Cont: "so that you can say like "because I knew my gay son was going to go to Hell, if he found a boyfriend, I chopped his head off, and that was the most compassionate thing I can do". If you get all those parts aligned, yes, I think you could probably be feeling the emotion of love, but again, then we have to talk about well being in a larger context, you know, it's all of us in this together, it's not one man feeling ecstasy and then blowing himself up on a bus."
@Valelacerte The self developments contemplated by the 8-fold path and the Four Noble Truths are not instantaneous. Compassion requires being able to enter deeply into the reality of the consciousness of another person, including an understanding that would not call their "belief" system delusional. This compassion requires a lot of discipline of the mind, the details of which are far to vast than can be gone into here in this type of communication.
@joel232001 I stayed at Plum Village, Thich Nhat Hanh's retreat, for a month, so I understand a bit about the teachings. I can understand how immovable Harris' response appears in this context. Would you say that, for instance, this fictitious father's beliefs and actions are rooted in claims that can be true or false? I guess I'm wondering whether it's Harris' emotional response to the subject's actions that bothers you rather than his attempt to establish a rational, logical explanation for it
@Valelacerte the idea "claims that can be true or false" is 1) a Western cultural artifact; 2) an importation of a truth value into a context where it has little meaning (no one there is asking that question); 3) a poor question in the context if one is seeking to act out of compassion or love (it doesn't help those it is asked); 4 contains a hidden and unacknowledged set of assumptions, many of which are debated even in the West as regards how we go about seeking the truth. 5) & is judgmental
@joel232001 1) Do you mean that it's "a Western cultural artifact" because it's boolean and doesn't allow for variations and exceptions, or that there is no method to determine truth or falsehood? 2) That a person may not like or understand a conclusion does not make it false 3) One can understand something without agreeing with, or supporting, it, and one can be benefited by something one doesn't agree with or understand 4) What are these assumptions? 5) Yes, a judgement of one man.
@Valelacerte Members of Western culture make all kinds of assumptions about the nature of the inner life of other peoples - we think its all the same, and that the meaning of words and concepts can be easily conveyed from one place to another. What a statement in a religion in a different culture means there is not necessarily a "claim", to which we can even ask if it is true or false. That belief that we can ask such a question and have it mean something elsewhere is our bias in action.
@joel232001 If people from diverse cultures can communicate, understand, and collaborate within science, why not other ideas and values? Is there a particular culture you have in mind when you suggest an irreconcilable chasm of understanding with the West?
@Valelacerte The international community of scientists has the appearance of a shared paradigm, but at the edges, where what is studied is (shall we say) soft sciences instead of hard (psychology and history instead of physics and chemistry), the paradigms are no longer shared. Move further away from science, and into Art and Religion, and the differences are enormous. People the world over are not the same inwardly, and the evidence for this is there for anyone who wants to look for it.
@joel232001 Well, that makes sense: the more one moves towards subject matter that is harder to measure empirically, the more the mind interprets and overlays its own bias. Einstein's brilliance was surely as much to do with his imagination and intuition while shaving, as it was his disciplined and had work defining his ideas mathematically, but I doubt he would have been scientifically foundational had he not provided a model and data for others to replicate and verify.
@Valelacerte In these situations the mind doesn't just "overlay its own bias", it uses different faculties that are a better means. Each subject of knowledge has (as it were) its own aspect of the mind to which its meaning is most apparent. Where the paradigm of scientific materialism (all is matter, there is no spirit) does not dominate human thinking, reason alone no longer is central. See my essay at: ipwebdev.com/hermit/tidom.html
@Valelacerte I wouldn't define it at all. I'd say look at this experience that you have, and that you pretty much know everyone else has. Then I say do this looking carefully, because we have lot of experiences, and the experience of our spirit needs to be differentiated from other experiences. The same with soul. Oversimplification Soul is the content of consciousness including the unconsciousness. Spirit is that which experiences this content and can act within it. Oversimplification
@joel232001 When you say "scientific materialism (all is matter, there is no spirit) ", I would say that science recognises both matter and energy. Is "spirit" electrical signals within the brain? Do you think that our ability to observe our own thoughts is evidence for, for want of a better word, stuff that represents our essence, is unknown by the scientific community, and is not contained by our physical brain?
