Debate: Chris Hedges vs. Sam Harris

[alexey]

[PeterMP]

Is there a particular point in the video that you think is interesting? It is a pretty long video and from what I watched, even speeding to where Harris was talking, it seemed mostly like fluff.

(Though I do like his opinion on free will in terms of just an evolutionary/biological persepective:

http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/free-will-and-free-will

"In Free Will, I argue that people are mistaken in believing that they are free in the usual sense. I claim that this realization has consequences—good ones, for the most part—and for that reason we should not gloss over it by revising our definition of “free will” too quickly."

Given our previous discussions of free will, I'm a little surprised to see you post something from him. )

Maybe you can make some bullet points of important points?

[techboy]

Look, alexey, I'm sure Mr. Hedges is an excellent journalist, but as far as I know, he has never even claimed to be the Messiah, let alone provided evidence of same, so perhaps we shouldn't apply the title just yet?

[Corcaigh]

Look, alexey, I'm sure Mr. Hedges is an excellent journalist, but as far as I know, he has never even claimed to be the Messiah, let alone provided evidence of same, so perhaps we shouldn't apply the title just yet?

"He's not the Messiah, he's a very naughty boy" ~ his Mom.

<staff edit to comply with form rules.---nudity >

[AsburySkinsFan]

"He's not the Messiah, he's a very naughty boy" ~ his Mom.

Seriously dude...you want to take that down extremely fast.

[Jumbo]

Damnit Corg, I should have watched it all before I edited it out---now I have to go find it again.

I almost always hate the "censor" aspect of this gig, but sometimes it's harder than others. Censoring Python (or Carlin) goes against my DNA. I have been meaning to watch Life of Brain again as I haven't seen it in many years and only watched the whole movie start to finish once, when it came out, though many clips have been played various places that I'll see, or when its been played in the background over the years. I haven't watched the debate vid yet (probably won't, I've seen hundreds of fine debates on these matters) but the OP should add some of his own thoughts into that first post.

Oops title edited. I'll assume it was a typo or mis-read like I did when I saw the youtube page (I thought it said "Christ Hedges" ).

[techboy]

Oops title edited. I'll assume it was a typo or mis-read like I did when I saw the youtube page (I thought it said "Christ Hedges" ).

Many people underestimate Jesus's financial savvy. A lot of people know the "Store up your treasures in Heaven" bit, but they tend to overlook the "when buying a commodity, also buy a futures contract in that or a similar commodity in order to hedge or minimize the downside risk of your position" (2nd Opinions 4:15)

[Jumbo]

Many people underestimate Jesus's financial savvy. A lot of people know the "Store up your treasures in Heaven" bit, but they tend to overlook the "when buying a commodity, also buy a futures contract in that or a similar commodity in order to hedge or minimize the downside risk of your position" (2nd Opinions 4:15)

Of course, here I pursue the theological/philosophical stuffs in the Bible, and then miss the part I need the most. This is why I'm downsizing instead of properly exploiting the worker class. I should have been a hedgehog.

[Corcaigh]

Damnit Corg, I should have watched it all before I edited it out---now I have to go find it again.

.

Oops - sorry about that.

And we all know you really meant ...

<staff edit to comply with form rules.---blasphemous content >

:evilg:

---------- Post added May-4th-2012 at 01:19 PM ----------

Many people underestimate Jesus's financial savvy.

Don't forget the main reason behind the whole Trinity thing is that he can claim himself as three dependents on his tax return.

[PeterMP]

So I've been thinking about the part of the video I did watch. And Harris essentially starts by saying there are 3 arguments you hear from theists (I'm surprised he's never heard of a 4th that many people I know make, but I'll put that a side).

One of the arguments is that religion is "good", and he states that IF religion is good that doesn't provide evidence that God exists, and I agree.

Now, he goes from there to asking how "good" is religion. I would posit that is an untestable hypothesis. We do not know how "good" religion is now.

However, it does seem likely that religion HAS BEEN good. While it is true that evolution will not quickly completely lose traits that are neutral or even slightly negative (as I stated in the other thread we don't have to have a positive evolutionary affect for homosequality to be genetic), we would expect those traits to stay a minor part of the population.

That isn't the case with religion.

From there, we MIGHT be able to discuss has religion become LESS GOOD recently. He points out the world's current problems with religion. But historiy tells us this is an on-going thing. The Jews WERE persecuted by the Romans. The Crusades DID happen. The Inquistion was REAL.

And there are similar issues going as far back as we know.

Is the current level of "bad" from religion greater than it was? Has the ratio of good/bad changed over time? Maybe, but I haven't seen any real evidence to suggest that is the case.

