Sam Harris: Religions Are Failed Sciences | Big Think
Вставка
- Опубліковано 6 лип 2011
- Sam Harris: Religions Are Failed Sciences
New videos DAILY: bigth.ink/youtube
Join Big Think Edge for exclusive videos: bigth.ink/Edge
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are misled by the very term "religion," argues Sam Harris. Religion was simply the discourse humans used when all causes in the universe were opaque.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SAM HARRIS:
Sam Harris is the author of the New York Times bestsellers, The End of Faith and Letter to a Christian Nation. The End of Faith won the 2005 PEN Award for Nonfiction.
Mr. Harris' writing has been published in over ten languages. He and his work have been discussed in Newsweek, TIME, The New York Times, Scientific American, Rolling Stone, and many other journals. His writing has appeared in Newsweek, The Los Angeles Times, The Times (London), The Boston Globe, The Atlantic, Nature, The Annals of Neurology, and elsewhere.
Mr. Harris is a graduate in philosophy from Stanford University and holds a PhD in neuroscience from UCLA, where he studied the neural basis of belief with functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). He is also a Co-Founder and CEO of Project Reason.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TRANSCRIPT:
Question: What is religion?
Sam Harris: Well I think we are misled by this very term “religion”. We use that word “religion” as though it meant a distinct thing . . . as though it meant one phenomenon in human discourse. And there’s really a range of infatuations and practices that go by the name of religion. And therefore many points on this continuum don’t have much in common with others. So if you take a religion like “Jainism” - a religion in India - its core principle is non-violence. Now there is where Gandhi got his conception of non-violence. And the Jains are vegetarian. They have no doctrine of holy war. In fact, they don’t even have a doctrine - a proper doctrine of self-defense. I mean they’re pacifists. They don’t want to hurt a fly. And then on the other end of the continuum, you have something like Islam where it has explicitly a doctrine of holy war, and a notion of . . . Combat and death, in certain contexts, is actually the highest obligation a religious person can fulfill. So these are both religions. And so religion is a word like “sport”. You have a sport like badminton, and you have a sport like, you know, boxing. They’re not . . . they’re both sports that, you know, one is much more dangerous. So I’m concerned . . . I’m obviously more concerned about religions like Islam that . . . wherein you have this marriage of a variety of spiritual and ethical concerns; but also certain kinds of metaphysical certainties that inspire people to not only die, but to kill others in the process. And you don’t have that in other religions. So I think that we have to be clear about how this term religion can mislead us.
Question: Why do we need religion?
I view religions as essentially failed sciences. I mean religion was the discourse that we had when all causes in the universe were opaque. We didn’t know . . . We didn’t know the basis of anything. We didn’t know why we were here. We didn’t know how diseases spread, or what disease was. We didn’t know how people . . . why people died early, and why others flourished. We don’t know what’s causing thunderstorms, or what’s causing crops to fail. And we very naturally . . . As a cognitive and behavioral imperative, we formed descriptions of the world, and we tried to figure out what’s going on. We tell ourselves stories about our origins, and about where we’re going, and about causes in the world. And those stories, given our just pervasive ignorance and our disposition to see agency in the world . . . to see, you know . . . to feel ourselves in relationship to the world, these stories entail being in relation to invisible friends and enemies. And so we have this parent figure in the sky who’s gonna take care of things if you live rightly. And we have other demonic presences that we should be really worried about. And gradually, what you see happening is that religion . . . As rationality and dozens of specific sciences were birthed in the human conversation, you see religion on a hundred fronts losing the argument with science. And then we see it on the front of human health and disease. Religion . . . You know, it used to be that you could get a diagnosis of demonic possession. That was a, you know, a reasonable thing to believe you had if you were having seizures. You know, but now we have a science of neurology, and we have a science of epilepsy. And so when your kid has seizures, you know, you don’t go to...
Read the full transcript at bigthink.com/videos/religions... - Наука та технологія
Want to get Smarter, Faster?
Subscribe for DAILY videos: bigth.ink/GetSmarter
Talk of religion causes me to have an imbalance of the humours.
It kills me to think how much tormenting existed in those times when the book of Leviticus, Deuteronomy, etc. were the principle in understanding nature. It's hard to think how much a child must've mentally and/or physically suffered when a priest claimed it to be possessed by demons and demanded to go under exorcism, which was actually just the unfortunate case of epilepsy. And people still today question "what has science done for us?. Hmm.. I don't know
+bqureshi21 Yes, that is true, science can be used for evil as well. I only meant to argue towards the ones who claim science to be useless altogether. However, if advanced weaponry was never invented through science, ancient armies would have just grown larger by number, and I feel that we would still see the same amount of destruction and holocausts as we do today; just through a different tool.
.........and societies such as Sparta and Athens, the pinnacle of rationalism and science........would systematically throw weak and frail newborns into pits.
Not for religion mind you. Purely based on their usefulness to society.
***** I'm going to use the Google definition of utilitarianism: the doctrine that actions are right if they are useful or for the benefit of a majority.
Back in those days, they did not have tools and medicine to care for frailties. So in a way, they were justified in killing. Since those that were weak could not benifit the majority.......they did not have the right to exist under your utilitarian beliefs.
Now you can see why the "needs of the many, out way the needs of the few" can take you to dark corners of moral justification.
The moral high ground is not on the side of either party.
www.google.com/search?q=utilitarianism+definition&oq=u&aqs=chrome.2.69i57j69i60j69i59l2j69i60l2.1707j0j4&client=ms-android-verizon&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8
+Nathan Brinkerhoff But greeks don't believe in me. They worship my friend Zeus.
"Religion was invented when the first con man met the first fool."
