A Conversation of Faith with Sam Harris

FireDragon76

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Apr 30, 2013
30,477
18,456
Orlando, Florida
✟1,249,462.00
Country
United States
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
Politics
US-Democrat
I think this video is interesting because it's the first time I've really seen Sam Harris discuss/debate with a theistic religion where Harris is forced to drop his intellectual shields and take his phasors offline.



I would be curious to hear from @2PhiloVoid comment on the discussion in the video. It's not exactly a debate but I think traditional apologetics is far less interesting than conversations about religion, or lack thereof, in general.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2PhiloVoid

zippy2006

Dragonsworn
Nov 9, 2013
6,776
3,377
✟242,011.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Meh. Harris just tends to disappoint me. It would be hard to find someone who so uncritically tirades against dogmatism while lapping up scientific and Buddhistic dogma at every turn. I closed the video after listening to him talk about the dogma of Buddhist no-self as some kind of established fact. It's not clear to me that scientists are any less naive than non-scientists, and Harris is a good example.
 
Upvote 0

FireDragon76

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Apr 30, 2013
30,477
18,456
Orlando, Florida
✟1,249,462.00
Country
United States
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
Politics
US-Democrat
I like when the pastor says that anybody who is religious has to own up to the fact that religion can be very damaging and harmful. I think that's a very necessary step for any religion to be taking to be responsible. I wish more Christian religious institutions had that sort of perspective. Many do not.

I also appreciate how he points out there's various conceptual grids we can use to understand our experiences, and maybe he's suggesting Harris is getting too obsessed about particular grids we are using. It's something to think about, certainly.

The reverend also suggests, "a dogmatic approach to anything makes the world more dangerous". I think that's true, and perhaps Harris is not thinking about the fact that perhaps non-religious ideologies could contain the same sorts of dangers he sees in religion. One only needs to look at some of the directions certain things in our culture are heading to see a great deal of illiberalism happening and it's becoming more and more part of our culture as old patterns of religious belonging decrease.

Meh. Harris just tends to disappoint me. It would be hard to find someone who so uncritically tirades against dogmatism while lapping up scientific and Buddhistic dogma at every turn.

Buddhism doesn't really have dogma, from what I gather. Especially something like Zen. Dogma goes against the whole point of having a receptive, non-judgemental awareness of non-conceptual being.

I closed the video after listening to him talk about the dogma of Buddhist no-self as some kind of established fact. It's not clear to me that scientists are any less naive than non-scientists, and Harris is a good example.

I don't think the Buddhist doctrine of anatman/anatta is so extreme, really, once one understands its context. Think of it as a kind of via negativa.

Another thing I'd point out that Harris doesn't identify as a Buddhist. He merely has studied meditation in India, and recognizes Buddhism contains some important insights that appeal to his experience. But he doesn't seem very interested in the ethical teachings of Buddhism, or various non-insight oriented practices, he seems to be drawing from western secular humanism.
 
Upvote 0

zippy2006

Dragonsworn
Nov 9, 2013
6,776
3,377
✟242,011.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
I also appreciate how he points out there's various conceptual grids we can use to understand our experiences, and maybe he's suggesting Harris is getting too obsessed about particular grids we are using. It's something to think about, certainly.

Yes, but I didn't mind when Harris pushed back on that (around minute 18), saying that beliefs and the way we "vet" them also matters.

The reverend also suggests, "a dogmatic approach to anything makes the world more dangerous". I think that's true,

I think the pastor and Harris need to come up with a non-biased definition of "dogma." Not all dogma makes the world more dangerous, at least if you use an objective definition. Harris flirted with this when he said that the dogmas that all humans have intrinsic worth and that life begins at conception seem innocuous but become problematic because [such and such]. But what about the dogma that all humans have intrinsic worth? Does that make the world more dangerous? (Harris focused on the second, not the first) Or the dogma of pacifism? Or the dogma that, "All dogma makes the world more dangerous," is that "dogma" dangerous?

...and perhaps Harris is not thinking about the fact that perhaps non-religious ideologies could contain the same sorts of dangers he sees in religion. One only needs to look at some of the directions certain things in our culture are heading to see a great deal of illiberalism happening and it's becoming more and more part of our culture as old patterns of religious belonging decrease.

Agreed.

Buddhism doesn't really have dogma, from what I gather. Especially something like Zen. Dogma goes against the whole point of having a receptive, non-judgemental awareness of non-conceptual being.

