Michael Shermer/Ben Stiller (Sam Harris) vs. Chopra/random bird

mangaroosh wrote: »

I was very disappointed with his opening statement, however, in which, I beleive, he showed one of the fundamental issues when it comes to the "atheist side" of the discussion, in that he created a clear strawman.

How you can come out of watching that video and still say this I don't know. Sam made it very clear: The topic of the debate was about the future of God, and as he made very clear, the vast vast vast majority of people who believe in God believe in a personal God, and it is these beliefs and these people that will shape the future of God in human society.

The fact that their opponents did not choose to address this issue is their own failing; they ignored the major premise of the debate subject. They're the one's who screwed up by trying to pretend major religions didn't matter.

mangaroosh wrote: »

Including the idea of scepticism itself

And the idea of being sceptical about scepticism!

See, we can all play meaningless word games.

mangaroosh wrote: »

Including the idea of scepticism itself

You want us to be sceptical of the idea that we should demand evidence before accepting a proposition? Yeah gullibility and credulity are great alright.

Or is it that you just don't want us to express scepticism about your ideas and you're fine with people expressing scepticism when you do? I assume that you are sceptical about some things, that you don't believe in every single religion, philosophy, claim and idea in the history of the world?

Zillah wrote: »

How you can come out of watching that video and still say this I don't know. Sam made it very clear: The topic of the debate was about the future of God, and as he made very clear, the vast vast vast majority of people who believe in God believe in a personal God, and it is these beliefs and these people that will shape the future of God in human society.

The fact that their opponents did not choose to address this issue is their own failing; they ignored the major premise of the debate subject. They're the one's who screwed up by trying to pretend major religions didn't matter.

It may have been influenced by the fact, that Ben Harris, the chairperson, effectively called him on strawmanning, by stating that neither of his opponents were advocating the kind of religion that he was denigrating. It was however clear long before this, on the basis of Harris' statements themselves.

The isssue is, that Harris seems to commit the same fallacy, that most atheists tend to do, and that is he presupposes what God is, and then proceeds to argue against that pre-supposition, assuming that anyone who believes in God, must believe in their own preconception - because this is the concept they, themselves, have arrived at.

The issue lies clearly, in a very limited perspective when it comes to the concept of God, and appears to be entirely based, in the west at least, on a denial of the three monotheistic religions, and so the baby gets thrown out with the bathwater. It is clear, that there is absolutely no understanding of the original context, in which the concept of "God" was based, and that is spirituality. The reason for this, of course, is that the spiritual practices upon which the early [Judeo-Christian-Islamic] religions would have been founded, appear to have largely disappeared - particularly in the west.

Somewhat ironically, the reversal of this trend back towards spirituality, is being termed, "new age" (again, in the west), despite the fact, that these "new age" practices have actually been around for more than 5000yrs, and pre-date modern scientific endeavours. Lest, they be attacked on the basis of age, they have shown that they have stood the test of time.

So what we effectively have, is two differing concepts of God, which are being discussed. On the one hand there is the religious God, mainly of Judaism and Christianity, but to a certain extent Islam, because people don't truly understand the belief of most muslims, althought this is changing gradually. This might perhaps be terms the "biological God", and is the one that atheists tend to argue against most, and the one, perhaps, the "vast vast vast majority of people" beleive in. At least, this is the one Harris pre-supposes people to believe in. Lest I be accused of pre-supposing, this is based on his statements.

This "biological God" is the "invisible old man with the grey beard, sitting on a cloud stealing peoples thoughts, and listening to "most wanted" requests on his intergalactice, cosmic radio". They are of correct, this God does not exist. This God is based on a complete misunderstanding of christian, jewish and Islamic teachings. That of course, is not to presume that everyone believes in that conception, as muslims are actually forbidden for having such conceptualisations, and I refuse to beleive every, single religious person is that naiive. Still, this appears to be the conceptualisation that persists for many, or at least is the one atheists tend to argue against.

There is however a vastly different God, a "spiritual God", one understood in the context of spirituality, which - in case it has been missed - is the practice of empirical investigation into the nature of "the self" and reality. It is in this context that all of the religious practices make rational sense, and it is, of course, the original context within which the concept of God arose. That is, the original context of the God that Jesus and Mohammed preached about, and perhaps Moses too. It is equally the original context in which the Hindu God, Brahman, was originally framed.


Now, the theme of the deabte was "does God have a future?". Unfortunately Harris seemed to take that to mean, does his conceptualisation of God, which he presumes to be the only possible conceptualisation of God, have a future? This is of coures being overly harsh on him, but this is effectively what he argued. What he more than likely took it to mean, was the future of organised religion, as he understands it.

The presence of Chopra, and the other woman, clearly represented the "spiritual God", despite not articulating it clearly enough, thus refuting Harris claim about what God was to be discussed, and hence his strawman argument.

Like I say, though, he fully redeemed himself, and I would have to say that he won the debate, not that it was all that hard mind.

Zillah wrote: »

And the idea of being sceptical about scepticism!

See, we can all play meaningless word games.

and the idea of......and so on ad infinitum. This unavoidable infinite regression, while not invalidating the position of the sceptic, certainly highlights a fundamental flaw in the ideology.

