sam harris debate on cspan

[John21]

religion debate,it just started on cspan booktv channel

[DougShrapnel]

Cool thanks. Mind you Sam Harris is suppose to bring human kindness to the debate against god. Ethics, lets see how long he can keep it up.

[DougShrapnel]

It's really to bad that he focuses on only muslim behaviors as of late.

[DougShrapnel]

Muslim apologist: The attack on identiy leads to violence not religion.

How much can Sam Harris politely acept the fact the no one will answer his question about thinking about the world without religion.

I've said it before and I'll say it agian. The problem is that all wars are fought over scarce resources. Relgion justs gives one more scarce resouce to fight over, truth about which we cannot know.

[thylacine]

Got a quick bio on the others?

[DougShrapnel]

Reza is like a (American)conservative Islamist. He has been on the daily show and that is how I know him. The other guy the moderator seems useless.

[thylacine]

ok I now vaguely remember seeing him on the daily show, though I don't remember him saying this stuff.

[DougShrapnel]

What did you think about Harris's points? To me it seems like no one cares, about what harris is getting at. A world without religion would be better Sam would say, but no one want's to respond to that charge, excaept in the past. That is, one might respond that in the past religion has helped out, yet no one states that religion is a benefactor currently, with SH. Is there not a reason for this?

[vhawk01]

I thought he handled himself well, better than I would in the same spot, but so did Reza, and the format wasn't setup to be a 1v1 battle royale. I'd say SH won on the scorecards, 9-7, but it was a close one, and both had valid points.

[DougShrapnel]

I'm a big fan of Harris because he wants to take what is valueable about religion and keep it, yet through out the rest. I didn't find anything that Reza siad that would give him 7 points, perhaps I was not listening hard enough. However I do hope that Reza won this debate, because xtians would then need to take Islam as seriously as they do xtianity. Once one allows for differenrt gods, the ability to believe in any one god disapats quickly if not absolutely.

[John21]

It's on again Sunday night at 10pm ET. cspan2

[MaxWeiss]

In the first 40 minutes I've seen so far, Reza has said numerous times that moderates are different from fundies, and Sam Harris keeps responding by going off on things which relates directly to the fundies. What he's saying is important, to be sure, but I think he should have answered Reza and then related it to fundies. He's kind of doing that at the moment, but he hasn't addressed the dangers of unreason which plague the moderates as well and say WHY moderation is both unreasonable and bad as well. He's seemed to avoid this so far, which is disappointing.

I don't think Harris has been good at debating thus far, even if he has good points. He needs to win the debate too, which he's losing to Reza, for no good reason. Why won't he just address Reza's points???

[MaxWeiss]

And now Reza brought up a very good defense. He said that he has lots of experience to suggest that religion is simply the language many people use to encompass all their grievances when they complain about those grievances. That is an extremely good defense, IMHO.

Harris is responding, but he hasn't come up with a good response to that. Harris keeps talking about divisiveness but has provided little proof or argument that it is religious, while Reza keeps shoveling out reasons why it is not.

Too bad.

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
And now Reza brought up a very good defense. He said that he has lots of experience to suggest that religion is simply the language many people use to encompass all their grievances when they complain about those grievances. That is an extremely good defense, IMHO.

Harris is responding, but he hasn't come up with a good response to that. Harris keeps talking about divisiveness but has provided little proof or argument that it is religious, while Reza keeps shoveling out reasons why it is not.

Too bad.

[/ QUOTE ]

Reza definitely won that argument and I think he should..

I agree with Reza that although religion is a factor, it is unlikely to be the determining factor...

I liked Harris' question about what would happen if the Jews no longer had the religious reasons to desire the holy land..I think it is a clear example of when, all other things equal, their religious beliefs foster conflict.

---------------------------------------------------

I like their talk on "transcendent experiences"...

I like how Reza considers religion to be the expression of these experiences...

but I see religion also as the accumulation of conclusions based on those experiences..the problem is that it is a free-for-all with these conclusions.

Harris seems to think (and I would agree with him) that these experiences can be evaluated by the reasonable mind...thus far, however, the evaluation has been the kind that we have seen throughout history..that is religion as we know it..a free-for-all of unreasonable evaluation and conclusions based (as I think both of them would agree) on preconcieved notions of the world.

[MaxWeiss]

[ QUOTE ]
but I see religion also as the accumulation of conclusions based on those experiences..the problem is that it is a free-for-all with these conclusions.

[/ QUOTE ]

I just wrote a long-winded post about that!!!

[John21]

[ QUOTE ]
In the first 40 minutes I've seen so far, Reza has said numerous times that moderates are different from fundies, and Sam Harris keeps responding by going off on things which relates directly to the fundies. What he's saying is important, to be sure, but I think he should have answered Reza and then related it to fundies. He's kind of doing that at the moment, but he hasn't addressed the dangers of unreason which plague the moderates as well and say WHY moderation is both unreasonable and bad as well. He's seemed to avoid this so far, which is disappointing.