So we certainly can't eliminate the possiblity that religion is STILL net good.

Now, let's consider the bad more directly. What argument do you think a extremists is more likely to listen to? Which one do you think is likely to do more good in getting somebody to NOT walk into a building and blow up everybody in it?

One based on their religion that emphasizes "positive" parts of it that would suggest doing such a thing is wrong or one based on logic/reason suggesting that their god does not even exist?

Has ANYBODY seriously undertaken an argument against a god existing REALLY believe that their arguments will curtail extemists behavior?

The other point, I'd make is w/ respect to the placebo.

If relgion has a placebo affect on some part of the population, do you really want to take that away from them?

What will the negative affect of that be?

Maybe there is not god, and some have evolved to handle that idea. But that doesn't mean everybody else has.

And just because something is "true" doesn't mean the evolutionary out come is going to be "good". We already have to conclude in history religion has been "good" (or we would have never seen it grow like it has). Even if we state it is bad NOW, there is no reason to believe that will remain the case.

There are many cases in evolution where it is accepted the population variation is a good thing for that population of organisms. Why isn't religion one of those cases?

The other thing about the placebo is if it isn't really doing any harm, I'm reluctant to tell somebody that thinks it helps them that they are wrong or should stop. If somebody had pain, and it isn't cancer or something that will get worse w/o some sort of "real" medical intervention, what is wrong if somebody is undergoing something to deal with it that is likely a placebo. As long as it isn't costing them a ton of money (and they are getting some value (pain reduction)), and there is always the possiblity for them it is doing some good (proving that most treatments NEVER do any good is essentially impossible to prove(just like proving God doesn't exist)).

So my question to the active non-believers here is under what pretense do you even engage the theists with respect to the exsistence of God?

What evidence do you have that you should even be marking the argument that a god does not exists?

Do you need evidence that God exists, but don't need evidence to support the idea that you should argue that he doesn't exists?

[Jumbo]

Good post Peter, and I agree with where you're headed as an interesting area of conjecture. As seems to be the case lately, I had typed some rather rambling related stuff out (some a little more OT and personal) but will try to add some pertinent extension on this later.

I will say right now, that even with much to consider, and it not being anything I can "prove" in argument, I think major world religions currently are more positive than negative in overall human impact. I also see this relevant our current developmental stage socially (variations of degree geo-culturally) as a species as I see the matter re:any potential social evolution that may include increasing secularism and "reduced religion" that effectively fosters all the positive aspects most humans identity as desirable behaviorally being beyond us at this time without such religious assistance.

Outside the "ultimate truth" of various religious tenets in various religions, the positive social-shaping effects it has are much needed, IMO. I certainly can envision one possible future (even likely), based on several lines of thought including what has happened to date, where this is not the case for the "need" of religion (not that I intend to quote "Imagine" which was just an "ok" song to me :pfft:. but remember, I am also a big science fiction fan ).

More later, likely. Hide. Ready tl;dr keys. :laugh:

P.S. in the writing I said I already did, I also gave some thoughts (they're standard areas of examination for me) relevant to what your editing added.

I even practice much of what you're alluding to in your "placebo" comments in how and when and regarding who I "debate" religion with in both non-ES and ES situations. I, like many "non-believers" I've known, see little validity in any selfless or "good" reason to try to fiercely argue someone of benign intentions/behavior into accepting "non-belief" stances or "shake their faith" (if such is even remotely possible--i have never held such a motive and even am very resistant to the idea I might even do such a thing unintentionally, even if such an outcome is entirely their responsibility).

[PeterMP]

Good post Peter, and I agree with where you're headed as an interesting area of conjecture. As seems to be the case lately, I had typed some rather rambling related stuff out (some a little more OT and personal) but will try to add some pertinent extension on this later.

I will say right now, that even with much to consider, and it not being anything I can "prove" in argument, I think major world religions currently are more positive than negative in overall human impact. I also see this relevant our current developmental stage socially (variations of degree geo-culturally) as a species as I see the matter re:any potential social evolution that may include increasing secularism and "reduced religion" that effectively fosters all the positive aspects most humans identity as desirable behaviorally being beyond us at this time without such religious assistance.

Outside the "ultimate truth" of various religious tenets in various religions, the positive social-shaping effects it has are much needed, IMO. I certainly can envision one possible future (even likely), based on several lines of thought including what has happened to date, where this is not the case for the "need" of religion (not that I intend to quote "Imagine" which was just an "ok" song to me :pfft:. but remember, I am also a big science fiction fan ).

More later, likely. Hide. Ready tl;dr keys. :laugh:

P.S. in the writing I said I already did, I also gave some thoughts (they're standard areas of examination for me) relevant to what your editing added.

