For gawd's sake, your reputation is at stake (assuming that even matters to you). The way you've so devotedly and dishonestly distorted Sam Harris' actual views on atheism would, sad to say, probably make Joseph Smith green with envy. I mean, really, dude, you're being religiously ridiculous (which could be classified as redundant).

The proof is so overwhelming against your outrageous claims that if you aren't shamed by your documented record (about to be rolled out below) of shallow and selective misrepresentation of what Harris has actually said on atheism and related matters, you might as well start up your own Fantasyland Faith. Not to say that you haven't managed to come across a few surface-level glittery objects. But your confirmation-bias scavenger hunt is akin to what Thomas Jefferson aptly described as the effort at uncovering the genuine views of Jesus in the New Testament being like "abstracting . . . the diamond from the dung hill."

("Thomas Jefferson and His Bible: The 'Jefferson Bible' was Thomas Jefferson's Attempt to Extract an Authentic Jesus from the Gospel Accounts," by Marilyn Mellowes, PBS "Frontline," at: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/jesus/jefferson.html)


Don't worry, though. You don't have to become a godless grunt for Satan in this losing battle of yours for “Harris the Atheism Hater;” but you really should give up your over-heated hobby of being an all-consumed contortionist who creates non-atheist Harris gods in your own image.

For those who might be new to this rumble,, here's a rundown of "koriwhore's" claims that are about to, well, get run over.
_____


--False Claim #1: Sam Harris Does Not Describe Himself as an Atheist

*“koriwhore,” proclaims that Sam Harris “doesn't refer to himself as an Atheist.”


*“koriwhore” insists that while “others call him [Harris] an Atheist, [it is] a term he [Harris] rejects, for good reason.”


*“koriwhore” declares that “Sam Harris says he's not an Atheist,”


*“koriwhore” states that Harris “[is] not [an] atheist.”


*”koriwhore” asserts that Harris “rejects that title [of atheism],”
_____


--False Claim #2: Sam Harris Spurns Atheism Altogether

*”koriwhore” asks, “[Is] "New Atheism" just the same old bullsh*t [of ' old' atheism], like Sam Harris says?”


*”koriwhore” contends that Harris is “not a fan of the Atheist label.”


*”koriwhore maintains that Harris has “seven reasons why [he] rejects the label of Atheist.”


*“koriwhore” boasts of being a personal ally of this “created-in-'koriwhore's'-image” Harris by announcing, “I'm with Harris . . . Atheism is nothing. It's as meaningless as being a non-stamp collector.”


*“koriwhore” proudly bullhorns that he stands unified with his new and "koriwhore'-approved statue of Harris: “I agree 100% with Sam Harris . . . [who] reject[s] the Atheist label for good reason, most of which are the same reasons I reject that label.”
_____


--False Claim #3: Sam Harris is an Agnostic

*“koriwhore” submits that ”Sam Harris . . . [has] explained why [he is] Agnostic, not Atheist.”


**koriwhore” says, “I'm with . . . Sam Harris . . . ,, among others, all of whom were Agnostic.”

**********


Sourcing “koriwhore's” false claims (posts, titles, authorship, dates and links):

-“He [Harris] Doesn't Refer to Himself as an Atheist,” by “koriwhore,” on “Recovery from Mormonism” discussion board, 15 February 2015, at: http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1514529,1516115#msg-1516115;


-“The Problem with Atheism--Sam Harris,” by “koriwhore,” on “RfM” discussion board, 21 January 2015, at: http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1491491,1491491#msg-1491491


-"I Agree 100% with Neil deGrasse Tyson and Sam Harris,” by “koriwhore,” on “RfM” discussion board, 9 February 2015, at: http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1509434,1509734#msg-1509734;


-“I'm with Sam Harris,” by “koriwhore,” on “RfM” discussion board, 14 January 2014, at: http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1485278,1485318#msg-1485318


-“Why Einstein, Sagan, Dawkins and Harris Are Not Atheists,” by “koriwhore,” on “RfM” discussion board, 12 January 2015, at http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1483673,1483673#msg-1483673


-“Theists, Did You Have to Join a New Religion to Discover Mormonism False?,” by “koriwhore,” on “RfM” discussion board, 14 February 2015, at: http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1510868,1514960#msg-1514960


-"Neil deGrasse Tyson Explains Why He's Not an Atheist," by "koriwhore," on "RfM" discussion board, 8 February 2015, at: http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1509047,1509047#msg-1509047;


-”Not a Fan of the 'Atheist' label, Neither was Einstein or Sam Harris,” by "koriwhore",” on “RfM” discussion board, 24 January 2015, at: http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1494965,1495011#msg-1495011


-”No I Didn't. I Put Up a List of Why I Wasn't an Atheist by “koriwhore,” at “RfM” discussion board, 21 January 2015, at: http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1491491,1491750#msg-1491750


-“So What's So New about 'New Atheism'?,” by “koriwhore,” on “RfM” discussion board, 22 January 2015, at: http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1492475,1492588#msg-1492588


-“Yes, It Never Helps to Have Critics of New Atheism,” by “koriwhore,” on “RfM” discussion board, 15 February 2015, at; .http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1514529,1515980#msg-1515980
_____


--Summary Response:

As a preliminary and general observation before proceeding to hand him his lunch, “koriwhore's” fundamental handicap appears to be one of deliberately and demonstrably misrepresenting Harris' actual views on atheism (just like, for example, “koriwhore” has previously misrepresented Carl Sagan's views on atheism; see: “You Misrepresented Sagan,” by Steve Benson, on “RfM” discussion board, 15 February 2015, at: http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1514529,1516116#msg-1516116)


What is abundantly clear is that when it comes to the practice of “rejecting,” it is not that of Harris rejecting atheism (since he explicitly acknowledges that he is an atheist); instead, it is that of “koriwhore” roundly rejecting the basic premise of doing honest homework on what constitutes Sam Harris' confirmable and contextualized views.

