Sam Harris: Religions Are Failed Sciences

[fangjian]

It has nothing to do with "Science" IMO. Are you implying that there are no, or can be no religious Scientists? Im talking about psychology. A persons "need" to believe in something..separate from the validity of that belief. Which includes Athiests IMO.

I'm not sure what you got from my post but here it is. My post you're referring to is:
1. I hope that the non-religious community will be represented politically someday, and for that to happen, we all have to 'fly under the same flag'. The Atheist Party. The Rational Party. The Agnostic Party. Whatever the name.
2. ( I thought )You mentioned about how religious rituals fill a certain need in one's life. I mentioned that 'science' fills that component for me. That 'spiritual' feeling and such. However what you were talking about was the 'need' for some people to be 'loud' or 'in your face' spreading their beliefs kind of thing right? Yes, some people like to be like that. I am sure Psychology can explain this behavior in great detail. BTW, Psychology follows the scientific method too. And I'm not sure about the 'religious scientists' thing you mentioned above. You now said 'some Atheists have a 'need' to believe in something'. What belief is that?

No, I am a man of peace, unless unduly provoked, just pointing out that there are things out there that science cannot explain.

What in your opinion can not be approached by using the scientific method?

 

[billc]

It's not so much that I think there are things that can't be approached by science but that perhaps we don't have the measuring devices to measure things that we don't know exist, yet. Imagine a scientist expaining U.V. rays to a medieval knight. Or bacteria. I'm sure those examples or ones like it aren't new, but the concept is the same.

 

[fangjian]

It's not so much that I think there are things that can't be approached by science but that perhaps we don't have the measuring devices to measure things that we don't know exist, yet.

Haha. Well, yeah.

 

[elder999]

What in your opinion can not be approached by using the scientific method?

Subjective, experiential evidence. Except, of course, when it is approached that way by the subject that experiences it, as they are experiencing it.

 

[Razor]

You now said 'some Atheists have a 'need' to believe in something'. What belief is that?

What in your opinion can not be approached by using the scientific method?

On the issue of atheists and beliefs, A.C. Grayling (I think) put it best: "Saying that one who does not believe in God has faith is like saying that one who does not collect stamps has a hobby, or that a non-smoker has a habit".

Also, I think "god" cannot be approached using scientific method. Because you can't really prove that something intangible, invisible and with no discernible effect on anything doesn't exist, as in the eyes of those who believe it will just be that you "can't test god" or "god works in mysterious ways". I think Bertrand Russell's Celestial Teapot should get a mention here as well: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot

 

[fangjian]

Subjective, experiential evidence. Except, of course, when it is approached that way by the subject that experiences it, as they are experiencing it.

So like the claim of people being abducted by aliens? This claim is not approachable using the scientific method? Not so sure about that.

 

[billc]

What is that saying about advanced science could be mistaken for magic, perhaps the alien technology defeats our abiltiy to examine it. Much like our stealth technology would defeat ww2 era radar.

 

[fangjian]

What is that saying about advanced science could be mistaken for magic, perhaps the alien technology defeats our abiltiy to examine it. Much like our stealth technology would defeat ww2 era radar.

No, I just meant 'the claim' itself. elder999 said 'subjective/experiential 'evidence' '. So this would be like saying if someone claimed to have been abducted by aliens, they have 'experiential evidence' and it is not approachable using the scientific method to verify if it is true or not. Which seems silly.

 

[elder999]

Double post weirdness, sorry!

 

[elder999]

So like the claim of people being abducted by aliens? This claim is not approachable using the scientific method? Not so sure about that.

Not to any real conclusion, no, it's not. You can conclude that they weren't abducted by aliens, but you can't necessarily establish that they lied, or what actually did happen. You probably can't even conclude that they weren't abducted, in a few cases. Believing them is a matter of choice, application of the scientific method notwithstanding.

Case in point: I engaged in a ritual where I didn't eat, didn't drink water, and stood staring at the sky for four days. Sometime on the fourth day, I'm approached by a bear. I insist-and I do-that I had a conversation with the bear. I further assert that the bear was the universe/God's/"the force's/Foot's (sometimes I call God "foot," it's my way of making fun of Him) way of conveying a message to me-that I had a rather prolonged and meaningful conversation with "God."

The bear itself, at least, was not a hallucination, and was observed by another.

We can hypothesize :

1-It's as I say, the bear spoke to me with the voice of "God."
2-I was hallucinating.
3-I'm lying.
4- It's as I say, but the bear was just a talking bear messing with a dude's head.
5-It's as I say, but some other entity was speaking through the bear.
6-It was an escaped circus bear.