[/ QUOTE ]

What you would call disappointing, I would call encouraging. I've read Harris' last two books, and one of the major objections I've had with him, he addressed. Namely, drawing a line between religion and spirituality. As far as I'm concerned if he acknowledges the latter, I can pretty much support the rest of his arguments.

[MaxWeiss]

I don't really even consider you religious though. IMHO you are not a theist. Unless "God is love" implies some kind of diety.

Edit: Maybe you fall into some branch of Scientology.

[thylacine]

Reza's philosophy seems to be summed up by the following two beliefs.

Reza's belief 1: Religion is an integral part of absolutely everything humans do.

Reza's belief 2: Religion has absolutely nothing to do with terrorism.

He seems a little biased and unreasonable to me.

[SNOWBALL]

no links? /images/graemlins/frown.gif

[FortunaMaximus]

[ QUOTE ]
no links? /images/graemlins/frown.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Nothing relating to last night's show, but while looking for it, I came across this interesting site.

Beyond Belief '06 Conference Videos (http://beyondbelief2006.org/Watch/)

[Dr. Strangelove]

Link to video on c-span site (http://www.booktv.org/feature/index.asp?segid=7890&schedID=474)

[NeBlis]

I didn't see all of it but Harris really dropped the ball IMHO. He seams to think it was more important to be friendly and allow Reza to make his point than to make his own points strongly. He just sat there passively and allowed Reza to dominate most of the time allowed with long winded reiterations of the his same point over and over.
The major fault I have with Harris is that he allowed Reza to fall back on the old tried and true deist debate tactic. The only way to "win" in this situation as a deist is to accept that your position is untenable and find a new more moderate position. Reza did exactly this by ignoring the dangerous parts of theism and focusing on its "universal" nature.
His major argument was that the problems with terrorism etc are not religious but cultural and therefor religion gets a pass is obviously garbage. Harris never really called him on the fact that religion CREATES the culture and as the root cause is STILL the problem. He tried but never real drove the point home.
Reza did well. As usual he's just a well educated, well spoken, self deluding apologist. If he turned his mind toward truth rather than winning a debate would likely see that he's wrong.

NeBlis

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]

The only way to "win" in this situation as a deist is to accept that your position is untenable and find a new more moderate position. Reza did exactly this by ignoring the dangerous parts of theism and focusing on its "universal" nature.

[/ QUOTE ]

Isn't this what everyone does in every discipline? You go with an idea, you find it's flawed and adjust. Why are religious folk not allowed to do this? I could see why a fundamentalist would be against this sort of religious evolution, but it would seem to me that if you aren't a fundamentalist this is exactly what you would want theists and deists to do.

[ QUOTE ]

Harris never really called him on the fact that religion CREATES the culture and as the root cause is STILL the problem.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think anybody would argue that religion does not shape culture somewhat, but to point to religion as the driving force behind the creation of a culture is pretty inaccurate. I don't see how you could argue this.

[John21]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
no links? /images/graemlins/frown.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Nothing relating to last night's show, but while looking for it, I came across this interesting site.

Beyond Belief '06 Conference Videos (http://beyondbelief2006.org/Watch/)

[/ QUOTE ]

Very nice, thanks for the link. I've made it through the first day of videos, and there's some interesting discussions/debates going on.

Religion aside, I'm wondering if this is not the scientific community as a whole attempting to ascend to a more prominent or influential leadership role in society.

[NeBlis]

[ QUOTE ]

Isn't this what everyone does in every discipline? You go with an idea, you find it's flawed and adjust. Why are religious folk not allowed to do this? I could see why a fundamentalist would be against this sort of religious evolution, but it would seem to me that if you aren't a fundamentalist this is exactly what you would want theists and deists to do.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because this type of backpedaling effectively negates the argument that religion is divine in nature. If your deity of choice were truly what it says it is then you would not have to make apologies and change the story to suit the situation. You cannot simultaneously assert that a belief system is true or useful while ignoring disastrous flaws. IMO religion is either divine and true, or imagined and false

[ QUOTE ]

I don't think anybody would argue that religion does not shape culture somewhat, but to point to religion as the driving force behind the creation of a culture is pretty inaccurate. I don't see how you could argue this.

[/ QUOTE ]

The point is that religion is the driving force behind NEGATIVE aspects of culture. Religion is like an appendix, at one point in human history it was probably necessary for survival, in modern times its only noticed when it is killing you and needs to be removed.

NeBlis

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]

Because this type of backpedaling effectively negates the argument that religion is divine in nature. If your deity of choice were truly what it says it is then you would not have to make apologies and change the story to suit the situation. You cannot simultaneously assert that a belief system is true or useful while ignoring disastrous flaws. IMO religion is either divine and true, or imagined and false


[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree with this opinion and I believe the Reza guy had a pretty decent response to this in the video. You're trying to equate fundamentalism with religion.