Now, for the specific counter-evidences that take "koriwhore's" case to the cleaners. (Caution, "Kori": Chew carefully before swallowing. It would be hell for you to choke to death on facts.
_____


--Response #1: Sam Harris Openly Calls Himself an Atheist

*Sam Harris has personally acknowledged that not only is he an atheist but he uses that term to describe himself. For “koriwhore's” benefit, let's review the recent record: In December 2014 (on his own blog, no less), Harris referred to himself as “an atheist.” He did so as follows, in his response to what he called “the parties of God” who commit barbaric acts in the name of their various deities:

“AS AN ATHEIST, I CANNOT HELP WONDERING when this scrim of pretense and delusion will be finally burned away--either by the clear light of reason or by a surfeit of horror meted out to innocents by the parties of God. Which will come first, flying cars and vacations to Mars, or a simple acknowledgment that beliefs guide behavior and that certain religious ideas--jihad, martyrdom, blasphemy, apostasy--reliably lead to oppression and murder? It may be true that no faith teaches people to massacre 'innocents' exactly--but innocence . . . is in the eye of the beholder.” (emphasis added)


*Three months before Harris issued the above-quoted atheist self-identification on his own blog, he, in an interview with the “Washington Post,” publicly acknowledged that he is, in fact, an atheist:

“I'M NOT THE FIRST ATHEIST to use it [the term 'spirituality'] somewhat defiantly.” (emphasis added)


*Harris is actually not breaking new ground here (except perhaps for those who fail to do their homework). In a Septe3mber 2007 address to a national conference of fellow atheists in Washington, D.C., Harris did not deny that he was an atheist; to the contrary, he collegially advised that atheists “should not call OURSELVES anything.” Rather, he suggested that “WE should go under the radar--for the rest of our lives. And while there, we should be decent, honest people who destroy bad ideas wherever we find them.'”

Maybe Harris should have followed his own advice because, now he is calling himself an atheist--direct counter evicence of “koriwhore's” false claim that Harris does not consider himself an atheist.
___


--Response #2: Even Theist Sources Acknowledge that Sam Harris is an Atheist

*When “koriwhore” insists that "others [falsely] call him [Harris] an atheist," it is because it is Harris himself who calls himself an atheist. The uber-theist website, “Religious News Service,” describes Harris as an “UBER ATHEIST.” noting (using descriptors that Harris subsequently used to describe himself), “Harris IS NOT THE FIRST ATHEIST to suggest non-believers should mine the world’s religious traditions for wisdom or beneficial practices.” (emphasis added)
_____


--Response #3: Sam Harris, Judging by His Own Words, is Not an Agnostic

Writer Claire Hoffman of “Los Angeles Magazine,” 2 September 2014, reported Harris' views on the subject of agnosticism during the course of her three-hour taped interview with him:

“When I tell Harris I’m an agnostic, he tells me I’m just confused about the term . . . .

“[Harris]: 'It’s a safe thing to say . . . but it’s usually ill considered. You aren’t agnostic about Zeus or Apollo or any of the thousands of dead gods who are no longer worshiped. The atheist says, ‘Bullsh*t.’ The agnostic says, ‘I don’t know. How could we possibly know about the validity of these claims?’ That is bullsh*t. If we’re talking specifically about Jesus being resurrected from death, or born of a virgin, or able to hear prayers, this entails a host of scientific claims--about biology, about telepathy, about human flight without the aid of technology. Are these claims that an agnostic wants to accept? Agnosticism is just a way of being polite in the face of people’s unjustified religious convictions. But if you maintained that attitude on other topics, you’d be considered an imbecile.'”
_____


--Response #4: For “koriwhore,” All His Hoorahing for Harris is Nothing More Than a Game

“koriwhore”--who appears not to have met an RfM homework effort that he likes (or that he will even seriously undertake), admits to relishing throwing out his uninformed claims, whether he believes them or not. Here's his own admission in that regard:

“I just love to play Devil's Advocate and point out the problems with Atheism, since it seems to be the dominant identity around here. I like to challenge the status quo and not just conform to what seems 'cool.' Just because you're ExMo, does not mean your only choices are theism or atheism. Most of the people I admire most reject the 'Atheist' label, even though they don't subscribe to any kind of a personal God . . . . “

That said, while confessing that he likes to play “Devils Advocate” on RfM just for the hell of it, he contradicts himself by insisting that “I'm a united, not a divider. . . . I've got no problem with Atheists, just pointing out that Sam Harris . . . has a BIG Problem with Atheism . . . “

“koriwhore's “BIG problem” is not being able, willing or sufficiently informed to tell the truth about Sam Harris. And, regardless of his claims to the contrary, “koriwhore” has clearly got problems with the reality that Harris is, in fact, a self-acknowledged atheist.
_____


--Response #5: When It Comes to Homework Results, “koriwhore" is Production Poor

Some advice, “koriwhore”: Using your own emphasized words, your “BIG problem” is that you don't do much digging--and what superficial poking around you do do, you pull and twist like one would do when pulling taffy--stretching and distorting it for your own personal purposes. If someday you decide to actually engage in believable research, that 180-degree backtrack from your present course might help push your credibility creds to measurable levels.

**********


Sourcing for Counter-Evidences Responses (articles, authors, dates and links):

-Sam Harris, “Sleepwalking through Armageddon,” on Harris' personal blog, 3 December 2014, at: http://www.samharris.org/blog/category/atheism (emphasis added)


-Sam Harris, quoted in “No God? No Problem, Says God-Free Thinker Sam Harris,” by Patt Morrison, “Los Angeles Times,” 23 September 2014, at: http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-morrison-sam-harris-spirituality-without-religion-20140924-column.html#page=1 (emphasis added)


-“Sam Harris Wants Atheists--and Everyone Else-- to Get Spirituality,” 10 September 2014, at: http://www.religionnews.com/2014/09/10/sam-harris-wants-atheists-everyone-else-get-spirituality/ (emphasis added)


-Sam Harris, 'The Problem with Atheism." speech delivered at Atheist Alliance conference, Washington D.C,, 28 September 2007, at: http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/the-problem-with-atheism (emphasis added)


-“Sam Harris is Still Railing Against Religion Even in His New Spiritual Memoir; Harris is Se ling Doubt,” by Claire Hoffmann, 2 September 2014, “Los Angeles Magazine,” 2 September 2014, at: http://www.lamag.com/culturefiles/sam-harris-is-still-railing-against-religion/#sthash.qP3cDi3T.dpuf


-“I Just Love to Play Devil's Advocate,” by “koriwhore,” on “RfM' discussion board, 14 February 2015, at: http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1510347,1514963#msg-1514963


 -“Re: Atheists, Instead of Telling Me What You Don't Believe," by "koriwhore" on "RfM" discussion board, 25 January 2015, at: http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1495962,1496208#msg-1496208)



Edited 15 time(s). Last edit at 02/16/2015 10:07AM by steve benson.