And so on, but we can't establish that any of them is correct, or the most likely. The only thing we can truly measure is that the bear was actually there, and behaved somewhat outside the ursine mean. While I can point to evidence that I am, in fact, quite sane-truly 100% government certified "sane" at the time, by virtue of my work assignment at the lab-there is also evidence that I am more than willing to play fast and loose with the truth from time to time. And, while the bear was, in fact, a real flesh and blood bear, there is no way to establish that what I perceived as a conversation was not in fact a hallucination-in spite of the bear's rather extraordinary behavior.

So, we can observe, but the only observations-besides Danny, who saw the bear and saw me talking with it-that have any real validity are mine. There are no measurements that can be taken, no experiments that can be undertaken, and very little testing or duplicability available. In short, all we're really left with is the ability to formulate and modify hypotheses, none of which is any more disprovable than any of the others.

On the other hand, I participated in a ritual where I didn't eat, didn't drink water and stared at the sky for four days. On the third day, I was approached by a bear, and the bear and I had a conversation. I won't say what the bear said-it's private-but I can certainly say that it was all true,or has since proven to be true, just as I can say, by virtue of bear scat and prints, that it was a real, flesh and blood bear.

So, what "evidence" there is is purely subjective, experiential, and of no use to anyone but me, and, perhaps, those who choose to believe me.

 

[RandomPhantom700]

Not to any real conclusion, no, it's not. You can conclude that they weren't abducted by aliens, but you can't necessarily establish that they lied, or what actually did happen. You probably can't even conclude that they weren't abducted, in a few cases. Believing them is a matter of choice, application of the scientific method notwithstanding.

Case in point: I engaged in a ritual where I didn't eat, didn't drink water, and stood staring at the sky for four days. Sometime on the fourth day, I'm approached by a bear. I insist-and I do-that I had a conversation with the bear. I further assert that the bear was the universe/God's/"the force's/Foot's (sometimes I call God "foot," it's my way of making fun of Him) way of conveying a message to me-that I had a rather prolonged and meaningful conversation with "God."

The bear itself, at least, was not a hallucination, and was observed by another.

We can hypothesize :

1-It's as I say, the bear spoke to me with the voice of "God."
2-I was hallucinating.
3-I'm lying.
4- It's as I say, but the bear was just a talking bear messing with a dude's head.
5-It's as I say, but some other entity was speaking through the bear.
6-It was an escaped circus bear.

And so on, but we can't establish that any of them is correct, or the most likely. The only thing we can truly measure is that the bear was actually there, and behaved somewhat outside the ursine mean. While I can point to evidence that I am, in fact, quite sane-truly 100% government certified "sane" at the time, by virtue of my work assignment at the lab-there is also evidence that I am more than willing to play fast and loose with the truth from time to time. And, while the bear was, in fact, a real flesh and blood bear, there is no way to establish that what I perceived as a conversation was not in fact a hallucination-in spite of the bear's rather extraordinary behavior.

So, we can observe, but the only observations-besides Danny, who saw the bear and saw me talking with it-that have any real validity are mine. There are no measurements that can be taken, no experiments that can be undertaken, and very little testing or duplicability available. In short, all we're really left with is the ability to formulate and modify hypotheses, none of which is any more disprovable than any of the others.

On the other hand, I participated in a ritual where I didn't eat, didn't drink water and stared at the sky for four days. On the third day, I was approached by a bear, and the bear and I had a conversation. I won't say what the bear said-it's private-but I can certainly say that it was all true,or has since proven to be true, just as I can say, by virtue of bear scat and prints, that it was a real, flesh and blood bear.

So, what "evidence" there is is purely subjective, experiential, and of no use to anyone but me, and, perhaps, those who choose to believe me.

What about repeatedly placing you in the same situation (fasting, 4 days without sleep and staring at the sky) and observing how often the same experience or similar ones occur? They won't be determinative of that particular event, however they can provide observable data. And by setting up some record, the observations would be falsifiable.

Incidentally, what did the bear say?

 

[fangjian]

Not to any real conclusion, no, it's not. You can conclude that they weren't abducted by aliens, but you can't necessarily establish that they lied, or what actually did happen. You probably can't even conclude that they weren't abducted, in a few cases. Believing them is a matter of choice, application of the scientific method notwithstanding.

Belief in their claim will be a product of your worldview. It's not exactly something you can choose in the way you can choose to have dinner tonight or not have dinner tonight. Like I can't 'choose' to believe in fairies or demons.

Case in point: I engaged in a ritual where I didn't eat, didn't drink water, and stood staring at the sky for four days. Sometime on the fourth day, I'm approached by a bear. I insist-and I do-that I had a conversation with the bear. I further assert that the bear was the universe/God's/"the force's/Foot's (sometimes I call God "foot," it's my way of making fun of Him) way of conveying a message to me-that I had a rather prolonged and meaningful conversation with "God."