MT
@Peter Flood True, but it’s not just the quotes on the Internet that can’t be verified. History shows humans have a propensity to make stuff up - from UFOs to religious claims. The sin-sacrifice story of Jesus implies a superstitious God who values blood-sacrifice, which was common back then - e.g. sacrificing a goat for a new home. There is zero evidence that, after Jesus died, the superstitious hoaxer Christian writers didn’t create the resurrection hoax by making up fake testimonials that the disciples have witnessed an empty tomb & a risen Jesus.
Very true ... but then again a lot of scientists are con men too. We always need to think critically whether the guy telling you how it is is wearing a robe and holding a cross or whether he's wearing a lab coat and using a microscope. Don't make the mistake of thinking "science" is automatically more truthful than "religion," because both of those labels can be applied to anything by anyone. There are a lot of liars out there in all walks of life, and a lot of honest frauds too.
@@RedSiegfried
True; assume nothing and question everything.
The worst is when a religious charlatan wearing a lab coat with a microscope tries to use science to fool the gullible religious suckers.
@Sampson Simpson When resurrection, walking on water, parting the Red Sea, splitting the moon & other fake stuff are used to fool & indoctrinate the gullible emotional folks to believe an imaginary God & his prophet/ son/ saviour/ book are sacred, the dogma causes them motivated ignorance while defending the sacredness.
U said that already
Facts serve us well when we combat wishful thinking. We need more clear, honest, brave, intelligent, curious voices like Sam.
We don't. His ideas are misleading.
@@hulaimimohammed5967 lol the word mohammed is in your name, that me enough as to why you feel so absolutist about your fragile world view/religion
@@velvetrest4566 So I'm biased because of my name. This is not the way people's views are judged.
You can look up yourself if he is misleading or not. You shouldn't take my opinion, but also if you're honest and want to find the truth you shouldn't take his views as well. Otherwise this is ignorance, believing him and saying he is honest and brave while your knowledge about religions especially Islam is very limited.
The idea that religion is bad when it comes to human health is one of the misleading ideas, it did happen that people were said to have demonic possession but this is not the case with Muslims, and even Christians who did that didn't know their religion. Islam pushes for people to learn and read and use that knowledge to the benefit of humans. Read about physicians in the early years of Islam and you will realize what Islam is.
@@hulaimimohammed5967 Care to explain the punishment for Apostasy in a good chunk of the Middle-East? I thought so.
I disagree. That is, Sam sounds more like a True Believer than a true scientist. He's got a bone to pick, an axe to grind, which he never acknowledges. He needs to see a therapist.
I'm a hardcore atheist but also very spiritual. I love to meditate and reach or unlock deep parts of my brain but I do not contribute these spiritual experiences to a higher power.
Meditation is a very dangerous practice, because of it I got demons in my body. The increases of consciousness are nothing more than demonic spirits entering ones person. Watch my channel playlists on:
- evolution is a lie ( the first 3 videos are enough)
- dangers of meditation and yoga the first 3 or 4 videos are probably enough
- demons ( I recommend watching at least 95% of all videos)
- the video on casting out demons out of the body
( this is what i used because i knew there was something on my room, but i had no idea i had demons in my body. So I let the video play before going. to sleep, 1h30min later. I woke up with my body paralised and something came out of my body, that's when i realised God exists.
The video is called : Carlos Oliveira 4h casting out your demons
I recommend you watch it and if you do play it fully quite a few times ,specially during sleep. There's a high chance you will fell something because the name of Jesus is being invocated.
I'm giving you here my testimony and you can see peoples testimony on the video comments.
Any questions feel free to ask, fortunately the bible is the truth. Have a very good day.
+Doppe1ganger I call it imagination and the power of bringing thoughts to life people think its funny and childish but it is not at all
+Doppe1ganger right there with you and we are probably in a very small percentile...
..what if related to as like in 2nd or 3rd step of them 12? I dont remember past the 1st. Lol.. N spirits ;)
Shamans n nuttahs ..peasents n lesser morals insanity... AlL communicate ...some maybe the thoughts not held onto as one meditates. Honest communication? Unbias n open w no agenda angle or connection to the next ...as maybe the tradirional relationships as society telLs us.. R alien ancient wisdom? ... Virginia Wolf? ... N white wedding. I believe in fairy tales. N i might never more than faith in what just is .. That to the brain is a sort of equalent religious experience somewhere explained ..also in the craftmanship of mediating ..
+Julian Walker Why would you think that? We are just not interested in starting an argument with religious nuts. There are actually great numbers like us around. I'd even go as far as saying that that is true in certain middle east countries where Islam is the majority religion, but of course, over there is probably strictly hush hush.
"We will understand Spiritual Experience so well at some point" When this happens, I wonder what we will do with such knowledge. Interesting.
That's the part right there where science becomes a faith-based religion....
It's the same argument as religion essentially. "Believe in this and you'll be okay!"
Atheist hate it when I say that. But they can't argue it.
Unless you're an actual scientist performing experiments, you're just believing in another religion. This one's just based on the physical world. (Science)
@@JDTherrien There's a huge difference between science and religion. For example, most if not all religions have absolutely no evidence to back up what they're preaching. Science on the other hand, is giving us the best information and evidence we have at the moment to explain the world around us.
Atheism is an illusion caused by lack of alcohol. I seen god yesterday through the bottom of my pint glass - Hic!
Salut et sante
Cheers!
Religion guesses at things, writes it down, and when shown to be wrong, has a temper tantrum. Blasphemy laws are passed to prevent Divine Beings from losing arguments with mere mortals like Mr Harris.
Excellent point. If all these deities are what their proponents claim, why should blasphemy be an issue at all?
@@LabGecko bro you are takling to past me too
Failed sciences... I've never thought of it like that. Very interesting.
Also it's not true.
@@michaelmcgee335 Christianity is crumbling in the face of Climate Change, regardless of the damage conservatives are doing to democracy world-wide.
