefumedale
Reza just said that scientists are the ones who are attempting to describe reality in the 21st century, whereas to an extent it was prophets who did that thousands of years ago. Obviously the methods are different but he didn't exactly equate them did he.
StigRossi 8 months ago
@firefumedale great response
jstratman68 8 months ago
Oh boo ya! I wrote that comment before I heard sam harris respond. I also wrote that comment before seeing Raza's argument starting at 6:50, where he manages to logically destroy himself and render all of his previous points worthless within seconds. He knows this. You can hear it in his voice. Incredible.
JaredCS 1 year ago
Raza doesn't know what religion is. If religion "is the language that describes these experiences" then we know that science gives the most accurate description. "And that language will change...just as religion will change" .....yes, it will, when we finally get rid of religion and just use science. What the hell is this man arguing about? Why is he so confident. He's spinning in circles.
JaredCS 1 year ago
Reza seems to love agreeing with Sam...R
RayThaw 1 year ago
6:47 What a jackass, Fact and Truth are interchangeable. Very weak way to imply that religion is truth despite scientific lack of evidence. Religion remains rooted in just as wild a theory as the most OUT THERE metaphysics.
Fact : something that actually exists; reality; truth
Truth: conformity with fact or reality
TheKlownchez 1 year ago
i loved how respectful and kind harris and aslan were to each other, even when you could obviously tell they have differing views. this whole subject of religion usually brings such vehemence on the sides of both parties, and to see such well educated adults rationally and respectfully conversing on this subject is something i think we shouldn't take for granted. it is discourse like this that will advance our understanding on everyone's grounds.
John5000873 1 year ago
This was a very good debate until part 5. I think Reza dropped the ball. He lost me when he said. "I don't see how understanding how something works makes it any less real." when speaking about the transendence of religious individuals. It is the responsibility of theologists to bring to the discussion how science is wrong in its "interpretation" of the human condition, not science to bring itself into the vaccuum of certain religious dogma and explain itself from that perspective.
dashizzler 1 year ago
Sam usually points out that the problem is the sanctification and protection of religious, and therefore irrational, discourse. Religion per se isn't the source of the problem. It does, however, preclude moving towards a reasonable solution that most certainly has many complex human causes, as Raza points out.
But, again, the rational conversation cannot start until the stone age magical thinking is seen for what it is; irrelevant stories told by scared, ignorant ancestors.
jabiv25 1 year ago 2
The problem with religion is that it is an indiscriminate motivator of people both rich and poor. It is a mechanism or tool by which cultural institutions in power are able to breed ignorance in a way that reinforces their power.
The moderation of this debate was weak, Sam wasn't on his game, and Reza goes on and on with no point. Religion isn't the source of the problem. It is the sanctified means by which the problem is perpetuated.
jabiv25 1 year ago 2
Not a very strong debate on anyone's part...That woman's last question was actually one of the more salient points that I'm surprised Sam didn't capitalize on.
jabiv25 1 year ago
Sam is much weaker than Hitchens. Hitchens would argue that certain ideas, concepts, laws, and lines in these divine texts are inescapable. How can a religious Jew, Christian, or Muslim allow homosexuals to have sex or get married? Nothing to do with fundamentalists or aggressive fundamentalists... If you would like to do as Thomas Jefferson did and cut out most of the Bible and leave all that is moral and reasonable, then everyone would respect the religion a little more.
fndog 1 year ago
if Science is just Religion in a different language, what are we still doing with Religion? we all know that Medicine is better than Exorcism in treating ailments...and if that is the case, we might as well go with the one that actually works, which is science
pcbb01 1 year ago 2
I think Sam touched on something when he went into the Christian physics part of his rebuttal. There was no holy book that claimed to know everything about ancient physics, let alone modern physics. There was no scripture that explained how to produce automobiles and to develop the road and highway systems in which to travel on. There were no blue prints for air travel and the machines that would safely transport us from one part of the globe to the next.
