5 ms·

I'm not familiar with the full range of Harris' writings, but I found it interesting that as an explicit and unapologetic 'atheist', Harris actually says at one

by gojomo 14y ago

I'm not familiar with the full range of Harris' writings, but I found it interesting that as an explicit and unapologetic 'atheist', Harris actually says at one point: ...we don't know what happens after death. It is in the context of discussing death with a child, but still... the hardcore atheist position would seem to be that we do know what happens: nothing, the total cessation of experience. To say "we don't know" seems to allow for some tiny shred of religious mystery, which I didn't expect from Harris.

icebraining 14y ago
the hardcore atheist position would seem to be that we do know what happens: nothing, the total cessation of experience. Why do you think so?
- gojomo 14y ago
  To be firmly and insistently ('hardcore') atheist suggests to me ruling out the idea that there is anything diety-like, because there is no good evidence for it. The question of experience after death seems to me very similar to the question of the existence of dieties. The fact that beliefs about dieties and about the afterlife are usually linked in the same belief structure increases my confidence that the two subjects are often reasoned about the same way. I would therefore expect someone who thinks, after considering all evidence (or the lack thereof), that there are no dieties to also believe, based on similar evidence (or lack thereof) that there is no experience after death. Harris has not (as far as I know) said that "we don't know" if there are dieties. Indeed, here's an old interview where Harris criticizes agnosticism as "not an intellectually honest position": http://web.archive.org/web/20100313075830/http://www.truthdig.com/report/page4/20060403_sam_harris_interview/?/interview/page4/20060403_sam_harris_interview/ http://web.archive.org/web/20100313075830/http://www.truthdi...
  - dragonwriter 14y ago
    > To be firmly and insistently ('hardcore') atheist suggests to me ruling out the idea that there is anything diety-like, because there is no good evidence for it. This assumes that a hardcore atheist must arrive at that position by being a hardcore positivist/empiricist. This is an unwarranted assumption.
Numberwang 14y ago
He's been saying things like this for years, mostly because we don't know enough about consciousness yet and that he spent too many years hanging out with Buddhists.
gamegoblin 14y ago
Your "hardcore" atheism is more correctly known as gnostic atheism. You will be hard pressed to find philosophically educated gnostic atheists.
- SapphireSun 14y ago
  Can you elaborate? What sort of things would a philosophically educated person know that is so convincing? I'm genuinely curious.
  - gamegoblin 14y ago
    The fact that in all of the history of philosophy nobody has provided a firm argument that the existence of a god is impossible? There are plenty of kids on the internet who claim gnostic atheism with their "proofs" which usually involve various simple paradoxes that have been resolved by more serious philosophers plenty of times. By your question, it seems like you may have misinterpreted what I said.
- gojomo 14y ago
  The phrase "gnostic atheism" does not have a Wikipedia article (or even be referenced in other articles), so can you be more clear about what you mean?
  - gamegoblin 14y ago
    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/gnostic http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/gnostic (specifically definition 2) http://actok.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Agnostic+v+Gnostic+v+Atheist+v+Theist.png http://actok.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Agnostic+v+Gnost...
- sofal 14y ago
  Using the label "agnostic" as a philosophical weasel word to give a nod to solipsism every time it is politically convenient is a form of lopsided pedantry. Unless you think a specific religious god is more likely to be real than, say, vampires or Harry Potter, the distinction does not actually add any useful information. People normally just use "agnostic" as a device to try to frame a debate in a precise way in order to put the burden of proof squarely on the positive claim.
jmillikin 14y ago
The only requirement to be an atheist is to not believe in a deity. There's no such thing as a "hardcore atheist", because there's no central dogma to be hardcore about. Many atheists do follow some sort of non-theistic belief system, such as Buddhism or Daoism. You're thinking of the people who are what I'd call "anti-theistic", that is, explicitly opposed to the concept of deities, religion, or mysticism in general.
- alinajaf 14y ago
  I'd fall under your definition of 'anti-theistic' and I'm still not entirely sure what happens after death. I'm perfectly happy not knowing though.
- gojomo 14y ago
  OK, then, I thought of Sam Harris as being 'anti-theistic'. (That was the idea I was shooting for with the term 'hardcore atheist' -- being not just doubtful but actively opposed to the idea of dieties/creators.) His book is after all titled The End of Faith. Allowing for the idea that anything interesting might happen to consciousness after death strikes me as atypical for anti-theistics.
  - illuminate 14y ago
    "I thought of Sam Harris as being 'anti-theistic'" There are gnostic/agnostic atheists.
deadsy 14y ago
Atheism is a disbelief in god(s) and doesn't say anything about life after death. To the extent that an atheist might take an evidence based approach to belief they may also disbelieve in life after death. Given what we know about consciousness and brain function it's not unreasonable to say that we know there is no life after death because there is no known mechanism for it. ie - no brain, no electrical activity, no sense of self. That the belief in life after death remains so prevalent indicates a prodigious ability for wishful thinking.
- gojomo 14y ago
  Indeed, but here is a person (Harris) who avowedly disbelieves in god(s) but says "we don't know what happens after death", which seems to allow for something happening. That same sort of fuzzy allowing-for-possibilities, if applied to the question of god(s), would yield something other than what I understand Harris's position to be.
dragonwriter 14y ago
As what I suppose you might call a "hardcore theist", I see no inherent contradiction between the most severe form of atheism (the firm and unquestioned belief that there is no deity) and any particular belief or lack of belief (or belief in knowledge or lack of knowledge) concerning what humans experience after physiscal death. Sure, lots of atheists come to atheism through (at least, in their own description) a form of empirical positivism where rejection of anything that is not a necessary explanation for observed physical phenomena is sort of the default belief position, which would put life after death in the same category of disbelief as deities, but just because that's a common aspect or justification of atheism doesn't mean that it is intrinsically linked to atheism.