Maybe the human race will grow up someday!
Before it destroys itself?
@Billy Dee even now people laugh listening those
@Billy Dee don't be sure about that and islam is growing up
Honesty is tough to come by these days.
Sam Harris, thank you for sharing this with us. Helps me walk away from Religion. I planned it, but now, I know I have to.
He's not correct. Religion is proved by science. Once science goes back far enough, to where it can no longer be traced, we know that there must be something that humans cannot detect, that created the beginning, and that created time. That unknown thing is referred to as God. Science will eventually prove all religions except one right, but because God exists, one religion will be proved true by science.
+tom jackson I did, but if you know science at all, you would be aware of the law of conservation of mass. Knowing that it is impossible for mass to have always existed, hence, there must have been a beginning, that law cannot be true. Nothing comes from nowhere while style being consistent with science. Everything had to come from something, and that something we call God.
First of all, I'm not Christian. You called me Christian just because you want to insult someone who believes in God. Secondly, I'm not running away and hiding because I'm replying. Not only did you get my religion wrong, but you also accused me of lying and then running "away and hide", which is a lie because I'm replying. How typically atheist of you. Lastly, the substantive part of the response: science itself proves God. The big bang theory suggests that the world began expanding from from a point of singularity. We cannot trace back to that point because if you go back far enough trying to find when that point was, you eventually get an equation which involves dividing by zero, which is impossible. This is how we know that science cannot explain everything, and there must be something outside of the rules of science which put this cycle into motion. That thing is called God, and if he can put the world into motion, God knows what his limits are (pun intended), and I don't want to get on his bad side, which is one of the reasons that I follow the laws of Judaism.
+tom jackson A capital "G" makes it a proper noun. When referring to God, I use the capital "G" to indicate that there is a specific being I am referencing. You mentioned that we don't have laws to describe what happened, but that is no excuse for a "magical being". Right there you admitted that science has no answer, although I assume you would argue that science has no answer yet. My response to that would be that science has been proving "magical" things true all the time, in fact, that's all science is: human attempts at explaining what is observed in our world. Flying was once viewed as "impossible", and a bike repair man by the name of Orville Wright said that he believed flight was possible. Of course he was called crazy for believing in magic. Even after the first flight, people viewed it as a hoax because flying is obviously impossible. This is just one example of science proving "magical" things to be true, but people still deny it. Other examples include Galileo and heliocentrism, the proof that weight has no affect on an object's falling speed, and many more scientific breakthroughs. People are hesitant to believe this sort of thing because it is such a foreign concept to them, that they refuse to believe it, regardless of the evidence at hand. This is precisely what you are doing with the concept of God. Your mind cannot comprehend what God is, so you refuse to believe in its existence, just as in the examples previously mentioned. When you notice that there is scientific proof of God's existence, you fool yourself into thinking that there must be something that disproves God's existence, we just haven't found laws to describe it yet. You believe in a proof that doesn't even exist because you can't comprehend the proofs that do exist. You are so fixed on the idea that God is a "magical being", that you subconsciously close you're mind to other possibilities and fail to notice the irrationality in your thought process. Of course the reverse might be true for me, so to test that I am not the one thinking irrationally, I challenge you to find proof that God does not exist. I am trying to be open-minded, but I have yet seen proof that God does not exist.
+tom jackson I like how you have made up your own definition of "God" and just run with it. The entire case that I've been making is the case for a "higher power". If you read my first response to this comment, which you replied to, you would have known that. The question about a rock he cannot hold is a simple one to answer. Your definition of a God who you don't believe to exist is something that can do anything. I have never claimed that. God has one limitation: himself. God cannot do anything that puts a limit on himself. What he can do however, is vow to not do something, which he has done in the past. When he flooded the world, he promised to never do that again. He promised not to do something, but he did not take away his ability to do that. To put it in terms you might understand better, a human can make a promise, such as, not to smoke anymore. This does not take away his ability to buy a cigarette, but, assuming he keeps his promise, he will not buy a cigarette, even though he has the ability to. The short answer is: no. God cannot make a rock he cannot lift, but he can decide not to lift a rock he made. I believe that my religion is the true one for a multiple of reasons. Number one, Christianity started out as Judaism, so that's obviously not it. Number two, Muhammad had far less witnesses when he supposedly talked to God than the Jews did at the giving if the Ten Commandments. These are just a few of the many reasons that I believe Judaism is correct.
Remember this guy is a P.hD holder in Neuroscience and expert in religion, at least he got balls to say what has to be said about a particular community. This guy is a legend!
this is the same guy who say he wouldnt care if Joe Biden have dead bodies of children just to go against Trump...he has no credibility
@@moisesfrias1117 can someon at least once, not politicize any issue? your comment is lame.
@@techiza6642 but is true
Okie, there are thousand of neuroscience phD out there and no one ever have a single clue about consciousness.
And expert in religion?? Said who?
And religion losing on every front?? Lol, buddha said fact about reality for thousand of years, from the microbiosm to universe and the nature of reality, life...
@@abc-dm5nn could you explain a bit about your last point?
A profound spiritual experience can already be duplicated just by listening to certain types of music that emotionally move you. Religions actually use this phenomenon in their services to build emotion so that when they pass the basket, you throw in your dollars.
Why is listening to music that moves you spiritual and not just emotional?
@@hmgrraarrpffrzz9763 Because that is the context we put it in. Certainly it is almost purely emotional, but in that context it is called spiritualism.
Believing in heaven and angels means we have functioning adults, who literally believe in invisible, immortal, winged, asexual super people.
@@Hhjhfu247 in the Bible they’re often described as having wings, sometimes six wings
Actually they were not described as asexual, but as men. And that's because those Bronz Age myths were written by men.
