Big Think

Nicholas Bousquet on January 29, 2008, 11:08 AM

I would have to say that you pose some excellent points here regarding the many ironies of religion. It is my personal feeling that religion was created as a coping mechanism in a time when humanity had a lesser understanding of the world they lived in. The one thing people have always been afraid of is the unknown and perhaps that is why religion developed; to explain those questions that are unanswerable i.e. why are we here, what happens after we die, etc. You had a good question in asking that if one religion is true and correct then how will we know, and if so then how did all of these other schools of thought originate? The only problem here is that when debating religion there will always be the people that simply state that "you must have faith", and there is really no way to counter an argument of that nature because they do not use evidence or rational thinking to form a response, it is strictly opinion with no scientifis or rational process behind it.

Nicholas Bousquet on January 29, 2008, 4:08 PM

I would have to say that you pose some excellent points here regarding the many ironies of religion. It is my personal feeling that religion was created as a coping mechanism in a time when humanity had a lesser understanding of the world they lived in. The one thing people have always been afraid of is the unknown and perhaps that is why religion developed; to explain those questions that are unanswerable i.e. why are we here, what happens after we die, etc. You had a good question in asking that if one religion is true and correct then how will we know, and if so then how did all of these other schools of thought originate? The only problem here is that when debating religion there will always be the people that simply state that “you must have faith”, and there is really no way to counter an argument of that nature because they do not use evidence or rational thinking to form a response, it is strictly opinion with no scientifis or rational process behind it.

Justin Francis on January 30, 2008, 9:45 PM

As you mention, there's only two possibilities regarding the Koran and the Bible since they have different messages: 1. One of the books is genuine and one is false, or 2. They are both false. All a sincere person who wants to know the answer to this needs to do is research and study both books. He will be able to determine the answer for himself. Clearly you haven't read the bible through because there is no mention of the Hellfire doctrine in the Bible. It's a false doctrine. As for where a person is born, there is a global preaching work being done all throughout the earth. It's still up to a person if they are going to listen or not.

Justin Francis on January 31, 2008, 2:45 AM

As you mention, there’s only two possibilities regarding the Koran and the Bible since they have different messages: 1. One of the books is genuine and one is false, or 2. They are both false. All a sincere person who wants to know the answer to this needs to do is research and study both books. He will be able to determine the answer for himself. Clearly you haven’t read the bible through because there is no mention of the Hellfire doctrine in the Bible. It’s a false doctrine. As for where a person is born, there is a global preaching work being done all throughout the earth. It’s still up to a person if they are going to listen or not.

Benedict Lagos on February 1, 2008, 4:41 AM

mr. Harris as you said there is no eternal torment or punishment written in the bible and it's not the hell as we all know, it's a lake of fire in which the unbeliever will be punish based on their degree of sins so it's not eternal. See the original text of new testament in Greek you find the difference of sheol and gehenna.

Benedict Lagos on February 1, 2008, 9:41 AM

mr. Harris as you said there is no eternal torment or punishment written in the bible and it’s not the hell as we all know, it’s a lake of fire in which the unbeliever will be punish based on their degree of sins so it’s not eternal. See the original text of new testament in Greek you find the difference of sheol and gehenna.

Joel Hollingsworth on February 3, 2008, 4:36 PM

As much room for compromise as a coin flip?

What if Jesus asserted a divine heritage for all of humanity, only including himself incidentally? What if his real point is that we share a common goodness and a common identity, due to our common heritage?

What if Muslim scholars saw the excesses of Gnosticism, and warned against an exclusive, provincial deification of Jesus for largely the same reasons that you do?

It's easy to build a business (e.g., a church) by giving someone the hard sell on a particular idea, but I don't think this is the only notion of God.

Joel Hollingsworth on February 3, 2008, 9:36 PM

As much room for compromise as a coin flip?

What if Jesus asserted a divine heritage for all of humanity, only including himself incidentally? What if his real point is that we share a common goodness and a common identity, due to our common heritage?

What if Muslim scholars saw the excesses of Gnosticism, and warned against an exclusive, provincial deification of Jesus for largely the same reasons that you do?

It’s easy to build a business (e.g., a church) by giving someone the hard sell on a particular idea, but I don’t think this is the only notion of God.

George Lindesay on February 8, 2008, 1:42 AM

I am going to jump in the boat with Sam and Nick B here… Religion is clearly a man made entity. This is made clear in the obvious falabilities of religious texts. The doctrines are all based on xenophobic racism that seek to provide justification for the murder of "unbelievers." Furthermore, the creation texts throughout all religious doctrines pale in comparison to the understanding of the cosmos we have today. Perhaps if the texts provided some interesting revelation that corresponded to todays understanding some credance could lent to the religious creation. As it stands however, the words of genesis reek of sand dwelling nomads who knew nothing of the world outside the desert.

George Lindesay on February 8, 2008, 6:42 AM

I am going to jump in the boat with Sam and Nick B here… Religion is clearly a man made entity. This is made clear in the obvious falabilities of religious texts. The doctrines are all based on xenophobic racism that seek to provide justification for the murder of “unbelievers.” Furthermore, the creation texts throughout all religious doctrines pale in comparison to the understanding of the cosmos we have today. Perhaps if the texts provided some interesting revelation that corresponded to todays understanding some credance could lent to the religious creation. As it stands however, the words of genesis reek of sand dwelling nomads who knew nothing of the world outside the desert.