[ QUOTE ]

The point is that religion is the driving force behind NEGATIVE aspects of culture. Religion is like an appendix, at one point in human history it was probably necessary for survival, in modern times its only noticed when it is killing you and needs to be removed.


[/ QUOTE ]

You're just asserting this and giving no evidence whatsoever. Religion obviously has some negatives and some positives, but to just flatly assert that religion is the source of everything bad in a culture is pretty ridiculous.

[NeBlis]

[ QUOTE ]
I disagree with this opinion and I believe the Reza guy had a pretty decent response to this in the video. You're trying to equate fundamentalism with religion.


[/ QUOTE ]

No, I'm trying to equate veracity with veracity. Either a system of belief is true or not. Obviously there are degrees of truth, or correctness of viewpoint when you get into the details. But due to the fact that religion provides no verifiable evidence of any claims, nor has historically consistent position, I have a hard time even finding shades of gray to argue over.

[ QUOTE ]
You're just asserting this and giving no evidence whatsoever. Religion obviously has some negatives and some positives, but to just flatly assert that religion is the source of everything bad in a culture is pretty ridiculous.


[/ QUOTE ]

LOL, yes it would be ridiculous! But since that's not what i said then I'm not to worried about being made a fool of.I never said "everything bad in a culture" I should have said CERTAIN NEGATIVE aspects of culture but I think our just trying to split hairs here to make your self feel better.

NeBlis

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]

No, I'm trying to equate veracity with veracity. Either a system of belief is true or not. Obviously there are degrees of truth, or correctness of viewpoint when you get into the details. But due to the fact that religion provides no verifiable evidence of any claims, nor has historically consistent position, I have a hard time even finding shades of gray to argue over.


[/ QUOTE ]

But only fundamentalists think that religion is a static unchanging thing. I believe Reza was arguing that religion is an approach to an aspect of life. I think you're arguing against something that I'm not defending only you're calling it religion. Extremism != religion. If you want to argue that religion fosters extremism, that's a separate discussion (although I think I disagree with that claim as well).

[ QUOTE ]

LOL, yes it would be ridiculous! But since that's not what i said then I'm not to worried about being made a fool of.I never said "everything bad in a culture" I should have said CERTAIN NEGATIVE aspects of culture but I think our just trying to split hairs here to make your self feel better.
NeBlis

[/ QUOTE ]

I misread your post, for some reason I thought you had said "the negative aspects" and not just "negative aspects". My bad.

[NeBlis]

[ QUOTE ]
But only fundamentalists think that religion is a static unchanging thing. I believe Reza was arguing that religion is an approach to an aspect of life. I think you're arguing against something that I'm not defending only you're calling it religion. Extremism != religion. If you want to argue that religion fosters extremism, that's a separate discussion (although I think I disagree with that claim as well).


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes we probably are argueing at cross purposes.

My point is that IMO if religion were indeed true and given to man by god then its adherents would all be fundamentalists. The fact that religion is fluid and changing points to its philosophically untenable nature.

NeBlis

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]

My point is that IMO if religion were indeed true and given to man by god then its adherents would all be fundamentalists. The fact that religion is fluid and changing points to its philosophically untenable nature.

NeBlis

[/ QUOTE ]

I think I just don't understand what you mean by a religion being "true". That the Bible or some other text is literally true? Religion has never been static, I don't understand why you're saying that it must be or else it serves no purpose. You're assuming that the only thing that anybody gets out of religion is this unchanging world view and truth, but that is such a historically new approach to religion.

[NeBlis]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

My point is that IMO if religion were indeed true and given to man by god then its adherents would all be fundamentalists. The fact that religion is fluid and changing points to its philosophically untenable nature.

NeBlis

[/ QUOTE ]

I think I just don't understand what you mean by a religion being "true". That the Bible or some other text is literally true? Religion has never been static, I don't understand why you're saying that it must be or else it serves no purpose. You're assuming that the only thing that anybody gets out of religion is this unchanging world view and truth, but that is such a historically new approach to religion.

[/ QUOTE ]

hehe .. I'm bad at this I guess. What I'm saying is that if god or allah or whatever gave humanity a belief and codified it with the bible or the koran then those beliefs and writings should be consistent and demonstrable. They are not so there for religion = false.
I do not believe that indefensible belief systems should be a basis for government or societies.
Furthermore when minority viewpoints within these religions become hazardous to the rest of society it is our duty to rid ourselves of the problem. Conversion to rationality would be preferable to shooting these people, but we gotta do what we gotta do.

In the interest of peace in he middle east I recommend that we begin a campaign of carpet bombing Muslim countries with liquor, Dawkins, and porn.

NeBlis