by gojomo 14y ago

icebraining 14y ago

the hardcore atheist position would seem to be that we do know what happens: nothing, the total cessation of experience. Why do you think so?

gojomo 14y ago
To be firmly and insistently ('hardcore') atheist suggests to me ruling out the idea that there is anything diety-like, because there is no good evidence for it. The question of experience after death seems to me very similar to the question of the existence of dieties. The fact that beliefs about dieties and about the afterlife are usually linked in the same belief structure increases my confidence that the two subjects are often reasoned about the same way. I would therefore expect someone who thinks, after considering all evidence (or the lack thereof), that there are no dieties to also believe, based on similar evidence (or lack thereof) that there is no experience after death. Harris has not (as far as I know) said that "we don't know" if there are dieties. Indeed, here's an old interview where Harris criticizes agnosticism as "not an intellectually honest position": http://web.archive.org/web/20100313075830/http://www.truthdig.com/report/page4/20060403_sam_harris_interview/?/interview/page4/20060403_sam_harris_interview/ http://web.archive.org/web/20100313075830/http://www.truthdi...
- dragonwriter 14y ago
  > To be firmly and insistently ('hardcore') atheist suggests to me ruling out the idea that there is anything diety-like, because there is no good evidence for it. This assumes that a hardcore atheist must arrive at that position by being a hardcore positivist/empiricist. This is an unwarranted assumption.

Numberwang 14y ago

He's been saying things like this for years, mostly because we don't know enough about consciousness yet and that he spent too many years hanging out with Buddhists.

gamegoblin 14y ago

Your "hardcore" atheism is more correctly known as gnostic atheism. You will be hard pressed to find philosophically educated gnostic atheists.

SapphireSun 14y ago
Can you elaborate? What sort of things would a philosophically educated person know that is so convincing? I'm genuinely curious.
- gamegoblin 14y ago
  The fact that in all of the history of philosophy nobody has provided a firm argument that the existence of a god is impossible? There are plenty of kids on the internet who claim gnostic atheism with their "proofs" which usually involve various simple paradoxes that have been resolved by more serious philosophers plenty of times. By your question, it seems like you may have misinterpreted what I said.
gojomo 14y ago
The phrase "gnostic atheism" does not have a Wikipedia article (or even be referenced in other articles), so can you be more clear about what you mean?
- gamegoblin 14y ago
  http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/gnostic http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/gnostic (specifically definition 2) http://actok.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Agnostic+v+Gnostic+v+Atheist+v+Theist.png http://actok.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Agnostic+v+Gnost...
sofal 14y ago
Using the label "agnostic" as a philosophical weasel word to give a nod to solipsism every time it is politically convenient is a form of lopsided pedantry. Unless you think a specific religious god is more likely to be real than, say, vampires or Harry Potter, the distinction does not actually add any useful information. People normally just use "agnostic" as a device to try to frame a debate in a precise way in order to put the burden of proof squarely on the positive claim.

jmillikin 14y ago

The only requirement to be an atheist is to not believe in a deity. There's no such thing as a "hardcore atheist", because there's no central dogma to be hardcore about. Many atheists do follow some sort of non-theistic belief system, such as Buddhism or Daoism. You're thinking of the people who are what I'd call "anti-theistic", that is, explicitly opposed to the concept of deities, religion, or mysticism in general.

alinajaf 14y ago
I'd fall under your definition of 'anti-theistic' and I'm still not entirely sure what happens after death. I'm perfectly happy not knowing though.
gojomo 14y ago
OK, then, I thought of Sam Harris as being 'anti-theistic'. (That was the idea I was shooting for with the term 'hardcore atheist' -- being not just doubtful but actively opposed to the idea of dieties/creators.) His book is after all titled The End of Faith. Allowing for the idea that anything interesting might happen to consciousness after death strikes me as atypical for anti-theistics.
- illuminate 14y ago
  "I thought of Sam Harris as being 'anti-theistic'" There are gnostic/agnostic atheists.

deadsy 14y ago

Atheism is a disbelief in god(s) and doesn't say anything about life after death. To the extent that an atheist might take an evidence based approach to belief they may also disbelieve in life after death. Given what we know about consciousness and brain function it's not unreasonable to say that we know there is no life after death because there is no known mechanism for it. ie - no brain, no electrical activity, no sense of self. That the belief in life after death remains so prevalent indicates a prodigious ability for wishful thinking.

gojomo 14y ago
Indeed, but here is a person (Harris) who avowedly disbelieves in god(s) but says "we don't know what happens after death", which seems to allow for something happening. That same sort of fuzzy allowing-for-possibilities, if applied to the question of god(s), would yield something other than what I understand Harris's position to be.

dragonwriter 14y ago

As what I suppose you might call a "hardcore theist", I see no inherent contradiction between the most severe form of atheism (the firm and unquestioned belief that there is no deity) and any particular belief or lack of belief (or belief in knowledge or lack of knowledge) concerning what humans experience after physiscal death. Sure, lots of atheists come to atheism through (at least, in their own description) a form of empirical positivism where rejection of anything that is not a necessary explanation for observed physical phenomena is sort of the default belief position, which would put life after death in the same category of disbelief as deities, but just because that's a common aspect or justification of atheism doesn't mean that it is intrinsically linked to atheism.