Tom nolastname on February 9, 2008, 8:59 AM

As culturalvertigo points out, the subtitle "Harris refutes the possibility of an intelligent designer" is incorrect. He may attempt to do this in his books and elsewhere, but not in this video. In this video he makes two claims:
- The claim that the existence of a god is unfalsifiable. This may be true, but then the opposite would also be true, so neither he nor anyone else could prove that there is no god. (Also, the fact that something is unfalsifiable doesn't mean it's not true. Obviously it then can't be investigated by the scientific method, but that doesn't make it false.)
- The claim that traditional religions have different claims about the nature of the creator and therefore all can't be true, and so probably none are true. I do agree with the conclusion, but it doesn't necessarily follow from the premise. (Sam isn't claiming that it does, but it's implied by the subtitle of the video.)
To be clear, I'm a big fan of Sam Harris (although I'm an agnostic and not an atheist), and I'm disagreeing with the subtitle of the video and not its content.

Tom nolastname on February 9, 2008, 1:59 PM

As culturalvertigo points out, the subtitle “Harris refutes the possibility of an intelligent designer” is incorrect. He may attempt to do this in his books and elsewhere, but not in this video. In this video he makes two claims:
- The claim that the existence of a god is unfalsifiable. This may be true, but then the opposite would also be true, so neither he nor anyone else could prove that there is no god. (Also, the fact that something is unfalsifiable doesn’t mean it’s not true. Obviously it then can’t be investigated by the scientific method, but that doesn’t make it false.)
- The claim that traditional religions have different claims about the nature of the creator and therefore all can’t be true, and so probably none are true. I do agree with the conclusion, but it doesn’t necessarily follow from the premise. (Sam isn’t claiming that it does, but it’s implied by the subtitle of the video.)
To be clear, I’m a big fan of Sam Harris (although I’m an agnostic and not an atheist), and I’m disagreeing with the subtitle of the video and not its content.

Jeff Delano on February 11, 2008, 8:49 PM

Imagine if you will, a force that is infinite. For an unknown ammount of time that force just existed and slowly realizes that it is infinite. From there it wants to see what would happen if things were finite. With that the universe was created, with it's infinite space/time (mass) and infinite time/space (anti-mass).

These holy books are just a part of the major picture. Misinterpreted to confuse and keep the masses in check. The teachings of Christ perverted by early Catholic priests to be able to better control the Roman public. And that original perversion led to the Muslims not believing in Jesus' powers of being the "son" of God. Jesus originally taught us that we are all the offspring of God. We are all finite versions of the infinite.

So therefore the intelligent designer is us, it is humanity.

Love and light my friends.

Jeff Delano on February 12, 2008, 1:49 AM

Imagine if you will, a force that is infinite. For an unknown ammount of time that force just existed and slowly realizes that it is infinite. From there it wants to see what would happen if things were finite. With that the universe was created, with it’s infinite space/time (mass) and infinite time/space (anti-mass).

These holy books are just a part of the major picture. Misinterpreted to confuse and keep the masses in check. The teachings of Christ perverted by early Catholic priests to be able to better control the Roman public. And that original perversion led to the Muslims not believing in Jesus’ powers of being the “son” of God. Jesus originally taught us that we are all the offspring of God. We are all finite versions of the infinite.

So therefore the intelligent designer is us, it is humanity.

Love and light my friends.

James Nordhoff on February 14, 2008, 8:00 AM

A dyslexic atheist: "There is no dog!"
Religion is a man made invention, plain and simple. And, yes, it is true that you can not prove that God does or does not exist.
His apparent lack of involvement in human affairs since all religious texts were written would seem to be the basis for the "God is dead" mantra of the mid-twentieth century. I believe moral teachings are a necessity for humans to be tolerant of one another and co-exist. A view evidently lost on many of our world's bankers, politicians and CEOs of Big Business, none of which seem to really have the interest of regular people in mind, at all. Hellfire is a man made doctrine. I am not convinced that Karma doesn't exist, however. It would certainly be fair if good works are rewarded in life, and of course, evil works get some kind of just desserts, in return. Who really knows?
If God does exist, he certainly doesn't want any possible evidence around that he does.
Seems like an uncaring, self-important jerk, to me. So I like to say, in the word's of Homer Simpson, "He's my favorite fictional character!"
Let's just all try to be good to each other, for goodness's sake…..

