Sam Harris - Science must destroy religion article

[DCNBILL]

Yep.

Yup.

Hmmm I’ll have to be cautious here because people use the term “truth” in lots of different ways and I don’t want to mislead you by us talking using different meanings.*

I would say that a statement is the truth if it accurately corresponds to reality. Does that match your use of the term? If so could you explain what (if any) the difference is between “a truth” and “an absolute truth”. If you use the word “truth” differently please could you provide an explanation of how you are using the term.*

Sorry to be a bit cautious here but I’ve had discussions get very confused when people start using the same word to mean different things.*

Thanks

Understood. My concept of a truth is much like yours. A fact that, as you state, accurately corresponds to reality but also must have the following characteristics;

Be universal, the truth can only be a truth if it is true everywhere.

Be eternal, the truth can only be a truth if it was always true and always will be true.

Be necessary, the truth can only be a truth if it has to be, like 1 + 1 is necessarily 2 it can never be more or less.

What say you to this proposal?

 

[Candide_West]

Tonyrey said, “Genuine Christians care deeply about every person even if they know nothing about that person because they see Christ in everyone.”

Candide West replied , “Ah, so you do mean - in the generic ‘I care about everyone’ sense - well in that case yes of course, so do I, because we’re all humans.”

Tonyrey and Candide, as a Christian I don’t see Christ in a serial killer nor do I consider such an individual to be humane. I don’t see someone attempting to destroy my religion a christian or being humane.

I’m sure you wouldn’t, indeed neither would I consider a serial killer to be humane. This is because the concept of humane is closely linked to showing compassion and indeed inflicting the minimum amount of suffering we can. Clearly a serial killer would entirely fail against this standard. The reason for this become clear if you get around to reading the psychological profiles of many serial killers, they almost invariably lack empathy. They still want to avoid suffering themselves, but are unable or unwilling to apply this condition to others.

Candide West said, “Oh, I’m not picky, if the Christian idea of God exists then he knows every possible iteration of evidence which would convince me. And I’m sure there are far more than I can think of. He can pick whichever he pleases.”

Christ (Jesus) is a physical reality. My religion is based on physical realities and science doesn’t destroy a physical reality thus I reflect on this physical reality and exist as a Christian within many physical realities.

Fair enough, I understand that those are your beliefs, as I’m sure you know I do not share them. As I said, to date I have observed no evidence that would lead me to share your beliefs.

 

[Candide_West]

Hi Tony,

You seem to have a lot less unresolved questions to ask. Excellent work, well done.

How can you be the perceiver when “you are your perceptions”?

Ahh, I think I’ve found where I confused you here, because I explained that:

" ‘I’ am also the internal experience of physical interactions occurring within my brain"

And I also explained how perceptions are physical interactions occurring within the brain. So you put them together and guess that “I” am “perceptions”. Is that about right?

If so then allow me to clarify for you as best I can. Everything you are experiencing is interactions within your brain, your thoughts, tastes, things you see etc etc. There are also an awful lot of other interactions which you are not aware of ie your unconscious mind, the monitoring and controlling of your heart rate, breathing etc. Your perception of yourself is a subset of these interactions. Your perceptions from your senses is another subset of the interactions. The two overlap but neither could be said to be the other. So you have thoughts which are not from your external senses and you have perceptions which your brain processes but which you don’t notice consciously.

It’s not tautological but absurd!

Incorrect, it is tautological. It actually reduces to "that which I am refering to when I say “I” is that which I am refering to when I say “I” ". Work it out for yourself if you don’t believe me. Afraid this is the nature of explaining what terms mean, ultimately all definitions are circular.

There is no such thing as irrational morality.

Incorrect. Well, unless you wish to argue that animals are rational. Just for clarity I’ll show the logic (please let me know if I’ve misunderstood what you were trying to say here).

1. A number of social species of animals have their forms of morality (established as true earlier in this conversation).
2. There is no such thing as irrational morality (your contention above).
3. Therefore animals must be rational

If you are your perceptions you are also your actions - which is also absurd.