@Valelacerte Your questions are apt, but the reply is too big for this medium. Nor I am the only one with thinking and experience in this realm. There are many, including many practicing scientists. Matter and energy are thought to be the same thing - one changeable into the other. Spirit is something quite different and distinct.
@DoubtingThomas666 Why? Will there be something new, or something that speaks to what I said and wrote? The fundamental questions that the New Atheists address are not new. They are often just more judgmental of others than usual - more unable to "see" the human condition, or its implications according the science of epistemology. I am not surprised that people reject fundamentalist religion of any kind. That rejection, however, does not deal with the real questions of the existence of God
@joel232001 Why would Atheism attempt to "deal with the real questions of the existence of God " when it is the rejection of claims of, and supernatural explanations for, the existence of the Universe and life? There is nothing to deal with, other than bare assertions that consciousness can exist without matter and energy.
@Valelacerte The problem is that the noisy folk get the most attention, and the serious thinkers get ignored. In places where these matters are carefully argued the situation is quite different, although the relevant literature is not simple, and requires more effort than most readers are willing to give. To fully deal with it in modern terms means reading many books, not just a few paragraphs. Start by reading this essay: "Dogma and Doubt" by Ron Brady (free if you google it).
@joel232001 My experience of some "serious thinkers" is that they are ignored or obscure because their method of communication is dense and nebulous. They have contempt for those that don't appreciate their work and develop an Undiscovered Genius Syndrome rather than, like Richard Feynman, find simpler ways to convey their ideas. I scanned through "Dogma and Doubt", then looked at other books from The Nature Institute and they smell of ID/Creationism/Theistic Evolution.
@Valelacerte It is possible to be extremely lazy, and think knowledge should come wrapped up in a cardboard McDonald's box. Go for it that is your taste. Reality is very complicated and your bias is a good example of the beam in your own mind's eye - you assume the Nature Institute is creationism, when it is in fact some of the best science on the planet. When you don't want to be lazy anymore, read there: "Making the Genome Whole"
@joel232001 OK, I'll suspend my initial thoughts about this institute and have a deeper look. In my opinion, certain religious parties have become extremely devious about inserting their god, as an assumption, into science, hence I have a knee jerk reaction to hints of spirituality mixed with science. However, accusations of laziness are poor; I am not the fast-food-don't-know-they're-born-generation. Perhaps your perception of my bias is the beam in your mind's eye, or are you above that?
@Valelacerte No, I'm not above that, and in fact more or less assume that in this venue it is almost impossible to make accurate judgments about who is the real person on the other end of a bunch of words on a page. Best I can do is poke a stick at you and see what turns up at the other end of this means of communication. All the same, seems to me like you assumed a lot of stuff you didn't have to assume, especially about the folks at The Nature Institute (and of course me as well).
@joel232001 I apologise. I saw "the coming metamorphosis of Christianity", watched your three-part, disparaging video on Harris, saw a book cover on The Nature Institute appearing to question Evolution's part in the form of the giraffe, and I assumed this was more back door Creationism, a dark force on YouTube.
What is "the coming metamorphosis of Christianity" about? I also didn't understand why Harris is a hypocrite in relation to the First Noble Truth, if that was what you meant.
@Valelacerte to deal, in detail, with "the coming metamorphosis" you need a lot of preliminary ideas, such as "the evolution of consciousness" (see my book "the Way of the Fool") ... as to Harris, that's because he dissed the guy who might kill his daughter because she was raped, and when asked at the end by the "moderator'' about having more empathy he declined - which means he has no compassion for the suffering of others, and probably no perception of it either
@joel232001 So, in the case of a father killing his daughter because she was raped, the suffering that Harris has no perception of is the father's belief that his daughter's loss of virginity brings such shame on the family that her life should be sacrificed for their reputation?
@joel232001 I totally reject is the idea that if there is a god it has to be the Christian god and the bible is his word. This is a non sequitur. We can say that the universe looks designed and maybe there is a designer (god) but that does not follow the apologists reasoning that this god is Jesus.
