7 ms·

I haven't logged in to comment for 37 days and this little essay is such utter garbage. The fact that it takes him just 7 paragraphs to completely dismiss all

by kirse 16y ago

I haven't logged in to comment for 37 days and this little essay is such utter garbage. The fact that it takes him just 7 paragraphs to completely dismiss all potential religious truth as "clearly false" should set off anyone's dogma-alert flag. Being focused in the present is awesome, but the fact that we have the ability to pay attention on things other than reality is not a problem, but in fact essential to the health of the mind (our "spirit" if you will). Imagine if all your circumstances sucked and all your mind could focus on was reality... Secondly, this essay sounds like he's much more inner-focused, as I know that I rarely have these "flow of thought" and self-conscious moments that he calls being "submerged again by the flow of thought"... If you asked me at any moment what I was thinking, I would tell you "nothing"... Obviously I'm thinking something behind the scenes, but my focus is just not on my thoughts when I'm doing. So my own personal thought-life does not confirm this silliness. Then again, I'm very extroverted and rarely focused on my own thoughts -- maybe it's my "clearly false" Christian religion, or the fact that I've been a runner for 20+ years which is essentially meditating on present experience (pain), but I just have a strong natural tendency to focus on the present experience rather than my own thoughts. Even if you're looking at this under the domain of science, I would still argue that the ability of humans to cope with present circumstances is directly correlated to their capability to focus upon that which is not the present. (i.e. thinking joyful thoughts, etc.). That little essay is pitiful, talk to "robg" here on YC if you want to hear from a Neuroscientist who has a better respect for this domain of mind and spirit. The way this guy just starts with a bunch of assumptions and blasts away at all potential truth in less than 1,000 words gives me no respect for his method of thinking.

deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
nostromo 16y ago
Let's be careful not to start an atheist / non-atheist flame war (boring...) but to say Harris just took 7 paragraphs to dismiss religion isn't fair. He's written several best-selling books on the subject and has partaken in several debates with religious leaders. For him to answer this Edge question with a rehash of his arguments on atheism would have been redundant and boring. I'm sure he expected most of the readers on Edge to understand his point of view on the subject and to kick off from there.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
fleitz 16y ago
I don't want to get into a flamewar, but potential 'religious truth' generally lacks falsifiability. Certainly there could definitely be true things that the religious say but it doesn't really promote a method of thinking that leads us to knowing things that aren't false about the world. In the method of 'religious truths' everyone is right and everyone is wrong, there is no way to sort out the true from the false.
- lukeschlather 16y ago
  That's why claiming potential religious truths are "clearly false" is a clear marker of weak thinking.
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
  - nickpinkston 16y ago
    Saying something is "clearly false" doesn't mean you claim to know everything - you just see there is no evidence for their conclusion. Is Scientology clearly false or should we say they have some good points? If the latter, we might as well explore every fairy tale that comes by - or we could follow real evidence to where it leads us.
    - mfukar 16y ago
      Where I come from, if you say "A is clearly false" means there is evidence to support it. I have never heard of any evidence regarding spiritual or religious beliefs; maybe the OP has some. Until he presents some, I'll dismiss his claims as 'clearly false'.
      - nickpinkston 16y ago
        Where I come from, we consider all hypotheses null until significant proof has been shown to back it up. I've seen none of this proof - let alone the scientific method being used. Therefore, it's clearly false - not "100% I can prove it's a duck-false", but it walks, talks and acts like one.
ThomPete 16y ago
As far as I remember Sam Harris does know quite a lot about Neuroscience in fact he is a PhD in that very area. With regards to potential religious truths then the problem of course is that you can't verify religious claims thus the very idea of talking about truth in this context seems rather misguided.
- heretoo 16y ago
  Doesn't science appear to do this as well? It models what it observes, but it certainly doesn't nail everything down. And I wouldn't consider this approach misguided.
  - ThomPete 16y ago
    Scientific claims are verifiable. That doesn't mean that they are true. Religious claims are by definition and practical circumstances not verifiable since they are claims about things outside what we can observe. But they are also claims that there is a metaphysical reality which we cannot access through science but contain truths about the world we can access. And that is where it falls apart IMHO.
bane 16y ago
Imagine if all your circumstances sucked and all your mind could focus on was reality... You'd probably do something to improve your reality rather than try and replace a miserable life with some form of escapism (not picking only on religion here, even World of Warcraft fits the bill).
tokipin 16y ago
i don't know about the religion stuff, but the focus thing does sound very silly. it reminds me of a certain philosopher - Kant maybe - who described "the self" in a way that was obviously characteristic of his specific personality, but couldn't be applied in my case, nevermind all humans'
slowernet 16y ago
Try reading it as opinionated writing, rather than a mathematical proof of something that is offensive to you personally. IMHO one should be able write without the pretense of neutrality and be judged holistically rather than dismissed out of hand.
ohyes 16y ago
I believe you misread the essay. His major point is this: "There is no discrete self". He isn't making an argument to discredit any potential religious 'truth' (in fact, he is using the existence of certain religious 'truths' as evidence for his argument). His comment about 'clearly false' religion was not his main point (although for some of us, extreme lack of evidence and verifiability is enough). The annihilation of the self is an idea/concept/experience that occurs in many religious traditions, and also when exposed to certain drugs (hallucinogenics, I think). It is also a common theme in literature dating back to antiquity. The Bacchus is an example. Enlightenment in Buddhism is about annihilation of the self. Not that I am an expert on either. By annihilation of the self, I mean the elimination of the concept of the self, not suicide. The thought being that the concept of the self is actually an absurdity. "Can a man step in the same river twice." This is what he is referring to when he talks about the flow of thoughts. The concept of self leads to a lot of problems, selfishness, fear of death, things like that.