The bear itself, at least, was not a hallucination, and was observed by another.

We can hypothesize :

1-It's as I say, the bear spoke to me with the voice of "God."
2-I was hallucinating.
3-I'm lying.
4- It's as I say, but the bear was just a talking bear messing with a dude's head.
5-It's as I say, but some other entity was speaking through the bear.
6-It was an escaped circus bear.

And so on, but we can't establish that any of them is correct, or the most likely.

Regarding this story, there are many hypotheses we can have, like you said. You can't 'disprove' any of them of course, cause that's not how it works. However that doesn't make them all equally valid. I also wouldn't use the word 'evidence' to describe an 'experience' you had.

There are no measurements that can be taken, no experiments that can be undertaken, and very little testing or duplicability available.

No. We have made numerous observations of nature. What we know about bears and humans makes the story very unlikely.

 

[elder999]

Belief in their claim will be a product of your worldview. It's not exactly something you can choose in the way you can choose to have dinner tonight or not have dinner tonight. Like I can't 'choose' to believe in fairies or demons.

Sure you can. People choose to believe in God, or the healing power of crystals, or UFOs every day.

Regarding this story, there are many hypotheses we can have, like you said. You can't 'disprove' any of them of course, cause that's not how it works. However that doesn't make them all equally valid. I also wouldn't use the word 'evidence' to describe an 'experience' you had.

Well, no, that's the point. They're not all equally valid: the only one that has any validity at all is mine. And why isn't it "evidence?" of an "experiential" nature, of course. Testimony in court is giving "evidence" of an "experiential" nature-why should this experience be any less valid as "evidence?" It is, of course, of no use to you, or anyone-but me, as I've been saying.

Belief in their claim will be a product of your worldview. It's not exactly something you can choose in the way you can . No. We have made numerous observations of nature. What we know about bears and humans makes the story very unlikely.

It is, nonetheless, completely true. The part about the real flesh and blood bear is even factual, in addition to being completely true, just as true as my conversation with the bear was.

What about repeatedly placing you in the same situation (fasting, 4 days without sleep and staring at the sky) and observing how often the same experience or similar ones occur? They won't be determinative of that particular event, however they can provide observable data. And by setting up some record, the observations would be falsifiable.

It wouldn't be "the same situation." While I might have any number of similar experiences-I might even have gotten another visit from the bear-it still boils down to who is observing the observable data-it's not objective, but subjective, and it's not falsifiable by anyone but me.

Intersting that I got a visit from a real flesh and blood bear-which left evidence of its presence-though, since I'm a scientist...:lol:

Incidentally, what did the bear say?

None of your business. Though, I will say that I'll be on my boat in somewhere in the South Pacific at the end of next year.....:lol:

 

[fangjian]

Sure you can. People choose to believe in God, or the healing power of crystals, or UFOs every day.

Ok. 'Choose' to believe that Santa Claus exists and he flies to everyone's home in the world to give them presents. Can you 'choose' to believe that?

Well, no, that's the point. They're not all equally valid: the only one that has any validity at all is mine. And why isn't it "evidence?" of an "experiential" nature, of course. Testimony in court is giving "evidence" of an "experiential" nature-why should this experience be any less valid as "evidence?" It is, of course, of no use to you, or anyone-but me, as I've been saying.

Evidence of this nature in the courtroom is all 'cross referenced' with other testimonies and such, and not violating what we know about the physiology of bears would help too
I think it is falsifiable since it completely contradicts what we know about bears.

-Falsifiability or refutability is the logical possibility that an assertion can be contradicted by an observation or the outcome of a physical experiment. That something is "falsifiable" does not mean it is false; rather, that if it is false, then some observation or experiment will produce a reproducible result that is in conflict with it.

it still boils down to who is observing the observable data-it's not objective, but subjective, and it's not falsifiable by anyone but me.

This isn't Quantum physics though. It's not an electron you're observing

 

[Archangel M]

If you don't think that some atheists are not grasping onto, and finding personal identity with, their "non-belief" (and some even acting analgous with a crusaders in their vitriol) as the religious can be with their "beliefs" than I think you are being willfully bilnd.

 

[elder999]

Ok. 'Choose' to believe that Santa Claus exists and he flies to everyone's home in the world to give them presents. Can you 'choose' to believe that?

Indeed. I choose not to. :lfao:

Evidence of this nature in the courtroom is all 'cross referenced' with other testimonies and such, and not violating what we know about the physiology of bears would help too
I think it is falsifiable since it completely contradicts what we know about bears.

Contradicts, what, exactly, that we know about bears? It was late summer, and the bear was, based on Danny's observation, well-fed.

