Sam Harris Pwns a Supernationalist
By Daniel Miessler on October 11th, 2008: Tagged as Religion
So with some encouragement from a close friend I’m trying to avoid the “angry atheist” presentation I often have. I’m going to work for the very difficult balance of trying to show how illogical and silly it is to maintain these superstitious beliefs, but without being offensive about it.
I’m especially going to focus on the fact that moral structures are not bad, i.e. raising up a family with “family values” is not bad, or having time for thanks, or eating meals together or being respectful to elders. All these things are part of religion, and I am going to try and stress that I am not against them, and that they are not the problem.
Most importantly, I agree with my friend that running around being overtly offensive is NOT the way to influence anyone. The question is how can we balance this with my belief that supernatural beliefs like those taught in mainstream religions are ultimately harmful? How can you do both?
Anyway, here’s an excellent video of Sam Harris, who is one of the most eloquently blunt proponents of the “belief is dangerous” position. The question is: can someone have his approach and be non-offensive at the same time? I hope so. I’m going to shoot for it.
--
I don’t see the skeptic as winning this argument .. not least because the religious figure laughed along with the Elvis example.
Comment by Carl M — 10/11/2008 @ 10:31 pm
Carl,
Just because someone finds the ludicrousness of their own argument to be funny (which is what Sam showed him), doesn’t mean they gain points. In fact, it’s the opposite.
What is your bar for “winning”. When the moderator laughs, as does the entire audience, I think that’s a pretty good sign that major points were scored.
But aside from the humor thing–the point stands. Outrageous claims are…outrageous in all other areas of life. Religion is the only refuge for this type of illogical behavior, and that was his point. In short, if you think this type of behavior is silly elsewhere, then you need to consider whether or not it’s silly in this case as well.
What do you find lacking in that argument?
Comment by Daniel Miessler — 10/12/2008 @ 10:19 pm
Well, let me put it this way. I don’t think that the Elvis argument would convince ANY religious person that they’ve been kidding themselves all these years. They would argue (rightly) that it isn’t the same thing at all. As the religious speaker said, he is not making a scientific claim. Elvis is demonstrably dead. Religion is not demonstrably false. That’s a pretty big difference. The Elvis argument is ludicrous and there are enough similarities for the juxtaposition to be humorous (thus the laughter), but it doesn’t follow that religious speakers argument is ludicrous.
I’m not suggesting that any religion is “The Truth” (certainly they can’t ALL be!), but I’m suggesting that the “Elvis lives” argument isn’t the argument that proves anything false. The skeptic had a much bigger opening (which I would have been interested in seeing pursued) when the religious speaker talked about religious people living in harmony with things (though he was careful to talk about HIS experience with certain human beings). I think that this would have been a much more interesting discussion point than the simplistic (and easy to shoot holes in) Elvis argument.
Actually, I think that this religious speaker’s explanation of his philosophy and experiences are hard to dispute so easily. The skeptic’s assertion that the claims were scientific was simply false. (There’s a separate philosophical question about what - if anything - constitutes metaphysical truth.) It is true that claiming that Elvis is alive carries with it a certain price, but it is also true that MANY beliefs carry a similar (though likely smaller) price. A belief that all men are created equal is not looked upon favorably in all parts of the world (or even in all parts of the United States). A belief that a candidate’s given name ought not disqualify them from public office is not universally held. These are beliefs, but are not subject to scientific scrutiny. We can argue whether or not they ought to be held by enlightened individuals, but it’s not a scientific argument. In my mind, religious beliefs fall into exactly the same category.
Comment by Carl M — 10/13/2008 @ 1:23 am