Sam Harris On Religious Beliefs And The Future Of Reason

[iSmkoeBluntsToMyFace]

Out of all of the brilliant minds who teach about rationality and reason, I think Sam might be my absolute favorite. Dawkins, Dennet, Hitchens, they are all fantastic- but Sam can articulate the most difficult topics, that seem pretty much ineffable before you hear him. He has me saying "I always thought that, but could never come close to putting it into words." I wonder what he thinks about Wittgenstein's theories on language. If I ever go to a book signing, that is what I would ask him.

[1989Zachyo]

I wonder why isn't the debate still over?

[Battery9876]

@1989Zachyo because of human stupidity...

[xephyr1000]

Sam is always awesome!

[ericleb01]

@muhammadfuckedAkid You aren't taking into account the fact that galaxies take a long time to form. We may be late, or we may be early; it depends on whether or not other civilisations have evolved as fast as we have. Not on the age of the universe (as we have no idea what truly is "late" or "early").

[ChaoticChris5150]

@muhammadfuckedAkid Yeah seriously! Harris, HItchen, and Dawkins! TOp3 for sure! :D

[clandestine6760]

I've listened to Sam Harris a little. I'm a Buddhist, and know through my own experience, that the root of all spiritual paths is faith. The more I develop my cocentration, when I generate a state of mind of faith, in a spiritual guide, Buddha, God, whatever word we want to call it, I experience a peace and happiness that I can't match anywhere else. Religion is a personal experience - transcendental to ordinary experience, which is where scientific enquiry functions.

[qaplatlhinganmaH]

American Christians seem to be completely unaware of the degree to which Christians in Germany threw their support behind Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party. If they did, they might be less likely to pretend that the crimes of Hitler and the Nazis can be traced to atheism or secularism.

[qaplatlhinganmaH]

The Nazis and Adolf Hitler are commonly thought of as representing the antithesis of Christianity and Christian values. If that's true, why did tens of millions of German Christians adore Hitler, join the Nazis, and participate in the Holocaust (among other atrocities)? Hitler and the Nazis promoted a Christian nationalism, anti-communism, anti-Semitism, and return to traditional values which most Christians appreciated. The Nazi party platform specifically endorsed 'positive' Christianity.

[qaplatlhinganmaH]

I believe today that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator.

- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1 Chapter 2

[qaplatlhinganmaH]

"In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might ... the fact that it was for this that He had to shed his blood upon the Cross."

ADOLF HITLER

[tarasan1]

It would always be disagreeable for me to go down to posterity as a man who made concessions in this field. I realize that man, in his imperfection, can commit innumerable errors-- but to devote myself deliberately to errors, that is something I cannot do. I shall never come personally to terms with the Christian lie. Our epoch Uin the next 200 yearse will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity.... My regret will have been that I couldn't... behold ." (p 278)

[tarasan1]

The book Hitler's Secret Conversations 1941-1944 published by Farrar, Straus and Young, Inc.first edition, 1953, contians these quotes of what he actually thought.

Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure. (p 43)

[Pokarot]

@tarasan1 You should look up positive christianity. Positive christianity is Hitler's version of christianity, big problem he had with the 'original' (It's hard to call it original without cringing) christianity was that jesus was jewish, also jewish people being god's favourites didn't sit too well with him.

[qaplatlhinganmaH]

Secular schools can never be tolerated because such schools have no religious instruction, and a general moral instruction without a religious foundation is built on air; consequently, all character training and religion must be derived from faith ...we need believing people.

- Adolf Hitler, April 26, 1933, speech made during negotiations leading to the Nazi-Vatican Concordant

[tarasan1]

@qaplatlhinganmaH so how do you explain teh cult that Hitler made? the only reason that he said those things was because he needed the catholic churches backing to properly Control germany is was a tactical move saying that if the Church stayed out of the Nazi's way they would stay out of theres, of course this agreement was breeched multiple times, from both sides as any research of any kind will tell you.