I understand a dogma to be some core belief that cannot be rejected without rejecting the religion (or ideology) itself. A dogma is basically an essential doctrine. So the Four Noble Truths are the most obvious candidates, but the doctrine of no-self is also considered perfectly fundamental for many Buddhists. Many see it as a kind of linchpin.

I don't think the Buddhist doctrine of anatman/anatta is so extreme, really, once one understands its context. Think of it as a kind of via negativa.

Whether or not it is extreme, it came across as something that is dogmatic/axiomatic for Harris. I suppose he gave some sort of argument that he wasn't able to find "the self" in his brain scans or in the human brain, but I don't think there is much in the way of argumentation there. I would want Harris to critically engage with that axiom and explain to us why it is different from a dogma. If it's not then on his account it is just as dangerous as the apparently-innocuous dogma that all humans have intrinsic worth.

I am willing to take sips from the postmodernist well in this area, and Harris strikes me as thoroughly modernist in his approach. He thinks dogma is bad, science is good, and objective rationality rules the day, is demonstrable, and supports his own beliefs. Yet Harris' beliefs can be deconstructed likely as easily as religious beliefs. That's why I think he has a naive epistemology.

On the other hand I like him when it comes to free speech. I think he fights the good fight on that topic and submits his own beliefs to greater scrutiny in that arena. He is also willing to engage different viewpoints in a respectful way, which is great, and if he sees someone contradicting hard facts and data he will correct them regardless of their position.

Another thing I'd point out that Harris doesn't identify as a Buddhist. He merely has studied meditation in India, and recognizes Buddhism contains some important insights that appeal to his experience. But he doesn't seem very interested in the ethical teachings of Buddhism, or various non-insight oriented practices, he seems to be drawing from western secular humanism.

True, but he also draws on theories from Buddhism and mindfulness quite often. I would actually be curious to see him pressed on the ontological status of sunyata. I think the Yogacara approach which sees sunyata as having a kind of ontological reality is interesting. Of course it is highly unlikely that Harris would follow in those footsteps.
 
Upvote 0

FireDragon76

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Apr 30, 2013
30,477
18,456
Orlando, Florida
✟1,249,462.00
Country
United States
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
Politics
US-Democrat
Yes, but I didn't mind when Harris pushed back on that (around minute 18), saying that beliefs and the way we "vet" them also matters.

I'll have to go back and watch that more closely tomorrow.

I think the pastor and Harris need to come up with a non-biased definition of "dogma." Not all dogma makes the world more dangerous, at least if you use an objective definition. Harris flirted with this when he said that the dogmas that all humans have intrinsic worth and that life begins at conception seem innocuous but become problematic because [such and such].

Perhaps that particular dogma only becomes problematic when coupled with other dogmas or doctrines, such as what meta-ethical considerations are important in the first place.

Buddhists generally view life beginning at conception (and thus would see sacredness in all life, even non-human life), but there's a great deal of disagreement among Buddhists about subjects like abortion or stem cell research, and it comes down basically to how much a person is a modernist or critical of premodern, patriarchal modes of religion that discount the experience of women (there is at least one Thai monk, for instance, that has taken the radical step of criticizing the Thai government's ban on abortion, based on personalist ethics).

And I think that's a good example of how it's not just a matter of what doctrines you believe, but what meta-ethical and ethical considerations you believe are important as well.


I understand a dogma to be some core belief that cannot be rejected without rejecting the religion (or ideology) itself. A dogma is basically an essential doctrine. So the Four Noble Truths are the most obvious candidates, but the doctrine of no-self is also considered perfectly fundamental for many Buddhists. Many see it as a kind of linchpin.

They are doctrines but not dogmas. That is my understanding based on reading various sources over the years, including Thitch Nhat Hanh's expositions on Buddhist doctrine. That's not to say some doctrines aren't more important than others, but Buddhism as a religion is not generally defined primarily by belief, but by practice and belonging, in that order, with belief being tertiary in most schools.

True, but he also draws on theories from Buddhism and mindfulness quite often. I would actually be curious to see him pressed on the ontological status of sunyata. I think the Yogacara approach which sees sunyata as having a kind of ontological reality is interesting. Of course it is highly unlikely that Harris would follow in those footsteps.

Various Buddhist schools, particularly in Tibetan Buddhism, have different approaches dealing with the concept of Sunyata, roughly analogous to how different Protestant churches have different emphases.