Bytor963 1 year ago
All of these fields evolved from ideas in the realm of discovery that became mutually supported by scrutiny and application. We don’t navigate from charts from the dark or bronze ages anymore either, so why do we still subscribe to it’s philosophy? Couldn’t it, instead, be the Model A, or the Wright Brother’s plane, to evolve from? Why do we still have to make these ancient maps our today’s moral compass? Or were we all made to be like sheep and let our thinking to other’s?
Bytor963 1 year ago
You have to love apologists and their “reasoning”. He calls religion a language we use as a specie, to describe some type of “experience”, and he prophesise that this language will never die out. How ignorant and arrogant of him? Isn’t it lovely how confidently he speaks about religion as a constant variable. He ignores just how much we have changed, how much we changed the planet itself, our environment and our understanding for the past few millennia. Lunatic.
eldadevata 1 year ago 2
harris is saying that once you remove religious motivation for crimes, the criminals are no longer jihadists, martyrs, saints, heroes, crusaders, etc. they're just criminals
manonthemount 1 year ago
Reza might make more sense if he replaced the word religion with philosophy. We can probe the immaterial world through art, language, fiction and philosophy. There is no need to affirm unsubstantiated “truths” about the world and then impress them on others. Religion should be put to bed for good.
Bravowon 1 year ago 2
Reza says:"Nothing exists in reality that is not the sum of the these chemical experiences(Meaning the brain)."
That is absolutely wrong.
The Universe exists whether we exist or not.
Thats the problem with theists , they each think theyre the rightful owners of the universe.
Master8laster 1 year ago
"Science has defined as mystcism as A, B, and C in the brain...So? I don't see how understanding how something works--", Aslan gets cut off. This guy is an idiot. No one is disputing that these spiritual experience, or whatever you want to call them, are real. They are most certainly real, but it doesn't validate the religion they belong to. Aslan should take a science class.
rockos414 1 year ago
Aslan is not a complete moron. We cannot totally right off religion. It would be hard to justify existence, morality and goodness on a large scale if not for religion. The puzzle as with anything is finding a way to maintain a way to balance out its affects in our lives. I might be way out of of sorts in my ways of thinking.
bhriguaneja 1 year ago
Reza Aslan says that science is the "quite the opposite" to truth in this clip. Fail & False.
RipTheJackR 1 year ago
@ReductioAdAbsurdum
But Dawkins did not in any way address the same experience Sam was referring to which is a SPIRITUAL experience, which is not a result of beliefs that one holds but a result of a long, diligent and consistent practices of introspection like meditation or yoga. Spiritual experiences, that sufi poet rumi perhaps had, and the scientific explanation of hallucinations that Dawkins refers to are not referring the same experience.
unimind24 1 year ago
> the scientific explanation of hallucinations that Dawkins refers to are not referring the same experience
The point is that differing explanations for phenomena X are not equivalent just because they both refer to X. That's a complete non-sequitur. Reza is essentially appealing to emotion when he asserts that if you tell someone their *explanation* for an experience is not correct, that you're saying the experience is not 'legitimate'. "Who are you to say my experience wasn't real?"
ReductioAdAbsurdum 1 year ago
@ReductioAdAbsurdum
You are right that he is wrong when he said differing explanations to the same phenomena are equivalent. However, the confusion he had is that he thinks Dawkins was explaining spiritual experiences when in fact he was addressing hallucinations which are not in anyway the same phenomena.
unimind24 1 year ago
"the confusion he had is that he thinks Dawkins was explaining spiritual experiences when in fact he was addressing hallucinations which are not in anyway the same phenomena"
They are both subjective experiences. Both are subject to interpretation. People who interpret their hallucinations or spiritual experiences as evidence of gods/ghosts/aliens/etc. are very likely wrong, given the ease which which these experiences are produced *without* the need for external agency.
ReductioAdAbsurdum 1 year ago
You got one thing right, they are subjective experiences. But they are NOT the same. If you have read Sam Harris book, in the last chapter on Consciousness, he clearly elucidates the nature of spiritual experiences. If there is an experience that is truly scientific, then it MUST be replicable so that anyone who trains their mind can have that experience. Spiritual experiences are these experiences, everyone, given that they practice meditation, can have that experience.
unimind24 1 year ago
"You got one thing right, they are subjective experiences. But they are NOT the same."