Hi Steve

The evidence about Sam Harris on this issue is clear, and you have presented it here. What is shows is that Harris - not for the first time - has sent two very different messages.

On the one hand, as you show, he has several times used the label "atheist" to describe himself.

On the other, as you also show, he rejects the label "atheist". For example, in the lecture you link to, http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/the-problem-with-atheism, Harris writes this:

"We should not call ourselves 'atheists.' We should not call ourselves 'secularists.' We should not call ourselves 'humanists,' or 'secular humanists,' or 'naturalists,' or 'skeptics,' or 'anti-theists,' or 'rationalists,' or 'freethinkers,' or 'brights.' We should not call ourselves anything. We should go under the radar—for the rest of our lives."

That you and koriwhore have incongruent understandings of Sam Harris's views on the label "atheist" is attributable only to one man, and your post has shown who he is: Sam Harris.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/16/2015 03:37AM by Tal Bachman.

. . . while criticizing atheism for not being a philosophical construct that is free of what he regards as its limitations.

However, contrary to "koriwhore's" false assertion, Harris does not reject the idea of atheism in toto; otherwise, Harris would not openly and personally acknowledge that he is an anti-religion atheist who fights against what he regards as the "bad ideas" of religious belief rooted in supernatural mythology which he contends produce destructive results for humankind.

"koriwhore" got it factually wrong from the get-go when he asserted that Harris did not self-identify as an atheist. He also got it wrong in claiming that Harris was an agnostic.

I called out "koriwhore" on his basic misrepresentations of Harris' views on atheism. The facts, as I have noted and quoted them, bear out that "koriwhore" was wildly off-base in some of the fundamental claims he made" about Harris.

Harris is too complicated of an individual in terms of his thinking and conceptualizing abilities for simplistic-minded reductionist "koriwhore" to meaningfully understand or appreciate.

"koriwhore" has a troubling habit of trying to box in noted atheists in order to try to mold them to fit his constricted personal preconceptions. I pointed out this fact with regard to his blatant misrepresentations of Sagan's views on atheism when I caught him in the act of selective quote-mining--to which he has yet to respond. There is no legitimate explanation in the Sagan case since "koriwhore" was being deliberately and conspicuously dishonest in his manipulation and misrepresentation of Sagan's views.



Edited 9 time(s). Last edit at 02/16/2015 05:49AM by steve benson.

steve benson Wrote:
> "koriwhore" has a troubling habit of trying to box
> in noted atheists in order to try to mold them
> to fit his constricted personal preconceptions.
> I pointed out this fact with regard to his
> blatant misrepresentations of Sagan's views on
> atheism when I caught him in the act of selective
> quote-mining--to which he has yet to respond.
> There is no legitimate explanation in the Sagan
> case since "koriwhore" was being deliberately and
> conspicuously dishonest in his manipulation and
> misrepresentation of Sagan's views.

Sagan's example is more difficult to assail as misleading by Koriwhore. Sagan specifically chose to reject the term "atheist," and prefer the term "agnostic." His wife follows up with the assurance that he chose his words carefully.

It would seem anyone arriving after the fact and insisting that he be labeled an "atheist" would be the one guilty of misrepresentation since Sagan himself rejected that label.

Go there and see for yourself:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/achenblog/wp/2014/07/10/carl-sagan-denied-being-an-atheist-so-what-did-he-believe-part-1/

You can see what he left out, and how he did so, here:

http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1514529,1516116#msg-1516116


I realized what he was doing when I saw that we had both coincidentally gone to the same site to examine Sagan's views on atheism. I was amazed (but not surprised) to see what 'koriwhore" had conveniently opted not to reference from that site. He has yet to explain or defend his selective abuse of that information base.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 02/16/2015 05:50AM by steve benson.

steve benson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Go there and see for yourself:
>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/achenblog/wp/2
> 014/07/10/carl-sagan-denied-being-an-atheist-so-wh
> at-did-he-believe-part-1/
>
> You can see what he left out, and how he did so,
> here:
>
> http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1514529,1516
> 116#msg-1516116
>
>
> I realized what he was doing when I saw that we
> had both coincidentally gone to the same site to
> examine Sagan's views on atheism. I was amazed
> (but not surprised) to see what 'koriwhore" had
> conveniently opted not to reference from that
> site. He has yet to explain or defend his
> selective abuse of that information base.


I read that entire article before I posted on this. Are you saying you believe Sagan misunderstood the true nature of being an agnostic, and you believe both he and his wife were mistaken in rejecting "atheism" as a better description of his beliefs?

This quote seems like a fair description of a skeptical agnostic:

"Carl acted like an atheist but rejected the label. I guess it seemed too absolute to him. He always tried to be open to new evidence on any subject."



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/16/2015 05:16AM by Tall Man, Short Hair.

. . . failed to mention. Had "koriwhore" chosen to include instead of hide it, his case-closed assertion that Sagan definitely was not an atheist would have, shall we say, lost some steam.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/16/2015 05:37AM by steve benson.

steve benson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> . . . failed to mention. Had "koriwhore" chosen
> to include instead of hide it, his case-closed
> assertion that Sagan definitely was not an
> atheist would have, shall we say, lost some steam.

I'm just not following your logic. Sagan rejected being labeled an atheist, and preferred the term "agnostic." His wife concurs with his choice saying he was careful with his selection of words. Those who knew him said he rejected being called an atheist.

In light of Sagan's intellectual depth, would any of us be wrong to allow that his choice to call himself an "agnostic" and reject the term "atheist" is sufficient to render that topic "case-closed?"

