Sam Harris’ response when told people call him an anti-Muslim bigot (audio)

[Deleted member 888]

Oh, of course I believe Hitchens is Islamaphobic. Sorry, I don't know if I was clear in my posts, I always disagreed with Hitchens because I'm an apologist for organized religion, and when arguing with people on the internet or in debate clubs or whatever, Hitchens was always one of the most cutting. I agree with you, and yeah, you're probably right that Hitchens would have fallen out of reverence like how Harris has.

I think you might have missed my points, though, I wasn't defending Hitchens. Hitchens was probably my primary antagonist when it came to pointless religious debates ~15+ years ago.

Click to shrink...

What do you mean by an apologist for organized religion?

Another thought-experiment then, if Hitchens out of all of those who gained notoriety can be stated as being the prime anti-theist, so he is not more apologetic for one religion over another, what would you say he is towards Christianity/Catholicism/Judaism?

Because as you'll know, stating someone is Christianophobic hasn't really caught on. Yet most of Hitchens touring and debates were focussed on Christianity and Catholicism. If you ask me personally, some of his most cutting satire and takedowns were of Catholicism. I guess calling everything critical of Judaism or Israel has been warped into "everything is anti-semitic". There is an uprising of that, but who could have seen that coming when Islamophobic is thrown around non-stop too? Other religious fundamentalists wanting to shut down all criticism. And hey, it often works, as people on the left cower in fear the second they are called an ism of some sort. Nearly every topic about Israel these days devolves into anyone being critical being called anti-semitic.

And in terms of Hitchens falling out of reverence, the difference between him and Harris, is Harris has gone begging at the doorsteps of other people to try help prop him back up, which has led him down dark alleys. Hitchens was a one-man band, even when touring with others it was primarily the Hitchens show.

So while I agree Hitchens would have more of the left than ever before demanding he stop being critical of and satirical towards religion, he wouldn't be grovelling on podcasts and playing a victim. Like Harris.

As for calling them "pointless religious debates", that is one place I'll seriously disagree with you. The defanging and defusing of religion in the West has come from years and years of debate, and tools like satire, so we do have freer societies, equal rights and less religious intolerance. Progress with gay marriage didn't spontaneously combust out of nowhere.

It's taken years and years of hard graft and quite frankly, unashamedly taking the piss out of Christians and Catholics going on about homosexuality being a sin and other nonsense about the place of/responsibilities of women in society. Or creationism/earth is 6000 years old. Why do you think we can take the absolute piss out of Jesus/God in any way we want, and while some people might get offended, nothing really happens? That takes time and effort over generations to deradicalize fundamentalists and those who think their religious belief gives them a platform above others, which was primarily Christians/Catholics in the West, but is now also surrounding Islam as it continues to grow here.

It doesn't surprise me when there is an ongoing issue with LGBT in an Islamic community in Birmingham in the UK, many on the left won't touch it. Don't want to be called intolerant/Islamophobic. But to me? It's no different than taking on the Christians/Catholics with their gay bashing and intolerance. It doesn't matter what religion you say you are part of. The only way to deradicalize religious people over generations is to treat them all the same when it comes to criticism, satire and the pursuit of enlightened societies.

To me, that's not Islamophobic, which is why I asked you to tell me what you'd called Hitchens towards Christianity/Catholicism/Judaism?

 

[Green]

Not sure how to clarify things further... Seems pretty straightforward.

Click to shrink...

I'm just not sure what you mean by he is correct about the existence of deities. This is something that you can't really prove with evidence given the nature of Faith, no? Or do you mean deities in the sense of the existence of idols that people worship, rather than the deities themselves? Just a bit confused what you're getting at.

 

[The Albatross]

What do you mean by an apologist for organized religion?

Click to shrink...

I'm an atheist but I've always thought that there was value in the monotheistic western religions -- Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, and that would normally put me at odds with people who believed that they were utterly valueless or outright damaging to a wider secular society. I use the term 'apologist' because I want to differentiate myself from an 'evangelist.'

(edit: Also, don't want to come off sounding that I believe there's no value in polytheistic, or non-western religions, no, I think there is with those as well, I just don't know enough about them, their history, societal impacts, etc, to take a positive or negative position)

As for calling them "pointless religious debates", that is one place I'll seriously disagree with you.

Click to shrink...

Well, pointless religious debates from my perspective. They're debates that I've had so... I think I'd probably be the expert on them among the two of us. Debating religion, whether it's the actual theology of one religion or denomination vs. another, or the relationship between religious society and secular society (or what have you) used to be something that I did way too often, and while I'm sure there's some value, I find the time and effort it takes to not be worth the value it may bring. This is something that took me a long time to personally come around to, and I've realized I'm much happier today than I was 15, 10, or 5 years ago, so that's why I think of my old behavior as "pointless."

 

[Deleted member 888]

I'm an atheist but I've always thought that there was value in the monotheistic western religions -- Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, and that would normally put me at odds with people who believed that they were utterly valueless or outright damaging to a wider secular society. I use the term 'apologist' because I want to differentiate myself from an 'evangelist.'

Well, pointless religious debates from my perspective. They're debates that I've had so... I think I'd probably be the expert on them among the two of us. Debating religion, whether it's the actual theology of one religion or denomination vs. another, or the relationship between religious society and secular society (or what have you) used to be something that I did way too often, and while I'm sure there's some value, I find the time and effort it takes to not be worth the value it may bring. This is something that took me a long time to personally come around to, and I've realized I'm much happier today than I was 15, 10, or 5 years ago, so that's why I think of my old behavior as "pointless."

Click to shrink...

Apologist makes it sound like you are in need of, apologising. It's quite a negative connotation to attach to something. Therefore, I don't think it's a very wise choice of wording, but that's just me. I personally think it's just better to state you can see the value others place in having a faith and what that sense of community can do to help people. Often the difference between being atheist/agnostic and anti-theist.

But even if they are debates you've had/moved on from, the adults of tomorrow are growing up today. Why do you think in some parts of the world even crusty old Dawkins still gets praised because some persecuted group of non-believers smuggled in his book or were able to use YouTube to watch old debates?