Once again this seems entirely disconnected from the text it was written in reply to. To be clear though actions are things that you undertake while perceptions are things that you experience. Neither should be described as being “you” exclusively.

It makes nonsense! How can perceptions and actions be collectively responsible?

I’m not sure what you are struggling with so badly here Tony. It’s quite simple - all the things that make up a person combined together make up a person. So everything that makes up “you” is collectively responsible for the things that “you” do. So no it isn’t JUST perceptions and actions which are collectively responsible, but ALL the things which make up a person. Does that make it clearer for you?

There is no point in trying to continue to have a rational discussion with some one who makes such blatantly absurd statements…

If you wish to identify something that you find absurd that I have written then please go ahead. I’ll be happy to explain in more detail for you. At the moment though it seems from my end as if you are working hard to misunderstand these few remaining points in our discussion.

 

[Candide_West]

Understood. *My concept of a truth is much like yours. *A fact that, as you state, accurately corresponds to reality but also must have the following characteristics;

Be universal, the truth can only be a truth if it is true everywhere.

Be eternal, the truth can only be a truth if it was always true and always will be true.

Be necessary, the truth can only be a truth if it has to be, like 1 + 1 is necessarily 2 it can never be more or less.

What say you to this proposal?

Ok, very glad that we’ve clarified then because the two propositions are very different. For example I would say that the following statement is true:

“I am sitting here writing a post for CAF at the moment”*

Because it is accurate description of my current activity and thus the statement conforms to reality.

Clearly however it fails against all three of your above criteria. It is not true everywhere because the statement refers to a event in a location, it is not true at all times because it refers to an event in a temporal sequence, and it is not necessary because clearly I could be doing something else right now.*

So I guess your question is “can I think of anything that meets these additional criteria…”*

I think the answer is probably no. At least I can’t think of anything at the moment.*

Incidentally the maths example you cited doesn’t meet your third criteria because 1 + 1 = 2 is dependent on the axioms of the system. So for example in binary 1+1 = 10. So 1 + 1 = 2 isn’t necessarily true, but only true in given circumstances.

 

[DCNBILL]

Ok, very glad that we’ve clarified then because the two propositions are very different. For example I would say that the following statement is true:

“I am sitting here writing a post for CAF at the moment”*

Because it is accurate description of my current activity and thus the statement conforms to reality.

Clearly however it fails against all three of your above criteria. It is not true everywhere because the statement refers to a event in a location, it is not true at all times because it refers to an event in a temporal sequence, and it is not necessary because clearly I could be doing something else right now.*

So I guess your question is “can I think of anything that meets these additional criteria…”*

I think the answer is probably no. At least I can’t think of anything at the moment.*

Incidentally the maths example you cited doesn’t meet your third criteria because 1 + 1 = 2 is dependent on the axioms of the system. So for example in binary 1+1 = 10. So 1 + 1 = 2 isn’t necessarily true, but only true in given circumstances.

Well then think of it this way, in this example I will be using the Character “!” to represent one pencil.

If i place one pencil “!” on a surface (or any other object really) I will have this.

!

Which we understand to be one pencil.

If I place another pencil next to the first, I get this.

! !

Which we understand is 2 pencils or 10 pencils in binary which is actually the same amount of pencils.

Can you demonstrate a reasonable circumstance where any other amount of pencils would occur under these conditions?

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Can you demonstrate a reasonable circumstance where any other amount of pencils would occur under these conditions?

place a pencil on the table. Break it in half and sharpen them both. had to do this in middle school once.

Side note, 1+1=1 in Boolean logic.

 

[LogisticsBranch]

Fair enough, I understand that those are your beliefs, as I’m sure you know I do not share them. As I said, to date I have observed no evidence that would lead me to share your beliefs.

Well, your response was only to one thing I said. Here is the rest from msg. #72 that you failed to respond to:

He (Jesus Christ) exists within the global mindful and heartfelt individuals that are Christian Catholics that number over 1 million people. This is only one example since there are many other Christians that aren’t Catholic. This is a physical reality that can’t be disputed. It implies as a fact that religion not only exists but survives all attacks by ill-mannered non-religious individuals.