I didn't say they were the SAME, so suggesting I didn't is either disingenuous or a reading malfunction. My point is that, for the purpose of this discussion -- distinguishing the legitimacy of an experience form the legitimacy of it's explanation -- it doesn't matter if we're talking about a spiritual experience or a stubbed toe.
ReductioAdAbsurdum 1 year ago
But you said since such experiences are subjective they can't in anyway be brought into discussion regarding the existence of god or a transcendent spirit b/c they are open to many interpretations. You have just displayed your naivety and ignorance. Spiritual experiences are not open to many interpretations, there is only one interpretation of it.
unimind24 1 year ago
"But you said since such experiences are subjective they can't in anyway be brought into discussion regarding the existence of god or a transcendent spirit b/c they are open to many interpretations."
I said no such thing.
"Spiritual experiences are not open to many interpretations, there is only one interpretation of it."
*rofl* Are you kidding? ALL phenomena is open to many interpretations, despite the fact that only ONE interpretation can actually be correct.
ReductioAdAbsurdum 1 year ago
Spiritual experiences are not produced with ease, it requires a high degree of clarity of mind, concentration, diligent practice of meditation. Spiritual experiences can be triggered through drugs, but they only give a temporary experience, the experience does not last forever.
unimind24 1 year ago
"Spiritual experiences are not produced with ease [..] spiritual experiences can be triggered through drugs"
Self-contradiction.
ReductioAdAbsurdum 1 year ago
And Since you are a 2nd grader in the subject of consciousness and spirituality, let me elucidate what I meant. Spiritual experiences are not easy to generate if you want to have a permanent experience of them, but you can still trigger them through drugs to have subtle glimpses of them only temporarily.
unimind24 1 year ago
Sam Harris actually states that the fact that such SE, since they are replic., should not be considered subjective they are rather empirical. If you know about spirituality when one breaks the identification with thought and sees thoughts as thoughts and do not identify themselves with it a great sense of relief is possible This is the beginning of realizing the illusion of reality (dualism) and to see everything in the universe as one So I don't completely agree that these are merely subjective
unimind24 1 year ago
"Sam Harris actually states that the fact that such SE, since they are replic.,? should not be considered subjective they are rather empirical."
*facepalm* I can only hope that you're misreading Sam Harris, as you've misread me, because that's retarded. The fact that I can replicate the experience of tasting ice cream doesn't mean that the experience is not subjective. Yes, all experience has an empirical component, in that it's ultimate source is a physical organ.
ReductioAdAbsurdum 1 year ago
Sam Harris does say it is empirical, meaning that meditation can be experimented with anyone's mind just as you would do experiments in labs. When you repeat the same science experiment, you will have the more-or-less the same results. The same thing in spirituality, when you break identification with thought a different kind of transcendent experience is possible in everyone who does it. That's what makes it empirical.
unimind24 1 year ago
> When you repeat the same science experiment, you will have the more-or-less the same results.
The fact that you can REPEAT the production of a SUBJECTIVE EXPERIENCE does not magically transform it into a NON-SUBJECTIVE EXPERIENCE. Subject meaning "internal, in one's mind", rather than external to one's self, directly available to an outside observer.
ReductioAdAbsurdum 1 year ago
The definition of Empirical: "Verifiable or provable by experience or experiment"
No one here claimed that the experience is TRANSFORMED into an empirical one, the experience in essence is always subjective but it does have empirical properties to it.
It was not an adhominem attack, it was an obvious truth you don't really know anything about spirituality.
unimind24 1 year ago
> And Since you are a 2nd grader in the subject of consciousness and spirituality
*lol* I'm sorry that you directly contradicted yourself in the public, but an ad hominem isn't going to make it go away.
> Spiritual experiences are not easy to generate if you want to have a permanent experience of them
Moving the goal post. Your original posts said, "Spiritual experiences are not produced with ease".