"We will understand spiritual experience so well at some point"
That's the part right there where science becomes a faith-based religion....
It's the same argument as religion essentially. "Believe in this and you'll be okay!"
Atheist hate it when I say that. But they can't argue it.
Unless you're an actual scientist performing experiments, you're just believing in another religion. This one's just based on the physical world. (Science)
Wish i could of heard something like this when I was 13, would of eliminated a lot of fear. Im attempting to raise my kids with a knowledge of religion but not a belief in it..
I am suprised, if morality is subjective then why criticize Islam
What?
Who the fuck ever said morality was subjective?
r/ihadastroke
Thank you for sharing your thoughts ;) I totally agree. I also have "spiritual" experiences as an atheist :) I only understand that it has nothing to do with some "father figure" or anything else, but it doesn't make it less magical to experience.
“I searched for God and found only myself. I searched for myself and found only God.”-Rumi
I heard Jordan Peterson say how smart Sam Harris is so I had to check it out. He was correct, Harris is very intelligent.
Religion as a "failed science" is a very useful mental framework. It casts religion as a way to know what is real ... which is its goal ultimately. It's just that generally religion has no mechanism for updating itself when better ideas about reality are found ... or in rare cases where a religion has that feature its functionally very slow ... too slow.
The innovation that science brings to the endeavor of seeking an understanding of reality is that it has a dogma of avoiding dogmatism and it can update itself relatively rapidly. Seen properly science is actually a process rather than a body of facts. That's where it really beats religion, science has no "ego" to force it to insist that out dated understandings of reality must be retained.
i'm so tired of guys like Harris and J Peterson telling us things in a way that make them come across as insightful and intelligent when all they're really doing is stating the obvious in éloquent and sometimes baffling terms as a form of deception
As an epileptic, this makes me smile.
Stories are a pillar of human society. Religion is just a set of stories that people start to believe is real.
Meanwhile, scientists started looking at indigenous beliefs when it comes to the natural world.
Badminton is one of the biggest killers out there
have you ever hold a cricket ball?
Sam Harris is my homeboy
is that mean? Does that mean you wrote is that mean when you meant does it mean? And what does it mean, homeboy?
homeboy hauptsächlich (Amer.) [sl.] der Kumpel Pl.: die Kumpels/die Kumpel [ugs.]
homeboy hauptsächlich (Amer.) [sl.] guter Freund
homeboy hauptsächlich (Amer.) [sl.] Junge aus dem Viertel
homeboy hauptsächlich (Amer.) [sl.] das Gangmitglied
so homeboy means good friend,pal,
yes homeboy means good friend ^^
Thanks for letting us know!
Um... is there some value you thought that assertion might provide us? No? Than shut up please. Thanks!
I love that legitimate arguments can take place on a social website's comments. Some agree, and some disagree, and justified evidence is used to trump over covered hysteria. To me, that is beautiful.
Religion is also a philosophy, not just a failed science.
"why do we need religion?"
Damn I'd they asked a question they was any more loaded, it would be taco bell's next featured menu item
Religions have their Seasons... "The beginnings of all great religions were pure; but priests, taking possession of the minds of the people, filled them with dogmas and superstitions, so that religion became gradually corrupt." ~ ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, Baha'i Faith
A) That's debatable;) B) Until you can recognize your 'faith' in science, you're not really in a position to recognize 'faith' in other aspects of existence.
Honestly, as an atheist, emotional fulfillment by use of drugs isn't hope, it sounds sort of horrible. My hopes for the future tend to be more about things like advancement towards equality for all groups, and general improvements in the quality of life.
My dog taught me about the origins of religion. He is terrified of thunder. I imagined how primitive people must have reacted when the "god" of the skies was angry. They would have prayed for mercy. They may even have made sacrifices of children. And sure enough, their prayers were answered. Peace was restored as a result of their prayers.
Show me one religion that is terrified of thunder and sacrifices children
i agree with this guy
“ The path doesn’t exist, because I didn’t walk on that “ it’s an old argument being used for thousands of years. may The God bless you. Amen
Actual betterment in the human condition can only happen thru science & evidence-based thinking. Religion, on the other hand, has been failing miserably on this front for thousands of years. Science is also our best and most reliable guide as we open the door to the myriad & wonderful mysteries of life & existence, whereas religion slams the door shut and tells us to go home. Thanks for your perseverant efforts in keeping the way forward and the door open, Sam!
Good video. Props Sam Harris.
People back then simply didn’t understand how the universe worked.. they didn’t reasons for stuff they couldn’t explain yet…. But for some reason in the mixed world it stuck with many people
"We didn't know why we were here". Truth is, whatever science finds out some questions will always be left unanswered and therefore spiritual by nature.
its hard to put truth into words
I applaud you for your astute reasoning and articulation in the face of sarcastic fallacious rhetoric. To maintain composure dealing with this sort of idiocy takes a man stronger than I, truly.
I’m in now way pro-religion but even with Science; we don’t know why we’re here. I’ll give credit where credit is due but Spirituality is beyond Science- it’s not something that could be deduced by experiments or rationale. It cannot be quantified. Even Carl Sagan (my all time favorite scientist & philosopher) said that science & religion both come to a point of understanding that cannot be explained with logic. “The notion that science and spirituality are somehow mutually exclusive does a disservice to both”
Rationalism and religion are two different things.
One demands explanation while the other does not. That's called faith vs fact.
That doesn't mean religion is a failed science.
It is futile to apply science to religion, as much as it futile to apply religion to science.
And yet......they can exist without contradiction.
I don't expect pastors to bash Atheists for having believed in
pseudoscience, alchemy and astrology..........so why do atheists insist on bashing religion for believing in exorcisms and zeus?