. . . noted the pertinent personal observations made by Sagan's close friends who knew him best and who were less inclined to declare him to be an out-and-out anti-atheist as "koriwhore" did. "koriwhore" chose not to mention these facets in order to make his single-minded point at the expense of data that he deliberately left out and that provided a fuller picture of Sagan.

You can defend "koriwhore" all you want but that was, and is, his observable modus operandi. He has already lied about Harris not being an atheist, as proven by a fuller account of the actual record. I justifiably do not trust "koriwhore"--a conclusion based on how he has been caught fiddling with the facts in order to promote his own ends.



Edited 6 time(s). Last edit at 02/16/2015 06:02AM by steve benson.

steve benson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> . . . noted the pertinent personal observations
> made by Sagan's close friends who knew him best
> and who were less inclined to declare him to be an
> out-and-out anti-atheist as "koriwhore" did.
> "koriwhore" chose not to mention these facets in
> order to make his single-minded point at the
> expense of data that he deliberately left out and
> that provided a fuller picture of Sagan.

Well, in the article you cite, Sagan was clearly critical of atheists:

“An atheist has to know a lot more than I know. An atheist is someone who knows there is no God.”

“I am not an atheist. An atheist is someone who has compelling evidence that there is no Judeo-Christian-Islamic God. I am not that wise, but neither do I consider there to be anything approaching adequate evidence for such a god. Why are you in such a hurry to make up your mind? Why not simply wait until there is compelling evidence?”

So, I guess we can see that Sagan was clearly not an atheist. He preferred the label "agnostic," and was critical of those who claimed to be atheists (a group he clearly exempted himself from).

I'm still a bit foggy on Koriwhore's crimes in all this, but I have a better understanding of Sagan's worldview.

That said, "koriwhore" obscured in his text the record on Sagan--and purposely so in order to keep it conveniently narrowed for his own purposes. He has remained deadly silent after having done this (and after having been caught doing this), despite having been both reminded of that tactic of his and having been asked to explain it. Your "fogginess" on this is your problem, not mine. I've laid out his claims--and then used the historical record to undermine them, based on information found nowhere in his arguments. That goes for "koriwhore's" selective handling of Sagan and Harris.



Edited 6 time(s). Last edit at 02/16/2015 06:24AM by steve benson.

steve benson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> That said, "koriwhore" obscured in his text the
> record on Sagan--and purposely so in order to
> keep it conveniently narrowed for his own
> purposes.

But Steve, you do realize that in your criticism of Koriwhore, you referred to Sagan as a "noted atheist?" It's clear from Sagan's own words and those who knew him best he rejected this label, and you're misrepresenting him by grouping him in with "noted atheists."

If you believe Koriwhore's reputation is at risk for misrepresentation of facts, where does that leave you?

Some of his closest friends regarded him as essentially being an atheist. It's worth noting that as he neared what he knew would be his inevitable, unavoidable death from cancer, Sagan observed the following in his book, "Billions and Billions':

"The world is so exquisite, with so much love and moral depth, that there is no reason to deceive ourselves with pretty stories for which there's little good evidence. Far better, it seems to me, to look death in the eye and to be grateful every day for the brief but magnificent opportunity that life provides."

Those are clearly the words of a man who regarded his life as a one-shot, terminal event. Yes, Sagan did have a way with words and chose to leave us with those.

(And "koriwhore" didn't want you to know that).

_____


More:

--It is true that “Sagan resisted the atheism label and self-described as an agnostic.

“In a 1981 interview with 'U.S. Catholic,' Sagan said: 'I have some discomfort with both believers and with nonbelievers when their opinions are not based on facts . . . If we don't know the answer, why are we under so much pressure to make up our minds, to declare our allegiance to one hypothesis or the other?'”
_____


--It is true that “[i]n a March 1996 profile by Jim Dawson in the 'Minneapolis Star-Tribune,' Sagan talked about his then-new book, 'The Demon Haunted World,' and was asked about his personal spiritual views:

"'My view is that if there is no evidence for it, then forget about it," he said. "An agnostic is somebody who doesn't believe in something until there is evidence for it, so I'm agnostic.'"
_____


--It is true that “[i]n another 1996 interview, Sagan told Joel Achenbach: 'An atheist has to know more than I know. An atheist is someone who knows there is no God.'”
_____


--It is true that Sagan defined “God” as '\"the sum total of the laws of nature”:

“In a 1996 interview with NPR's 'Talk of the Nation,' Sagan said (when asked about religious beliefs): 'Where's the evidence? Now, the word God is used to cover a wide variety of very different ideas, ranging maybe from the idea of an outsized light-skinned male with a long white beard who sits in a throne in the sky and tallies the fall of every sparrow--for which there is no evidence, none at all--to the view of Einstein, of Spinoza, which is essentially that God is the sum total of the laws of nature. And since there are laws of nature . . . if that's what you mean by God, then of course there's a God. So everything depends on the definition of God.'”
_____


--It is true that Sagan, in his 1996 article in “Parade” magazine, titled, “In Tthe Valley of hte Shadow,” wrote:

"I would love to believe that when I die I will live again, that some thinking, feeling, remembering part of me will continue. But much as I want to believe that, and despite the ancient and worldwide cultural traditions that assert an afterlife, I know of nothing to suggest that it is more than wishful thinking. The world is so exquisite with so much love and moral depth, that there is no reason to deceive ourselves with pretty stories for which there's little good evidence. Far better it seems to me, in our vulnerability, is to look death in the eye and to be grateful every day for the brief but magnificent opportunity that life provides.”
____


--Finally, it is true that “[i]n an interview with 'The Humanist' magazine conducted after Sagan's death, his wife, Druyan, said that neither she nor Sagan believed in a traditional God or an afterlife.“

*****


Sources: http://www.celebatheists.com/wiki/Carl_Sagan; and http://atheism.about.com/library/quotes/bl_q_CSagan.htmAnn



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 02/16/2015 12:38PM by steve benson.

That's a lot of work

Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/16/2015 06:30AM by steve benson.

Steve when you got your jaws locked.....

don't ever ever let go.

