Sam Harris: Religions Are Failed Sciences

[fangjian]

So, I personally am apt to OPEN discussion without preconceptions and but only if any of you (as atheists) are also.

Most Atheists are open to a possible existence of gods and goddesses. Most, in general, do not 'cling' to a particular belief. It's just that the 'scientific method' is so far the best way to find if something is true or not

 

[Archangel M]

I dunno. I think that people who make as loud a statement about their atheism (have to bring it up in every conversation, fill their FB page with all the atheist quotes/books/videos/etc they can find, pay to put up billboards during the holidays, etc) are exhibiting as much of a psychological "need" to express their "belief-nonbelief" as the religious do. Their atheism appears to fill some sort of need in their lives...as much as religion does for others.

 

[Jenna]

I do not understand your wording. What is this 'strictly logical agnosticism' ?

I think agnosticism is a more strictly mathematically logical position than atheism. Until such times as there is definitive proof or refutation of God either way, I mean.

I recognize the scientific method as being, thus far, the best approach in finding out if something is true or not. ( Observe phenomena-develope hypothesis-test/experiment/observe-publish results ).

This is what I mean, it is difficult to have an open discussion with an advocate of science because advocates of science are prepared to countenance the validity in only one system of measurement and it is that science itself. Yes! Science has given us almost all fundamentals that we exist under besides a few remaining (what happened before the big bang; the actual mechanisms of gravity etc.), however those that hold a personal faith in God measure aspects of our lives in a different system: the system of BELIEF. Naturally belief has no concomitant proof system and therefore the two, science and faith cannot be measured against each other because they are the proverbial apples and oranges. I cannot "prove" the existence of God to you using my system of measurement: belief, any more than you can refute the existence of God to me using your system of measurement: science.

I accept science as a system of measurement of course I do even though it is at times at odds with my system of belief. The problem when attempting a discussion such as this is that many athiests (speaking in general terms) can give no validity to belief as a system of measurement. Therefore the discussion generally must be held in the arena of science in which case, there is generally little actual useful enlightenment at all forthcoming from it. Does this make sense?

 

[billc]

Jenna, Absolutely.

 

[fangjian]

I dunno. I think that people who make as loud a statement about their atheism (have to bring it up in every conversation, fill their FB page with all the atheist quotes/books/videos/etc they can find, pay to put up billboards during the holidays, etc) are exhibiting as much of a psychological "need" to express their "belief-nonbelief" as the religious do. Their atheism appears to fill some sort of need in their lives...as much as religion does for others.

That seems fair.

A lot of it is, I think, that the non-religious population is not very 'active'. Usually non-religious people simply 'don't care'.
I've been an Atheist all my life. However, I never identified as one because it's not really an accurate label of my worldview, as it only deals with 'one' claim. My 'worldview' is one that is based on evidence, logic blah blah blah. I only started calling myself an "Atheist" because I feel the need for all of us (non-religious) to 'fly under one flag'. Atheists, Agnostics, Pearlists ........Generally we're all the same. 'Atheist' is the most common label though, so I use it so that there can be a bigger 'community'. I hope that one day people like us will have our own political party and such. I think that's why Atheists in the past decade have gotten 'louder'. Your comment of 'the way religion fills a part of their life', "science" fills that part of mine. The same feeling people get while they are 'speaking in tongues', 'praying' and stuff like that, is I think the same feeling I have when I look through my telescope or when I am solving Physics problems.

 

[billc]

An atheist political party or a political party with atheism as a plank in its platform.

 

[fangjian]

I think agnosticism is a more strictly mathematically logical position than atheism. Until such times as there is definitive proof or refutation of God either way, I mean.

I think you are unaware of the terminology
Atheism is just a 'lack of belief'. Agnosticism is a 'lack of knowledge'. ie I have a lack of belief that gods exist. I also do not have knowledge. Therefore I am an Agnostic Atheist toward these claims.

I accept science as a system of measurement of course I do even though it is at times at odds with my system of belief. The problem when attempting a discussion such as this is that many athiests (speaking in general terms) can give no validity to belief as a system of measurement. Therefore the discussion generally must be held in the arena of science in which case, there is generally little actual useful enlightenment at all forthcoming from it. Does this make sense?

I just don't see how '"belief" as a system of measurement' makes sense. Would you explain your 'system of measurement' to me?

An atheist political party or a political party with atheism as a plank in its platform.

What does this sentence mean? -sorry I'm kinda slow

 

[Razor]

I think agnosticism is a more strictly mathematically logical position than atheism. Until such times as there is definitive proof or refutation of God either way, I mean.


This is what I mean, it is difficult to have an open discussion with an advocate of science because advocates of science are prepared to countenance the validity in only one system of measurement and it is that science itself. Yes! Science has given us almost all fundamentals that we exist under besides a few remaining (what happened before the big bang; the actual mechanisms of gravity etc.), however those that hold a personal faith in God measure aspects of our lives in a different system: the system of BELIEF. Naturally belief has no concomitant proof system and therefore the two, science and faith cannot be measured against each other because they are the proverbial apples and oranges. I cannot "prove" the existence of God to you using my system of measurement: belief, any more than you can you can refute the existence of God to me using your system of measurement: science.