[qaplatlhinganmaH]

Hitler and the Nazis are often cited as an example of the horrible crimes which atheists have committed in the 20th century. They are only assumed to be atheists, though, because people can't imagine Christians doing such things; in reality, Hitler explicitly appealed to Christianity on a regular basis and this was part of why he was popular. Not every Christian supported the Nazis, of course, but he was most popular with conservative Christians seeking a restoration of traditional values.

[qaplatlhinganmaH]

"In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was his fight against the Jewish poison. Today, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed his blood upon the Cross." Adolf Hitler

[DILLIGAFFUM]

who quotes hitler?

[817joel]

If you want to follow a man, follow this man Jesus Christ. He is the only one who can save you. Repent and believe the gospel and be saved.

[Baal1985]

That is your interpretation.

Dont you think Jesus would prefer an honest man who has been a good person, taking care of the sick, feed the hungry, clothed the naked (Matt 25,45-46) and less if he was an atheist or belonged to another religion?

Unless you shall believe in Romans 3,27 "No, because our acquittal is not based on denying the law. It is based on faith." Or is it a mix of both like in Mark 12,28-31?

Point the bibel is inconsistent how to be saved. I take reason:)

[nyarltep]

jesusneverexisted(dot)com

godisimaginary(dot)com

whywontgodhealamputees(dot)com­

[Anastasius37]

well... if everyone believed in Jesus without all the bullshit, this world would be a better place, everyone being pacifists and what not, Jesus's teachings were incredible wise, the problem is all the bullshit in the bible.

[ericleb01]

@Anastasius37 Jesus said nothing we already new. And you can't cherry-pick what is and what is bullshit: if one thing is bullshit, there are high chances the rest is as well, even more so if the grand majority is bullshit.

And there is absolutely no proof Jesus ever existed.

[Anastasius37]

@ericleb01 of course you can cherry pick. I can take anything I like from Jesus or anyone else I run across I happen to agree with. "Jesus said nothing we already new. " you mean "said nothing we already didn't know"? right? Secondly seriously come on. So you're saying that a book is either all lies or truth? That's not even true, you cannot infer that the rest is lies, it discredits the source somewhat, but you can't just assume it is.

[ericleb01]

@Anastasius37 No, you CAN'T cherry pick. I can find the verse in the Bible which tells you that the word of god is perfect and cannot be changed. I can also find the verse which tells you that disobeying said word is punishable by being forbidden to enter the gates of heaven. Just ask (I don't feel like looking for it, but I'll get it if you want.)

And pointing out to a French native his grammar faults doesn't make you look any smarter.

[Anastasius37]

@ericleb01 I was just asking what you meant, that's all. There is no logic behind "you can't cherry pick" if I never claimed to say I take the word of the Bible as all true or something like that.

If you read a book, any book, it is arbitrary, you can take what you like and leave it unless you claim this book as "the word or God" or anything of that sort. I am an atheist and I respect some of Jesus teachings. btw, I really don't feel a need to prove my intelligence on the internet.

[ericleb01]

@Anastasius37 I'm just saying that Jesus' teachings are meaningless if you already have those morals instilled upon you by your parents, and the fact he never existed (because, again, there is no proof of his existence).

[Anastasius37]

@ericleb01 that's faulty logic again...just b.c there is no proof doesn't mean he doesn't exist...you can't know a negative. we can know something is false, just like you cannot know God doesn't exist b.c we have no way to confirming or denying it.

[ericleb01]

@Anastasius37 Ugh. If you go to a courtroom, they won't convict you of being guilty of something until you prove yourself innocent. You are innocent until proven guilty.

Jesus doesn't exist until he is proven to be.

[Anastasius37]

@ericleb01 of course...but law isn't an appropriate analogy. In the realm of things that are out of our knowledge like unicorns, etc. we say we are agnostic, we don't assume those things exist or don't we don't know. I don't think God exists or that Jesus exists because their isn't enough evidence, but you can never know b.c it took place a long time ago and we can't test it. we don't know, that's all you can conclude. it is useless to speculating, Jesus exist is irrelevant anyway.

[ericleb01]

@Anastasius37 The analogy is the simplest way to put it. I could also tell you that the Loch Ness monster is false until proven true. Same for unicorns. Because if agnosticism became the default position in everything, then I could just say that the Flying Spaghetti Monster has a chance of existing, because he cannot be disproved (of course, we know he's fake.)