Assuming a higher being is responsible for creating the universe and setting the laws of nature (0 evidence for that) And if there is, there is still not a single reason whatsoever to believe it's the God of the Quran in your case. Absolultely zero reason. The one has nothing to do with the other.
Very enlightening talk.
I assume that by saying that statement "title" you have looked over every single religion out there with accurate informations which is impossible! We don't even know how many religions out there.
Even if you some how managed to do so, I respectfully challenge you to fail Islam :)
And by islam I mean Quran and Prophet Mohammad teachings, not some "muslims" behavior.
Best regards
Muhammad was just some nomad who was either schizophrenic, and/or power-hungry maniac concocting tales to find a way to control people. His "teachings" are a product of his time when people didn't know jackshit about how the world worked.
And the current "Quran" is just one version among several lost versions of some made-up bullshit by Muhammad and whatever was added by Abu Bakr in his version and whomsoever else.
To end with, Islam is bullshit and vile. You are probably part of it because it is a drug and it makes you feel strong to be a part of a community and/or you fear to be ostracized by that community in case you ask simple questions based on common sense.
Science is all about trying to vehemently disprove the current model of how the world works and create a model that explains.
Start with challenging your own Muhammad with basic common sense questions before inviting others to challenge you.
When did the torment end as another comment stated, as if it was a thing of the past? The harshest religions are also in the harshest environments of earth. A great number of people in these areas don't have access to medicine and science. Maybe it is more that humanity failed as opposed to religion. Religion is medicine for the poor when they have no where else to turn. When people start begging and praying to something invisible it is not because they have great dental insurance and their 40k is doing well this year. If you never had to pray to God you should consider yourself lucky because that means you had other options.
Life is profound for me and mysticism was always secondary to learning more and more about the reality L am part of.
religion is another word for mythology.
Nice one, but I'd say that religion is mythology we have yet to realize as such
your always going to have flucuations on the learning curve. some will be behind and some ahead in all things to do with knowledge. it is just the way civilizations are. this will be the case even if the advanced future.
“Christianity is a myth, but it’s a true myth.” - CS Lewis
@@thecarlitosshow7687 i wonder what he was referring to when he said christianity
@@aptonymic3014 I believe the stories in the Old Testament
Nice one Sam
I'm religious by very much appreciate sam harris's thinking. a very intelligent man
What does it matter when Earth says humanity was a waste of time? We should have listened to George's warnings.
God is an illusion caused by lack of evidence, But I seen God yesterday through the bottom of my pint glass .
never has anything made more sense ! well music is my god to be honest
When you love something extraordinarily it becomes your god...
Remember extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence
It is not about religion, Sam, it is about the fact that no physical thing is able to make you so you prove your Maker exists because you exist and none of the elements made you.
Everything Sam is saying makes perfect sense to me. What a comfort to know that there are others in the world who posses what I view and understand to be a glorious, if not painfully slow, revolution away from the myriad of historically outdated and faulty assumptions about the workings of the universe, of which, we find ourselves so intricately and astoundingly immersed!
Well said!
that what perfect.
How can you say it's failed if you can't disprove it due to not knowing what happens when you die
Look, this is really quite easy - God, who I know and love more everyday, is very kind. He doesn't force his answers. Nobody HAS to obey, and no I don't feel a Milligram-like PRESSURE to obey. Given my EXPERIENCE I choose to obey and find that WORKS and WANT to obey more. Abraham had so much good experience with the love of God he was EVENTUALLY willing to do anything God asked - perfect trust based on experience - and it worked out perfectly - for ABRAHAM!! That, my friend, is smart thinking.
Calling religions failed science is not just doing a disservice to science, it's also doing a disservice to religion. Religion and science approach things very differently.
True. Science approach things the right way and religions the wrong way!
Dumb Dumber
Is that your belief?
***** Yes, religion at its very best it just pure speculation.
*****
Calling religion failed science is insulting to science.
***** It makes it a bad reason. And that is "less of an explanation." All ideas are not equal - they do not all possess epistemological merit.
Newton was very religious, Einstein was a theist, and evan Darwin was a Christian who is buried in a church.
The dali Lama said "where Buddhism contradicts the finding of science, it is Buddhism that must change." But it is still here.
You may have a part of the story, but by no means the whole story. Religion and science are going to coexist for a long time.
***** Oh boy... “I believe in Spinoza's God, who reveals Himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a God who concerns Himself with the fate and the doings of mankind...
to Rabbi Herbert Goldstein (1929)”
― Albert Einstein
"Newton was very religious, Einstein was a theist, and evan [sic] Darwin was a Christian who is buried in a church."
Oh come on, Mr Davidson. Just because Charles Darwin had a conventional Christian funeral and was buried in a churchyard, does not mean that he was a believer in the Christian religion. Back in the late 19th century, non-religious funerals in this country were VERY rare indeed.
I believe the quote speaks for itself.
Einstein was not a traditional theist. He believed that the universe was its own God. Darwin was in no way shape or form a Christian. He was buried in church because there were no other real options in his day. And Newton was not religious. He did believe in a God, but it was not the traditional Christian God. He would have been considered a heretic in his time, and a deist by modern standards.
pander22 If you want to drop Einstein quotes, you may want to include this: "The idea of a personal God is quite alien to me and seems even naïve." - Albert Einstein, in a letter to Beatrice Frohlich.
I almost forgot to address one other thing. "If something can't withstand criticsim, it must not be very valuable". The majority of the most useful and noble concepts have been kept from wide acceptance because of mindless and petty attacks that one might call criticism if criticism is taken to be a way of attacking and destroying useful things. Darwin's evolutionary theories
You've just said it: the measure of it's effects which we can very easily perceive with our senses and predict with our mathematics.