ReductioAdAbsurdum 1 year ago
Let me rephrase my point again, Spiritual Experiences are not produced with ease by the individual himself since it requires long periods of concentration, meditation and effort. It requires many years of training to have that permanent and ultimate experience.
unimind24 1 year ago
"Let me rephrase my point again, Spiritual Experiences are not produced with ease by the individual himself since it requires long periods [...]"
More accurate: "Let me change what I originally claimed. I said that Spiritual Experiences (which I capitalize because I'm a retard) are not produced with ease, then I contradicted myself by saying they are easily produced with drugs. What I SHOULD have said was that it's difficult to produce long last spiritual experiences without drugs."
ReductioAdAbsurdum 1 year ago
@ReductioAdAbsurdum
hmmm....I never changed what I originally claimed, since you are new in this subject, I had to rephrase my point so you could better understand. And You like to take unimportant elements in a debate and exaggerate them; elements that have no relevance to the actual topic, which was consciousness and empirical experience.
"Spoken like a true religious nutbag."
You proved my point.
unimind24 1 year ago
"I never changed what I originally claimed"
Sure you did.
YOU: "Spiritual experiences are not produced with ease"
Oh really?
YOU: "spiritual experiences can be triggered through drugs"
It doesn't get much easier, except perhaps magnets (Persinger). Very easy to 'trigger' or 'produce'. When I called you on this contradiction, you changed your statement to "Spiritual experiences are not easy to generate IF YOU WANT TO HAVE A PERMANENT EXPERIENCE", which is a *different claim. Backpeddle more.
ReductioAdAbsurdum 1 year ago
I'm amazed at your childish behavior, arguing over something so irrelevant to the topic at hand.
If you realli know spirituality, you would've already understood what I meant when I say SE's are not produced with ease. That fact that you didn't proves that you truly are ignorant on this subject. People who practice spirituality or understand the subject realli well do not engage too much in irrational religious activities and so by you calling me religious nutbag is an ad hominem attack.
unimind24 1 year ago
"I'm amazed at your childish behavior"
YOU: "Since you are a 2nd grader"
I haven't heard that since grade school. It really doesn't *get* more childish. Hypocrite much?
"If you realli know spirituality, you would've already understood what I meant"
Yet ANOTHER shifting of the goal posts. Now I should have just *known* what you meant. After all, you were perfectly clear, right? Never mind that you contradicted yourself in the space of a single paragraph.
ReductioAdAbsurdum 1 year ago
@ReductioAdAbsurdum He's not contradicting himself. Lets move away from spirituality for a moment as you seem to have an issue with the subject. Imagine unimind24 said:
1) Gaining big muscles in the gym is not produced with ease.
2) Big muscles can be triggered by taking drugs.
There is no contradiction whatsoever. The natural way is the hard way, and the cheat way is the easy way. That's basically all he's saying.
StevenMorello 9 months ago
> There is no contradiction whatsoever. The natural way is the hard way, and the cheat way is the easy way.
The contradiction exists when you're claiming that the experience is not produced by the body, but in fact represents evidence that you're in contact with an external magic realm. My point is that FEELING this is the case isn't evidence; we can turn that FEELING on and off at will by stimulating your neurons magnetically or chemically.
ReductioAdAbsurdum 9 months ago
"You proved my point."
That you're a fanatical ideologue? Agreed. Phrases like "obvious truth" and "you don't really know anything about spirituality" are the stock and trade of religious nutbags.
ReductioAdAbsurdum 1 year ago
@ReductioAdAbsurdum
The fact that you already presupposing that subjective experiences are not a testimony to the existence of supernatural proves that you are even a bigger nutbag than others like muslim fundamentalists
unimind24 1 year ago
> The fact that you already presupposing that subjective experiences are not a testimony to the existence of supernatural
*lol* You ARE a religious nutbag.
The word "supernatural" literally means "beyond nature", it is *defined* as something that violates physical law.
If someone claims to have made a perpetual motion machine, I *presuppose* that they are wrong until contrary evidence is presented, because such a machine defies the first and/or second laws of thermodynamics laws.
ReductioAdAbsurdum 1 year ago