Madyamika philosophy and the Prajnaparamita (Perfection of Wisdom) literature are usually considered superior in dealing with the concept of Sunyata, and even Sunyata is understood in this literature as negating itself, ad infinitum (perhaps Sunyata is roughly akin to the concept of the Infinite, from what I have read, some Buddhists do seem to speak of the concept as being analogous). Yogacara really functions as a Mahayana Buddhist phenomenology, it breaks down consciousness into various strata and focuses on how they interact.
 
Upvote 0

zippy2006

Dragonsworn
Nov 9, 2013
6,776
3,377
✟242,011.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
They are doctrines but not dogmas. That is my understanding based on reading various sources over the years, including Thitch Nhat Hanh's expositions on Buddhist doctrine. That's not to say some doctrines aren't more important than others, but Buddhism as a religion is not generally defined primarily by belief, but by practice and belonging, in that order, with belief being tertiary in most schools.

If this were true then if someone became a Buddhist monk, meditated, said the prayers, begged, and participated in the communal life, but denounced the Four Noble Truths, no problem would arise. I'm not convinced that is so. I'm not convinced that you can so easily separate belief from practice. Sure, Christians put a special emphasis on belief, but even on the supposition that the Christian emphasis is excessive it does not follow that belief and practice are entirely separable.

Madyamika philosophy and the Prajnaparamita (Perfection of Wisdom) literature are usually considered superior in dealing with the concept of Sunyata, and even Sunyata is understood in this literature as negating itself, ad infinitum (perhaps Sunyata is roughly akin to the concept of the Infinite, from what I have read, some Buddhists do seem to speak of the concept as being analogous). Yogacara really functions as a Mahayana Buddhist phenomenology, it breaks down consciousness into various strata and focuses on how they interact.

I agree with this.

It's worth noting that a central project of Nagarjuna and the early Madhyamaka school was doctrinal. At that time it was a common teaching that the fundamental elements of Buddhist cosmology were not empty, but that everything which arose out of them was empty. These elements were called "dharmas," and one of the most important dharmas for Buddhists was tightly associated with nirvana itself. Nagarjuna did value practice and experience over doctrine, and yet he saw the common doctrine which said that nirvana is not empty as something which was inimical to Buddhism. That is, it was inimical to the essence of Buddhism--to the practice and the experience. To combat this doctrine he was of course required to promulgate a doctrine of his own. He said that all of the dharmas (fundamental elements) are empty, including the one associated with nirvana, and that nirvana is itself empty. This is a good example of the way that belief is inextricably connected to practice.
 
Upvote 0

FireDragon76

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Apr 30, 2013
30,477
18,456
Orlando, Florida
✟1,249,462.00
Country
United States
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
Politics
US-Democrat
If this were true then if someone became a Buddhist monk, meditated, said the prayers, begged, and participated in the communal life, but denounced the Four Noble Truths, no problem would arise.

I don't think it wouldn't cause any problems but it wouldn't be as problematic as denouncing similar doctrines has been in a Christian context. It also depends on the context.

Nagarjuna, BTW, was ultimately driven by Buddhist praxis, not by the sort of philosophical speculations you'll find in western medieval Christian theology.
 
Upvote 0

zippy2006

Dragonsworn
Nov 9, 2013
6,776
3,377
✟242,011.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
I don't think it wouldn't cause any problems but it wouldn't be as problematic as denouncing similar doctrines has been in a Christian context.

True.

Nagarjuna, BTW, was ultimately driven by Buddhist praxis, not by the sort of philosophical speculations you'll find in western medieval Christian theology.

Right, but that was my point. He was driven by practice to expound on doctrine. This is due to the fact that practice and belief are intertwined.
 
Upvote 0

FireDragon76

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Apr 30, 2013
30,477
18,456
Orlando, Florida
✟1,249,462.00
Country
United States
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
Politics
US-Democrat
Right, but that was my point. He was driven by practice to expound on doctrine. This is due to the fact that practice and belief are intertwined.

As a logical necessity?

Look, I had it explained years ago by actual Buddhists that the Four Noble Truths should not be understood as a comprehensive statement of objective fact. Obviously life is more than suffering. That means if you don't experience life as suffering, if you aren't troubled by old age, sickness, and death, then the Buddhadharma is not for you, you aren't ready for it. That's quite different from saying that the Buddhadharma is absolute truth and must be applied to everyone and every facet of life. That is more like the approach of Christianity and Islam.
 
Upvote 0

zippy2006

Dragonsworn
Nov 9, 2013
6,776
3,377
✟242,011.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
As a logical necessity?

I think belief and practice are necessarily intertwined.