Lucid clear thinking. How we need such people to save us from ourselves. How sad that this video published in 2011 has only 300, 000 odd views yet some of the banalities otherwise easily accessed on UA-cam has millions of views. Bravo Sam, I am inspired by your words. Charles
His kids would be so lucky to have a father so intellectual
cringe
a) That wouldn't mean his crimes were religiously motivated b) if it was true at all. His politics benefited mostly the industrials/rich/capitalists, so to get votes, he had to pull the majority of the German people, who were Christian, on his side. He referred to himself as Christian in speeches only, never in any private communication ("Amid his political associates in Berlin, Hitler made harsh pronouncements against the church..." - Albert Speer).
Hitler used Christianity as a tool only.
To be fair, a lot of science is failed science too. But yeah, you always need to keep your critical thinking cap on, regardless of whether they call it science or religion or anything else.
When religion looks like failed science, it is OK, problem is, when failed science starts acting like a religion, when academic space shuts itself inside its own bubble and stops even testing new teories.
***** In theory, yes, but this is the ideal case. Not all academics accept new theories. All gerat theories were accepted by some scientists and pretty much all students, while the rest of academics died with their opinions intact, or they just never admited it, because they invested their work into old theories and did not want to admit they were wrong. All the time. There are still many scientists hanging on the clovis-first theory, while there more and more pre-clovis sites (Monte Verde, being example), clovis-first is widely accepted, but completely false theory, it is accepted, because paleontologists and archeologists who wrote so much stuff about it are still alive. Nobody else takes it seriously.
Petr Maly
Clearly you do not understand the scientific method. If you put forward a theory with independently testable results, it CANNOT be ignored. This is how science works. Put forward some mumbo jumbo without evidence and you will be laughed at.
jjaus I understand it wery well, I am just pointing out the fact that many scientists ignore reality for their own gain. And when number of this bad scientists grows, the whole part of academia loses credibility. Look up the "warm welcome" of the fact the air consist of oxygen and nitrogen (Baume x Lavoisier, 1789), or invention of recording sound using phonograph - including physical attack by Bouillaud on Moncel. Bouilaud had after strangulation of Moncel about 6 months to independently study the phonograph, he denied its properties anyway. And about clovis - In the USA, claiming any pre-clovis culture is academic suicide. In Chile, it is perfectly proven fact.
Petr Maly
1789! Are you kidding me? You are drawing a long bow on that one. This is the 21st century. If you think that proves some sort of point, you are mistaken. As for clovis, I am not sufficientlly informed to have an opinion on that. Any person who can prove anything must - as usual - submit evidence that can be tested.
jjaus I see discussion with you is pointless. I gave you examples from past and present, you discard the past, because it was in the past and dont even try to find out about the present. You are feeding me idealized version of science, which everyone knows is just the ideal, I talk about how it works in reality.
So long as the record shows you "made no argument", I'm satisfied;)
Religions are Misunderstood Sciences. I don't think we can ever understand them through our minds; And we have no elders left to teach us, only old people.
It's funny how he claimed religion is losing ethically yet pure serious science don't even care about ethics to begin with.
He views ethics as a kind of science
I'd say that buddhism is probably the "best" religion. They don't believe in any god, but Karma and Buddha. And we all know that Buddha is not a god, it was a real man..
i think buddhism is more like a philosophy than religion, it says any one can become buddha if you ignore all the temptations which make man suffer. In chinese we called this"眾生皆佛",literally means"everything are buddha" (sorry for my poor english)
Buddha was also a jain during his first 6 years towards salvation later on he created his own religion because it was so hard for him to follow the path of salvation
LOL budah believe in re-incarnation....excuse me...this world is full of misery and suffering....why would I want to be re-incarnated again??
i really like how i shock all you followers of Sam out of your tree , you have tried your best to insult me but this is not about me > Its you < and how you have lost your way and need someone(Sam) to agree with your little pity party for yourself.
remember this "no one gets out of here alive" but some of us will live forever - choose wisely as you have a short time here on this earth - oh its not about religion its about faith , the church / religion is an easy target to talk about because it is what man has made and it has flaws and troubled times always - even i could make a better reason than Sam to avoid certain churches - if you have a different belief but have faith i think that's great for you - leave SAM behind and look for yourself as no man can bring you what you need, no man
and then the pink unicorn flew away to live with a magical man in the sky, the end.
I have faith in science
Kristján Sigurleifsson ha ha ha what a joker you are - faith in science ? get a pet rock
if you want me to "choose correctly" you first have to prove to me (beyond a reasonable doubt) that God or gods exist. Then you have to prove that a certain religion is true. Then you have to prove to me-once I accept that religion-what specific ethics, rituals, doctrines, and myths I have to adopt because most religions (especially the Abrahamic religions) have many inconsistencies and contradictions, and knowing how to follow God's word is impossible. Christianity, for example, has thousands of denominations, and many of these different denominations preach vastly different things. So even if you were to prove to me that Christianity is the one true religion, I would still probably go to Hell because it would be impossible to determine which Christian "path" I had to follow to gain eternal life in Heaven.
Dylan Maloney i agree with you everyone has to find the God figure that feels right - i thinks there is one Gpd and just different peer persons to follow , kind of like a "car" , each different car has different add on's but its still a car in the general sense - point A to point B -and so on - Merry X-Mas and Happy New Year to you
Religion never served as a substitute for science. It served as a method of establishing morality. That's why societies formed through religion. And that is why in the modern day, ideologies like humanism, capitalism, communism or utilitarianism have taken over that role.
Religion and science never had anything to do with each other.
Most of the main critisisms of religion stem from a certain way too many people think of religious practices. Many see it as a paramount conclusion, but if you think about the idea of say a soul more as a hypothesis that can’t be adequitely tested, such a thing becomes much more plausible. Just as we can’t definitively test the cause of what give Electrons their inherent bonding energy, we can’t definitively test weather or not people outlive their bodies.
