4 ms·

I'm not sure if this is meant to be an attack on fireplaces that uses an analogy with religion, or an attack on religion that uses an analogy with fireplaces. M

by kijin 14y ago

I'm not sure if this is meant to be an attack on fireplaces that uses an analogy with religion, or an attack on religion that uses an analogy with fireplaces. Maybe it's both. In any case, I find the analogy rather distracting. All those paragraphs could have been better spent on comparing the energy efficiency and polluting effect of fireplaces with those of other methods of heating, and similar information. The danger of air pollution from fireplaces (in addition to the obvious implications on CO2 production) is an interesting and important topic on its own. There is no need to give the article an extra "edge" by dragging in the issue of religion vs. science -- which we already know Sam Harris is obsessed with. And he's really beginning to sound like an Emeritus professor who talks on and on about his pet theory in the Q&A session of everyone else's colloquium, whether it's related or not. Harris, Dawkins, etc. are very smart people, and they could do a lot of good in the world by doing their best to purge biases, politics and superstition of all kinds from undeniable facts. But I often feel that their pursuit of controversy for the sake of controversy actually does a disservice to human rationality. Burning wood is bad for the environment, and here are the numbers that say so, so let's stop doing it. Is it really so difficult to get that message across without adding any unnecessary politics to it? Disclaimer: I came from a country where real fireplaces are rare items that you only occasionally see in upscale coffee shops, which is probably why I find it easy to believe that they are indeed nasty things.