Look, I had it explained years ago by actual Buddhists that the Four Noble Truths should not be understood as a comprehensive statement of objective fact. Obviously life is more than suffering. That means if you don't experience life as suffering, if you aren't troubled by old age, sickness, and death, then the Buddhadharma is not for you, you aren't ready for it. That's quite different from saying that the Buddhadharma is absolute truth and must be applied to everyone and every facet of life. That is more like the approach of Christianity and Islam.

I thought you were going to go in a different direction with that. I don't think it's so different from Christianity. Christianity has long distinguished between unbelievers and heretics. Dogma simply isn't binding on those outside the faith. That's not so different from what you heard from the Buddhists. (Though in Christianity a difficulty admittedly arises among those who practice paedobaptism)

At the same time I think all religions represent truth claims and will duke it out in the "public square" with other groups, society at large, the governing authorities, etc. That is, they will defend their beliefs and practices when necessary. Conversion by the sword is going too far, but I don't think you will find a doctrinal basis for that outside of Islam.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

FireDragon76

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Apr 30, 2013
30,477
18,456
Orlando, Florida
✟1,249,462.00
Country
United States
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
Politics
US-Democrat
In Mahayana Buddhism, there is also the doctrine of skillfull means. We're all at different places in understanding, and all teachings are provisional due to the nature of Dharma. If a person doesn't want to accept parts of Buddhism, but they take refuge in the Buddha anyways as a teacher, that doesn't make them non-Buddhist, necessarily

So yeah, I have been part of Buddhist groups where questioning a particular teaching(s) is not taboo, and where not everybody accepts every Buddhist teaching. Thitch Nhat Hanh at times is not above a little bit of iconclasm, in this manner (he has said and wrote he would not want to live in a world without suffering, for instance, because then there would be no need for compassion). As long as people are kind and respectful, it's not an unbearable problem.
 
Upvote 0

holo

former Christian
Dec 24, 2003
8,992
751
✟77,794.00
Country
Norway
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
I think the burden of proof is on those who claim that there is in fact something that could rightly be called a "self". It seems intuitive and obvious that it exists, yet you'd be hard pressed to define it, locate it or pinpoint it somehow. In my experience, when that belief is challenged, both religious people and atheist seem to fall back to some sort of metaphysical belief, i.e. that there is something like a "soul" at our core.
 
Upvote 0

holo

former Christian
Dec 24, 2003
8,992
751
✟77,794.00
Country
Norway
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
As a logical necessity?

Look, I had it explained years ago by actual Buddhists that the Four Noble Truths should not be understood as a comprehensive statement of objective fact. Obviously life is more than suffering. That means if you don't experience life as suffering, if you aren't troubled by old age, sickness, and death, then the Buddhadharma is not for you, you aren't ready for it. That's quite different from saying that the Buddhadharma is absolute truth and must be applied to everyone and every facet of life. That is more like the approach of Christianity and Islam.
My very rudimentary understanding of Buddhism is that the claim isn't that life "is" suffering, but that it inevitably entails suffering (perhaps unsatisfactoriness is a more accurate translation of the term, "dukkha"). And as such, the dharma (which apparently also can mean a lot of things, but I think it's most often understodd as practice), will be relevant to everyone.

What fascinates me most about the basics of Buddhism, as I understand them, is that they are obviously true. It's not a "belief" that life entails suffering and that suffering is strictly speaking optional. It's not a matter of faith that there are things you can do, and ways to relate to the world and yourself, that will reduce suffering. Coming from Christianity via agnosticism, it's truly a relief to find a religion/spirituality/way of living that doesn't demand I simply believe this or that, but which offers proposistions that can be practiced and tested. Instead of battling with questions like "was the Buddha a historical person," "what are the original doctrines" and so forth, the much simpler question, to me, is "does it work?" And so far, it does seem to work. If (some part of) it doesn't, I'm free to discard it, which is pretty much the opposite of dogma, right?
 
  • Winner
Reactions: ananda
Upvote 0

ananda

Early Buddhist
May 6, 2011
14,757
2,123
Soujourner on Earth
✟186,371.00
Marital Status
Private
... What fascinates me most about the basics of Buddhism, as I understand them, is that they are obviously true. It's not a "belief" that life entails suffering and that suffering is strictly speaking optional. It's not a matter of faith that there are things you can do, and ways to relate to the world and yourself, that will reduce suffering. Coming from Christianity via agnosticism, it's truly a relief to find a religion/spirituality/way of living that doesn't demand I simply believe this or that, but which offers proposistions that can be practiced and tested. Instead of battling with questions like "was the Buddha a historical person," "what are the original doctrines" and so forth, the much simpler question, to me, is "does it work?" And so far, it does seem to work. If (some part of) it doesn't, I'm free to discard it, which is pretty much the opposite of dogma, right?
I am reminded of this scripture: "the disciple of the noble ones recollects the Dhamma, thus: ‘The Dhamma is well taught by the Blessed One, to be seen here & now, timeless, inviting verification, pertinent, to be experienced by the observant for themselves.'"
 
