4 ms·

This doesn't seem to be what the article is about at all though. It sounds like you accept evidence whereas he's trying to draw a parallel between the difficult

by tbrake 13y ago

This doesn't seem to be what the article is about at all though. It sounds like you accept evidence whereas he's trying to draw a parallel between the difficulty of arguing with people who reject evidence. But you're also framing this in terms of personal experiences with limited spheres of effect. Operating wood burning stoves in a neighborhood would appear (I'm not 100% sure on his evidence here, but going with it) to lead to the harm of others. As he opens: "There is no amount of wood smoke that is good to breathe."

sliverstorm 13y ago
There's also a third category, in which I seem to fall- not rejecting evidence, but ignoring it on purpose. As in, "Yes, you are pretty much right, but I don't want to change my ways so I am going to stop thinking about this".
- Apocryphon 13y ago
  I have a feeling that most people on either side of the debates Harris are involved in are more in your category than logic-driven or emotion-driven. People are inertia-driven; we're comfortable with what we carve out, and accept change if we are sufficiently comfortable with the process and/or the results. Many religious people are likely religious because of choosing to follow tradition. Many irreligious people are likely just apathetic and not inclined to believe in an organized belief in the supernatural. At the end of the day, I don't think it's about getting people to overcome their emotional attachments, or convincing them with logic. It's about stirring them out of their apathy. Both believes and nonbelievers will have to confront the third category.
  - burntsushi 13y ago
    I don't choose to sit by a fire (or smoke a cigar, for another example) because of apathy. I choose to value the purported benefits of an activity over the risk I take by partaking in said activity. I'm not sure how to apply that analysis to a religious belief, which leads me to conclude that the analogy drawn by Sam Harris is flawed in at least some cases.

by tbrake 13y ago

sliverstorm 13y ago

There's also a third category, in which I seem to fall- not rejecting evidence, but ignoring it on purpose. As in, "Yes, you are pretty much right, but I don't want to change my ways so I am going to stop thinking about this".

Apocryphon 13y ago
I have a feeling that most people on either side of the debates Harris are involved in are more in your category than logic-driven or emotion-driven. People are inertia-driven; we're comfortable with what we carve out, and accept change if we are sufficiently comfortable with the process and/or the results. Many religious people are likely religious because of choosing to follow tradition. Many irreligious people are likely just apathetic and not inclined to believe in an organized belief in the supernatural. At the end of the day, I don't think it's about getting people to overcome their emotional attachments, or convincing them with logic. It's about stirring them out of their apathy. Both believes and nonbelievers will have to confront the third category.
- burntsushi 13y ago
  I don't choose to sit by a fire (or smoke a cigar, for another example) because of apathy. I choose to value the purported benefits of an activity over the risk I take by partaking in said activity. I'm not sure how to apply that analysis to a religious belief, which leads me to conclude that the analogy drawn by Sam Harris is flawed in at least some cases.