James Nordhoff on February 14, 2008, 1:00 PM

A dyslexic atheist: “There is no dog!”
Religion is a man made invention, plain and simple. And, yes, it is true that you can not prove that God does or does not exist.
His apparent lack of involvement in human affairs since all religious texts were written would seem to be the basis for the “God is dead” mantra of the mid-twentieth century. I believe moral teachings are a necessity for humans to be tolerant of one another and co-exist. A view evidently lost on many of our world’s bankers, politicians and CEOs of Big Business, none of which seem to really have the interest of regular people in mind, at all. Hellfire is a man made doctrine. I am not convinced that Karma doesn’t exist, however. It would certainly be fair if good works are rewarded in life, and of course, evil works get some kind of just desserts, in return. Who really knows?
If God does exist, he certainly doesn’t want any possible evidence around that he does.
Seems like an uncaring, self-important jerk, to me. So I like to say, in the word’s of Homer Simpson, “He’s my favorite fictional character!”
Let’s just all try to be good to each other, for goodness’s sake…..

Jeffrey Stingerstein on February 16, 2008, 9:18 AM

The burden of proof is on the one who makes the positive claim. In other words, if one asserts "I believe God exists" the burden of proof is on this person to prove it. If one assert "I believe God does not exist" the burden of proof is on this person. However, there is no burden of proof on one who says, "I do not believe God exists." This is a lack of assertion. There are two sides stances on Faith: Theism (belief) and atheism (no belief). Agnosticism has been bastardized. It means "without knowledge". One is either a, agnostic theist or an agnostic atheist, but not simply agnostic.

www.disillusionedwords.com

Jeffrey Stingerstein on February 16, 2008, 2:18 PM

The burden of proof is on the one who makes the positive claim. In other words, if one asserts “I believe God exists” the burden of proof is on this person to prove it. If one assert “I believe God does not exist” the burden of proof is on this person. However, there is no burden of proof on one who says, “I do not believe God exists.” This is a lack of assertion. There are two sides stances on Faith: Theism (belief) and atheism (no belief). Agnosticism has been bastardized. It means “without knowledge”. One is either a, agnostic theist or an agnostic atheist, but not simply agnostic.

www.disillusionedwords.com

Kenton Stubbs on February 29, 2008, 6:39 PM

I'm going to take exception to what Disillusioned Words said about agnosticism.

One who has a belief in something without quantifiable data to back that belief up is relying on nothing but pure faith. An agnostic, at least in the spirit of the man who coined the term, Thomas Henry Huxley, is one who doesn't "pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable." You can not demonstrate either the existence or non-existence of a deity. All that is available to you is the words of other humans. The day we can have empirical data one way or the other is the day that we can state with complete certainty one way or the other.

That is the un-bastardized meaning of agnosticism. It is not sitting on the fence. It is simply refusing to make unknowable assumptions as fact despite personal proclivities for one of the two faiths.

Kenton Stubbs on February 29, 2008, 11:39 PM

I’m going to take exception to what Disillusioned Words said about agnosticism.

One who has a belief in something without quantifiable data to back that belief up is relying on nothing but pure faith. An agnostic, at least in the spirit of the man who coined the term, Thomas Henry Huxley, is one who doesn’t “pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable.” You can not demonstrate either the existence or non-existence of a deity. All that is available to you is the words of other humans. The day we can have empirical data one way or the other is the day that we can state with complete certainty one way or the other.

That is the un-bastardized meaning of agnosticism. It is not sitting on the fence. It is simply refusing to make unknowable assumptions as fact despite personal proclivities for one of the two faiths.

James Brown on March 2, 2008, 9:45 AM

I'm going to take exception to KentonStubbs point about agnosticism. Your viewpoint is paradoxical.

You have said that it is wrong to believe in something without sufficient evidence. Which is exactly what atheists think as well.

So in this respect you don't believe in God. Yet at the same time you are saying that it is wrong not to believe in God.

You then go on to say that you will take sides when we have evidence. But you seem to be overlooking that fact that we will never have conclusive evidence for the non-existence of God, simply because of God's nature. So although you say you are not fence-sitting, you are infact fence-sitting until something impossible happens. In which case you are fence-sitting forever, which means you are fence-sitting.

This kind of pure agnosticism is a paradox. To the extent that it becomes logical it also becomes atheistic. Generally this sort of atheism says, I'm not absolutely certain that God doesn't exist, but I'm almost certain anyone who says he does is wrong. Agnosticism gives the wrong impression that because you can't prove one of two possibilities that they are both equally likely. But because atheism is falsifiable, and theism is not then until it is falsified atheism is infinitely more probable than theism. This is a brut fact of probablity.

James Brown on March 2, 2008, 2:45 PM

I’m going to take exception to KentonStubbs point about agnosticism. Your viewpoint is paradoxical.

You have said that it is wrong to believe in something without sufficient evidence. Which is exactly what atheists think as well.

So in this respect you don’t believe in God. Yet at the same time you are saying that it is wrong not to believe in God.

You then go on to say that you will take sides when we have evidence. But you seem to be overlooking that fact that we will never have conclusive evidence for the non-existence of God, simply because of God’s nature. So although you say you are not fence-sitting, you are infact fence-sitting until something impossible happens. In which case you are fence-sitting forever, which means you are fence-sitting.

This kind of pure agnosticism is a paradox. To the extent that it becomes logical it also becomes atheistic. Generally this sort of atheism says, I’m not absolutely certain that God doesn’t exist, but I’m almost certain anyone who says he does is wrong. Agnosticism gives the wrong impression that because you can’t prove one of two possibilities that they are both equally likely. But because atheism is falsifiable, and theism is not then until it is falsified atheism is infinitely more probable than theism. This is a brut fact of probablity.