But what reason do we have to even formulate a hypothesis regarding souls? What reason to we have to assume that souls exist?
Hm Grraarrpffrzz In short, it’s to explain a very core part of human nature and why even Identical twins have distinct personalities.
The prevailing model that we are the sum of our parts does not account for photons and other elementary particles which serve as a subatomic power line for the surrounding matter. This powerline doesn’t logically conform to the four laws of nature, thereby making Quarks, Bosons & Photons supernatural by definition. Energy of any kind needs a medium through which to be conducted, otherwise it just sticks to individual atoms & all the molecular bonding we see in the natural world would otherwise be impossible. This process of bonding & transfer happens inside the brain and if every individual is different, than it would follow that each individual has a soul by virtue of the massless components that bind all things together.
It baffles me how you can have such an intelligent and well put together statement of nonsense...
the bible was soooooo right , dont put your faith in man just like this guy - the bible says there will be profits of good or evil though out the times - if you think this guy is so smart have him be put to the cross and rise in three days - good luck charlie
Wow...the bible said THAT? Who could have imagined that that a vague prophecy referencing events that have happened all throughout mankind would SUDDENLY matter because it was supposedly uttered by a man that rose from the dead after being murdered for some asinine burden of "sin" that makes no logical sense. People like you scare me
i imagine he replied because the whole point is to have a discourse, not silently accept things. that's religion's racket. it's pretty sad that you think atheists have nothing. we have the absurd luck of having been brought into existence as a being capable of understanding and enjoying it, so i'll do both to the best of my ability, then that's it. fine by me.
also prophets aren't profits.
nutbagbrew102 Eternal life? Only someone so afraid of his own mortality would use that as some kind of dangling carrot. If eternal life and imaginary friends is something I need to get through my day, you'll be the first one I look up
You know what's funny? These so-called evil prophets you speak of can be viewed as your CHRISTIAN prophets. You really think that Christianity is exempt from harming society? Just read up on your history of the Catholic Church members' molestation of children, the Crusades, AIDS in Africa, Spanish Inquisition, burning of "witches," stoning of "unruly" children, etc. etc. etc.
Now as for your whole claim that Jesus rose from the dead, all I need to ask you is: "Where is the evidence?" Where's the evidence that an unchanging God suddenly changed his mind about the sinning of mankind, so he impregnated a virgin, was born as Jesus (who is God but also isn't); who walked on water, turned water into wine, who fed 5,000 people with 7 loaves and 2 fish, who healed the blind, and cured diseases? Where's the evidence that God sacrificed himself to himself to forgive mankind for a rule that he made himself? What kind of sacrifice ends up bringing you to heaven as the Son of God? Is that even a sacrifice at all? Why not just say "I forgive you" and that's that, instead of sending Jesus on a suicide mission that didn't even actually kill him? So...like I said....where's the evidence for all this?
Last thing: You are so excited by the idea of eternal life. Do you have any idea how boring that would be? To be stuck in eternity would be hell for me. Let me ask you this: What does the Bible actually say about what heaven is like? Not much, I can tell you that. I'm sure you'll have a jolly good time, if it exists--but how long will that enjoyment last?
Sorry if my post is sloppy, I'm a little tired. I'm pretty sure, though, that my point came across well enough. I apologize if this post sounds offensive, but I'm simply reacting to your own hatred towards non-believers and skeptics.
You sir are too dumb to insult.
The power of rationality and reason.
Religion is far more sophisticated than Sam Harris gives it credit for and considering the very essence of science is empirical, whilst religion frequently drifts into the transcendent, attempting to pit them against each other is needless. I believe they can co-exist if not for people like this trying to force them to compete.
Doctrine of Holy war in Islam? Holy war isn't even mentioned in the qur'an. His lack of knowledge of Islam is almost funny.
Almost as funny as claiming that salt water and fresh water don't mix, that the Earth is held up on pillars, that the sun rises and sets at fixed places, that stars fall from the sky and are quenched in the ocean.
Real fucking funny. I had no idea Mohammed was such an accomplished stand-up comedian when he wasn't busy fucking a nine year old girl he bought from a neighbor.
There is no mentioned of JIhad at all?
ExperienceCounts2 Fresh water and salt water in the sea do not mix. If they did, many animals in the sea would die. The qur'an does not say the earth is held up on pillars, show me where it says that. Where does it say the sun rises and sets at fixed places, where does it say the stars fall from the sky and are quenched in the oceam? Please reference.
Philipos6 I never said Jihad, I said Holy War. They are two different things, and they have two different meanings. So yes, there is a mention of Jihad, but there is no mention of Holy war.
Holy war -a war caused by, or justified by, differences in religion.
Jihad - Killing people because they won't accept Islam
Sam Harris raises some good points, but his conception of religion is too narrow. He forgets the societal, political, spiritual, traditional, (etc.) role that religions play. Clearly if religion was a "failed science" then all scientists would be atheists -- a reality that is not yet true.
Watch more videos of him.
Andrew Tessler Which do you recommend?
Enna Silkov For videos with simplified and more direct bits about reasoning, morality, religion, etc. look for videos that are around 2-3 minutes long. If you want more in depth information look at either debates or videos around 10 minutes long. He has so many videos and clips it's hard to pinpoint which one. "Best of Sam harris" will probably bring up some good ones.
+Enna Silkov
If you go by those conceptions, then politics are religion too.
Like Communism or the radical left.
Schwarzer Ritter I disagree. Just because both Communism and religion both play social roles, doesn't mean we can equate them.