:o)

I hear that, Steve, although I can see how Harris's various comments could lead to different understandings of his position on this.

Another issue in the background (which koriwhore might have picked up on, though I have no idea) is that Harris has spoken very glowingly about "spiritual" techniques like meditation (which he studied under Buddhist masters in India and Nepal), and has expressed an openness about the "mystery" of the universe that he scolds other atheists for being closed to. In particular, he has recommended books arguing for psychic phenomena like ESP as well as reincarnation. Even James Randi has raised concerns once about Harris's materialist bona fides in his column in "Skeptic" magazine.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/16/2015 04:50AM by Tal Bachman.

. . . the supernatural.

He explains:

"The word 'spirit' comes from the Latin spiritus, which in turn is a translation of the Greek pneuma, meaning 'breath.' Around the 13th century, the term became bound up with notions of immaterial souls, supernatural beings, ghosts, etc. . . . [M]any atheists now consider “spiritual” thoroughly poisoned by its association with medieval superstition. . . .

"We must reclaim good words and put them to good use--and this is what I intend to do with 'spiritual.” I have no quarrel with Hitch and Sagan’s general use of the word to mean something like 'beauty or significance that provokes awe,' but I believe that we can also use it in a narrower and, indeed, more personally transformative sense.

" . . . [T]here seems to be no other term [other than['spiritual' and] (apart from the even more problematic 'mystical' or the more restrictive 'contemplative') with which to discuss the deliberate efforts some people make to overcome their feeling of separateness—through meditation, psychedelics, or other means of inducing non-ordinary states of consciousness. And I find neologisms pretentious and annoying. Hence, I appear to have no choice: 'Spiritual' it is."

(Sam Harris, "In Defense of 'Spiritual,; at: http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/a-plea-for-spirituality)
.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 02/16/2015 05:46AM by steve benson.

Steve, in "The End of Faith", Sam Harris expresses openness to the paranormal, and even recommends books like "The Conscious Universe: The Scientific Truth of Psychic Phenomena" by Dean Radin, and "Unlearned Language: New Studies in Xenoglossy" (apparently about children who spontaneously start speaking in ancient languages) by Ian Stevenson, an author who writes about reincarnation.

I would recommend you read Chapter 7, "Experiments in Consciousness," wherein Harris notes that "[w]hile there is much to be said against a naïve conception of a soul that is independent of the brain, the place of consciousness in the natural world is very much an open question. . . .

"The history of human spirituality is the history of our attempt to explore and modify the deliverances of consciousness through methods like fasting, chanting, sensory deprivation, prayer, meditation and the use of psychotropic plants. There is no question that experiments of this sort can be conducted in a rational manner. Indeed, they are some of our only means of determining to what extend the human condition can be deliberately transformed. Such an enterprise becomes irrational only when people begin making claims about the world that cannot be supported by empirical evidence." (pp. 208, 210)

Translated: Consciousness is a fascinating, even "nscrutable," subject (p. 219) that science presently knows little about; nonetheless, Harris is not necessarily an advocate for paranormal woo-woo (*although, upon further consideration, he does raise legitimate questions about his judgment when it comes to his choice of certain topics that he seems to think could be of possible "scientific" value).



Edited 7 time(s). Last edit at 02/16/2015 09:48AM by steve benson.

His new book is all about experiencing transcendence outside of religion

. . . using various physical, emotional and what he calls "spiritual" means that are not supernatural in content or alien to empirical understanding.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/16/2015 11:49AM by steve benson.

Contact.

Millions and billions of words being put in Carl's mouth.

Made so much sense back in 1980.

RIP big guy in the dum turtleneck.

He always tried to be open to new evidence on any subject.




amen

Steve - Harris explicitly advocates openness to (although not necessarily full embrace of) the paranormal in "The End of Faith". Stand by for a forthcoming thread, to which of course you are very welcome to contribute to.

Sam Harris sure has you fundies runnin' scared, don't he? Likewise Dawkins, Hawking and other outspoken atheist professors. That's why you fringe lunatics feel the need to keep taking swipes at 'em, I guess.

. . . or Hawking, whose book, "A Brief History of Time," I have read and whose biographical movie, "The Theory of Everything," I saw a few days ago and quite enjoyed.

You are simply projecting your internal wishes, realities and experiences on to me. In other words, your post is all about your need to debunk (for whatever reasons that may be relevant for you) the likes of Harris, Dawkins, Hawking, et al, because their views somehow trouble, irritate, challenge, threaten or have some other kinds of impact on you you personally, based on your past experiences. Therefore, your response here, is evidence of your own lingering issues, not mine; and is fundamentally based on your own life events, fears, hopes, etc., not mine.

Now, if you'll kindly excuse me, I'll deal with Tal. In the meantime, good luck with whatever it is that's inwardly bothering you. :)



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 02/16/2015 10:02AM by steve benson.

. . . and, yes, it's a matter of some concern for those of us who consider ourselves to be reasonably cognitively-equipped. Allow me to refer to some rather brutal assessments of Harris' judgment in certain areas of questionable science, complete with Harris' obviously anxious efforts to put safe distance between them and himself--unfortunately, however, after-the-fact. To which I say, "Sam, it's your own damn fault."

(seem for example, Sam Harris, "The End of Faith: Religion, Terror and the Future of Reason"" [New York, New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2004], Chapter 1, "Reason in Exile," references to work of Radin and Stevenson, p. 41; and "Notes," p. 232, fn 18)
_____


--Harris Gets Understandable Heat Over Bizarre Elements of His Book, “The End of Faith"

Harris's seeming sympathy for some arguably wacky ideas got him the unwanted attention of critics with craniums:

“In January 2007, Harris received criticism from John Gorenfeld, writing for 'AlterNet.' Gorenfeld took Harris to task for defending some of the findings of paranormal investigations into areas such as reincarnation and xenoglossy. . . . Gorenfeld's critique was subsequently reflected by Robert Todd Carroll, writing in the Skeptic's Dictionary.[ On his website Harris disputed that he had defended these views to the extent that Gorenfeld suggested.“

(“Sam Harris (author),” under, “On Spirituality, Mysticism, and the Paranormal,” at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Harris_(author))


Gorenfeld recounted a phone interview he did with Harris (with Harris' qualifiers included):

“Sam Harris' book, 'The End Of Faith,' ha[s] established him as second only to the British biologist and author Richard Dawkins in the ranks of famous 21st century atheists. The thrust of Harris' best-sellers is that with the world so crazed by religion, it's high time Americans stopped tolerating faith in the Rapture, the Resurrection and anything else not grounded in evidence. Only trouble is, our country's foremost promoter of 'reason' is also supportive of ESP, reincarnation and other unscientific concepts. . . .