@DoubtingThomas666 Good for you. But you need to understand that I didn't do the Harris videos to speak to people of your persuasion. That would involve a whole other kind of approach. You should pay particular attention to how much of what you think I said comes from the assumptions you have about these matters. Most of those who write about Mithras etc. are doing superficial research oriented to supporting their already existing biases. Read Owen
@joel232001 Study ancient religions and the myths of the past and you will soon realize the connections they share. Read about Mithras and how the story of Jesus mirrors this god. The countless intersection of these myths is evidence they are of the human mind and nothing else.
Your thinking, like all apologists, is skewed. You most certainly don’t understand the real world that we live. The scientific method is the only way to the truth not some bronze age scribbling. Grow up old man!
@DoubtingThomas666 Actually, for someone thinking they are scientific, you've done a poor job of paying attention to what I said. All you really did was dis it, but if you were really interested in these questions you would have dealt with the underlying argument, rather than just put forward conclusions and make quick judgments. I probably know a great deal more about science than you do, by the way. Next time you want to engage me, speak to the issues raised instead of just venting.
Typical
BuildSC 1 year ago
@BuildSC ditto
joel232001 1 year ago
Sam Harris: "… do people love their daughters just as much in these systems? And I think there are clearly right answers to that."
Moderator: "And if the results come out that actually they do, are you prepared to shift your instinctive, current judgement on some of these issues?"
Sam Harris: "Well yeah, modulo one obvious fact that you can love someone in the context of a truly delusional belief system,
Valelacerte 1 year ago
Cont: "so that you can say like "because I knew my gay son was going to go to Hell, if he found a boyfriend, I chopped his head off, and that was the most compassionate thing I can do". If you get all those parts aligned, yes, I think you could probably be feeling the emotion of love, but again, then we have to talk about well being in a larger context, you know, it's all of us in this together, it's not one man feeling ecstasy and then blowing himself up on a bus."
Valelacerte 1 year ago
@Valelacerte The self developments contemplated by the 8-fold path and the Four Noble Truths are not instantaneous. Compassion requires being able to enter deeply into the reality of the consciousness of another person, including an understanding that would not call their "belief" system delusional. This compassion requires a lot of discipline of the mind, the details of which are far to vast than can be gone into here in this type of communication.
joel232001 1 year ago
@joel232001 I stayed at Plum Village, Thich Nhat Hanh's retreat, for a month, so I understand a bit about the teachings. I can understand how immovable Harris' response appears in this context. Would you say that, for instance, this fictitious father's beliefs and actions are rooted in claims that can be true or false? I guess I'm wondering whether it's Harris' emotional response to the subject's actions that bothers you rather than his attempt to establish a rational, logical explanation for it
Valelacerte 1 year ago
@Valelacerte the idea "claims that can be true or false" is 1) a Western cultural artifact; 2) an importation of a truth value into a context where it has little meaning (no one there is asking that question); 3) a poor question in the context if one is seeking to act out of compassion or love (it doesn't help those it is asked); 4 contains a hidden and unacknowledged set of assumptions, many of which are debated even in the West as regards how we go about seeking the truth. 5) & is judgmental
joel232001 1 year ago
@joel232001 1) Do you mean that it's "a Western cultural artifact" because it's boolean and doesn't allow for variations and exceptions, or that there is no method to determine truth or falsehood? 2) That a person may not like or understand a conclusion does not make it false 3) One can understand something without agreeing with, or supporting, it, and one can be benefited by something one doesn't agree with or understand 4) What are these assumptions? 5) Yes, a judgement of one man.
Valelacerte 1 year ago
Incidentally, if you get bored of this exchange, please say so, I won't take it as some teenage victory; we all have things to do :)
Valelacerte 1 year ago
@Valelacerte Members of Western culture make all kinds of assumptions about the nature of the inner life of other peoples - we think its all the same, and that the meaning of words and concepts can be easily conveyed from one place to another. What a statement in a religion in a different culture means there is not necessarily a "claim", to which we can even ask if it is true or false. That belief that we can ask such a question and have it mean something elsewhere is our bias in action.
joel232001 1 year ago
@joel232001 If people from diverse cultures can communicate, understand, and collaborate within science, why not other ideas and values? Is there a particular culture you have in mind when you suggest an irreconcilable chasm of understanding with the West?