It's good you feel happier today than before, but I don't think it's ever wise to downplay just how powerful speech and debate are when it comes to getting people to challenge themselves and their beliefs. If speech and debate ever fail or get ignored, that is usually how you escalate towards conflict/violence. Some radicals just go straight to violence irrespective of others trying to speak to them, but there is also a large number of people in the middle who hold seriously shitty views, even if they don't do anything violent/illegal. These people still need to be challenged.

Just because most of us didn't live through more of the Vatican funded and approved killings, jailings and torture of people in the West doesn't mean they never existed. Every generation has its part to play in continuing to make sure religion and religious institutes do not use force or radicalization to veer towards human atrocities. Sure, most Western countries now have codified protections in laws, but that is only part of challenging beliefs and public views.

The LGBT community is still under siege in the UK right now, even with there being legal protections. As I said above, there are still lots of people with shitty views, backed by religion, that "protest peacefully".

 

[Pacbois]

the comments about muslims being rapists though. thats just fucked up. i think what happened in cologne was disgusting and embarrassing for all muslims, but the whole assaulting women in public culture seems to be a north african thing. (i think the world got their first taste of that when lara logan got sexually assaulted during the egypt arab spring, i dont think anyone knew that was a thing before that)

Click to shrink...

You know what's even more fucked up, saying that North Africans are rapists.

 

[Prine]

the comments about muslims being rapists though. thats just fucked up. i think what happened in cologne was disgusting and embarrassing for all muslims, but the whole assaulting women in public culture seems to be a north african thing. (i think the world got their first taste of that when lara logan got sexually assaulted during the egypt arab spring, i dont think anyone knew that was a thing before that)

Click to shrink...

Holy shit, it isn't a "thing" for any well adjusted individual, there isn't a tradition of rape in North Africa, I'm stunned by your casual generalisation. India is known for its unfortunately high amount of rape cases, but it doesn't mean rape is enshrined into the psyche of indians as a normal course of action, its a crime in both places. There's a pattern to your wording that is very familiar.

 

[Messofanego]

There's this show called The Knick, starring Clive Owen as a super smart surgeon that takes place at the turn of century. He has two colleagues one white and one black, both equally qualified from prestigious colleges. Anyways, the white colleague is a racist and gets into the whole "we must sterilize the undesirables" bandwagon. He is very polite and gentlemanly, but he espouses some rancid, vile shit and at one point to the black colleague's face. After taking enough, the black colleague throws down and is ready for a spar at which point the racist goes (paraphrasing) "aha! Knew it all along that black people can't be civilized and only understand violence".

That scene stuck with me. It's what's going on today with MAGA idiots and charlatans like Shapiro. The concept of "triggering" has been around for hundreds of years. Anyways, it's an amazing show.

Click to shrink...

That's a great and relevant moment from an amazing show.

 

[The Albatross]

Apologist makes it sound like you are in need of, apologising. It's quite a negative connotation to attach to something. Therefore, I don't think it's a very wise choice of wording, but that's just me. I personally think it's just better to state you can see the value others place in having a faith and what that sense of community can do to help people. Often the difference between being atheist/agnostic and anti-theist.

Click to shrink...

Apologetics is a branch of theology used for explaining or defending matters of faith. I borrowed it for myself from GK Chesterton who wrote a book called "Orthodoxy," which became a seminal work on modern Catholic apologetics, though when Chesterton wrote it, he wasn't a Catholic ... and like me, I'm not a Christian/Muslim/Jew, but I used to take up the mantle of explaining Christianity/Islam/Judaism (though particularly Christianity/Catholicism/Orthodoxy.... I studied Catholic Theology in college, so that was my area of "expertise," and more or less at base I think all three Abrahamic religions are similar enough where a defense of one can be a valid defense of another). I wasn't always a proclaimed atheist, I used to think of myself as a "nontheist," until I sort of accepted that if you lack faith in god, then that, in fact, makes you an atheist. Though I'm definitely not an anti-Theist because I'd interpret that to be against the believe in God, which I'm not, if someone chooses to believe in anything or nothing it's their prerogative and I'm comfortable with that.

It's good you feel happier today than before, but I don't think it's ever wise to downplay just how powerful speech and debate are when it comes to getting people to challenge themselves and their beliefs. If speech and debate ever fail or get ignored, that is usually how you escalate towards conflict/violence. Some radicals just go straight to violence irrespective of others trying to speak to them, but there is also a large number of people in the middle who hold seriously shitty views, even if they don't do anything violent/illegal. These people still need to be challenged.

Click to shrink...

This is a good point, and I admire your conviction and dedication, but I think I lack faith that other people truly want to be convinced in most arguments. More often, I think people get into public arguments for their own ego, and less to convince, convert, or neutralize someone else. For most people, I think arguing on the internet is masturbatory. Whenever I think of people like Ben Shapiro or other internet conservatives getting upset when somebody "Won't debate them" or whatever, I think to myself, like, "wtf... do you guys not jerk off or something...?"

ALso, just want to say any particular points of your post i'm not quoting I agree with you on, or defer to your point of view. I'm not ignoring them or not reading them, and appreciate the perspective you're sharing.

 

[Clefargle]

Competing with Bill Marr as the worst atheist "liberal".

And I'm an atheist

 

[AegonSnake]

Holy shit, it isn't a "thing" for any well adjusted individual, there isn't a tradition of rape in North Africa, I'm stunned by your casual generalisation. India is known for its unfortunately high amount of rape cases, but it doesn't mean rape is enshrined into the psyche of indians as a normal course of action, its a crime in both places. There's a pattern to your wording that is very familiar.

Click to shrink...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_sexual_assault_in_Egypt

I'm not making this up. It's a real problem just like how incels and gamergaters we a real problem. Of course I'm not generalizing and saying all north african men are rapists. I am saying that this specific problem exists predominantly in North African countries.