Joel McDurmon on March 4, 2008, 5:05 AM

I am disappointed. Sam, you usually come at us hard with both fists (even if one is in the kidney); but this time you never confronted the topic. You said it is unfalsifiable, and then said different holy books make contradictory claims. What's that got to do with the possibility of an intelligent designer? How's that a refutation?

What you essentially said is, "I can't philosophically refute it due to the nature of the topic, and, by golly, at least one of those many books is wrong!"

"Flim-Flam Sam"!

Joel McDurmon on March 4, 2008, 10:05 AM

I am disappointed. Sam, you usually come at us hard with both fists (even if one is in the kidney); but this time you never confronted the topic. You said it is unfalsifiable, and then said different holy books make contradictory claims. What’s that got to do with the possibility of an intelligent designer? How’s that a refutation?

What you essentially said is, “I can’t philosophically refute it due to the nature of the topic, and, by golly, at least one of those many books is wrong!”

“Flim-Flam Sam”!

Musycks on March 5, 2008, 8:05 PM

James Brown? maybe you still feel good about saying atheists are almost certainly wrong about the existence of Dog… and the twists in your argument are fairly confusing… but if the evidence points to nothing, then there's nothing…. or to put it more poetically a la Ingmar Bergman.. it's the silence.
Re the Jesus fable Sam is spot on. It shows how empty these Religions are of intellectual rigour. They can't both be right.
Any cursory reading on the Christian stories and you'll tell that any early followers were deeply divided over the message and substance of his 'work', not settled until 324CE, and the deluded amongst them were certain he was returning soon. Don't hold your breath. My Christian friends have descended so far into metaphor, that their beliefs would be heretical to even devout followers of 100 years ago. Vacuous nonsense meant to assuage our morbid fear of death.

Musycks on March 6, 2008, 1:05 AM

James Brown? maybe you still feel good about saying atheists are almost certainly wrong about the existence of Dog… and the twists in your argument are fairly confusing… but if the evidence points to nothing, then there’s nothing…. or to put it more poetically a la Ingmar Bergman.. it’s the silence.
Re the Jesus fable Sam is spot on. It shows how empty these Religions are of intellectual rigour. They can’t both be right.
Any cursory reading on the Christian stories and you’ll tell that any early followers were deeply divided over the message and substance of his ‘work’, not settled until 324CE, and the deluded amongst them were certain he was returning soon. Don’t hold your breath. My Christian friends have descended so far into metaphor, that their beliefs would be heretical to even devout followers of 100 years ago. Vacuous nonsense meant to assuage our morbid fear of death.

Keith Wood on March 6, 2008, 8:00 PM

The way that science and general logical decision making functions is to determine probable outcomes. Probability is the easiest way to determine whether or not one believes in a personal god. Base your conclusions in science, history or the starkly contrasting a numerous doctrines of the various faiths, but it is quite a task to rationalize it all together or pick out one sect and rationalize it against the others.

Keith Wood on March 7, 2008, 1:00 AM

The way that science and general logical decision making functions is to determine probable outcomes. Probability is the easiest way to determine whether or not one believes in a personal god. Base your conclusions in science, history or the starkly contrasting a numerous doctrines of the various faiths, but it is quite a task to rationalize it all together or pick out one sect and rationalize it against the others.

Joshua Hester on March 7, 2008, 7:03 AM

I could not disagree more. Although each religion is comprised of its own belief system , they share very similar tiers. I might concede that religion as a whole is a product of society and represents the host culture. So that when a religion moves from one culture to another, it evolves in unusual ways. But why is there a core feature to all of a creator or creators. Is it ludicrous to suppose that something can be believed without proof? Don't we do this all the time outside of religion? Some scientists even believe that observation is proof, when anyone in science knows that no observation is unflawed.

I cannot convince anyone there is a God. Nor would I want to, but why should that stop me from my belief? Don't I believe there is more to life than cruel, senseless logic? And are not our actions fruits of our beliefs? If I believe we all possess a spark of the divine and that we all share the same existence, then won't I at least attempt to treat people around me better? We could also use the same argument for treating people poorly. The point is this: science alone does not and cannot prove or disprove everything, and in all matter, faith plays a role whether you admit it or not. I believe logic and mathematics both have some obvious flaws, but I have faith in them to show truth. Isn't that a kind of religion?

Joshua Hester on March 7, 2008, 7:04 AM

I could not disagree more. Although each religion is comprised of its own belief system , they share very similar tiers. I might concede that religion as a whole is a product of society and represents the host culture. So that when a religion moves from one culture to another, it evolves in unusual ways. But why is there a core feature to all of a creator or creators. Is it ludicrous to suppose that something can be believed without proof? Don't we do this all the time outside of religion? Some scientists even believe that observation is proof, when anyone in science knows that no observation is unflawed.