[ericleb01]

@Anastasius37 Of course we can't know something like this for sure, but the probabilities can tell us the likelihood of such a thing: in my mind, god is so improbable that I consider myself someone who KNOWS god doesn't exist. But, I know that, because it's unfalsifiable, there is automatically a small chance.

I was just pointing out Jesus' existence because I thought you were following his teachings. And I'm sorry for making my posts seem arrogant; that's not really like me.

[Anastasius37]

@ericleb01 np man. Yeh I know, but I never rule it out or say that because many people define God in such a loose way it could exist when they say "a higher power" that could be almost anything. Obviously the fundamentalist Christian or Muslim view of God is so improbably it isn't worth considering.

[ChaoticChris5150]

@Anastasius37 Loved the convo guys :) I love seeing people have constructive conversations. Youtube is normally only full of people fighting. lol

[Anastasius37]

@ChaoticChris5150 Heh, I do enough fighting in real life as is...I rather not burn bridges with random people on the internet.

[kalcaron]

Saved from what?

Jesus and God are arseholes. I never asked to be born, I never asked to be a "sinner" You beleive it was was God's choice to make me, so why the fuck should I be punished for his bullshit?

And love and worship him or burn in hell forever? That has got to be the cruelest bribe EVER to be imagined. Why love something that will torture you forever if you don't?

I'm glad God is not real, and even if he was, I'd spit in his face.

[NowisEvollovetion]

Existence or what I am percieving, is nothing more than a physical representation/manifestation of both the TRUTH of I/ME combined with the IGNORANCE within my mind.

I (the lLIGHT of) LIFE (the TRUTH) enter into this body, pass through the IGNORANCE which is MY-SELF/MIND, shining out through the eyes onto the INTELLECT.

What is PROJECTED out onto the intellect, is then reflected back through the SENSE aparatus, AS THE SENSABLE EARTH/NATURE (the TRUE bit), WORLD (the FALSE/IGNORANCE BIT) .

[NowisEvollovetion]

It is only by cleansing the mind of the IGNORANCE/SELF-ISHNESS gathered during any lifetime, that the PROJECTED manifestation (the EARTH/WORLD) begins to change.

As changes occurs on the inside (in the MIND) so EXISTENCE mirrors (reflects off the intellect, which is absolutely reflective) that change.

As in the making of any film/story, there are always MIS-TAKES.

Although we all get there in the END.

Cheers.

[NowisEvollovetion]

I am now looking at how the SUB-conscious mind, gives SUB-stance to existence/matter.

Or does that really MATTER.

[jeremyemilio]

"I think therefore I am."

I challenge anyone to move beyond this statement absent a leap of faith.

ALL knowledge is belief. Stop being so smug.

[coRnflEks]

You think therefore you think..

Does a stone stop existing because it cannot think?

It's a statement that sounds profound and is indeed a basis for certain philosophical directions. However, such discussions soon becomes so unclear and unfounded in reality that we have to differenciate between what is important and pratical and what is speculation.

We all use reason for our everyday lives but somehow some suspend it when talking about the bigger issues. This needs to stop.

[jeremyemilio]

The point is that we have no idea whether the stone exists or not. It takes a leap of faith (in our own senses) to say the stone exists. This doesn't seem like a big leap at first, but it is. Perception is tricky. For example, there are plenty of people out there who have "seen" aliens, but that doesn't mean they exist. Likewise, there are a lot of known chemicals that throw off our perceptions. What we don't know is if the "natural" chemical makeup of the brain does this as well.

[xXAkridXx]

Knowledge is based on what is useful. of-course nothing can be known absolutely, but things with a very high probability we assume to know because it's useful to have a set of objective knowledge based on our subjective experiences, just like we make sets of objective morality based on our subjective views.

[jeremyemilio]

Except that probability is a farce. Statistical theory dictates that the smaller the sample size, the less useful the data. Empiricists create the illusion of "probability" by refusing to acknowledge the insignificance of the sample sizes with which they are dealing (in relation to an all but infinite universe). Add in the fact that probability fails to anticipate "black swan" events and you are back to a very standard faith position.