I presented this before and will again:

The University of Science Berkeley has an online document entitled
“Misunderstandings of the limits of science”: undsciberkely.ed/article/science_religion
Here are three snippets from that online document:

1. “Science contradicts the existence of God. Because of some vocal individuals (both inside and outside of science) stridently declaring their beliefs, it’s easy to get the impression that science and religion are at war. In fact, people of many different faiths and levels of scientific expertise see no contradiction at all between science and religion. Because science deals only with natural phenomena and explanations, it cannot support or contradict the existence of supernatural entities — like God."
2. “A 2005 survey of scientists at top research universities found that more than 48% had a religious affiliation and more than 75% believe that religions convey important truths.2 Some scientists — like Francis Collins, former director of the National Human Genome Research Institute, and George Coyne, astronomer and priest — have been outspoken about the satisfaction they find in viewing the world through both a scientific lens and one of personal faith.”
3. “Though such clashes may garner print, airwave, and bandwidth headlines, it’s important to remember that, behind the scenes and out of the spotlight, many cases exist in which religious and scientific perspectives present no conflict at all. Thousands of scientists busily carry out their research while maintaining personal spiritual beliefs, and an even larger number of everyday folks fruitfully view the natural world through an evidence-based, scientific lens and the supernatural world through a spiritual lens. Accepting a scientific worldview needn’t require giving up religious faith.”

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.phd?p=8319905#post8319905
I’d like to invite Sam Harris to Catholic Answers so we could have a little chat. Apparently, he isn’t brave enough to come. Anyone who says Faith is FICTION is crossing over the line of reality. I recall an Australian newspaper interview this year with Lawrence Krauss (atheist) that mentioned he said, “Science will destroy religion.” HA! HA! HA! Dr. Lawrence Krauss perhaps you too should join us here. I have a bone to throw your way as noted above.

 

[LogisticsBranch]

Once again animals aren’t rational AT ALL. They don’t have rational eating habits, or make rational decisions about where to live, they don’t have rational anything. Why does that make any difference? Some species of social animals have their own forms of morality. So your original point that

“persons are animals and animals are amoral.”

has been shown to be incorrect. Surely there is nothing further to say on this subject?

Dear, oh dear me. Candide, scientifically speaking, we are from the animal kingdom. I’m a rational individual and my puppy is fine-tuned to eat two meals a day, likes her dog bed and my couch. She does know about morality in respect to being trained by me. When I say “NO”, “Go lay down”, “Sit”, “Stay”, “Let’s Play”, etc. she knows what I mean since I’ve taught her what those words mean by teaching her. She has excellent manners and she isn’t even 2 years old. Basically, she has learned faster than a child of two. She is not only bright but a sensitive creature that enjoys her life and mine. She’s extremely smart and loveable.

 

[Sair]

Dear, oh dear me. Candide, scientifically speaking, we are from the animal kingdom. I’m a rational individual and my puppy is fine-tuned to eat two meals a day, likes her dog bed and my couch. She does know about morality in respect to being trained by me. When I say “NO”, “Go lay down”, “Sit”, “Stay”, “Let’s Play”, etc. she knows what I mean since I’ve taught her what those words mean by teaching her. She has excellent manners and she isn’t even 2 years old. Basically, she has learned faster than a child of two. She is not only bright but a sensitive creature that enjoys her life and mine. She’s extremely smart and loveable.

Dogs are very responsive to and appreciative of what will get them what they want in life - food, shelter, comfort, companionship. We are resources to them, which is why they can tend to be very protective of us. I say this as someone who absolutely adores dogs, so please don’t think I am trying to denigrate them. The loyalty of a dog, even though it may be motivated, ultimately, by self-interest, far outweighs the loyalty of many a human - which is often motivated by exactly the same thing.