I cannot convince anyone there is a God. Nor would I want to, but why should that stop me from my belief? Don't I believe there is more to life than cruel, senseless logic? And are not our actions fruits of our beliefs? If I believe we all possess a spark of the divine and that we all share the same existence, then won't I at least attempt to treat people around me better? We could also use the same argument for treating people poorly. The point is this: science alone does not and cannot prove or disprove everything, and in all matter, faith plays a role whether you admit it or not. I believe logic and mathematics both have some obvious flaws, but I have faith in them to show truth. Isn't that a kind of religion?

Joshua Hester on March 7, 2008, 12:03 PM

I could not disagree more. Although each religion is comprised of its own belief system , they share very similar tiers. I might concede that religion as a whole is a product of society and represents the host culture. So that when a religion moves from one culture to another, it evolves in unusual ways. But why is there a core feature to all of a creator or creators. Is it ludicrous to suppose that something can be believed without proof? Don’t we do this all the time outside of religion? Some scientists even believe that observation is proof, when anyone in science knows that no observation is unflawed.

I cannot convince anyone there is a God. Nor would I want to, but why should that stop me from my belief? Don’t I believe there is more to life than cruel, senseless logic? And are not our actions fruits of our beliefs? If I believe we all possess a spark of the divine and that we all share the same existence, then won’t I at least attempt to treat people around me better? We could also use the same argument for treating people poorly. The point is this: science alone does not and cannot prove or disprove everything, and in all matter, faith plays a role whether you admit it or not. I believe logic and mathematics both have some obvious flaws, but I have faith in them to show truth. Isn’t that a kind of religion?

Joshua Hester on March 7, 2008, 12:04 PM

I could not disagree more. Although each religion is comprised of its own belief system , they share very similar tiers. I might concede that religion as a whole is a product of society and represents the host culture. So that when a religion moves from one culture to another, it evolves in unusual ways. But why is there a core feature to all of a creator or creators. Is it ludicrous to suppose that something can be believed without proof? Don’t we do this all the time outside of religion? Some scientists even believe that observation is proof, when anyone in science knows that no observation is unflawed.

I cannot convince anyone there is a God. Nor would I want to, but why should that stop me from my belief? Don’t I believe there is more to life than cruel, senseless logic? And are not our actions fruits of our beliefs? If I believe we all possess a spark of the divine and that we all share the same existence, then won’t I at least attempt to treat people around me better? We could also use the same argument for treating people poorly. The point is this: science alone does not and cannot prove or disprove everything, and in all matter, faith plays a role whether you admit it or not. I believe logic and mathematics both have some obvious flaws, but I have faith in them to show truth. Isn’t that a kind of religion?

Gregg Eichhorn on March 12, 2008, 7:00 AM

Overthink

The entire discussion ultimately revolves around personal belief and can never be anything more until god turns up and holds a press conference. The history of religion is an appalling litany of hate, persecution and distrust all in the name of this god and still continues today, creating a stark lacuna in the thinking of any person who argues that this god exists. There is absolutely no reason why people shouldn't have a god to believe in, but every reason for them not to think that this somehow gives them moral ascendancy or is fact. Equally atheists should refrain from inferred disdainful intellectual superiority over those who seek comfort from a belief in their god, however illogical it may appear from a modern scientific viewpoint, which clearly suffers from overthink.

Gregg Eichhorn on March 12, 2008, 11:00 AM

Overthink

The entire discussion ultimately revolves around personal belief and can never be anything more until god turns up and holds a press conference. The history of religion is an appalling litany of hate, persecution and distrust all in the name of this god and still continues today, creating a stark lacuna in the thinking of any person who argues that this god exists. There is absolutely no reason why people shouldn’t have a god to believe in, but every reason for them not to think that this somehow gives them moral ascendancy or is fact. Equally atheists should refrain from inferred disdainful intellectual superiority over those who seek comfort from a belief in their god, however illogical it may appear from a modern scientific viewpoint, which clearly suffers from overthink.

Musycks on March 12, 2008, 3:22 PM

Gregge,
It's not that atheists feel superior, or that we want to 'convert' anyone necessarily, but if something is patently ridiculous it needs to be challenged. I don't mind the faithful being in thrall of the fairies at the bottom of the garden, but for hundreds of years, if you couldn't agree on the stripe of said fairies you were in danger of all sorts of bad things flowing your way. Find comfort where you will, but now that the godly with stone age, tribal philosophies are on the verge of having space age weapons in Iran, when the leader of the 'free' world is being told his military ambitions in the middle east equate with Biblical prophesy, then we should not remain silent out of mis-placed respect for a set of supernatural beliefs.

Musycks on March 12, 2008, 7:22 PM

Gregge,
It’s not that atheists feel superior, or that we want to ‘convert’ anyone necessarily, but if something is patently ridiculous it needs to be challenged. I don’t mind the faithful being in thrall of the fairies at the bottom of the garden, but for hundreds of years, if you couldn’t agree on the stripe of said fairies you were in danger of all sorts of bad things flowing your way. Find comfort where you will, but now that the godly with stone age, tribal philosophies are on the verge of having space age weapons in Iran, when the leader of the ‘free’ world is being told his military ambitions in the middle east equate with Biblical prophesy, then we should not remain silent out of mis-placed respect for a set of supernatural beliefs.

