Sam Harris at the Global Atheist Convention

[Justtristo]

I have been watching the talks which were given at the Global Atheist Convention held in Melbourne, Australia in April of this year. So far this talk by Sam Harris is the best one. Although the Eugenie Scott one would come a very close second.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ITTxTCz4Ums

[Brian37]

I love Harris. Loved his book "End of Faith" and "Letter To A Christian Nation". But as much as I love him, he gives me a lip twitch talking about Buddhism and spirituality. I wish he would simply ditch those and stick with science. Even Victor Stinger in his book "The New Atheism" Stinger addresses why even Harris views on Buddhism and spirituality are as much woo as any other.

[Tempus]

I haven't heard Harris say anything unjustified on Buddhism, spirituality, meditation, etc. Did you ever consider that he might actually have something useful to say on the topics? If you've got a criticism of what he says I'd be interested in hearing it.

[Brian37]

I haven't heard Harris say anything unjustified on Buddhism, spirituality, meditation, etc. Did you ever consider that he might actually have something useful to say on the topics? If you've got a criticism of what he says I'd be interested in hearing it.

Buddhism is merely a social club like all social clubs invented by humans. Newton had religious beliefs too, but his correct science didn't make any social club he belonged to the center of science.

Again, don't take my word for it. Victor Stinger objects to his references as well, and Stinger is a scientist too. Just because you are a scientist does not mean you are correct about everything.

Read Stinger's book "The New Atheism". It is not just my objection.

"Spirituality" is a vacuous word. And how Harris uses it is nothing more than a Jeffersonian "god is nature". If all there is is nature, then what is really going on when he talks about "spirituality" is an intense sense of awe. You don't need a label or the word "spirituality" to go "wow, I feel intense when I observe this".

And "meditation" is natural too, no one invented the concept of deliberately calming oneself. Buddhism may have popularized it, but evolution has never depended on Buddhism to occur. Evolution was around long before Buddhism and would still occur if the social club had never been invented.

I still love Harris, I just think he needs to skip the vacuous labels, and study human life.

[Justtristo]

I haven't heard Harris say anything unjustified on Buddhism, spirituality, meditation, etc. Did you ever consider that he might actually have something useful to say on the topics? If you've got a criticism of what he says I'd be interested in hearing it.

Mr Harris has been pretty even handed in his treatment of Buddhism, he did publish this essay on his website for example.

http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/...he-buddha/

Overall while he is philosophically a through going naturalist, he subscribes to a fair amount of Buddhist ideas and John Loftus regarded him as a Buddhist.

[Tempus]

I haven't heard Harris say anything unjustified on Buddhism, spirituality, meditation, etc. Did you ever consider that he might actually have something useful to say on the topics? If you've got a criticism of what he says I'd be interested in hearing it.

Buddhism is merely a social club like all social clubs invented by humans. Newton had religious beliefs too, but his correct science didn't make any social club he belonged to the center of science.

When did I, or Harris, say he his views on X, Y, or Z were the centre of science. You make a lot of good points. Unfortunately, most of them have nothing to do with what I said. The usefulness of some terms (eg, 'spirituality') is debatable, and some are ambiguous at best. However, you weren't objecting to the terminology, you were calling his views in those areas "woo" - you know, pseudoscience, nonsense. Don't refer me to a book because you're too lazy to make your own case.

[Brian37]

Buddhism is merely a social club like all social clubs invented by humans. Newton had religious beliefs too, but his correct science didn't make any social club he belonged to the center of science.

When did I, or Harris, say he his views on X, Y, or Z were the centre of science. You make a lot of good points. Unfortunately, most of them have nothing to do with what I said. The usefulness of some terms (eg, 'spirituality') is debatable, and some are ambiguous at best. However, you weren't objecting to the terminology, you were calling his views in those areas "woo" - you know, pseudoscience, nonsense. Don't refer me to a book because you're too lazy to make your own case.

What? It is nonsense. Buddhism was not around 500,000 years ago, and if the current adherents to it gave up on it today, the ability to make offspring would not change. Buddhism, nor Christianity, nor Hinduism are a physical scientific requirement for evolution to occur.

Buddhism is nothing but a social club, like all the rest, a human invented social club.

You insist on poo pooing me, fine, but when you wont even read a book by a SCIENTIST, not one I wrote, lazy would be more suited for that attitude, than someone like me who actually read it.

You are acting just like the Libertarian atheist I am debating economics on. He pontificates his arguments, then when I bring up economists with PHDs who disagree with him, he does the same thing.

NOW if there truly were something to what Sam said about Buddhism, then it would still be a human action that would need to be studied, the label is not required to study human actions.

Scientific method is not Buddhist based or Christian based or Hindu based. I don't give Sam a pass merely because he wrote books I like.

Stinger isn't a layperson like me and he didn't write that to piss you off or Sam for that matter. Ethics in science isn't protecting a claim, ethics in science is having the shit kicked out of a claim and having it stand the shit kicking.

You like what Sam wrote, so? If it is the greatest thing since sliced bread as you claim, then why isn't it being universally taught like entropy and DNA?

And why do other SCIENTISTS who are NOT laypeople, like me, such as Victor Stinger objecting to what he claims?

THAT BOOK goes into detail as to why Victor rejects his claims. YOU DO NOT have to take my word for it.

[Angrboda]

For the love of God, the man's name is Victor Stenger with an 'e', not Victor Stinger, you uncultured oaf.

[Epimethean]

Uh oh. Me thinketh an imprecation against correct spelling be a-comin'.

As for Harris, I enjoy his thinking, and recently read Free Will. I enjoy his seeming lack of egoism. Daniel Dennett, one of my favorite thinkers, disagrees with Harris about free will, and Harris does not make himself out to be the better of the two for the difference between them.

[Brian37]

For the love of God, the man's name is Victor Stenger with an 'e', not Victor Stinger, you uncultured oaf.

Still pissed at me hey? Thanks for correcting my spelling, I will take note of that. But see here is the thing, when you pick on me, like you did here, I don't run and hide.

I also transpose their with there a lot. That makes me human, not perfect, never claimed to be.

If you put your feet on an ottoman fine, it is still a stool, and I don't think humans should be executed for spilling coffee on their/there stool.

So ok Stenger, got it, thanksssssss for corrrecting me spllling.

My misspelling his name doesn't change his objections to Sam's claims and even if one sides with Sam on this issue, peer review and criticism of others in the scientific community is a good ethic, and that is why I am advising others to take STENGER into account by reading his book.

"uncultured oaf" that is funny, like when my mother names her nutcracker "Olaf" makes her "cultured". I love my mom, but paying for an over priced piece of wood and giving it a "fancy" sounding name is as silly as calling fish eggs "caviar".

All you have demonstrated here is your ability to stare at my fingertip while I point at the moon.