Valelacerte 1 year ago
@Valelacerte The international community of scientists has the appearance of a shared paradigm, but at the edges, where what is studied is (shall we say) soft sciences instead of hard (psychology and history instead of physics and chemistry), the paradigms are no longer shared. Move further away from science, and into Art and Religion, and the differences are enormous. People the world over are not the same inwardly, and the evidence for this is there for anyone who wants to look for it.
joel232001 1 year ago
@joel232001 Well, that makes sense: the more one moves towards subject matter that is harder to measure empirically, the more the mind interprets and overlays its own bias. Einstein's brilliance was surely as much to do with his imagination and intuition while shaving, as it was his disciplined and had work defining his ideas mathematically, but I doubt he would have been scientifically foundational had he not provided a model and data for others to replicate and verify.
Valelacerte 1 year ago
@Valelacerte In these situations the mind doesn't just "overlay its own bias", it uses different faculties that are a better means. Each subject of knowledge has (as it were) its own aspect of the mind to which its meaning is most apparent. Where the paradigm of scientific materialism (all is matter, there is no spirit) does not dominate human thinking, reason alone no longer is central. See my essay at: ipwebdev.com/hermit/tidom.html
joel232001 1 year ago
@joel232001 How do you define "spirit"?
Valelacerte 1 year ago
More specifically, do you believe that part of our consciousness/mind/essence resides outside of our physical body?
Valelacerte 1 year ago
@Valelacerte I wouldn't define it at all. I'd say look at this experience that you have, and that you pretty much know everyone else has. Then I say do this looking carefully, because we have lot of experiences, and the experience of our spirit needs to be differentiated from other experiences. The same with soul. Oversimplification Soul is the content of consciousness including the unconsciousness. Spirit is that which experiences this content and can act within it. Oversimplification
joel232001 1 year ago
@joel232001 When you say "scientific materialism (all is matter, there is no spirit) ", I would say that science recognises both matter and energy. Is "spirit" electrical signals within the brain? Do you think that our ability to observe our own thoughts is evidence for, for want of a better word, stuff that represents our essence, is unknown by the scientific community, and is not contained by our physical brain?
Valelacerte 1 year ago
@Valelacerte Your questions are apt, but the reply is too big for this medium. Nor I am the only one with thinking and experience in this realm. There are many, including many practicing scientists. Matter and energy are thought to be the same thing - one changeable into the other. Spirit is something quite different and distinct.
joel232001 1 year ago
@joel232001 Yes, I've probably quizzed you enough. Thanks for the chat; I appreciate your responses. Good health and prolific writing to you.
Valelacerte 1 year ago
@Valelacerte thanks, good luck on your journey as well ...
joel232001 1 year ago
Take a look at this channel.
TheThinkingAtheist
DoubtingThomas666 1 year ago
@DoubtingThomas666 Why? Will there be something new, or something that speaks to what I said and wrote? The fundamental questions that the New Atheists address are not new. They are often just more judgmental of others than usual - more unable to "see" the human condition, or its implications according the science of epistemology. I am not surprised that people reject fundamentalist religion of any kind. That rejection, however, does not deal with the real questions of the existence of God
joel232001 1 year ago
@joel232001 Why would Atheism attempt to "deal with the real questions of the existence of God " when it is the rejection of claims of, and supernatural explanations for, the existence of the Universe and life? There is nothing to deal with, other than bare assertions that consciousness can exist without matter and energy.
Valelacerte 1 year ago
@Valelacerte The problem is that the noisy folk get the most attention, and the serious thinkers get ignored. In places where these matters are carefully argued the situation is quite different, although the relevant literature is not simple, and requires more effort than most readers are willing to give. To fully deal with it in modern terms means reading many books, not just a few paragraphs. Start by reading this essay: "Dogma and Doubt" by Ron Brady (free if you google it).
joel232001 1 year ago
@joel232001 My experience of some "serious thinkers" is that they are ignored or obscure because their method of communication is dense and nebulous. They have contempt for those that don't appreciate their work and develop an Undiscovered Genius Syndrome rather than, like Richard Feynman, find simpler ways to convey their ideas. I scanned through "Dogma and Doubt", then looked at other books from The Nature Institute and they smell of ID/Creationism/Theistic Evolution.