by kirse 16y ago

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

nostromo 16y ago

Let's be careful not to start an atheist / non-atheist flame war (boring...) but to say Harris just took 7 paragraphs to dismiss religion isn't fair. He's written several best-selling books on the subject and has partaken in several debates with religious leaders. For him to answer this Edge question with a rehash of his arguments on atheism would have been redundant and boring. I'm sure he expected most of the readers on Edge to understand his point of view on the subject and to kick off from there.

deleted 16y ago
[deleted]

fleitz 16y ago

I don't want to get into a flamewar, but potential 'religious truth' generally lacks falsifiability. Certainly there could definitely be true things that the religious say but it doesn't really promote a method of thinking that leads us to knowing things that aren't false about the world. In the method of 'religious truths' everyone is right and everyone is wrong, there is no way to sort out the true from the false.

lukeschlather 16y ago
That's why claiming potential religious truths are "clearly false" is a clear marker of weak thinking.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
- nickpinkston 16y ago
  Saying something is "clearly false" doesn't mean you claim to know everything - you just see there is no evidence for their conclusion. Is Scientology clearly false or should we say they have some good points? If the latter, we might as well explore every fairy tale that comes by - or we could follow real evidence to where it leads us.
  - mfukar 16y ago
    Where I come from, if you say "A is clearly false" means there is evidence to support it. I have never heard of any evidence regarding spiritual or religious beliefs; maybe the OP has some. Until he presents some, I'll dismiss his claims as 'clearly false'.
    - nickpinkston 16y ago
      Where I come from, we consider all hypotheses null until significant proof has been shown to back it up. I've seen none of this proof - let alone the scientific method being used. Therefore, it's clearly false - not "100% I can prove it's a duck-false", but it walks, talks and acts like one.

ThomPete 16y ago

As far as I remember Sam Harris does know quite a lot about Neuroscience in fact he is a PhD in that very area. With regards to potential religious truths then the problem of course is that you can't verify religious claims thus the very idea of talking about truth in this context seems rather misguided.

heretoo 16y ago
Doesn't science appear to do this as well? It models what it observes, but it certainly doesn't nail everything down. And I wouldn't consider this approach misguided.
- ThomPete 16y ago
  Scientific claims are verifiable. That doesn't mean that they are true. Religious claims are by definition and practical circumstances not verifiable since they are claims about things outside what we can observe. But they are also claims that there is a metaphysical reality which we cannot access through science but contain truths about the world we can access. And that is where it falls apart IMHO.

bane 16y ago

Imagine if all your circumstances sucked and all your mind could focus on was reality... You'd probably do something to improve your reality rather than try and replace a miserable life with some form of escapism (not picking only on religion here, even World of Warcraft fits the bill).

tokipin 16y ago

i don't know about the religion stuff, but the focus thing does sound very silly. it reminds me of a certain philosopher - Kant maybe - who described "the self" in a way that was obviously characteristic of his specific personality, but couldn't be applied in my case, nevermind all humans'

slowernet 16y ago

Try reading it as opinionated writing, rather than a mathematical proof of something that is offensive to you personally. IMHO one should be able write without the pretense of neutrality and be judged holistically rather than dismissed out of hand.

ohyes 16y ago

I believe you misread the essay. His major point is this: "There is no discrete self". He isn't making an argument to discredit any potential religious 'truth' (in fact, he is using the existence of certain religious 'truths' as evidence for his argument). His comment about 'clearly false' religion was not his main point (although for some of us, extreme lack of evidence and verifiability is enough). The annihilation of the self is an idea/concept/experience that occurs in many religious traditions, and also when exposed to certain drugs (hallucinogenics, I think). It is also a common theme in literature dating back to antiquity. The Bacchus is an example. Enlightenment in Buddhism is about annihilation of the self. Not that I am an expert on either. By annihilation of the self, I mean the elimination of the concept of the self, not suicide. The thought being that the concept of the self is actually an absurdity. "Can a man step in the same river twice." This is what he is referring to when he talks about the flow of thoughts. The concept of self leads to a lot of problems, selfishness, fear of death, things like that.