Mark Cerenzia on March 25, 2008, 6:33 PM

Is it just me, or does Sam Harris completely fail to answer the question "is there a possibility of a creator"? It doesn't matter that there are many theories/beliefs, and giving an explanation of the prominent ones doesn't address the question. How did video get rated high at all?

Mark Cerenzia on March 25, 2008, 10:33 PM

Is it just me, or does Sam Harris completely fail to answer the question “is there a possibility of a creator”? It doesn’t matter that there are many theories/beliefs, and giving an explanation of the prominent ones doesn’t address the question. How did video get rated high at all?

Michael Gill on March 28, 2008, 1:56 AM

This is a great refutation to general religious dogma pertaining to a "creator god", but I'd also like to see a refutation to the more general concept of a creator; or "creation" in general. It has been my assertion for some time that the very IDEA of creation is in itself an intrinsically relative one, and thus worth an analysis. If we are to honor that "creation" is in and of itself an ultimate idea, don't we find ourselves at a dead end when we follow it through to it's logical conclusion? (Who "created" the "creator.")

Michael Gill on March 28, 2008, 5:56 AM

This is a great refutation to general religious dogma pertaining to a “creator god”, but I’d also like to see a refutation to the more general concept of a creator; or “creation” in general. It has been my assertion for some time that the very IDEA of creation is in itself an intrinsically relative one, and thus worth an analysis. If we are to honor that “creation” is in and of itself an ultimate idea, don’t we find ourselves at a dead end when we follow it through to it’s logical conclusion? (Who “created” the “creator.”)

Mark Cerenzia on March 28, 2008, 12:38 PM

(Who "created" the "creator.") – Michael Gill

I hear this far too often. The truth is one of these: It's either an infinite chain of cause and effect, creator and created; or there is eventually a self-sufficient cause. We and everything in the universe are all contingent beings, so positing an infinite chain of contingent beings wouldn't answer anything about our existence – that very infinite chain itself must then be contingent on something (You can add chocolate onto a pile for infinity, but it's still chocolate). Thus, there is a first cause that is self-sufficient, self-caused. This cause is the fundamental definition of that being which we call God.

Mark Cerenzia on March 28, 2008, 4:38 PM

(Who “created” the “creator.”) – Michael Gill

I hear this far too often. The truth is one of these: It’s either an infinite chain of cause and effect, creator and created; or there is eventually a self-sufficient cause. We and everything in the universe are all contingent beings, so positing an infinite chain of contingent beings wouldn’t answer anything about our existence – that very infinite chain itself must then be contingent on something (You can add chocolate onto a pile for infinity, but it’s still chocolate). Thus, there is a first cause that is self-sufficient, self-caused. This cause is the fundamental definition of that being which we call God.

Olav Kalgraf on April 6, 2008, 8:03 PM

"Thus, there is a first cause that is self-sufficient, self-caused. This cause is the fundamental definition of that being which we call God." (cerenziam)

The first cause argument for God is utterly refuted. One way to do it is to say that time could be a two dimensional phenomenon without a beginning(circular for instance). This would actually not have a problem with infinite regress. The universe would simply be an eternal repeating cycle.

There are other ways as well, for example you can replace the eternal "being" god with a naturalistic cyclic phenomenon that causes the recreation of spacetime every time spacetime collapses in a big-crunch. It would not be part of the time dimension, so causality, in the sense of "happens before", would be meaningless.

This is in effect the simplest creator bot you can imagine. Non-sentient and fully automatic, as well as performing exactly the same creator tasks as the personal creator gods. =)

Olav Kalgraf on April 6, 2008, 8:19 PM

'Is it just me, or does Sam Harris completely fail to answer the question "is there a possibility of a creator"?'(cerenziam)

He obviously doesn't think the question is worth much time, but he did address it by saying that there is an infinite number of silly ideas we shouldn't consider.

In effect, what this means is that the existence of a possibility of a creator is not enough to give mankind a reason to both assume that one exists and attribute all kinds of provincial and human characteristics to him without solid evidence.

In short, the literal version of the question is too stupid for words. He therefore answers the extended version, "Is there a possibility that any of the existing creator myths are true" and mentions how we really can't tell them apart(or tell them apart from no god) due to lack of evidence, among other things. This particular attribute makes the very concept meaningless to us humans(except as a placebo) as we can gain no knowledge from religion.

Olav Kalgraf on April 7, 2008, 12:03 AM

“Thus, there is a first cause that is self-sufficient, self-caused. This cause is the fundamental definition of that being which we call God.” (cerenziam)

The first cause argument for God is utterly refuted. One way to do it is to say that time could be a two dimensional phenomenon without a beginning(circular for instance). This would actually not have a problem with infinite regress. The universe would simply be an eternal repeating cycle.

There are other ways as well, for example you can replace the eternal “being” god with a naturalistic cyclic phenomenon that causes the recreation of spacetime every time spacetime collapses in a big-crunch. It would not be part of the time dimension, so causality, in the sense of “happens before”, would be meaningless.