Valelacerte 1 year ago
@Valelacerte It is possible to be extremely lazy, and think knowledge should come wrapped up in a cardboard McDonald's box. Go for it that is your taste. Reality is very complicated and your bias is a good example of the beam in your own mind's eye - you assume the Nature Institute is creationism, when it is in fact some of the best science on the planet. When you don't want to be lazy anymore, read there: "Making the Genome Whole"
joel232001 1 year ago
@joel232001 OK, I'll suspend my initial thoughts about this institute and have a deeper look. In my opinion, certain religious parties have become extremely devious about inserting their god, as an assumption, into science, hence I have a knee jerk reaction to hints of spirituality mixed with science. However, accusations of laziness are poor; I am not the fast-food-don't-know-they're-born-generation. Perhaps your perception of my bias is the beam in your mind's eye, or are you above that?
Valelacerte 1 year ago
@Valelacerte No, I'm not above that, and in fact more or less assume that in this venue it is almost impossible to make accurate judgments about who is the real person on the other end of a bunch of words on a page. Best I can do is poke a stick at you and see what turns up at the other end of this means of communication. All the same, seems to me like you assumed a lot of stuff you didn't have to assume, especially about the folks at The Nature Institute (and of course me as well).
joel232001 1 year ago
@joel232001 I apologise. I saw "the coming metamorphosis of Christianity", watched your three-part, disparaging video on Harris, saw a book cover on The Nature Institute appearing to question Evolution's part in the form of the giraffe, and I assumed this was more back door Creationism, a dark force on YouTube.
What is "the coming metamorphosis of Christianity" about? I also didn't understand why Harris is a hypocrite in relation to the First Noble Truth, if that was what you meant.
Valelacerte 1 year ago
@Valelacerte to deal, in detail, with "the coming metamorphosis" you need a lot of preliminary ideas, such as "the evolution of consciousness" (see my book "the Way of the Fool") ... as to Harris, that's because he dissed the guy who might kill his daughter because she was raped, and when asked at the end by the "moderator'' about having more empathy he declined - which means he has no compassion for the suffering of others, and probably no perception of it either
joel232001 1 year ago
@joel232001 So, in the case of a father killing his daughter because she was raped, the suffering that Harris has no perception of is the father's belief that his daughter's loss of virginity brings such shame on the family that her life should be sacrificed for their reputation?
Valelacerte 1 year ago
@joel232001 I totally reject is the idea that if there is a god it has to be the Christian god and the bible is his word. This is a non sequitur. We can say that the universe looks designed and maybe there is a designer (god) but that does not follow the apologists reasoning that this god is Jesus.
DoubtingThomas666 1 year ago
@DoubtingThomas666 Good for you. But you need to understand that I didn't do the Harris videos to speak to people of your persuasion. That would involve a whole other kind of approach. You should pay particular attention to how much of what you think I said comes from the assumptions you have about these matters. Most of those who write about Mithras etc. are doing superficial research oriented to supporting their already existing biases. Read Owen
Barfield (Saving the Appearances).
joel232001 1 year ago
@joel232001 Study ancient religions and the myths of the past and you will soon realize the connections they share. Read about Mithras and how the story of Jesus mirrors this god. The countless intersection of these myths is evidence they are of the human mind and nothing else.
DoubtingThomas666 1 year ago
Your thinking, like all apologists, is skewed. You most certainly don’t understand the real world that we live. The scientific method is the only way to the truth not some bronze age scribbling. Grow up old man!
DoubtingThomas666 1 year ago
@DoubtingThomas666 Actually, for someone thinking they are scientific, you've done a poor job of paying attention to what I said. All you really did was dis it, but if you were really interested in these questions you would have dealt with the underlying argument, rather than just put forward conclusions and make quick judgments. I probably know a great deal more about science than you do, by the way. Next time you want to engage me, speak to the issues raised instead of just venting.
joel232001 1 year ago