 

[Deleted member 888]

Apologetics is a branch of theology used for explaining or defending matters of faith. I borrowed it from GK Chesterton who wrote a book called "Orthodoxy," which became a seminal work on modern Catholic apologetics, though when Chesterton wrote it, he wasn't a Catholic ... and like me, I'm not a Christian/Muslim/Jew, but I used to take up the mantle of explaining Christianity/Islam/Judaism (though particularly Christianity/Catholicism/Orthodoxy.... I studied Catholic Theology in college, so that was my area of "expertise"). I wasn't always a proclaimed atheist, I used to think of myself as a "nontheist," until I sort of accepted that if you lack faith in god, then that, in fact, makes you an atheist. Though I'm definitely not an anti-Theist because I'd interpret that to be against the believe in God, which I'm not, if someone chooses to believe in anything it's their prerogative and I'm comfortable with that.



This is a good point, and I admire your conviction and dedication, but I think I lack faith that other people truly want to be convinced in most arguments. More often, I think people get into public arguments for their own ego, and less to convince, convert, or neutralize someone else. For most people, I think arguing on the internet is masturbatory. Whenever I think of people like Ben Shapiro or other internet conservatives getting upset when somebody "Won't debate them" or whatever, I think to myself, like, "wtf... do you guys not jerk off or something...?"

ALso, just want to say any particular points of your post i'm not quoting I agree with you on, or defer to your point of view. I'm not ignoring them or not reading them, and appreciate the perspective you're sharing.

Click to shrink...

Interesting way of explaining it, I guess my reaction was just a layman responding to seeing the word apology. I also don't like the idea of "protecting from objections", because that is often weaponized by religious people to shutdown conversation. I'm not an anti-theist either, as I do believe there have been net gains in culture and communities from having religion. But I do also think religion has also been the sole cause of soo much suffering, intolerance and violence and still continues to be. The phrase "Religion can make good people do bad things" is incredibly flawed, but often stated. I'd instead reword it to "Religion can make people with a lot of potential for good, think and say things that erode that potential".

I don't see any point in debating or arguing with people to "become" an atheist or denounce their religion, I only argue with and debate for them to question their beliefs that are factually abhorrent or genuinely anti-scientific. I don't see any need to convert people away from religion, more so to deradicalize and push the majority towards moving away from the fundamental or intolerant parts of their faiths. I see a core part of that being the use of great wit, satire and ways of speaking like Hitchens had that could cause even his haters to give him a few minutes of their time. Sometimes a few minutes is all that is needed to move the needle for someone away from literalism/fundamentalism and towards keeping their faith but rejecting the bullshit. It's of its time, people in a desert many years ago didn't know what we know now.

Although in saying that last part, unfortunately, it can be even harder with the Koran as it doesn't have a New Testament to conveniently move away from some of the crazy shit and it is my understanding Islam places more of a focus on it being the unalterable word of God. Even if so, human beings are human beings. The mind we have is the same mind that exists elsewhere in the world. You can get through to even the most radical, it's just about never stopping which is why I was persistent in my statements to you about debate and speech never going out of fashion. If they fail or get ignored that is often what leads humans to conflict/violence.

 

[Pacbois]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_sexual_assault_in_Egypt

I'm not making this up. It's a real problem just like how incels and gamergaters we a real problem. Of course I'm not generalizing and saying all north african men are rapists. I am saying that this specific problem exists predominantly in North African countries.

Click to shrink...

Sexual violence is a problem all around the world. You are literally using the same tactics as harris to say that the problem is not Muslims but Maghrebis ???

what the flying fuck

 

[Prine]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_sexual_assault_in_Egypt

I'm not making this up. It's a real problem just like how incels and gamergaters we a real problem. Of course I'm not generalizing and saying all north african men are rapists. I am saying that this specific problem exists predominantly in North African countries.

Click to shrink...

But you've already fallen prey to the idea that the cases reported above means its intrinsic of people in North Africa, its in their nature (assaulting in public), despite those in cologne being minute portion of the overall population. Yes it was disgusting and we should talk about it, but be careful with mis reporting which ends up vilifying the innocent.

India was ranked as the most dangerous place for women in the world by a report https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-42436817, but we dont stigmatise people there for a culture of female violence and rape.

 

[John Dunbar]

India was ranked as the most dangerous place for women in the world by a report https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-42436817, but we dont stigmatise people there for a culture of female violence and rape.

Click to shrink...

don't we? i remember warnings against women travelling alone in india being abundant when the stories of gang rapes were all over the news.

 

[Zelenogorsk]

That's a very normal response to the question /s.

I'm embarrassed to say I was a huge Harris/Hitchens/New Atheism stan back in high school. Glad I grew out of that.

 

[AegonSnake]

Sexual violence is a problem all around the world. You are literally using the same tactics as harris to say that the problem is not Muslims but Maghrebis ???

what the flying fuck

Click to shrink...

huh? What tactics of his am I using? What are you talking about? Are you disgreeing with what the contents of that wiki page? Or do you just want to throw a hissy fit?

You seem to be hell bent on trying to twist my words, words that were initially used to condemn Sam Harris by the way, or are just being woefully obtuse. You claimed no well adjusted individual North African would go around raping people, and yet I made no such claim and literally refuted that in my reply to you. You then ignore this part "Of course I'm not generalizing and saying all north african men are rapists." and then somehow managed to arrive at a completely wrong conclusion. There is a massive distinction between sexual violence around the globe and mass sexual assaults we saw in Cologne and Egypt. The U.S sees one woman get assualted every 6 minutes. And yet on New Year's Eve at Timesquare, we dont have a bunch of american men sexual assaulting women by ganging up on them.

Read up on the lara logan story on Tahrir square.

And if you continue to argue in bad faith, dont expect a reply.

 

[Corky]

That's a very normal response to the question /s.

I'm embarrassed to say I was a huge Harris/Hitchens/New Atheism stan back in high school. Glad I grew out of that.

Click to shrink...