This is in effect the simplest creator bot you can imagine. Non-sentient and fully automatic, as well as performing exactly the same creator tasks as the personal creator gods. =)

Olav Kalgraf on April 7, 2008, 12:19 AM

‘Is it just me, or does Sam Harris completely fail to answer the question “is there a possibility of a creator”?’(cerenziam)

He obviously doesn’t think the question is worth much time, but he did address it by saying that there is an infinite number of silly ideas we shouldn’t consider.

In effect, what this means is that the existence of a possibility of a creator is not enough to give mankind a reason to both assume that one exists and attribute all kinds of provincial and human characteristics to him without solid evidence.

In short, the literal version of the question is too stupid for words. He therefore answers the extended version, “Is there a possibility that any of the existing creator myths are true” and mentions how we really can’t tell them apart(or tell them apart from no god) due to lack of evidence, among other things. This particular attribute makes the very concept meaningless to us humans(except as a placebo) as we can gain no knowledge from religion.

Musycks on April 7, 2008, 11:26 PM

Well stated Illusio…
if Harris merely had to put the magician/sky-god creator to the sword (who looks just like us!) he would barely have to be awake. The problem is very many theists descend into the mists of metaphor, and end up with a very esoteric version of creation, and this is also what he's alluding to I think.
God me be 'love' to some, 'everything' to others, but their question remains where did that energy come from?… a repeating cycle model is a convincing way of solving this conundrum.
non-sentient and fully automatic… beautiful.

Musycks on April 8, 2008, 3:26 AM

Well stated Illusio…
if Harris merely had to put the magician/sky-god creator to the sword (who looks just like us!) he would barely have to be awake. The problem is very many theists descend into the mists of metaphor, and end up with a very esoteric version of creation, and this is also what he’s alluding to I think.
God me be ‘love’ to some, ‘everything’ to others, but their question remains where did that energy come from?… a repeating cycle model is a convincing way of solving this conundrum.
non-sentient and fully automatic… beautiful.

Mark Cerenzia on April 25, 2008, 10:01 AM

Illusio: "This would actually not have a problem with infinite regress."

It hasn't been refuted if you consider the universe, regardless of its infinite cycle of the big bang and big crunch, to be contingent, which you seem to have missed in my argument. This is a crucial aspect of the argument that people who think they've refuted it fail to see. If the universe is contingent, there must be something upon which it is dependent. That something is God.
Now, there are plenty of other objections to this in the field of formal logic, but your appeal to science does little to object to it..

Mark Cerenzia on April 25, 2008, 2:01 PM

Illusio: “This would actually not have a problem with infinite regress.”

It hasn’t been refuted if you consider the universe, regardless of its infinite cycle of the big bang and big crunch, to be contingent, which you seem to have missed in my argument. This is a crucial aspect of the argument that people who think they’ve refuted it fail to see. If the universe is contingent, there must be something upon which it is dependent. That something is God.
Now, there are plenty of other objections to this in the field of formal logic, but your appeal to science does little to object to it..

InGod WeRust on April 27, 2008, 3:29 PM

Sam, as ever, has it spot on. What is so alarming to me is just how obvious a falacy religion is. There is no need for a superior attitude from Atheists, it takes no degree of thinking at all to deduce that religion is entirely man-made, and by man i certainly mean male. It is clearly – the warped response of primitive peoples to weild power over equally primitive illiterates. The men who created this rubbish can't even be blamed really – they had none of the benefits that reason and science has afforded us with – and more is the pity. Again, to rubbish the nonesense of religion takes no thought – just an open mind and a bit of common-sense.

InGod WeRust on April 27, 2008, 7:29 PM

Sam, as ever, has it spot on. What is so alarming to me is just how obvious a falacy religion is. There is no need for a superior attitude from Atheists, it takes no degree of thinking at all to deduce that religion is entirely man-made, and by man i certainly mean male. It is clearly – the warped response of primitive peoples to weild power over equally primitive illiterates. The men who created this rubbish can’t even be blamed really – they had none of the benefits that reason and science has afforded us with – and more is the pity. Again, to rubbish the nonesense of religion takes no thought – just an open mind and a bit of common-sense.

Matias Nino on May 2, 2008, 6:06 PM

Sam makes the same mistake the religious nuts do, he takes things literally.

As far as I'm concerned he's as narrow-minded as any religious nut.

Matias Nino on May 2, 2008, 10:06 PM

Sam makes the same mistake the religious nuts do, he takes things literally.

As far as I’m concerned he’s as narrow-minded as any religious nut.

Julie Montague on May 8, 2008, 8:46 AM

Sam in his effort to to discredit "all Holy Books" confuses religion with personal spiritual experience. All sacred scripture is a story about one person's personal Spiritual experience as percieved through their unique human consciouness. Let us discover in those stories the inspiration to go deep within our minds and heart to what is True for us. It is in our own hearts and minds we the Divine Spirit that connects us to All that is. It's time we shift our focus from outer books to inner wisdom. I hope Sam finds that place within him where the whole Universe resides.