Upvote 0

zippy2006

Dragonsworn
Nov 9, 2013
6,776
3,377
✟242,011.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
In Mahayana Buddhism, there is also the doctrine of skillfull means. We're all at different places in understanding, and all teachings are provisional due to the nature of Dharma. If a person doesn't want to accept parts of Buddhism, but they take refuge in the Buddha anyways as a teacher, that doesn't make them non-Buddhist, necessarily

So yeah, I have been part of Buddhist groups where questioning a particular teaching(s) is not taboo, and where not everybody accepts every Buddhist teaching. Thitch Nhat Hanh at times is not above a little bit of iconclasm, in this manner (he has said and wrote he would not want to live in a world without suffering, for instance, because then there would be no need for compassion). As long as people are kind and respectful, it's not an unbearable problem.

And yet in any given Christian congregation the vast majority of people will also question certain particular teachings. On these sorts of topics I think there is a difference of degree between Christianity and Buddhism, but not a difference of kind. I think it is easy to say that Christianity puts too much emphasis on dogma or essential doctrines, but difficult to say that religions should have no dogma or essential doctrines.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: FireDragon76
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

2PhiloVoid

Yes, you're right! I'm not Gandalf!
Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,125
9,946
The Void!
✟1,126,163.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I think this video is interesting because it's the first time I've really seen Sam Harris discuss/debate with a theistic religion where Harris is forced to drop his intellectual shields and take his phasors offline.



I would be curious to hear from @2PhiloVoid comment on the discussion in the video. It's not exactly a debate but I think traditional apologetics is far less interesting than conversations about religion, or lack thereof, in general.

I'll admit that I find the conversation between Sam Harris and Rev. Dr. Glazier interesting and thoughtful, but I'm afraid that if I respond, what with all the various sensitivities there are present in and on this apologetics forum, I'll (supposedly) transgress some rule or step on someone's ideological toe and be ........................ reported and thus banned......................

.................. just like I was over a month ago. So, while I'd like to give you a Christian Inclusivist style response to the discussion that Harris and Glazier are having in the video, I think it best to decline.


THANKS!
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Jok

Well-Known Member
Jul 9, 2019
774
658
47
Indiana
✟42,261.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Engaged
I'll admit that I find the conversation between Sam Harris and Rev. Dr. Glazier interesting and thoughtful, but I'm afraid that if I respond, what with all the various sensitivities there are present in and on this apologetics forum, I'll (supposedly) transgress some rule or step on someone's ideological toe and be ........................ reported and thus banned......................

.................. just like I was over a month ago. So, while I'd like to give you a Christian Inclusivist style response to the discussion that Harris and Glazier are having in the video, I think it best to decline.


THANKS!
What exactly did you say that got you banned!?

...(Philo repeats it and gets tossed out for another month :D)
 
  • Haha
Reactions: 2PhiloVoid
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Yes, you're right! I'm not Gandalf!
Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,125
9,946
The Void!
✟1,126,163.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
What exactly did you say that got you banned!?

...(Philo repeats it and gets tossed out for another month :D)

For saying two "types" of things that Jesus and His Apostles would .....never, ever, ever, ever, ever....say.

In fact, I guess someone (not myself, of course, being the Hermeneutically inclined person that I am) could go so far as to accuse me of saying something that has absolutely never been said by Jesus or His Apostles in any kind of way, whether directly or indirectly, whether figuratively or literally. :cool:
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

FireDragon76

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Apr 30, 2013
30,477
18,456
Orlando, Florida
✟1,249,462.00
Country
United States
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
Politics
US-Democrat
For saying two "types" of things that Jesus and His Apostles would .....never, ever, ever, ever, ever....say.

In fact, I guess someone (not myself, of course, being the Hermeneutically inclined person that I am) could go so far as to accuse me of saying something that has absolutely never been said by Jesus or His Apostles in any kind of way, whether directly or indirectly, whether figuratively or literally. :cool:

That's too bad.

I don't always understand where you are coming from, but I believe you are a person of good character.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2PhiloVoid
Upvote 0