I even practice much of what you're alluding to in your "placebo" comments in how and when and regarding who I "debate" religion with in both non-ES and ES situations. I, like many "non-believers" I've known, see little validity in any selfless or "good" reason to try to fiercely argue someone of benign intentions/behavior into accepting "non-belief" stances or "shake their faith" (if such is even remotely possible--i have never held such a motive and even am very resistant to the idea I might even do such a thing unintentionally, even if such an outcome is entirely their responsibility).

Thanks.

I watched that part of the video and it sort of stayed w/ me. 2011 was kind of a rough year for me, and one of the things that happened was that my father passed away unexpectedly. And I had some bad days, and partly what got me through it was my faith. And some not even my faith, but my father's faith.

I've written about this a few times here before, but my dad was a recovering alcoholic (30+ years at the time of his death), and even though he was an active Catholic when he "became" (when it became appearant that he really ad a problem) an alcoholic, he was very open about the importance of the idea of it not him having to do the work alone, but being able to "lean on" a higher power (which for him was the Christian God) in his recovery.

And as I thought about what he said about the placebo, what I've traditionally thought about placebos (if it works for somebody who cares if it isn't really doing any harm), my Dad's life, and even me dealing with the issues that I had, I made a connection that I hadn't made before.

If it works for people, who cares if it is a placebo? If it helped my dad stay sober, who cares? If it helped me work through some issues, including my Dad's death, who cares?

Now, I'm not going to say that if the day after my Dad died somebody would have come forward with a convincing argument that God didn't exist that I would have gone out and shot up a McDonanlds, but I do absolutely believe that it would have negatively affected my ability to deal with things.

And the other big thing is the negatives of religion tend to be loud and obvious.

You tend to hear less about the quite stories of religion, and I again think my Dad's story is a good example of this.

We had a viewing for my Dad. Now, I have a large immediate family (7 siblings), and many of them live in the same area and go to the same church as my parents (I live the 2nd furthest away and I live about 2.5 hrs away), and my parents have lived in the same area since I was 2 and gone to the same Church since then, and in that time my Dad had two different jobs. So there are a lot of good connections to the area.

And so their were a ton people at this thing (as the family we stood at the front of the Church thanking people for coming for over 2 hours, on a rainy cold fall Saturday people were lined out the back of one of these big Catholic Churches waiting their turn.) and nobody knew everybody because a lot of my siblings people from work came and things like that.

But there were some people that came through that nobody really knew or not very well. For example, all 8 of us have gone to the same college. Several of us have backgrounds in science. One of my old Chemistry Professors came from when I was an undergrad. Now, afterward, we figured out that 3 of us actually had him in class, but I was the youngest, and I graduated from college in 1995. I'd seen him a few times while doing my PhD because he'd come the Univ. where I was doing my PhD for talks, but I got done w/ my PhD in 2001. I was never close to him, when he did come, we'd talk for 5 minutes, I haven't seen or heard from his since. None of my other siblings had kept up with him.

But here he was at my Dad's viewing.

There was another guy that NONE of us kids knew. My mom thought she recognized him from Church as somebody that used to come and had kids older than us, but nobody that they'd ever socialized with, and she hadn't seen him at Church in years (since his kids got older she said).

But here he was at my Dad's viewing.

We all knew that my Dad had affected a lot of people through his work and through our lives growing up, but its sort of astounding to think of the number of people that he might have affected through AA through the years (with 30+ years in the program), and the role that his faith played in that.

And that's just one person.

And to just throw that out like it isn't important and doesn't have an impact seems awfully unconceived to me.

Maybe it is just my perspective because of my life. I don't know.

[Corcaigh]

.

If it works for people, who cares if it is a placebo? If it helped my dad stay sober, who cares? If it helped me work through some issues, including my Dad's death, who cares?

Some may care, and some may not. I don't, any more than i care about someone finding solace in reading their Astrology column in their local paper. But the Astrologists don't try to legislate discrimination, or impact the teaching of science in schools. The existence, and rise, of fundamentalism here and elsewhere as an enemy of progress should be opposed. People often talk about conflict between science and religion, which is nonsense, because science doesn't have an opinion on religion.

[PeterMP]

Some may care, and some may not. I don't, any more than i care about someone finding solace in reading their Astrology column in their local paper. But the Astrologists don't try to legislate discrimination, or impact the teaching of science in schools. The existence, and rise, of fundamentalism here and elsewhere as an enemy of progress should be opposed. People often talk about conflict between science and religion, which is nonsense, because science doesn't have an opinion on religion.

I don't think you and I really disagree much here.

I would make the point that I made in the other post, that I doubt the solution to extremism is arguing the other extreme.