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

The idea that we're all skeptical people can be an illusion that we're all
doing things right because we think we're being skeptical of the right things -
you have to be skeptical of your skepticism to be sure that you're not
wasting your time being skeptical of x (say - flat earth theory) when you should
be focusing on y (the accuracy of current cartography) - assuming you care about
the topological flavourings of the earth that much

It's like, being skeptical of the meaning of this phrase:

Deuteronomy 18:20-22;
But a prophet who presumes to speak in my name anything I have not
commanded him to say, or a prophet who speaks in the name of other gods,
must be put to death."

when the whole enterprise of judging the meaning of a phrase like this is
an exercise in submission to authority & fantasy in the first place.
Skepticism of skepticism is important here because your skepticism of the
meaning of the moral statement above is not what you should be skeptical of...

I'm sure this is what the original poster of the phrase meant, right?

To be honest it was, as described below, somewhat of a "deepity" when first posted, but was based on the idea of doubting doubt. Not in the sense of doubting any doubt with regard to one's religious or spiritual convictions, but rather in the everyday sense of self-doubt.


I did however give it some further consideration, and would agree to a certain extent with the above, but would rather clarify it as, questioning whether scepticism is a worthwhile stance, and whether it is a somewhat pseudo-intellectual stance.

It would all depend on the individual sceptic, and what they decide their own level of scepticism is, and how they choose to apply it. This of course leaves the position open to question, as to the true nature of the sceptic, as simply choosing to believe some things over others, without universal application of their stated scpticism. That is, applying scepticism to a certain limited field, while continuing to operate on certain, primary, unquestioned assumptions.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Ah good old mangaroosh. Why use one word when a thousand will do eh

if only there wasn't so much misperception to deal with, then one might perhaps do

Dave! wrote: »

How is one supposed to express themselves effectively in less than a million words?! :eek:

mangaroosh that post was pretty poor. I don't really have time to respond in detail (I'm sure Zillah will), but in brief:

-There may be various perceptions of god, but the one that Sam Harris was arguing against (or trying to until Deepak shifted the goalposts) is the one that all of the major religions are built around -- a personal god. If you want to define god as some vague, nebulous entity then you can do so, but millions of people believe that god answers prayers, performs miracles, etc., so there's nothing intellectually dishonest about arguing against that model.
-Just because something 'stands the test of time' (i.e. is old, and still present) is not an argument for its validity.

Indeed. The never ending problem caused by the fact that every person on the planet has a different understanding of the word god. It's not possible to talk about god without "straw manning" millions of people

aidan24326 wrote: »

Which in a way makes they very word 'god' almost meaningless when you think about it. I've no idea what the word means at this stage, and I'm pretty sure alot of those people who claim to believe in one haven't the faintest idea either.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignosticism

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Such as....


In a million words or less please

a jeez, give me a chance at least

assumptions about:
- our own existence, who/what we are?
- the "external" "physical" world
- assumptions about the limitations of science (or perhaps lack of limitations)

mangaroosh wrote: »

The concept of God, that Harris presumes the millions of people also believe in, is clearly based on his understanding, or rather interpretation, of Christianity and Judaism, and his limited understanding of Islam - as well as his interpretation of others beliefs.

Chopra on the other hand, has a markedly different concptualisation of God. Now, it could be the Hindu (or Buddhist) mala on his right wrist, or it could perhaps be the coulour of his skin and indian accent, which might make one think his conception of God is a little closer to the Hindu God, Brahman, which according to the Upanishads, is the true nature of the self. Indeed, this is much closer to what Chopra is arguing for, than the "invisible person" (or invisible strawman) which Harris attacks.

As far as I can see Sam Harris' interpretation of god is based on the beliefs of the major religions and Chopra's is based on wishy washy sciency sounding bullsh!t. If I was Sam I wouldn't have had any interest in discussing that interpretation of god either because that's not what the vast majority of people watching the show believe in and such a being is irrelevant to us

mangaroosh wrote: »

not at all, any scientific experiment that can verify the nature of mind, "the self", concsiousness, etc. will be gladly considered.

the aforementioned nature of mind, "self", etc.

Sorry mangaroosh, that sounds to me like the same kind of....stuff that Chopra is talking about. Science works with what's verifiable. It can't verify everything but that's not the same as saying it can't verify anything. Having said that, science is making great inroads into understanding our minds at a neurological level but I don't think that those are the kind of answers you're looking for, since they say nothing about any kind of higher being or generally what you think the nature of consciousness is. Science is pretty much finding that consciousness is a product of the electrical and chemical impulses in our brains but I doubt that's very satisfying to you

mangaroosh wrote: »

"the beliefs of major religions" is an interesting concept, the practical dynamic of such a concept is, however, quite intricate and not so straightforward as appears to be assumed.

Chopra's conception is pretty poorly articulated in that debate, however, as mentioned, his Hindu (or Buddhist) Mala and indian accent, together with a basic understanding of other concepts he uses - excluding his pseudo-science - reveal that the concept of God he is discussing is closer to the Hindu God Brahman, than Harris' strawman.

Indeed, Harris didn't have any interest in discussing that intepretation of God, he decided instead to presume to know the minds of millions of people who believe in God, and then misrepresent the beliefs of [a perhaps unquanitifiable number of] those people, by arguing against an "invisible person".

We're back to what I said last week:

Sam Vimes wrote: »

The never ending problem caused by the fact that every person on the planet has a different understanding of the word god. It's not possible to talk about god without "straw manning" millions of people

Sam Harris was working with the accepted definition of god that is given by the major religions. If Chopra wants to ignore this definition of god and make up his own one then they might as well have come together to discuss the existence of farflugnagles. In fact that's pretty much what they did, since Chopra's definition of god was closer to that of a farflugnagle than any definition of god I have ever heard. Closer in that the term farflugnagle is meaningless nonsense, just like Chopra's definition of god