A Slip-Up?

[Chesterton]

Interesting. Listen to what Sam says beginning at about 103:27. Sounds like he's making the C. S. Lewis argument from "Miracles".

For me, reason is the only thing...that takes us out of who we are and scales to some universal point of view.... If you're actually reasoning, what you're arriving at is not just true for you, it's true for anyone who could be in...it's true from essentially above, on any given topic. You know, it does offer the view from above, or a view from any possible perspective,...[then a bit more]​

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

He is being very inconsistent here. I agree, this lauding of Reason, as a universal value, as 'something above', sound Lewisian. Even more, it sounds Scholastic. It is wholly untenable from a materialist viewpoint, especially one based on determinism, as I believe Harris espouses.

Hilarious. I'd think he was busy playing the straight man, a farcical deadpan comedy sketch, if I didn't know he was serious. Perhaps he needs a little bit of self-reflection on his beliefs.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Interesting. Listen to what Sam says beginning at about 103:27. Sounds like he's making the C. S. Lewis argument from "Miracles".

For me, reason is the only thing...that takes us out of who we are and scales to some universal point of view.... If you're actually reasoning, what you're arriving at is not just true for you, it's true for anyone who could be in...it's true from essentially above, on any given topic. You know, it does offer the view from above, or a view from any possible perspective,...[then a bit more]​

What is your point?

 

[cloudyday2]

It is wholly untenable from a materialist viewpoint, especially one based on determinism, as I believe Harris espouses.

I think you misunderstand the views of Sam Harris. I haven't read his books, and I only know what I have read about him, but he seems to be more agnostic on the materialistic viewpoint, so I doubt if there is an issue.

Here are some quotes from that most excellent of all sources - Wikipedia:

He said, "while I am now one of the public voices of atheism, I never thought of myself as an atheist before being inducted to speak as one [...] I think that 'atheist' is a term that we do not need, in the same way that we don't need a word for someone who rejects astrology."
...
Harris rejects the dichotomy between religious spirituality on the one hand and scientific rationality on the other, and favors a middle path that preserves spirituality and science, but does not involve religion.[41] He writes that spirituality should be understood in light of scientific disciplines like neuroscience and psychology.[41] Science, he contends, can show how to maximize human well-being, but may fail to answer certain questions about the nature of being, answers to some of which he says are discoverable directly through our experience

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Harris

 

[Chesterton]

What is your point?

Well, I considered giving the thread a different title, one where I asked atheists to help me interpret what Sam meant. So as I said, I just think it's interesting. But if there's a point to be made, since I've seen this kind of slip-up before, I think it's difficult if not impossible for materialists/determinists to stick to their guns.

 

[Chesterton]

I think you misunderstand the views of Sam Harris. I haven't read his books, and I only know what I have read about him, but he seems to be more agnostic on the materialistic viewpoint, so I doubt if there is an issue.

He uses the word "spiritual" for "trying to be a better human". He completely denies that there's any such thing as free will. He's about as materialist and determinist as you can get.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Well, I considered giving the thread a different title, one where I asked atheists to help me interpret what Sam meant. So as I said, I just think it's interesting. But if there's a point to be made, since I've seen this kind of slip-up before, I think it's difficult if not impossible for materialists/determinists to stick to their guns.

What slip-up?

 

[Chesterton]

What slip-up?

He's making comments which are very much in agreement with a traditional theistic view. Do you think he meant to?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

He's making comments which are very much in agreement with a traditional theistic view. Do you think he meant to?

I'm guessing he's just making a subtle reference to what he's written in one of his newer books, Waking Up: A Guide to Spirituality Without Religion. And remember, Sam Harris is Jewish, so buried somewhere in his consciousness is his ethnic identity and the religious and social context that he has decided to eschew (like many of his fellow Jewish folks), and this may be coming through in some form even though he is a non-believing Jewish person. So, there are these factors to account for in this instance.

 

[Chesterton]

I'm guessing he's just making a subtle reference to what he's written in one of his newer books, Waking Up: A Guide to Spirituality Without Religion.

From what I understand, his idea of spirituality excludes any idea of actual spirit, so he's just using the word sloppily.

 

[Silmarien]

He is being very inconsistent here. I agree, this lauding of Reason, as a universal value, as 'something above', sound Lewisian. Even more, it sounds Scholastic. It is wholly untenable from a materialist viewpoint, especially one based on determinism, as I believe Harris espouses.