I accept science as a system of measurement of course I do even though it is at times at odds with my system of belief. The problem when attempting a discussion such as this is that many athiests (speaking in general terms) can give no validity to belief as a system of measurement. Therefore the discussion generally must be held in the arena of science in which case, there is generally little actual useful enlightenment at all forthcoming from it. Does this make sense?

Very true. Faith by its very nature is what people believe and has no place in explaining anything; science does not have a place in what people choose to believe spiritually. Belief cannot be used to measure anything, and I don't think most atheists try to use science to disprove "god", as an entity like that cannot be disproved because there are umpteen magical ways in which evidence or interpretation or whatever were wrong, and of course the whole idea of what religion's role is has changed in relation to explanations for things.

Just a note though; agnosticism isn't a separate position to atheism. It refers to what you know (or claim to know) rather than what you believe. So you can be an agnostic atheist (as most are), and agnostic theist etc...

 

[billc]

I heard an interview about two weeks ago by an author who compiled all sorts of research on how the human mind works. He gave an example of soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan who can sense ambushes just by looking at a crowded busy street. They reported getting a cold feeling in their stomach and from that they knew their was an ambush set up or an I.E.D. in the area. Now the science behind this is explainable, now, the brain processes information subconciously and then reports the findings to the conscious brain as that cold feeling of anxiety in the belly. Not all soldiers, even in a combat environment, experience this abiltiy to compile seemingly inconsequential data and use it to determine danger. Belief may work the same way. Maybe there are things being compiled in the subconcious of the mind that creates the foundation of belief. Maybe once science understands the brain better, they will figure out what the believer is picking up that the atheist isn't.

For example, try to tell that soldier that it's just a busy street and that there is nothing wrong, you can point to every indicator that there is nothing amiss, but you won't convince that soldier. He may not be able to explain how he knows, but he still knows something is wrong. Belief may work in the same way but at a deeper level or perhaps on the same level, just a different topic.

 

[fangjian]

I heard an interview about two weeks ago by an author who compiled all sorts of research on how the human mind works. He gave an example of soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan who can sense ambushes just by looking at a crowded busy street. They reported getting a cold feeling in their stomach and from that they knew their was an ambush set up or an I.E.D. in the area. Now the science behind this is explainable, now, the brain processes information subconciously and then reports the findings to the conscious brain as that cold feeling of anxiety in the belly. Not all soldiers, even in a combat environment, experience this abiltiy to compile seemingly inconsequential data and use it to determine danger. Belief may work the same way. Maybe there are things being compiled in the subconcious of the mind that creates the foundation of belief. Maybe once science understands the brain better, they will figure out what the believer is picking up that the atheist isn't.

Hehehe. I've had the same experience when I was in Iraq. I recall an unsettling feeling, say 5 seconds before we got ambushed one day. It happened again the 3rd time we were ambushed. However, I've had that feeling on a few occasions where nothing happened as well. So I don't take it too seriously.

I would get this feeling though as a direct result, I think, of the 'scientific method'. The first step is to observe phenomena (We are working with Iraq Police on a patrol in our sector - Hmm I'v never seen these guys before. Usually we work with the same group of guys ever night. They keep taking us down this one street. That's strange. Wow, there is like no one outside right now. I would expect some people to be out. BANG an IED goes off. Aww man we should have put all the pieces together. New guys we've never seen. They keep leading us down the same street in our sector etc. We got set up. See what I mean? The scientific method could have been used to evaluate what was going on and find out ahead of time before the explosion. Observing phenomena forming hypotheses etc. I think this is actually why we get this 'feeling' sometimes. Things aren't 'adding up' so I am getting this 'strange feeling'. It was the scientific method that did it ( and not some kind of psychic or magic phenomena). Am I making sense at all?

 

[Jenna]

I think you are unaware of the terminology
Atheism is just a 'lack of belief'. Agnosticism is a 'lack of knowledge'. ie I have a lack of belief that gods exist. I also do not have knowledge. Therefore I am an Agnostic Atheist toward these claims.

Goodness, no I am happily aware of terminology thank you Atheism holds the doctrine that there is NO God or ever was, whereas Agnosticism is simply the disbelief in ANY claims of ultimate knowledge, though thank you for your interpretation.

Just a note though; agnosticism isn't a separate position to atheism. It refers to what you know (or claim to know) rather than what you believe. So you can be an agnostic atheist (as most are), and agnostic theist etc...

No, you are correct, the two are not necessarily mutually exclusive and but yes they are entirely separate and discrete positions. Until such times are there is irrefutable proof, agnosticism is the only strictly logical position to hold. I am still a believer though irrespective of whether that is logical or not

 

[billc]

Sure, it was the scientific method, after you understood what was going on. Perhaps, as science progresses, it will be discovered that people who believe in God were also using the scientific method, but just didn't know it at the time.