 

[DCNBILL]

place a pencil on the table. Break it in half and sharpen them both. had to do this in middle school once.

Side note, 1+1=1 in Boolean logic.

nice try but not the same conditions.

 

[farpinho]

I have read Harris, Dawkins, and all the others. Does any of them really “think” that they can “convince” us that we are just nothing more than “atoms & molecules”? That my whole experience this evening is just electrons transitioning from one quantum state to another? And yet, if I would claim that, “my neurons made me ‘do it’”, they will tell me that I am talking nonsense and that the conservation laws of physics, while being immutable, really do allow for human free will and choice, hence, moral responsibility. So, in that respect, "I"can really manipulate the neurons in my brain and that “I” really do have control over them even though they are completely responsible for “me”.

Sorry. Atheism only makes sense if God exists.

Sorry, but… If we are nothing more than just atoms and electromagnetic fields and our thoughts are nothing more than electrical impulses in our brain, then I don’t know why some atheists are so proud of their brilliant intelligence/brains and for being immune to cultural traits…

Oh, wait… I forgot… “pride” doesn’t exist… it’s just a materialistic illusion…

 

[ThinkingSapien]

nice try but not the same conditions.

Was worth a try

At any rate, many aspects of mathematics are derived from and are metaphors for physical phenomenon and grouping. Some aspects are arbitrary. Some areas in math have no relationship to physical reality at all. The example that you gave of simple addition is a metaphor for grouping sets. As long as your addition is mapped to that and the objects being added are (at least for our purposes) immutable one would expect a result consistent with the conservation of energy and mass. As you saw from the earlier responses the same mathematical expression can be used as a metaphor for a different phenomenon.

There’s a nice cognitive science book that goes into a lot of detail on this, Where Mathematics Comes From: How the Embodied Mind Brings Mathematics into Being.

 

[Candide_West]

Well then think of it this way, in this example I will be using the Character “!” to represent one pencil.

If i place one pencil “!” on a surface (or any other object really) I will have this.

• • ! *

Which we understand to be one pencil.

If I place another pencil next to the first, I get this.

• • ! !

Which we understand is 2 pencils or 10 pencils in binary which is actually the same amount of pencils.

Can you demonstrate a reasonable circumstance where any other amount of pencils would occur under these conditions?

No I can’t, but that’s not what I’m saying. The general case of the problem is that I cannot think of any statement which is not dependent on something else being accepted as true.*

So any statement where you start out with something like “if X then…” (ie “if I place two pencils on a surface…”) what you’ve got is a conditional statement. Therefore by its very nature it is not necessarily true.*

So if you are using a description of a theoretical physical state you end up with conditional statements (as above).*

If you are making a statement about a physical reality (real pencils) then the statement is conditional and generally time and location limited too.*

If you are working within an axiomatic system (like pure maths) then the statement is dependent on the axioms of that system so it’s still conditional.*

I’m not saying that it’s impossible to meet all your conditions, but I can’t think of any statement which does thus far.

In the interest of furthering the discussion, might it be helpful to explain the context in which you are raising this? I’m just thinking terms of to relating this back to your original statement regarding morality.

 

[DCNBILL]

No I can’t, but that’s not what I’m saying. The general case of the problem is that I cannot think of any statement which is not dependent on something else being accepted as true.*

So any statement where you start out with something like “if X then…” (ie “if I place two pencils on a surface…”) what you’ve got is a conditional statement. Therefore by its very nature it is not necessarily true.*

So if you are using a description of a theoretical physical state you end up with conditional statements (as above).*

If you are making a statement about a physical reality (real pencils) then the statement is conditional and generally time and location limited too.*

If you are working within an axiomatic system (like pure maths) then the statement is dependent on the axioms of that system so it’s still conditional.*

I’m not saying that it’s impossible to meet all your conditions, but I can’t think of any statement which does thus far.

In the interest of furthering the discussion, might it be helpful to explain the context in which you are raising this? I’m just thinking terms of to relating this back to your original statement regarding morality.