A fundamental gap in the science/religion debate is we don't distinguish Faith from Religion. To me, I don't care who or what you think make this place, as long as it doesn't damped your character. The belief in something doesn't need to erode all other values if it doesn't align with common understanding. I think its cool to believe in God/Jesus, Buddha, Allah, whoever you pledge to, the belief, the spirit of it is beneficial to the individual. Hope, motivation, determination, or endurance these are things that can stem from such values and perspectives and those are powerful lessons to learn in this world. All life will be for the greater portion of us is falling down and finding the compelling reason to get up, if you can find that in your faith and it gives you that driving force of 100% commitment to a challenge, don't do it any differently. The Church is what ruins all of this, the Church uses that compelling force that motivates you to action while it creates a perspective of "well its us against the world, you know something they don't and they'll think you're false but just run with it, you're better then them." And exploiting the values you can be so passionate about is how they make billions upon billions of dollars ever year.
Also, morals and "good" and "bad" have nothing to do with "metaphysics" (whatever that is), "spirituallity" (whatever that is) or whatever you wish to call it.
Rather, it has everything to do with us being a social species and -off course- making our own survival a top priority in our lives.
This is why we save a toddler instead of a puppy when we need to choose between both.
Sam Harris says religions are failed sciences yet believes concepts that don't logically correspond with reality.
Examples?
Examples?
Jenny Goodall Do you believe 2+2=4?
mytuber81 That question is irrelevant to the question of the existence of any God. Why would you ask it?
No belief is required. If I had a crisis of faith, math still works. Engineers and scientists quantifying their work would continue to make progress.
BTW, one of my students had a father who wrote his dissertation in mathematics (successfully defended) on the idea that 1+1 is not always equal to 2. I find that proposition preposterous, but a panel of professional mathematicians accepted it.
Am I mistaken? 2+2 = 4, therefore the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists. Hallelujah!
Jenny Goodall If you are afraid to answer VERY simple questions then why engage in conversation?
If you believe that Sam Harris is an expert in religion, just learn at least a little bit about Islam. You will see how much ignorant he is in this topic and how much distorted information he carries to the audience. Just please don't fall pray to appeal to authority fallacy and let people that are allegedly experts misinform you on different matters. Stay sharp!
"Those are core values of Christianity"
Here are some others:
- punishing a scapegoat is justice
- people are to be held accountable for the actions of their ancestors (original sin)
- human sacrifice is to be glorified
"What other religions apart from the Abrahimic ones have self-sacrifice "
I don't know. I'm sure you could find a couple if you would look for it.
Why do you assume that I think self-sacrifice is a good thing? I wouldn't make such a blanket statement.
Because some humans want to be 'right', and think that they know the truth.
And failing to understand it, they will at least want to admit that they are wrong, and not live with something that is not true.
"Better to know that you know nothing than believe something that isn't true."
The reason religion actually came into existence was because humanity was curious, and wanted answers, but didn't have the technology to provide them with the answers they sought.
I disagree that religion did somehow tried to be the same as science. Let us not confuse the science people had on the past and call that religion, since science is always dated and always fixing itself.
Even if we had all the answers, knowledge itself doesn't give meaning to things in life.
Correction: A 'force' is a physical QUALITY, not a physical 'quantity'.
As to 'our senses' being proof of our physical reality, anyone who's seen The Matrix has received a wonderful argument against that suggestion of 'proof'.
Mathematics doesn't suggest anything, but the existence of mathematics suggests a lot. For science to develop mathematics, mathematicians required faith that the universe was itself intelligible. I mean, if 2+2=4, 5, or 6, why even bother?
You just proved my point. But only someone who is not locked in a very narrow and highly emotionally charged dogma can see it.
His last statement about what "science will tell us" about spiritual experiences is a statement of pure faith. Ironic.
Remember Joe Louis' last fight?
I think the reason organized religion has taken hold is because it's comforting. Man does wan't to think that when he dies, poof, that's it. We want to believe there is something on the other side, when we shake loose this mortal coil. But we don't know. None of us knows what happens after you die, and you can't consult anyone who has.
it is comforting but also limiting. It is freedom not to think
Gregor Mendel pioneered early understanding of genetics. He was a Christian friar, and his work was done in a religious institution and culture. Much of human understanding of crops, math, and medicine was developed within similar settings. Harvard, Yale, Princeton, and the entire university system, and much of formal education was established by religion.
When humans didn't understand wind or the tides of the ocean they used made up supernatural explanations, that was typically done in the context of religion, so that fits with the presented thesis. That is the only piece of religion that the speaker chooses to acknowledge.
Religions are historically good at motivating, inspiring, and engaging voluntary members and they should be encouraged to resume contributions to the scientific project. The anti-religion types would object, but if a religious group manages to cure a disease, or deliver an engineering breakthrough, I would applaud it.
My views exactly. Kudos!
Yes, the light of religion is warm and comforting, embracing the science is to stop being afraid of the dark.
You are forgetting that mindless criticism is nihilistic and destructive. The difference between earnest criticism and New Atheism is that earnest criticism is not a superficial facade of itself that hides nefarious desires for group conformity to a new totalitarian, war loving religion.
You could make the argument that forms of organized hatred are healthy because they are forms of free expression. But, that would
In their day, religions would have been seen as a way of explaining the world. They have outlived their usefulness.
One thing he didn't get rigt is to understand spiritualism by understanding the underling neurology. Spiritualism is in many forms it appears an experience, a state of consciousness. It's something so do, experience, something that happens to you, not something that's limited to the amount of information you can transport in language. It's just as stating to ''debunk'' music by learning about the physics and neurology behind it: that's not what it's about. It's an experience. However you can dispute the reason and cause of the experience. You can reduce it to bio chemistry but it's remains a profound experience. The same goes for love: you can explain it but the chemistry is not what it's about, it's about experiencing it. Its magic isn't bothered by it explanation.
Deliberate disinformation is a crime and irresponsible misinformation are two huge crimes
If he doesn’t know about something he shouldn’t talk about it