[xXAkridXx]

Absolutely not. While the degree of what probability must be to be considered a "know" may be arbitrary, it still proves it self to be useful.

By abolishing the false idea of absolute knowledge Empiricists actually leave room open for the "Black Swans".

Empiricists do not use faith because they do not claim to know anything absolutely.

Knowledge and believe are kept separate.

Probability is just a tool for determining what is what.

[jeremyemilio]

What I'm saying is that the sense of probability produced by empirical experimentation is an illusion, outside of certain fields of medicine and biology where there is a fixed and comprehensible statistical base (the population of American women over forty, for instance). Experimentation done on things like atoms, or phenomena like falling, gives us such a minute sampling of the greater whole (the number of atoms, or the amount of matter being pulled by gravity) as to be statistically useless.

[xXAkridXx]

No data is 100% knowable. The best is 99.9999->% never 100.

I don't see how it being an illusion is relevant to anything when it is still useful in determining fact from fiction.

[jeremyemilio]

You should reread your own post. First, if nothing is 100% knowable, then there is no way to determine fact from fiction. Second, when you're talking about phenomena that occurs throughout the universe in numbers too large to even conceive, probability calculated through experimentation on a few hundred or a few thousand samples comes no where near 99.9999%. It's more like 0.0000000000000000000000000000­000000000000000000000000000

[xXAkridXx]

"f nothing is 100% knowable, then there is no way to determine fact from fiction."

*Facepalm.... No. there is no way to determine anything 100%, that all it means. We always leave out the smallest possibility that we may be wrong. Because all knowledge boils down to subjective experiences.

Also I think you missed my 99.999.. point, I was using that as an example of the highest probability we can attribute to anything.

[NowisEvollovetion]

Your statement is incorrect, it ought to be,

"I think, I think therefore I think I am"

So you think, ALL the thinking that is being created in your mind, is being created by you?

Well I challenge you to make it STOP, for ten little minutes.

TRY.

It stands to reason for ME, that if I am unable to make it (the thinking) stop, it CANNOT be ME that is creating it.

The THINKING you are observing is NOT the TRUTH.

The 'OBSERVER' that is SEEING the THINKING is the TRUTH.

LOOK

[jeremyemilio]

Nice. Or as Lewis Carroll puts it:

'I AM real!' said Alice and began to cry.

'You won't make yourself a bit realler by crying,' Tweedledee remarked: 'there's nothing to cry about.'

'If I wasn't real,' Alice said - half-laughing though her tears, it all seemed so ridiculous - 'I shouldn't be able to cry.'

'I hope you don't suppose those are real tears?' Tweedledum interrupted in a tone of great contempt.

[NowisEvollovetion]

So,

HOW DEEP DOES THE RABBIT HOLE GO THEN?

Is it all an illusion?

Best wishes

[jeremyemilio]

Ahhh... that's the perpetual question. It's also a question most people simply refuse to ask. Here's one a bit more difficult for even the most hard core empiricist to dismiss:

It may not ALL be an illusion, but we can assume that at least SOME of it is an illusion. So how much? And if an indeterminate amount of it is real and an indeterminate amount is illusory, how do we tell which is which? And how do we know we're not privileging the illusion at the expense of the real?

[raithrover1976]

90 percent of Americans believe in a personal god? I knew the USA was quite religious, but was shocked it was so high.

[tiberux]

VERY WELL SAID, indeed it is reason that's the end game.

[rikestard]

so basically he is saying that almost half of this shitty country are creationist morons.

[McDolphins13]

I heard of Sam Harris on a local radio show promoting his book ,a few years ago. I listened to his logic and decided to buy it. It is a great book and I do recommend it to everyone.

[lucasisking]

Noone is more eloquent and persuasive than Sam Harris. He is a poster boy for reason, logic and pure common sense. America needs more like him. Thanks for sharing.

[Hooya2]

If you liked that, do a search on Youtube for Sam Harris SALT. Trust me, it will be worth the effort =)

[benjaminXXII]

yeah thats an awesome one, nice and long too.