I know he had his own issues but I'd like to think Hitchens would have broken away from some of these clowns if he was still around

 

[Septic]

What a prick

 

[AegonSnake]

But you've already fallen prey to the idea that the cases reported above means its intrinsic of people in North Africa, its in their nature (assaulting in public), despite those in cologne being minute portion of the overall population. Yes it was disgusting and we should talk about it, but be careful with mis reporting which ends up vilifying the innocent.

India was ranked as the most dangerous place for women in the world by a report https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-42436817, but we dont stigmatise people there for a culture of female violence and rape.

Click to shrink...

I agree. We should definitely talk about it. I have been very careful as to not generalize all indian men or all north african men or implied that it's in their nature. I thought by labeling it a cultural or even a societal, i was implying the complete opposite. If anything I am applying the logic of Reza Aslan who when pointing out the disturbing african tradition of female genitalia mutilation made the case that the vast majority of muslims residing in arabic and south asian countries dont have this custom.

 

[Stoney Mason]

Harris has been garbage for many years now at this point. He lost the thread a long time ago.

 

[Boiled Goose]

I'm just not sure what you mean by he is correct about the existence of deities. This is something that you can't really prove with evidence given the nature of Faith, no? Or do you mean deities in the sense of the existence of idols that people worship, rather than the deities themselves? Just a bit confused what you're getting at.

Click to shrink...

If it can't be proven then there's no rational justification for belief.

If faith means believing without evidence and can be applied to contradictory claims then it's not a rational justification for belief.

So, yes withholding belief on deities is the rational choice. Aka. right

 

[Pacbois]

huh? What tactics of his am I using? What are you talking about? Are you disgreeing with what the contents of that wiki page? Or do you just want to throw a hissy fit?

You seem to be hell bent on trying to twist my words, words that were initially used to condemn Sam Harris by the way, or are just being woefully obtuse. You claimed no well adjusted individual North African would go around raping people, and yet I made no such claim and literally refuted that in my reply to you. You then ignore this part "Of course I'm not generalizing and saying all north african men are rapists." and then somehow managed to arrive at a completely wrong conclusion. There is a massive distinction between sexual violence around the globe and mass sexual assaults we saw in Cologne and Egypt. The U.S sees one woman get assualted every 6 minutes. And yet on New Year's Eve at Timesquare, we dont have a bunch of american men sexual assaulting women by ganging up on them.

Read up on the lara logan story on Tahrir square.

And if you continue to argue in bad faith, dont expect a reply.

Click to shrink...

What Harris, Shapiro & co constantly do to help bringing up the fear and hate of muslims and arabs is pointing to one or two horrific events and just post stats without context or analysis claiming because they're are facts it's proving they're right.

Sounds familiar?

You're playing the same game, basically saying Asian Muslims are better than African Muslims. Not only this is an awful thing to say, but you are literally using far-rights arguments to blame a large contingent of the Muslim world without thinking about why and how sexual assault spreads and become prevalent.

And no I'm not having a hissy fit. I just hate when people assume I am a rapist based on my origins.

 

[Prattle]

I'm sorry. Can someone say what Harris has done in plain english please?

 

[Deleted member 18360]

If it can't be proven then there's no rational justification for belief.

If faith means believing without evidence and can be applied to contradictory claims then it's not a rational justification for belief.

So, yes withholding belief on deities is the rational choice. Aka. right

Click to shrink...

Rational justification and (the potential for) proof aren't the same thing. They may be alike in kind, but the standards for rational justification are just that someone's reasons be intelligible or demonstrable in some sense, which many of the more nuanced arguments for religion arguably are.

 

[Hiphopopotamus]

I'm sorry. Can someone say what Harris has done in plain english please?

Click to shrink...

After being asked to respond to critiques which state he's bigoted against Muslims, he proceeds to give the standard white supremecist answer that Muslims rape white women, and that liberals welcome that.

Any more questions?

 

[Boiled Goose]

Rational justification and (the potential for) proof aren't the same thing. They may be alike in kind, but the standards for rational justification are just that someone's reasons be intelligible or demonstrable in some sense, which many of the more nuanced arguments for religion arguably are.

Click to shrink...

I don't think that's correct for faith or other methods that can be used for contradictory positions. That's by definition irrational. Don't like irrational? Then use not sufficiently justified. If someone explains why methodology is flawed and you still use it, then you are no longer just mistaken, but irrational.

 

[bmdubya]

Honest Question, because one of my good friends fell into the Shapiro trap. Hes a white dude with a lot of money, but hes my buddy. 99% progressive/liberal. Which is why this threw me for a loop. Same with the rogan following, you'll h

"He just wants to have a PEACEFUL debate, an HONEST debate!" Same with Sam Harris, there is this weird admiration of these people, as if they are beyond or above the issues they are shitting all over. People are passionate about not being labeled an other, and thats why there isn't 'civil' discourse when you're killing them. But it appeals to liberal people.

You watch 1 video on YT and your feed is then flooded with "SAM HARRIS SHUTS DOWN __________" etc. all that shit. I understand the algorithm... but I just don't understand the appeal behind this peaceful sort of ...hate? Like they're the better than the discussion. Or that they get to dictate the rules of discourse. If you aren't being civil, then you're just as bad as the fascism you're against... etc.

Anyone fall into that trap some how, and figure out "Oh shit, this is white supremacist shit..." and bail? How'd you get fooled into it -- if you're otherwise super liberal..?

Case in point, i feel like most people are thinking "Yeah, no shit. Thats how he acts." But some people will be taken aback by this.

Click to shrink...

It happened to me. I worked in an office where everyone just sat at their computers with headphones on and listened to music or podcasts. That's when I started listening to a lot of podcasts. I had heard of Joe Rogan's podcast, so I decided to give it a listen, and that's when I was introduced to Milo and Steven Crowder.

At first, you're reaction is "I don't agree with everything they say, but they bring up some interesting ideas," or "some of the things they say make sense." After that your YouTube feed gets filled with videos from all of them, and then it's like "I wonder what Milo has to say about this topic." Then you continue to get introduced to more people (it's how learned about the Gavin guy that started proud boys) and it just continues to spiral.