Harris is... odd. Every so often he hints darkly towards more of a mysterian view of mind--that we don't understand it and can perhaps never understand it, so he doesn't seem quite as committed to materialism as one might expect. And then you can toss in the Eastern mysticism he seems attracted to, even if he's insistent on naturalizing all of it.

But yeah, he's a determinist and incompatibilist, so he really has no business waxing poetic about the ability of Reason to do anything for us whatsoever.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

He's making comments which are very much in agreement with a traditional theistic view. Do you think he meant to?

This doesn't tell me much of anything. First, if true, he's just one atheist free to his opinion (although admittedly I find Sam to be almost always right). Second, if true, you're not specifying that this traditional theistic view is necessarily exclusive to theists and unavailable to atheists. Third, and finally, you aren't specifying what the slip-up is after I've asked you to spell it out twice now.

 

[Chesterton]

Third, and finally, you aren't specifying what the slip-up is after I've asked you to spell it out twice now.

See post #8. He's an atheist (seemingly) espousing a theistic view. He either meant to, or it's a slip-up. Either way, I think it's interesting, as I said in the OP.

Nihilist, this is why I don't like talking to you. You do this exact same thing repeatedly with me and others. You ask a question or make a comment, then complain that "you didn't answer my question" or "you didn't address my comment". If you don't like the answer or reply, fine, you're free do disagree, but why do you do this?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

See post #8. He's an atheist (seemingly) espousing a theistic view. He either meant to, or it's a slip-up. Either way, I think it's interesting, as I said in the OP.

Nihilist, this is why I don't like talking to you. You do this exact same thing repeatedly with me and others. You ask a question or make a comment, then complain that "you didn't answer my question" or "you didn't address my comment". If you don't like the answer or reply, fine, you're free do disagree, but why do you do this?

You said he's making comments that are sympathetic to theism. I'm asking what these comments are. Your answer? You refer me back to the post where you say he's making such comments, you refuse to say what these comments are, and then you say I'm difficult to talk to. Lol, yeah, it's all on me. I read the OP, I watched the video, and I'm asking questions. You know, like what is supposed to be done in any thread. And then it turns into a train wreck because the conductor won't say which way the train is supposed to be going.

 

[Chesterton]

You said he's making comments that are sympathetic to theism. I'm asking what these comments are. Your answer? You refer me back to the post where you say he's making such comments, you refuse to say what these comments are, and then you say I'm difficult to talk to. Lol, yeah, it's all on me. I read the OP, I watched the video, and I'm asking questions. You know, like what is supposed to be done in any thread. And then it turns into a train wreck because the conductor won't say which way the train is supposed to be going.

Everyone else in the thread seems to understand the OP without being tutored. I don't know what to say but, bless your little heart. Maybe you can search around and find a website with forums for abecedarians.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Everyone else in the thread seems to understand the OP without being tutored. I don't know what to say but, bless your little heart. Maybe you can search around and find a website with forums for abecedarians.

Everyone else is just agreeing with you because they're theists and they don't like Sam Harris. I've asked you the same direct question several times and you prefer to dance around playing games. And like I've pointed out, granting your vague "claim" - whatever it even is - still doesn't even prove much of nothing. This thread is a 10/10 on the fail scale. Good day.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Here's another "slip-up" or two by Harris which are very "courteously" exposed and corrected by Tyson.

 

[Silmarien]

Everyone else in the thread seems to understand the OP without being tutored. I don't know what to say but, bless your little heart. Maybe you can search around and find a website with forums for abecedarians.

To be fair, everyone else in the thread is familiar with C.S. Lewis, if not with fullblown scholasticism, so we knew where you were coming from without needing to be told. I don't think you can expect the same instant understanding from everyone.

(Though for the record, I neither dislike Sam Harris nor think that all non-theistic ontologies are incompatible with reason. Just strict determinism and reductive materialism.)

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Here's another "slip-up" or two by Harris which are very "courteously" exposed and corrected by Tyson.

Where in the video should I be looking?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Where in the video should I be looking?

Basically...........the whole video! (I mean, c'mon! It's only 9 minutes of your life for goodness sake!) Now, if you'll excuse me again, my wife says there's some wonderful ginger cookies she's just baked that I have to devour.