“I wanted to interview Harris to find out why a man sold to the American public as the voice of scientific reason is promoting Hindu gods and mind reading in his writing. . . . .

"'The End of Faith' may be the first book suitable for the Eastern Philosophy shelf at Barnes & Noble that somehow incorporates both torture and New Age piety, and offers pleas for clear scientific thinking alongside appeals to 'mysticism.' The old-fashioned brand of atheist, like the late Carl Sagan, argued eloquently against religion without supporting rituals and ghosts.

“ . . . [H]owever, . . .. a Harris passage on psychics recommends that curious readers spend time with the study '20 Cases Suggestive of Reincarnation.'

“Asked which cases are most suggestive of reincarnation, Harris admits to being won over by accounts of 'xenoglossy,' in which people abruptly begin speaking languages they don't know. . . . 'When a kid starts speaking Bengali, we have no idea scientifically what's going on,' Harris tells me. It's hard to believe what I'm hearing from the man the 'New York Times' hails as atheism's 'standard-bearer.'

“Harris writes: 'There seems to be a body of data attesting to the reality of psychic phenomena, much of which have been ignored by mainstream science.'

[Harris Qualifier]: “ On the phone he backpedals away from the claim. 'I've received a little bit of grief for that,' he says. "I certainly don't say that I'm confident that psychic phenomena exist. I'm open-minded. I would just like to see the data.' To see the 'data' 'yourself, 'The End of Faith' points readers to a slew of paranormal studies. One is Dr. Ian Stevenson's 'Unlearned Language: New Studies in Xenoglossy.' The same author's reincarnation book presents for your consideration the past life of Ravi Shankar, the sitar player who introduced the Beatles to the Maharishi. He was born with a birthmark, it says, right where his past self was knifed to death, aged two.

“Making the case for the '20 Cases' researcher, Harris sounds almost like 'Chronicles of Narnia' author C.S. Lewis, who said Jesus could only be a liar or the Son of God. 'Either he is a victim of truly elaborate fraud, or something interesting is going on,' Harris says. 'Most scientists would say this doesn't happen. Most would say that if it does happen, it's a case of fraud. . . . It's hard to see why anyone would be perpetrating a fraud -- everyone was made miserable by this [xenoglossy] phenomenon.'

[Harris Qualifier]: “Pressed, he admits that some of the details might after all be 'fishy.'"

“. . . [T]he alternative to Jesus that Harris recommends in 'The End of Faith' is a menu of messiahs. There is Shankara, an avatar of the god Shiva whose water pot could stop floods. There is the first Buddha and his 8th-century successor Padmasambhava. After materializing on a lotus leaf at age 8, Padmasambhava cast a spell that changed his friend into a tiger.

[Harris Qualifier]: “'That is objectively stupider than the doctrine of the virgin birth,' Harris says in the interview, however.

“Like any religious moderate, he has picked and chosen what he likes from a religion. On the one hand, there's an obligatory swipe in 'The End of Faith' against Pakistan and India for threatening to nuke each other over 'fanciful' religious disputes. The equal-offender pose doesn't slow Harris from claiming the supremacy of Shankara and other oracles over Europe's entire secular brain trust. . . .

“He likes that Buddhism will make you relax. And 'dial in various mental states,' he says. In the classic case, he says, 'you see various lights or see bliss.' And like a Scientologist cleric promising you the state of Clear, evicting alien ghosts ruining your life, Harris expresses a faith that his own style of pleasurable mental exploration ushers in good deeds. Meditation, he says, will drive out whatever it is 'that leads you to lie to people or be intrinsically selfish.'

“So it purges your sins? 'You become free to notice how everyone else is suffering,' he says. Well, some more than others.

“We all need our illusions. But doesn't his, a mishmash of Buddhism and 'Time-Life Mysteries of The Unknown,' weaken his case against Christians? His answer is that Buddhism is a superior product for including the doctrine of 'non-dualism,' or unity. 'The teachings about self-transcending love in Buddhism go on for miles,' he says. 'There's just a few lines in the Bible.' And hundreds in Dostoyevsky and the Confessions of St. Augustine, but never mind: Harris' argument that 'belief is action' rests on treating works like the Old Testament not as complex cultural fables but something akin to your TiVo instruction manual.

“Though it lapses in skepticism, Harris' work has won a surprising following among non-mystics. 'Times' science writer Natalie Angier felt 'vindicated, almost personally understood' reading it, she wrote in a review. Evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins has practically adopted Harris as the American Robin to his Batman in confronting unreason wherever it may lurk in the hearts of men. 'The End of Faith' should 'replace the Gideon Bible in every hotel room in the land,' blurbs Dawkins. . . .

“So there it is. In Harris' vision of future America, we will pursue 'personal transformation] and gaze into our personal 'I-we' riddles, . . . [and] the government's press releases no more than soothing Zen koans.'”

(“Sam Harris' Faith in Eastern Spirituality and Muslim Torture,” by John Gorenfeld, interview with Sam Harris, “AlterNet,” 4 January 2007, at: http://www.alternet.org/story/46196/sam_harris%27s_faith_in_eastern_spirituality_and_muslim_torture)


Robert Todd Carroll, of “The Skeptic's Dictionary,” also weighed in, throwing the book at Harris:

“One of the leaders of the pack in anti-religious invective these days is Sam Harris, author of 'The End of Faith' . . . . I've heard him being interviewed a couple of times. He does not beat around the bush and he does not hesitate to say insulting things about religious believers. . . .