fishtoaster 14y ago
I think you missed the point a bit: the article was about scientific/religious discussion. The author was trying to make the reader (presumably an atheist and/or skeptic) feel the same emotional response that the religious feel when their beliefs are challenged. The whole woodsmoke thing was just an illustrative discussion: most people reading it will feel an instinctive negative reaction against having something they cherish so attacked, even with solid evidence. So, it's neither an attack on fireplaces or religion: it's an attempt to make skeptics empathize a bit with those they're trying to convince.
- kijin 14y ago
  Thanks, I was probably approaching the article with the wrong expectations, leading to disappointment.
- Joeboy 14y ago
  > most people reading it will feel an instinctive negative reaction against having something they cherish so attacked, even with solid evidence All I got was "Damn, do I tell my open-fire loving unscientific friends they're harming their children, or should I just keep quiet for the sake of an easy life?"
- MartinCron 14y ago
  And in that sense, I thought it was brilliant. People in the skeptic community tend to diminish the fact that fellow humans tend to have involuntary emotional reactions in response to arguments, no matter how good the arguments are. If someone is heavily invested in believing in something like homeopathic medicine, they will experience a strong visceral feeling when you try to discuss homeopathy in a scientific setting. Even if they don't want to, the feeling may be there. I'm not sure what the immediate practical or ethical implications of this are. I don't believe it's right to entertain any irrational or harmful belief just because it brings someone else comfort, but I tend to be less confrontational than Sam Harris.
  - tunesmith 14y ago
    Reminds me of what a therapist friend says about counseling, how you have to give a client a safe environment before you do any work. Also seems related to the point linked from HN recently - ask someone a moral question, let them answer, and then somehow convince them they gave an opposite answer (they did this by secretly altering the paper questionnaire they filled out, and showing the forged answer to the subject) - the person will then often defend the answer they apparently gave, rather than the answer they really gave. I think it's a good question. My best theory so far is to just lay out the reasoning to the person in a very accessible way, so they can accept it on their own timetable.
stiff 14y ago
I don't like the aggressive rhetoric of the likes of Harris either, but on the other hand "here are the numbers" has unfortunately a rather poor conversion rate.
- tunesmith 14y ago
  Harris problem is that he represents himself as appealing to logos, but then at the crucial moments he switches to ethos and pathos. I find it annoying. It's fine to give a rip-roaring speech that tugs on the heartstrings, etc, but don't represent it as logic and reason.
invisible 14y ago
It was pretty obvious he was saying that humans, instinctually, are afraid of change. Changing beliefs is a hard thing to do (internally or externally). When someone "chooses" a way of thinking they have a lot of trouble accepting anything but. Hypothetically, if coffee were directly linked to heart disease after 10 years, would you still drink it? If someone casually mentioned it to you in a cafe would you believe them? Would you want to know the truth? Does it matter how bad it is for you? Religion has, in some ways, been a plague on society. Not so much for the belief but rather for the resistance to anything but a person's belief. That is what religious persecution is and it's not far off from wood smoke.
FaddiCat 14y ago
>>> I'm not sure if this is meant to be an attack on fireplaces that uses an analogy with religion, or an attack on religion that uses an analogy with fireplaces. Maybe it's both. Nah, it wasn't intended to be either. He assumes religious people reject atheism because of an emotional response to atheists' arguments, so he's trying to provoke the same emotional response in atheists to give them insight into the minds of religious people.
- curiousdannii 14y ago
  Of course, it's an assumption which isn't universal, and probably not even valid for a majority of religious people.
- jayferd 14y ago
  > He assumes religious people reject atheism because of an emotional response to atheists' arguments, so he's trying to provoke the same emotional response in atheists to give them insight into the minds of religious people. This, it should be mentioned, is a very wrong assumption.
  - disgruntledphd2 14y ago
    Cool, why do you think religious people reject the arguments of atheism then? I actually think he might be on to something here.
    - pbhjpbhj 14y ago
      Atheism is incompatible with science. I rejected the arguments of atheism because they are unsound and/or invalid and so I gave up atheism and became agnostic. Then through first-hand experience of God I became a Christian. In the same way this guy tells me "when you light a fire, you needlessly poison the air" I can tell you that I'm poor, there's wood outside I can gather for free, that wood could stop me from suffering in the cold. People need heat to survive colder climatic regions. Yes, his magic "just use gas" is great - presumably he will pay the bill? Also, if I'm using a rocket burner (uses primary burning to heat a secondary chamber for re-burn) then it seems much of the objection is invalid? It seems the author has assumed a homogeneity of situation and a self-omniscience which are neither present. That perhaps speaks to his point in an manner he wasn't intending. That said it does seem quite likely the public at large isn't aware of the health problems inherent in casual [ie unconsidered] use of open wood burning.
Jach 14y ago
I'm pretty sure it's meant to be what it says at the start: it's a reminder to atheists of the feeing of a cherished belief ("fireplaces are good") being destroyed. Some atheists have a hard problem with rejecting false beliefs even if they've gotten over the big one. I agree it's not that great of an analogy, though I'm not really offended at Harris doing what Harris does and bringing religion into everything. And if you just care about the message about fireplaces getting out, rhetoric (i.e. marketing) such as "creating controversy" is useful for that purpose...

by kijin 14y ago

fishtoaster 14y ago

I think you missed the point a bit: the article was about scientific/religious discussion. The author was trying to make the reader (presumably an atheist and/or skeptic) feel the same emotional response that the religious feel when their beliefs are challenged. The whole woodsmoke thing was just an illustrative discussion: most people reading it will feel an instinctive negative reaction against having something they cherish so attacked, even with solid evidence. So, it's neither an attack on fireplaces or religion: it's an attempt to make skeptics empathize a bit with those they're trying to convince.

kijin 14y ago
Thanks, I was probably approaching the article with the wrong expectations, leading to disappointment.
Joeboy 14y ago
> most people reading it will feel an instinctive negative reaction against having something they cherish so attacked, even with solid evidence All I got was "Damn, do I tell my open-fire loving unscientific friends they're harming their children, or should I just keep quiet for the sake of an easy life?"
MartinCron 14y ago
And in that sense, I thought it was brilliant. People in the skeptic community tend to diminish the fact that fellow humans tend to have involuntary emotional reactions in response to arguments, no matter how good the arguments are. If someone is heavily invested in believing in something like homeopathic medicine, they will experience a strong visceral feeling when you try to discuss homeopathy in a scientific setting. Even if they don't want to, the feeling may be there. I'm not sure what the immediate practical or ethical implications of this are. I don't believe it's right to entertain any irrational or harmful belief just because it brings someone else comfort, but I tend to be less confrontational than Sam Harris.
- tunesmith 14y ago
  Reminds me of what a therapist friend says about counseling, how you have to give a client a safe environment before you do any work. Also seems related to the point linked from HN recently - ask someone a moral question, let them answer, and then somehow convince them they gave an opposite answer (they did this by secretly altering the paper questionnaire they filled out, and showing the forged answer to the subject) - the person will then often defend the answer they apparently gave, rather than the answer they really gave. I think it's a good question. My best theory so far is to just lay out the reasoning to the person in a very accessible way, so they can accept it on their own timetable.