I consider myself a pretty compassionate person, and now I consider myself a progressive, but I'll be honest, I'm ashamed of myself during that time. I'm ashamed that I let their hateful rhetoric enter my head, and I'm ashamed at times I thought "hey, that guy has a point."

I got out of it after I read an article from this lady who has known Milo for a long time. She was with him after he got banned from Twitter, and he was so happy about how it would affect his brand. That's when I realized that it's all just a grift: they prey on hateful people to make a living. I've almost had a complete 180 from the person who I was just a few years ago. A buddy asked me my political affiliation recently, and it made me reflect on how far I've come. I'm such a happier person now days that I don't listen to that filth regularly.

 

[Deleted member 18360]

I don't think that's correct for faith or other methods that can be used for contradictory positions. That's by definition irrational. Don't like irrational? Then use not sufficiently justified. If someone explains why methodology is flawed and you still use it, then you are no longer just mistaken, but irrational.

Click to shrink...

I'm not sure what conception of faith you're using, but my impression is that it isn't particularly appropriate. In the western philosophical tradition, since the 19th century or so, the predominant conception of religion has been essentially Kierkegaard's, by whose account faith isn't irrational, so much as it is supra-rational, which means that it actually requires a clear understanding of what the rational is, so that we can know what is actually being transcended through the act of faith. Basically, faith is suspending or transmuting the 'contradiction' (if one exists), not ignoring it. It's also something that is revealed through an individual's authenticity, or their own ethical consonance with themselves. If you've ever read any Nietzsche, then you might know that his conception of the ubemensch is one who can synthesize instinct with reason to produce a wholly new kind of ethical agent, and he actually took that from Kierkegaard, for whom faith functions in the same way, as a synthesis of desire and reason, that through the act of synthesis, is able to transcend both its antecedents.

So if you define faith as obstinately believing in something in contradiction of other evidence, then yeah that is like tautologically irrational, but there's a reason that faith generally hasn't been regarded in that way for quite some time now (instead towards 'personal religion', away from natural religion or the praxis of trying to find evidence for God in nature), and that's because such a conception of faith would be meaningless even if it weren't problematic. I mean, kids as young as two years old are great at obstinately insisting that something is true. If that's all faith required, then there'd be nothing at all special or unusual about it.

Really if you can find a copy of Fear and Trembling, or some secondary source that abbreviates it, I'd recommend giving it a read.

 

[Boiled Goose]

I'm not sure what conception of faith you're using, but my impression is that it isn't particularly appropriate. In the western philosophical tradition, since the 19th century or so, the predominant conception of religion has been essentially Kierkegaard's, by whose account faith isn't irrational, so much as it is supra-rational, which means that it actually requires a clear understanding of what the rational is, so that we can know what is actually being transcended through the act of faith. Basically, faith is suspending or transmuting the 'contradiction' (if one exists), not ignoring it. It's also something that is revealed through an individual's authenticity, or their own ethical consonance with themselves. If you've ever read any Nietzsche, then you might know that his conception of the ubemensch is one who can synthesize instinct with reason to produce a wholly new kind of ethical agent, and he actually took that from Kierkegaard, for whom faith functions in the same way, as a synthesis of desire and reason, that through the act of synthesis, is able to transcend both its antecedents.

So if you define faith as obstinately believing in something in contradiction of other evidence, then yeah that is like tautologically irrational, but there's a reason that faith generally hasn't been regarded in that way for quite some time now (instead towards 'personal religion', away from natural religion or the praxis of trying to find evidence for God in nature), and that's because such a conception of faith would be meaningless even if it weren't problematic. I mean, kids as young as two years old are great at obstinately insisting that something is true. If that's all faith required, then there'd be nothing at all special or unusual about it.

Really if you can find a copy of Fear and Trembling, or some secondary source that abbreviates it, I'd recommend giving it a read.

Click to shrink...

Sorry, but this is simply a bunch a meaningless word salad. Desire doesn't make something true.

 

[Deleted member 18360]

Sorry, but this is simply a bunch a meaningless word salad. Desire doesn't make something true.

Click to shrink...

It's... not. And I don't know how you got that out of my post. The point is that faith isn't desire, it isn't just obstinately believing something, and people who experience it are supposed to find in it an entirely new kind of exigence, otherwise Abraham wasn't the father of faith, and the Abrahamic religions are superfluous! I'm not a Christian or a Jew or a Muslim, and I'll never fully understand people that are, but it literally doesn't make any sense for these people to make wishful thinking the core distinction or innovation in their supposed long ongoing personal and cultural dialogue with God! Like it really shows your contempt to say that it really is all that basic. The religions of the masses probably are, sure, but when talking about intelligible reasons that people might have for their religion, we're probably talking about theory and theology and the observations of thoughtful people. The problem is really that you don't know what you're talking about. To give you some credit and assume you want to learn, Kierkegaard is widely read enough that you can probably find a used copy of Fear and Trembling for like 50 cents.

 

[Boiled Goose]

It's... not. And I don't know how you got that out of my post. The point is that faith isn't desire, it isn't just obstinately believing something, and people who experience it are supposed to find in it an entirely new kind of exigence, otherwise Abraham wasn't the father of faith, and the Abrahamic religions are superfluous! I'm not a Christian or a Jew or a Muslim, and I'll never fully understand people that are, but it literally doesn't make any sense for these people to make wishful thinking the core distinction or innovation in their supposed long ongoing personal and cultural dialogue with God! Like it really shows your contempt to say that it really is all that basic. The religions of the masses probably are, sure, but when talking about intelligible reasons that people might have for their religion, we're probably talking about theory and theology and the observations of thoughtful people. The problem is really that you don't know what you're talking about. To give you some credit and assume you want to learn, Kierkegaard is widely read enough that you can probably find a used copy of Fear and Trembling for like 50 cents.

Click to shrink...

So it's not that basic, but then you say it is. Religions of the masses? What else the fuck do you think we're talking about? Still wishful thinking unless you actually demonstrate something differently. Mumbo jumbo doesn't change that.