“Harris presents himself and atheism as rational, yet he doesn't apply very rigorous standards of rationality when dealing with the subjects of reincarnation and the paranormal. One reader of the 'Skeptic's Dictionary' . . . didn't think Harris was really an atheist because 'Harris believes psi phenomena are likely to be real . . . . He [Harris] also says he believes there may be empirical evidence for reincarnation.' . . . .

"[Harris is] entitled to his views as to what he considers atheism to imply. Anyway, a person can be an atheist and also believe in reincarnation and the paranormal. But Harris seems to claim that it is his rationality that has led him to atheism and should lead any other rational person to the same conclusion. Perhaps Harris meant only to suggest that it would be unreasonable to dismiss reincarnation and the paranormal without a thorough rational examination. points readers to a slew of paranormal studies. . . . Is Harris backpedaling or is he trying to have it both ways? Harris wouldn't have to do much research to discover that Ian Stevenson's ['20 Cases Suggestive of Reincarnation'] evidence for reincarnation is little more than a collection of stories that he thinks confirm his hypotheses, one of which is that if a person dies of a wound or injury they will be born in another body with a mark of some kind near that wound or injury, or that can be connected in some way to that wound or injury. This hypothesis is based on fantasy, however.

“Stevenson collects stories but [paranomalist researcher Dean] Radin collects studies. He then lumps them together into meta-studies and applies a statistical formula that is able to show that even a minute difference from chance expectation for these huge data bases is 'statistically significant.' He takes this as proof that 'something interesting is going on.' The only thing I find interesting about paranormal research is why grown-ups pay them any mind. At the end of the day, all Radin has is a statistic and like everybody else who has studied this kind of stuff he still can't produce a single person who can mind-read a three-letter word or move a pencil on a table without using trickery. The assumptions of Stevenson and Radin don't seem much more rational than many religious assumptions that Harris berates.

“Stevenson does no scientific testing. He does things like go to a village where everybody believes in reincarnation and he finds some kid who is put forth as being so-and-so who died in some other village. All he can do is try to confirm by interviews and checking newspaper articles (if there are any) about the death to look for consistency in the stories. If he can't put the story down to lying, prompting, suggestion, or any other naturalistic explanation, he keeps it and calls it one more confirming instance of his hypothesis. If he finds the story doesn't hold up, he doesn't keep it.

“That Harris would take seriously Stevenson's beliefs about xenoglossy is disconcerting. . . .

“I also find it hard to believe that this is coming from a man who claims to be a voice of reason. Harris indicates that Stevenson's stories about xenoglossy are either true or they're fraudulent, which is a false dichotomy. Stevenson could have gotten the translation wrong, he might be gullible, he may have made a mistake, he may be  exaggerating, or  he could be a pious fraud. Harris says that he can't see how something could be a fraud if it makes so many people miserable. What about religion?”

(“Sam Harris: A Man of Faith?,” by Robert Todd Carroll, “Skeptic's Dictionary Newsletter 74, 7 January 2007, at : http://skepdic.com/news/newsletter74.html#3)


Complaining that he had been defamed by such irreverently blistering critiques, Harris felt compelled to issue a reply (with more Harris qualifiers):

“A few of the subjects I explore in my work have inspired an unusual amount of controversy. . . . [M]uch of it is due to the fact that certain of my detractors deliberately misrepresent my views. The purpose of this article is to address the most consequential of these distortions.

“'My Views on the Paranormal: ESP, Reincarnation, etc.'

“My position on the paranormal is this: Although many frauds have been perpetrated in the history of parapsychology, I believe that this field of study has been unfairly stigmatized. If some experimental psychologists want to spend their days studying telepathy, or the effects of prayer, I will be interested to know what they find out. And if it is true that toddlers occasionally start speaking in ancient languages (as Ian Stevenson alleged), I would like to know about it.

“[Harris Qualifier]: However, I have not attempted to authenticate the data put forward in books such as Dean Radin’s 'The Conscious Universe' and Ian Stevenson’s '20 Cases Suggestive of Reincarnation.' The fact that I have not spent any time on this should suggest how worthy of my time I think such a project would be. Still, I found these books interesting, and I cannot categorically dismiss their contents in the way that I can dismiss the claims of religious dogmatists. (Here, I am making a point about gradations of certainty: Can I say for certain that a century of experimentation proves that telepathy doesn’t exist? No. It seems to me that reasonable people can disagree about the statistical data. Can I say for certain that the Bible and the Koran show every sign of having been written by ignorant mortals? Yes. And this is the only certainty one needs to dismiss the God of Abraham as a creature of fiction).

“[Harris Qualifier]: While I remain open to evidence of psi phenomena—clairvoyance, telepathy, and so forth--the fact that they haven’t been conclusively demonstrated in the lab is a very strong indication that they do not exist. Researchers who study these things allege that the data are there and that proof of psi can be seen in departures from randomness that occur over thousands of experimental trials. But people who believe in psi aren’t thinking in terms of weak, statistical effects. They believe that a specific person can reliably read minds, heal the sick, and work other miracles. I have yet to see a case in which evidence for such abilities was presented in a credible way. If one person on earth possessed psychic powers to any significant degree, this would be among the easiest facts to authenticate in a lab. Many people have been duped by traditional evasions on this point; it is often said, for instance, that demonstrating such powers on demand would be spiritually uncouth and that even to want such empirical evidence is an unflattering sign of doubt on the part of a student. 'Except ye see signs and wonders, ye will not believe' (John 4:48). A lifetime of foolishness and self-deception awaits anyone who won’t call this bluff.”


“My views on Eastern mysticism, Buddhism, etc.'

“My views on 'mystical' or 'spiritual' experience are extensively described in 'The End of Faith,' in several articles available on this website, and will soon be spelled out in a book entitled 'Waking Up: A Guide to Spirituality Without Religion.'

“[Harris Qualifier]: Nothing I believe in this area is based on faith. There is simply no question that people have transformative experiences as a result of engaging in disciplines like meditation, and these experiences obviously shed some light on the nature of the human mind. (Any experience does, for that matter). The metaphysical claims that people tend to make on the basis of these experiences, however, are highly questionable. I do not make any such claims. Nor do I support the metaphysical claims of others. Several neuroscience labs are now studying the effects of meditation on the brain. I am not personally engaged in this research, but I know many of the scientists who are. This is a fertile area of inquiry that is deepening our understanding of human well-being.