 

[elder999]

-Christian mysticism is scientifically tested- huh?

Brown University, for one example:

During the past four decades, as neurological research on the mind has grown, a considerable portion of this research has been devoted to identifying the physiological substrates of various mental states that arise through meditative practices that are derived from Asian meditation traditions.8 Health practitioners have made increasing use of contemplative practices in all aspects of the treatment of disease and disorder.9 Cognitive neuroscientists have examined the impact of meditation on the development of positive emotions such as compassion.10 Physicists have also entered the picture with research on the role of observer on the observed, of sentience on the insentient world, and on the problematic relationships between the ontologies of the Asian meditative traditions and such new paradigms as quantum mechanics and string theory.11 These sources indicate that there is an extensive and serious scientific interest in the investigation of contemplative states of mind and a growing body of research in their methods and effects. It is this body of scientific research that will constitute the basis of our proposed concentration

Contemplative prayer is a key element of Christian mysticism, and has been rigorously tested in several laboratory settings, and shown to have various positive effects similar to those gained from eastern forms of meditation.

Additionally, I can't recommend Why God Won't Go Away, on the neurological and biological reasons for belief in God, enough. The Amazon.com review:

Over the centuries, theories have abounded as to why human beings have a seemingly irrational attraction to God and religious experiences. In Why God Won't Go Away authors Andrew Newberg, M.D., Eugene D'Aquili, M.D., and Vince Rause offer a startlingly simple, yet scientifically plausible opinion: humans seek God because our brains are biologically programmed to do so. Researchers Newberg and D'Aquili used high-tech imaging devices to peer into the brains of meditating Buddhists and Franciscan nuns. As the data and brain photographs flowed in, the researchers began to find solid evidence that the mystical experiences of the subjects "were not the result of some fabrication, or simple wishful thinking, but were associated instead with a series of observable neurological events," explains Newberg. "In other words, mystical experience is biologically, observably, and scientifically real.... Gradually, we shaped a hypothesis that suggests that spiritual experience, at its very root, is intimately interwoven with human biology." Lay readers should be warned that although the topic is fascinating, the writing is geared toward scientific documentation that defends the authors' hypothesis. For a more palatable discussion, seek out Deepak Chopra's How to Know God, in which he also explores this fascinating evidence of spiritual hard-wiring.

 

[billc]

Interesting experiences. Thanks for doing what you did over there, it couldn't have been easy or pleasent so thanks. You know, with so many combat vets out there now, it might be interesting to have a combat experience thread here on martialtalk.com. I know there is a general self-defense thread and some similar threads, and it might be hard to filter out the posers, but that would apply to the self-defense thread as well.

 

[fangjian]

Goodness, no I am happily aware of terminology thank you Atheism holds the doctrine that there is NO God or ever was, whereas Agnosticism is simply the disbelief in ANY claims of ultimate knowledge, though thank you for your interpretation.

No Jenna you kinda got it backwards. Your comment 'Atheism holds the 'doctrine' that there is 'no gods', is false. That would be 'Gnostic Atheism'.

'Agnosticism' is the 'position', that I do not claim to 'know' about the existence of gods. It isn't just 'my interpretation'.
Hope this helps

 

[billc]

:jediduel:Something for the science minded to contemplate:

 

[elder999]

:jediduel:Something for the science minded to contemplate:

Well, I'm "science minded." Hell, I'm a scientist.

I don't lack faith-nor do I find anyone else's lack of faith particularly disturbing., let alone enough to choke them.....:lol:

 

[fangjian]

:jediduel:Something for the science minded to contemplate:

Contemplate? How come? Does this mean you wanna kill me?

 

[Archangel M]

That seems fair.

A lot of it is, I think, that the non-religious population is not very 'active'. Usually non-religious people simply 'don't care'.
I've been an Atheist all my life. However, I never identified as one because it's not really an accurate label of my worldview, as it only deals with 'one' claim. My 'worldview' is one that is based on evidence, logic blah blah blah. I only started calling myself an "Atheist" because I feel the need for all of us (non-religious) to 'fly under one flag'. Atheists, Agnostics, Pearlists ........Generally we're all the same. 'Atheist' is the most common label though, so I use it so that there can be a bigger 'community'. I hope that one day people like us will have our own political party and such. I think that's why Atheists in the past decade have gotten 'louder'. Your comment of 'the way religion fills a part of their life', "science" fills that part of mine. The same feeling people get while they are 'speaking in tongues', 'praying' and stuff like that, is I think the same feeling I have when I look through my telescope or when I am solving Physics problems.

It has nothing to do with "Science" IMO. Are you implying that there are no, or can be no religious Scientists? Im talking about psychology. A persons "need" to believe in something..separate from the validity of that belief. Which includes Athiests IMO.

 

[billc]

No, I am a man of peace, unless unduly provoked, just pointing out that there are things out there that science cannot explain. Another clip would be when R2D2 is trying to take a reading on the force as yoda is lifting the fighter out of the swamp.