Julie Montague on May 8, 2008, 12:46 PM

Sam in his effort to to discredit “all Holy Books” confuses religion with personal spiritual experience. All sacred scripture is a story about one person’s personal Spiritual experience as percieved through their unique human consciouness. Let us discover in those stories the inspiration to go deep within our minds and heart to what is True for us. It is in our own hearts and minds we the Divine Spirit that connects us to All that is. It’s time we shift our focus from outer books to inner wisdom. I hope Sam finds that place within him where the whole Universe resides.

Luke Allen on May 30, 2008, 2:32 PM

I like and respect matiasinino's position.

Luke Allen on May 30, 2008, 6:32 PM

I like and respect matiasinino’s position.

Alex Lipton on June 4, 2008, 12:45 PM

Sam makes very good points and couldn't be more right, as usual. For those who said Atheism requires faith, you are misunderstanding the word faith, which is ironic because you undoubtedly consider yourself to be chalk-full of the stuff. Humans owe it to themselves to be intellectually honest, as we are the first species that has evolved with an advanced capacity for logic and reason. Attribute mankind's accomplishments to mankind, and our failures to mankind as well. Live your life without expectations of divine punishment or reward at the end of it. You will find yourself valuing your existence a whole lot more than if you believe in some sort of magical entity is watching over you in a stalker like fashion. Think the garden is beautiful without having to believe there are fairies in it, or that a super fairy created it.

Alex Lipton on June 4, 2008, 4:45 PM

Sam makes very good points and couldn’t be more right, as usual. For those who said Atheism requires faith, you are misunderstanding the word faith, which is ironic because you undoubtedly consider yourself to be chalk-full of the stuff. Humans owe it to themselves to be intellectually honest, as we are the first species that has evolved with an advanced capacity for logic and reason. Attribute mankind’s accomplishments to mankind, and our failures to mankind as well. Live your life without expectations of divine punishment or reward at the end of it. You will find yourself valuing your existence a whole lot more than if you believe in some sort of magical entity is watching over you in a stalker like fashion. Think the garden is beautiful without having to believe there are fairies in it, or that a super fairy created it.

Jacob Vanhorn on September 28, 2008, 1:03 AM

Sam didn’t even really answer the question, but rather went a whole different direction. The question “Is there a possibility of a creator?” can only be answered ‘yes’ by any intellectually honest person. To say, “is there any possibility” leaves the door wide open. The only way one could say ‘no’ to that answer is if they have some vantage point from outside our reality and the ability to be all knowing. And I guess that would make you some type of god.

Steve Rey on September 29, 2008, 7:07 PM

how can you be a religious nut or compared to one when all your doing is being critical of claims made by belief systems. It sounds more like you are not able to answer and respond to critiques about religous dogma so you resort to name calling. grow up child. :)

Matt Pidlysny on October 23, 2008, 7:50 PM

But then again, other religious doctrine can be used to fill in voids to other religions, such as why the Quran and the Bible (To use the stuff mentioned in the video) say Jesus was or was not the son of God. The entire reason for this, as explained by Gnosticism is because there are 2 different “Fathers”, so to speak. The divine father in the 5th is the true father of Jesus, and the father in the 4th is the son of Sophia, or wisdom. One has a son, the other does not (Or does he have one, if he is indeed the devil?). In any case, it describes how both got their answers for that question “Is Jesus the son of God?”.

Just sayin…

James Bain on February 17, 2009, 8:46 PM

I find it very interesting that he says that the Qoran states that Jesus is not the son of God. That right there shows that the Qoran was written by a man, with the thoughts of 1..
These are his words not mine..

Obveously who ever wrote the Qoran had obveously read the BIBLE FIRST. why else would it happen to mention Jesus, but yet the bible speaks of no spacific religion(besides Satanism)

Dustin Currie on August 10, 2009, 3:41 PM

But don’t we all have a natural intuition to know right and wrong?  I don’t understand why all religion must be bad becuase of periphreal confusions.  Here’s an example.  Man reads something he disagrees with in the bible, so he decides it must be ALL wrong so then he goes about cheating on his wife, stealing from his friends?  Let’s just all try to find as much truth as possible, if we nuture our natural intuition of right and wrong, this world would be much happier. 

Jelmar Geertsma on November 13, 2009, 6:35 PM

“You cannot prove nor disprove that god exists”

I always find this such a non-argument. No, I cannot disprove gods, but the same can be said for virtually every supernatural claim. No one can disprove that there is an invisible unicorn in my garden shed. But the fact that you cannot disprove it, does not make it any more likely! I’m glad most legal systems are not based on that religious logic.

The fact that there has never been any evidence that shows us there is a god, makes the probability of their existence rather low, and thus it is statistically and logically very reasonable to assume and live your life on the basis that gods do not exist.

Even if something like gods existed — and let me make it clear that I do not believe they do — this still does not provide any more credibility to the claims made by the well known monotheistic religions than they have now. Which is; none at all.

On a more general note; the only thing that I see religion has done, is create a cause for segregation, a us-against-them mentality and ultimately end in violence. This is not my opinion, since history clearly shows us that this is the case. It does not increase morality, quite the contrary. We don’t need religion for morality, because true morality comes from people themselves, based on underlying principles on a human level. The opposite of morality is doing something because you were told to do so, or doing something out of fear of punishment (i.e. the ten commandments).