“[Harris Qualifier]: While I consider Buddhism to be almost unique among the world’s religions as a repository of contemplative wisdom, I do not consider myself a Buddhist. My criticism of Buddhism as a faith has been published, to the consternation of many Buddhists [entitled, 'Killing the Buddha,' at: http://www.lionsroar.com/killing-the-buddha/]”
_____


--Conclusion: Harris Has Got a Good Head but He Needs to Use It More Wisely

The point of offering the above is simply to note that just because Harris shows curiosity in "paranormal" claims, or in notions of "mysticism" or "spirituality," doesn't necessarily mean that he believes them to be true.

I will confess, however, that Harris could probably be a bit more rational himself when it comes to considering how seriously to take this stuff, some of which appears to be silly enough not to be taken soberly. Geezus, Harris, pull your head out. :)



Edited 6 time(s). Last edit at 02/16/2015 10:29AM by steve benson.

>Conclusion: Harris has a good head
>but he needs to use it more wisely.

Harris has a good head when he agrees with you, but he needs to use it more wisely whenever he disagrees with you.

All this protesting against koriwhore is really about you.

Me thinks you protest too much.

. . . and provided specific examples (with links) where the authors (and by extension, myself) have questioned his judgment (along with references to where in his book, "The End of Faith," he made citational references to paranormal. studies of questionable scientific value). You need to read more carefully.

And you think I protest too much because you disagree with Harris, making your protest to me all about you.

(By the way, "koriwhore" has addressed me specifically in his own threads and/or posts, including in one thread where he mentioned me by name in the subject line. That was an open invitation for me to return the favor, which I did by responding--and which I will continue to do if he continues to insist on peppering this forum with claims that can be documentably disproved. If you have a problem with exposing his less-than-truthful exaggerations that he posts as being completely factual, see a shrink).

:)



Edited 9 time(s). Last edit at 02/16/2015 10:49AM by steve benson.

Tal Bachman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Steve - Harris explicitly advocates openness to
> (although not necessarily full embrace of) the
> paranormal in "The End of Faith". Stand by for a
> forthcoming thread, to which of course you are
> very welcome to contribute to.

Nothing in "atheism" precludes "openness" to "the paranormal" or anything else. Nothing in atheism precludes anything except belief in claimed god-things. So Harris thinking there might be something (very likely NOT "supernatural") to "the paranormal" does not mean he isn't an atheist.

. . . to believe that certain questionable claims may be scientifically meritorious. Even he admits, as cited up this thread in skinbacks of his, that he has mentioned areas of interest that he says he didn't actually think were persuasively provable by empirical evidence. That rather loose approach simply invites a shoot-down, which doesn't really do him much good if he wasn't all that excited about their scientific possibilities in the first place. As has been the case in some situations, it has only served to open him up to criticism that he probably could have avoided.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/16/2015 11:14AM by steve benson.

I could find quotes from Christian leaders that claim that Christianity is pro-slavery, anti-civil rights, anti-gay etc. I wonder if the new dogmatists would accept these as truths about Christianity as they seem to expect atheists to accept the word of a few so called atheist "leaders".

Many other "leaders" of the atheist movement that are not interested in protecting media whore status have no trouble with the word atheist. It does seem that the ones that make at least part of their living pandering to the media to get shows are the ones that have issues with the word atheist.

Arguing over the appropriateness of labels rarely gets us anywhere.

Rather than ask whether Harris or Sagan are correctly called "atheists" we can simplify the whole thing by asking: "Do they have a belief in God (in any traditional sense)?"

No. They are NOT "theists."

Ergo.... (What is the opposite of a theist?)

Use a word non-factually or otherwise erroneously in an effort to substantively support your case, and expect to be called on it (at least by some of us around here).



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 02/16/2015 11:04AM by steve benson.

I think one point that is missing here is WHY Harris suggests abandoning the atheist label.

I understand Harris to say that atheists should not use the atheist label because it allows religious folk to collectively dismiss the atheists' rational arguments by simply calling them atheists.

So, instead of allowing the competing religious groups to collectively reject atheists' rational arguments, avoid the atheist label and present rational arguments against religious beliefs - one religion (or one unfounded belief) at a time.

For example, a Christian will will often join in with the atheists' rational argument related to Islam.

So, in order to be able to have rational discussions with religious people (except when it comes to their own personal religion), don't speak as an atheist. Instead, speak as a rational person.

Interestingly, Harris' approach seems to be working somewhat. He's a self-proclaimed atheist. But, just by making a speech saying atheists shouldn't call themselves atheists because their arguments will be dismissed based on the label . . . a number of people (posters here) assert Harris is not an atheist. So, now his arguments needs to be addressed on the merits - or at least not dismissed by believers by calling him an atheist.

thingsithink Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think one point that is missing here is WHY
> Harris suggests abandoning the atheist label.
>
> I understand Harris to say that atheists should
> not use the atheist label because it allows
> religious folk to collectively dismiss the
> atheists' rational arguments by simply calling
> them atheists.
>

I have addressed this before. It does not matter if atheists use the label or not. The "religious folk" will simply apply the label and "collectively dismiss the atheists' rational arguments by simply calling them atheists."

Also, the "religious folk" will just collectively dismiss atheists no matter what the label is used.

. . . where he cedes ground to non-rational believers by letting them determine whether or not their godless enemies are identified as atheists. In other words, the atheists retreat and let the believers set the ground rules as to how to acceptably engage their contestants. If believers don't have atheists calling themselves atheists, they'll sure as hell find a way to criticize atheists for using whatever other identifier they may collectively come up with.

Harris advocates that atheists should simply retreat underground and put up no collective, identifiable resistance to theistic tyranny, period. That's surrender and, given the temperament of defiant, iconoclastic atheists, I'm bettin' they won't buy it.

I say wear that scarlet "A" with pride and don't go inside.



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 02/16/2015 12:48PM by steve benson.