So when you read my post you actually got out some pencils and did the process or did you do it in your mind, which is where I propose, these truths actually reside.

OK so there is no such thing as an “absolute truth” in your world view, fair enough. So any “truth” would be completely dependent on the arbitrary preferences of the individual along with communicated agreements with others.

Would this be closer to mean what you mean by truth?

As for the purpose of the question, I was assessing the way that you view the concepts of knowledge and fact. After I have pinned that down I can wrap up so to speak.

 

[Candide_West]

Well, your response was only to one thing I said. *Here is the rest from msg. #72 that you failed to respond to:

Indeed, I didn’t really feel I had anything to say about the remainder of your post, but since you’ve followed up I’ll offer some brief thoughts.

He (Jesus Christ) exists within the global mindful and heartfelt individuals that are Christian Catholics that number over 1 million people. This is only one example since there are many other Christians that aren’t Catholic. *This is a physical reality that can’t be disputed. It implies as a fact that religion not only exists but survives all attacks by ill-mannered non-religious individuals.

Indeed it does imply that. The christian religion is a very well adapted to survive in human society.*

I presented this before and will again:

The University of Science Berkeley has an online document entitled*
“Misunderstandings of the limits of science”: undsciberkely.ed/article/science_religion
Here are three snippets from that online document:

1. “Science contradicts the existence of God. Because of some vocal individuals (both inside and outside of science) stridently declaring their beliefs, it’s easy to get the impression that science and religion are at war. In fact, people of many different faiths and levels of scientific expertise see no contradiction at all between science and religion. Because science deals only with natural phenomena and explanations, it cannot support or contradict the existence of supernatural entities — like God."

Fair enough, this is true, science doesn’t contradict the existence of god. Just like it doesn’t contradict the existence of Russels teapot, or the flying spaghetti monster, or Thor etc. These are all propositions for which there is no evidence either way.

1. “A 2005 survey of scientists at top research universities found that more than 48% had a religious affiliation and more than 75% believe that religions convey important truths.2 Some scientists — like Francis Collins, former director of the National Human Genome Research Institute, and George Coyne, astronomer and priest — have been outspoken about the satisfaction they find in viewing the world through both a scientific lens and one of personal faith.”

Fair enough. Out of interest does it mention where the survey was undertaken?*

1. “Though such clashes may garner print, airwave, and bandwidth headlines, it’s important to remember that, behind the scenes and out of the spotlight, many cases exist in which religious and scientific perspectives present no conflict at all. Thousands of scientists busily carry out their research while maintaining personal spiritual beliefs, and an even larger number of everyday folks fruitfully view the natural world through an evidence-based, scientific lens and the supernatural world through a spiritual lens. Accepting a scientific worldview needn’t require giving up religious faith.”

Indeed, while there are some significant clashes these don’t cover the totality of either area.*

I’d like to invite Sam Harris to Catholic Answers *so we could have a little chat. Apparently, he isn’t brave enough to come. *

Did you actually invite him? Somehow I doubt that the reason he isn’t on here is fear (assuming for the moment he isn’t on here using a pseudonym which of course he could be).

Anyone who says Faith is FICTION is crossing over the line of reality. *I recall an Australian newspaper interview this year with Lawrence Krauss (atheist) that mentioned he said, “Science will destroy religion.” *HA! HA! HA! Dr. Lawrence Krauss perhaps you too should join us here. *I have a bone to throw your way as noted above.

Fair enough, but if Dr. Krauss isn’t on the forum then I’m not sure how he would know you wrote a post on here inviting him to join…

 

[Candide_West]

Dear, oh dear me. Candide, scientifically speaking, we are from the animal kingdom.

Er, yes I know. From the context of Tonys comments it was clear he was making a distinction between humans and other animals. So I thought I’d just work with him rather than correcting that minor point (I’m quite sure he also knows humans are part of the animal kingdom).