Abraham? What the fuck are you talking about?​

 

[Deleted member 18360]

So it's not that basic, but then you say it is. Religions of the masses? What else the fuck do you think we're talking about? Still wishful thinking unless you actually demonstrate something differently. Mumbo jumbo doesn't change that.

Abraham? What the fuck are you talking about?

Click to shrink...

What are we talking about? Reasons for possibly believing in a deity. I assumed you wanted legitimate and thoughtful reasons, I guess that was my mistake.

And no. According to Kierkegaard, when we're experiencing a crisis of faith (and to reiterate, faith is the crisis of the Abrahamic religions, not a given or a basic starting point), all we can say is that we are experiencing a crisis of faith, because it is not something that occupies our social or civil lives, things which we can actually talk about and have moral or rational consensus on (which is the key point)! It's not an experience that can be explained or made intelligible because it's supposed to be an internal revelation produced from your own authenticity. There's a common view in epistemology and other areas of philosophy that authenticity is the only possible means to objectivity. Given that our finite and particular perspective is a given, the most that we can do to see clearly, is to do everything we can to see ourselves. But this process is so personal and internal, what's there to really demonstrate about it? You're dealing in the ineffable, that's not the same as mumbo jumbo.

I assume it feels that you somehow hear a calling that is higher than the ethical (or that which can be explained), giving you the ability to see that it has been superseded, thus making it not an act of ignorance or pre-rational thinking but of something else entirely. I'm not sure I believe in it myself, but it seems entirely plausible, which to reiterate my starting claim, rational justification is really only an intelligible account of belief. Frankly you just haven't shown yourself willing to consider it, so if anything, I think you seem ignorant, or to at least have some specific deficiency in your rationality. More than anything I think it's a lack of empathy, you don't really care to understand any possibly good reason why someone might be a Christian or whatever. And I was with you for a long time, but I think it really shows a gross arrogance to assume that all of them are just dolts. So frankly I think you're in your own baggage about this.

 

[Sutton Dagger]

stuff

Click to shrink...

What Boiled Goose is saying is that 'faith' (belief in a proposition without evidence or that contradicts established evidence) is not a rational pathway to truth. There is nothing that someone couldn't take on faith, including contradictory propositions. Thus if someone is basing their entire belief in a God on faith, they are not rationally justified in doing so.

 

[Deleted member 18360]

What Boiled Goose is saying is that 'faith' (belief in a proposition without evidence or that contradicts established evidence) is not a rational pathway to truth. There is nothing that someone couldn't take on faith, including contradictory propositions. Thus if someone is basing their entire belief in a God on faith, they are not rationally justified in doing so.

Click to shrink...

The point that you're not seeing is that asking questions beyond the scope of our actual universe and hearing a supra-ethical call to action isn't supposed to be a defect in rationality, it's claimed to be the complete sublation of rationality, it thereby includes (but supersedes) rationality. If that argument can be entertained, and really how you'd investigate is by just grilling a really thoughtful Christian (it would be cool if Kierkegaard were still around, to see if he'd still be a Christian a century and some later), to see how actually thoughtful and sincere they are, get a sense of their rationality from their capacity for good judgment and conduct. But the point is that, theoretically speaking, a supra-ethical action is only 'irrational' by a particularly technical interpretation that loses the common meaning, that being of someone simply acting in ignorance or defiance of rationality. If you know what this world demands of us, but find authentic reason to respond to a 'higher' call, then what the irrationality of faith is has to be explained differently.

 

[Sutton Dagger]

The point that you're not seeing is that asking questions beyond the scope of our actual universe

Click to shrink...

I'll just respond to this first part because you'll have to explain what you mean. Are you saying there is something beyond the scope of the universe, something 'outside' of the universe?

 

[Deleted member 18360]

I'll just respond to this first part because you'll have to explain what you mean. Are you saying there is something beyond the scope of the universe, something 'outside' of the universe?

Click to shrink...

Well, I'm not saying that, I'm saying that that's the intentionality of transcendent religion, like the revealed religions of Abraham. And that's the fundamental conflict, is faith just the blind ignorance of immediate reality for some transcendent object that may not even exist? Or is it a relationship that an individual can perhaps find themselves to have, to some transcendent object, through the medium of their own authenticity? Considering it's more likely that not all Christians are mental children, I feel like that precludes the former as being decisive in characterizing faith.

But people do die for immaterial things like liberty and justice. Our lives are the most valuable things we have, and yet people can find immaterial and transcendent objects more valuable than even that, which is certainly a kind of reality in the humanist sense.

 

[Boiled Goose]

What are we talking about? Reasons for possibly believing in a deity. I assumed you wanted legitimate and thoughtful reasons, I guess that was my mistake.

And no. According to Kierkegaard, when we're experiencing a crisis of faith (and to reiterate, faith is the crisis of the Abrahamic religions, not a given or a basic starting point), all we can say is that we are experiencing a crisis of faith, because it is not something that occupies our social or civil lives, things which we can actually talk about and have moral or rational consensus on (which is the key point)! It's not an experience that can be explained or made intelligible because it's supposed to be an internal revelation produced from your own authenticity. There's a common view in epistemology and other areas of philosophy that authenticity is the only possible means to objectivity. Given that our finite and particular perspective is a given, the most that we can do to see clearly, is to do everything we can to see ourselves. But this process is so personal and internal, what's there to really demonstrate about it? You're dealing in the ineffable, that's not the same as mumbo jumbo.

I assume it feels that you somehow hear a calling that is higher than the ethical (or that which can be explained), giving you the ability to see that it has been superseded, thus making it not an act of ignorance or pre-rational thinking but of something else entirely. I'm not sure I believe in it myself, but it seems entirely plausible, which to reiterate my starting claim, rational justification is really only an intelligible account of belief. Frankly you just haven't shown yourself willing to consider it, so if anything, I think you seem ignorant, or to at least have some specific deficiency in your rationality. More than anything I think it's a lack of empathy, you don't really care to understand any possibly good reason why someone might be a Christian or whatever. And I was with you for a long time, but I think it really shows a gross arrogance to assume that all of them are just dolts. So frankly I think you're in your own baggage about this.