stiff 14y ago

I don't like the aggressive rhetoric of the likes of Harris either, but on the other hand "here are the numbers" has unfortunately a rather poor conversion rate.

tunesmith 14y ago
Harris problem is that he represents himself as appealing to logos, but then at the crucial moments he switches to ethos and pathos. I find it annoying. It's fine to give a rip-roaring speech that tugs on the heartstrings, etc, but don't represent it as logic and reason.

invisible 14y ago

It was pretty obvious he was saying that humans, instinctually, are afraid of change. Changing beliefs is a hard thing to do (internally or externally). When someone "chooses" a way of thinking they have a lot of trouble accepting anything but. Hypothetically, if coffee were directly linked to heart disease after 10 years, would you still drink it? If someone casually mentioned it to you in a cafe would you believe them? Would you want to know the truth? Does it matter how bad it is for you? Religion has, in some ways, been a plague on society. Not so much for the belief but rather for the resistance to anything but a person's belief. That is what religious persecution is and it's not far off from wood smoke.

FaddiCat 14y ago

>>> I'm not sure if this is meant to be an attack on fireplaces that uses an analogy with religion, or an attack on religion that uses an analogy with fireplaces. Maybe it's both. Nah, it wasn't intended to be either. He assumes religious people reject atheism because of an emotional response to atheists' arguments, so he's trying to provoke the same emotional response in atheists to give them insight into the minds of religious people.

curiousdannii 14y ago
Of course, it's an assumption which isn't universal, and probably not even valid for a majority of religious people.
jayferd 14y ago
> He assumes religious people reject atheism because of an emotional response to atheists' arguments, so he's trying to provoke the same emotional response in atheists to give them insight into the minds of religious people. This, it should be mentioned, is a very wrong assumption.
- disgruntledphd2 14y ago
  Cool, why do you think religious people reject the arguments of atheism then? I actually think he might be on to something here.
  - pbhjpbhj 14y ago
    Atheism is incompatible with science. I rejected the arguments of atheism because they are unsound and/or invalid and so I gave up atheism and became agnostic. Then through first-hand experience of God I became a Christian. In the same way this guy tells me "when you light a fire, you needlessly poison the air" I can tell you that I'm poor, there's wood outside I can gather for free, that wood could stop me from suffering in the cold. People need heat to survive colder climatic regions. Yes, his magic "just use gas" is great - presumably he will pay the bill? Also, if I'm using a rocket burner (uses primary burning to heat a secondary chamber for re-burn) then it seems much of the objection is invalid? It seems the author has assumed a homogeneity of situation and a self-omniscience which are neither present. That perhaps speaks to his point in an manner he wasn't intending. That said it does seem quite likely the public at large isn't aware of the health problems inherent in casual [ie unconsidered] use of open wood burning.

Jach 14y ago

I'm pretty sure it's meant to be what it says at the start: it's a reminder to atheists of the feeing of a cherished belief ("fireplaces are good") being destroyed. Some atheists have a hard problem with rejecting false beliefs even if they've gotten over the big one. I agree it's not that great of an analogy, though I'm not really offended at Harris doing what Harris does and bringing religion into everything. And if you just care about the message about fireplaces getting out, rhetoric (i.e. marketing) such as "creating controversy" is useful for that purpose...