*I’m a rational individual and my puppy is fine-tuned to eat two meals a day, likes her dog bed and my couch. She does know about morality in respect to being trained by me. When I say “NO”, “Go lay down”, “Sit”, “Stay”, “Let’s Play”, etc. *she knows what I mean since I’ve taught her what those words mean by teaching her. * She has excellent manners and she isn’t even 2 years old. *Basically, she has learned faster than a child of two. *She is not only bright but a sensitive creature that enjoys her life and mine. *She’s extremely smart and loveable.

Righto, glad to hear you have such a nice pet. Not sure of the relevance to the subject matter though? Are you intending this to be evidence that your dog is a rational creature?*

 

[Candide_West]

So when you read my post you actually got out some pencils and did the process or did you do it in your mind, which is where I propose, these truths actually reside.

Well no, I did it in my mind, but my point is that it doesn’t matter which way you do it. Either way it fails to meet your stated criteria.*

OK so there is no such thing as an “absolute truth” in your world view, fair enough. *So any “truth” would be completely dependent on the arbitrary preferences of the individual along with communicated agreements with others.

Would this be closer to mean what you mean by truth?

No, not at all. As I said to me a truth is a statement which accurately corresponds to reality. This is nothing to do with arbitrary preferences.*

For example the statement “I am writing a post to put onto the CAF website right now” is true in that it corresponds to reality. It is a fact, and I’m quite certain of it because I am right here doing it (it also has the advantage that you can be certain that it accurately corresponds to reality, because otherwise you wouldn’t be able to read it). So I would say it is a truth. But it fails to meet the additional criteria that you put forwards. This certainly doesn’t make it arbitrary but it does (presumably) mean you wouldn’t consider it to be a truth.

Just for clarity, what would you call a statement which accurately corresponds to reality but doesn’t meet the other three criteria you presented?

As for the purpose of the question, I was assessing *the way that you view the concepts of knowledge and fact. *After I have pinned that down I can wrap up so to speak.

Understood. Thanks for clarifying.*

 

[Candide_West]

DCNBill,

Any more thoughts on this topic? Not a massive rush for this if you are busy at the moment but I thought the conversation was probably approaching it’s conclusion so was interested to see where you were heading.

TonyRey,

Any further questions you’d like to ask on this thread or are you happy you understand how this all works now?

Either way hope you are both well and everything.

 

[DCNBILL]

Well no, I did it in my mind, but my point is that it doesn’t matter which way you do it. Either way it fails to meet your stated criteria.*

I would say it fits nicely to all of the criteria, anywhere anytime anyone thinks of one object and then another object then that being ins thinking of the same number of objects which we identify as 2, and it can not result in anything else.

No, not at all. As I said to me a truth is a statement which accurately corresponds to reality. This is nothing to do with arbitrary preferences.*

For example the statement “I am writing a post to put onto the CAF website right now” is true in that it corresponds to reality. It is a fact, and I’m quite certain of it because I am right here doing it (it also has the advantage that you can be certain that it accurately corresponds to reality, because otherwise you wouldn’t be able to read it). So I would say it is a truth. But it fails to meet the additional criteria that you put forwards. This certainly doesn’t make it arbitrary but it does (presumably) mean you wouldn’t consider it to be a truth.

Just for clarity, what would you call a statement which accurately corresponds to reality but doesn’t meet the other three criteria you presented?

I would call what is described above as a current fact.

Understood. Thanks for clarifying.*

I will sum up presently you may have to give me some time due to my current situation.

Thanks:thumbsup:

 

[Candide_West]

I would say it fits nicely to all of the criteria, anywhere anytime anyone thinks of one object and then another object then that being ins thinking of the same number of objects which we identify as 2, and it can not result in anything else.

Ahh, in that case it sounds as if you meant something different to what I thought you meant. I thought you meant “necessary” as something more like “non-contingent”. From the above it sounds as if you’re including conditional statements. In that case many statements can comply, including many in mathematics.

I would call what is described above as a current fact. *

Fair enough.*

I will sum up presently you may have to give me some time due to my current situation.

Thanks:thumbsup:

Ok, I shall look forwards to it.