Click to shrink...

More meaningless word salad.

And then for all the philosophical posturing a strawman. Where did I say dolts? Being irrational about a claim just means you're incorrect.

Stop, because you're just spewing nonsense. At this point I think you're trolling.

 

[Boiled Goose]

Well, I'm not saying that, I'm saying that that's the intentionality of transcendent religion, like the revealed religions of Abraham. And that's the fundamental conflict, is faith just the blind ignorance of immediate reality for some transcendent object that may not even exist? Or is it a relationship that an individual can perhaps find themselves to have, to some transcendent object, through the medium of their own authenticity? Considering it's more likely that not all Christians are mental children, I feel like that precludes the former as being decisive in characterizing faith.

But people do die for immaterial things like liberty and justice. Our lives are the most valuable things we have, and yet people can find immaterial and transcendent objects more valuable than even that, which is certainly a kind of reality in the humanist sense.

Click to shrink...

More "if you believe it hard enough then it's real" garbage. Jordan Peterson, is that you?

Sorry but "real to me" is not the same as actually real as in confirming to reality.

 

[gcwy]

Who is this clown?

 

[Deleted member 18360]

More meaningless word salad.

And then for all the philosophical posturing a strawman. Where did I say dolts? Being irrational about a claim just means you're incorrect.

Stop, because you're just spewing nonsense. At this point I think you're trolling.

Click to shrink...

Sorry, but you're just dense. You either can't or refuse to disambiguate proof from justification. No one is going to fucking prove God to you, obviously. But you're being completely disingenuous. Being irrational about a claim doesn't 'mean you're incorrect', it means you used deficient epistemological means to arrive at your conclusion, or that your conclusion is unjustified. And religion would orient and unite a lot of an individuals sense of purpose in the world, calling that simple feature of their world view intrinsically deficient by design or necessity is basically calling into question their entire capacity for judgment. For the love of (no) god, talk to an actually intelligent thoughtful Christian, that's not an oxymoron.

More "if you believe it hard enough then it's real" garbage. Jordan Peterson, is that you?

Sorry but "real to me" is not the same as actually real as in confirming to reality.

Click to shrink...

You're right, liberty and justice literally don't exist.

All concepts are abstractions, they don't really exist 'in the world', as ideals they're transcendent. But if an ideal is so valuable it's legitimately worth dying for, how is that not a kind of reality?

 

[Boiled Goose]

Sorry, but you're just dense. You either can't or refuse to disambiguate proof from justification. No one is going to fucking prove God to you.




You're right, liberty and justice literally don't exist.

All concepts are abstractions, they don't really exist 'in the world', as ideals they're transcendent. But if an ideal is so valuable it's legitimately worth dying for, how is that not a kind of reality?

Click to shrink...

First, you don't acknowledge the strawman.

Second, you make an obvious mistake. Concepts exist as concepts.

The concept of god exists as a concept. Doesn't mean it's more than a concept.

Third, if some people are willing to die for an ideal, that means they really believe it. Doesn't make it real. Believing something really hard doesn't mean it's true. Two people can believe mutually exclusive things. Hence, can't be true. You're engaged in either a willful or ignoean equivocation fallacy.

The belief itself is real. Doesn't mean what is believed is real. Again, you love Jordan Peterson don't you?

But sure. I'm dense. Lol.

 

[Deleted member 47092]

Yeah we told you about Harris many years ago.

 

[Deleted member 18360]

First, you don't acknowledge the strawman.

Second, you make an obvious mistake. Concepts exist as concepts.

The concept of god exists as a concept. Doesn't mean it's more than a concept.

Third, if some people are willing to die for an ideal, that means they really believe it. Doesn't make it real. Believing something really hard doesn't mean it's true. Two people can believe mutually exclusive things. Hence, can't be true. You're engaged in either a willful or ignoean equivocation fallacy.

The belief itself is real. Doesn't mean what is believed is real. Again, you love Jordan Peterson don't you?

But sure. I'm dense. Lol.

Click to shrink...

1) It's not a strawman, as I explained in my edited post. A serious person would notice the contradiction and correct it, meaning that a seemingly thoughtful or intelligent Christian must have, in virtue of being a Christian, just failed to do their due diligence and inspect or provide answers for the contradictions. I'm saying it's entirely possible that they have and it's just not something that can be explained in a way that might satisfy you.

2) Concepts are (probably) abstractions or essences produced through our active intellect, which are otherwise entirely absent from our world. And yet sometimes they seem to locate something so valuable that it actually supersedes apparent reality. For example, ethical perfection is impossible, yet as an ideal it has reality and real consequences, the elimination of complacency, and perhaps a moonshot, who knows.

3) That's why I specified in the humanist sense, literally that it 'has reality to us', which in the absence of any kind of real evidence, is perhaps better than nothing! And here you're the one basically coming in with 'absence of evidence is evidence of absence'. So yeah, on this topic, a little dense.

 

[ArcLyte]

Resetera is clearly not the place to be critical about religion

 

[Sordid Plebeian]

Imagine the mental gymnastics it takes to bring yourself to defending that garbage

 

[Deleted member 18360]

Resetera is clearly not the place to be critical about religion

Click to shrink...

You absolutely can, it just requires a more fine grained analysis than 'theism is intrinsically irrational in virtue of being theism'.

 

[Boiled Goose]

1) It's not a strawman, as I explained in my edited post. A serious person would notice the contradiction and correct it, meaning that a seemingly thoughtful or intelligent Christian must have, in virtue of being a Christian, just failed to do their due diligence and inspect or provide answers for the contradictions. I'm saying it's entirely possible that they have and it's just not something that can be explained in a way that might satisfy you.

2) Concepts are (probably) abstractions or essences produced through our active intellect, which are otherwise entirely absent from our world. And yet sometimes they seem to locate something so valuable that it actually supersedes apparent reality. For example, ethical perfection is impossible, yet as an ideal it has reality and real consequences, the elimination of complacency, and perhaps a moonshot, who knows.

3) That's why I specified in the humanist sense, literally that it 'has reality to us', which in the absence of any kind of real evidence, is perhaps better than nothing! And here you're the one basically coming in with 'absence of evidence is evidence of absence'. So yeah, on this topic, a little dense.

Click to shrink...

It's not that complicated. As humans we make mistakes. Does this apply to all beliefs? Racists have done their due diligence? Flat earthers? Nah. Humans are just mistaken sometimes.

Claims of belief in deity are not beliefs of concept. But belief in actual entity.

I dont give a fuck about "real to us". Only care about actually real. If you're talking about something else, I'm not interested.

Finally, another strawman. Where did I argue for belief of absence? I just said belief was rationally unjustified. If you don't understand the difference, then that's your problem. Also, absence of evidence can be evidence of absence. Depends on what the claim is. For example, if there's no evidence for a cup on my counter then that's evidence for the absence of cups on my counter. Same applies for specific claims about deities. The issue is that some religious claims are so vague that they are unfalsifiable. (Some not all)

You think you're somehow clever by spewing meaningless words and concepts postulated by others. Yet you can't even have a basic, logical discussion.

Almost everything you have said has been a meaningless word salad, a strawman, logical fallacies, or unsupported assertions.

We're done here. Stop. If you want to continue pm me or start another topic on this. Enough derailment.

 

[Boiled Goose]

You absolutely can, it just requires a more fine grained analysis than 'theism is intrinsically irrational in virtue of being theism'.

Click to shrink...

Another fucking strawman. Where the fuck did I say that? Point to this or apologize for the baseless strawman.

I said faith is not a path to rationally justified belief because it can support mutually exclusive and contradictory claims.

That applies to anything. Not just beliefs about deities.

 

[Sutton Dagger]

Well, I'm not saying that, I'm saying that that's the intentionality of transcendent religion, like the revealed religions of Abraham. And that's the fundamental conflict, is faith just the blind ignorance of immediate reality for some transcendent object that may not even exist? Or is it a relationship that an individual can perhaps find themselves to have, to some transcendent object, through the medium of their own authenticity? Considering it's more likely that not all Christians are mental children, I feel like that precludes the former as being decisive in characterizing faith.

But people do die for immaterial things like liberty and justice. Our lives are the most valuable things we have, and yet people can find immaterial and transcendent objects more valuable than even that, which is certainly a kind of reality in the humanist sense.

Click to shrink...

Sorry for the late reply, I just had to duck out for a bit.

I'm not questioning a person's authenticity in their belief, I'm questioning the concept of faith as a rationally justified pathway to truth. The strength of one's conviction in a proposition tells us nothing about the likelihood of the proposition being true.

You also set up a false dichotomy. You propose two options, where those with faith are 'mental children' or they are in a legitimate relationship with the transcendent... I accept neither of those claims.

 

[Deleted member 18360]

It's not that complicated. As humans we make mistakes. Does this apply to all beliefs? Racists have done their due diligence? Flat earthers? Nah. Humans are just mistaken sometimes.

Claims of belief in deity are not beliefs of concept. But belief in actual entity.

I dont give a fuck about "real to us". Only care about actually real. If you're talking about something else, I'm not interested.

Finally, another strawman. Where did I argue for belief of absence? I just said belief was rationally unjustified. If you don't understand the difference, then that's your problem. Also, absence of evidence can be evidence of absence. Depends on what the claim is. For example, if there's no evidence for a cup on my counter then that's evidence for the absence of cups on my counter. Same applies for specific claims about deities. The issue is that some religious claims are so vague that they are unfalsifiable. (Some not all)

You think you're somehow clever by spewing meaningless words and concepts postulated by others. Yet you can't even have a basic, logical discussion.

Almost everything you have said has been a meaningless word salad, a strawman, logical fallacies, or unsupported assertions.

We're done here. Stop. If you want to continue pm me or start another topic on this. Enough derailment.

Click to shrink...

Mistaken beliefs about racism and the curvature of the Earth are actually demonstrably false because they have external objects. An internal experience like a religious conversion isn't. So how do we talk about the reality of something like that? We're not even talking about the same kind of object here, your examples aren't appropriate.

I do understand the difference. People have provided arguably intelligible claims for why they, as a reasonable person, would be a theist. It just has to be theoretically possible that those reasons exist. That's literally all that we're talking about here. That's it.

Another fucking strawman. Where the fuck did I say that? Point to this or apologize for the baseless strawman.

I said faith is not a path to rationally justified belief because it can support mutually exclusive and contradictory claims.

That applies to anything. Not just beliefs about deities.

Click to shrink...

What I don't get, is why anyone 'serious' about their faith (and thereby capable of providing serious answers about why it should be) wouldn't be fully aware of the principle of non-contradiction, and why it wouldn't likely just be a piece of evidence that they factor into their calculus? It seems that an irrational person would either just continue on in ignorance of it, or willfully disregard it. And that's what the argument is about.

Sorry for the late reply, I just had to duck out for a bit.

I'm not questioning a person's authenticity in their belief, I'm questioning the concept of faith as a rationally justified pathway to truth. The strength of one's conviction in a proposition tells us nothing about the likelihood of the proposition being true.

You also set up a false dichotomy. You propose two options, where those with faith are 'mental children' or they are in a legitimate relationship with the transcendent... I accept neither of those claims.

Click to shrink...

You're right that the sincerity of belief doesn't tell us anything about it being true. My point was that authenticity has epistemological utility. In fact the attainment of knowledge can be presented as the observance of some virtues: being attentive to the evidence, asking the right questions, and checking whether our intuition is actually borne out enough that we can have judgment about it. My point is that there's really nothing that precludes these virtues or criteria from being applied to something like theology.

And you're right it's a false dichotomy, I was just trying to draw a strong contrast but I think my point got lost. I don't maintain either position, either.