Polar bears cross breeding with grizzlies also contradicted everything we "knew" about bears, and apparently has for thousands of years.

In any case, what we "know" isn't a valid falsification within the scientific method. Aristotle "knew" that a needle wouldn't float, and that men have more teeth than women....:lfao:\

-Falsifiability or refutability is the logical possibility that an assertion can be contradicted by an observation or the outcome of a physical experiment. That something is "falsifiable" does not mean it is false; rather, that if it is false, then some observation or experiment will produce a reproducible result that is in conflict with it.

Now we're getting somehwere.

Random proposed a physical experiment-I submit that this particular ritual will not produce a reproducible result that is in conflict, because the conditions themselves aren't reproducible at all. While there are shamanic rituals where the results are reproducible-even for different participants-this isn't one of them.

I'm not the same person as the one who went up that hill at the beginning of the ritual in the first place-I'm not the same at all-that's the entire point of it.

 

[fangjian]

If you don't think that some atheists are not grasping onto, and finding personal identity with, their "non-belief" (and some even acting analgous with a crusaders in their vitriol) as the religious can be with their "beliefs" than I think you are being willfully bilnd.

Sure yeah of course. I've googled 'atheist' and have seen pages of people having 'atheist' themed tattoos and stuff. Since I personally identify as one, I suppose I find 'personal identity' with my 'non belief', yes. (I was only curious in hearing what others had to say). Of course it's been turning into somewhat of a community, in the past few decades.

Indeed. I choose not to. :lfao:

Well, since you said people 'can choose what to believe, it's easy'. I'd like you to try to believe in Santa Clause for a few minutes.

Contradicts, what, exactly, that we know about bears? It was late summer, and the bear was, based on Danny's observation, well-fed.

Polar bears cross breeding with grizzlies also contradicted everything we "knew" about bears, and apparently has for thousands of years.

In any case, what we "know" isn't a valid falsification within the scientific method. Aristotle "knew" that a needle wouldn't float, and that men have more teeth than women....:lfao:\

You said the bear spoke to you and you had a conversation in a meaningful way with this animal. Your claim contradicts science. You didn't just say 'the bear came up to us and walked away peacefully'. You said 'it had a conversation with you'. How does this event seem likely?
.....then some observation or experiment will produce a reproducible result that is in conflict with it.
Observations of nature and bears are in conflict with your story. Wait a sec. You said it was 'you' who was talking to the bear, but then you implied that the bear spoke to you.

Did the bear actually 'talk to you'? Or were 'you' just talking to the bear?

 

[RandomPhantom700]

Random proposed a physical experiment-I submit that this particular ritual will not produce a reproducible result that is in conflict, because the conditions themselves aren't reproducible at all. While there are shamanic rituals where the results are reproducible-even for different participants-this isn't one of them.

I'm not the same person as the one who went up that hill at the beginning of the ritual in the first place-I'm not the same at all-that's the entire point of it.

The exact conditions, of course not. Just got to listen to Ian Malcolm in Jurassic Park to understand why. :lol: However, the exact conditions aren't the same between the numerous people being used to test new drugs, but the data they produce is still reliable within appropriate context. Running with your hypothetical, if you were to submit yourself to, say, 20 of these exercises, 12 may be during sunshine and 8 may be during rainy weather, and 7 might be during hibernation season while 13 are in the middle of spring, but if 16 of 20 result in you having a conversation with a wild animal, we can scientifically establish that SOMETHING is going on.

 

[elder999]

Well, since you said people 'can choose what to believe, it's easy'. I'd like you to try to believe in Santa Clause for a few minutes.

I've more important things to do with my time-heck, it's not even Thanksgiving, yet. You should try it-I won't be, but you go right on ahead, though. :lfao:

You said the bear spoke to you and you had a conversation in a meaningful way with this animal. Your claim contradicts science. You didn't just say 'the bear came up to us and walked away peacefully'. You said 'it had a conversation with you'. How does this event seem likely?

Fairly certain I was careful not to say that the "bear spoke to me."

Case in point: I engaged in a ritual where I didn't eat, didn't drink water, and stood staring at the sky for four days. Sometime on the fourth day, I'm approached by a bear. I insist-and I do-that I had a conversation with the bear. I further assert that the bear was the universe/God's/"the force's/Foot's (sometimes I call God "foot," it's my way of making fun of Him) way of conveying a message to me-that I had a rather prolonged and meaningful conversation with "God."

While it might have implied verbalization, no where do I say that this conversation was verbal on the bear's part. While I did actually verbalize, at the time (And wave my hands like the New Yorker I am: like some kind of Italian, I thought the bear was going to eat you!, Danny said) the bear didn't-in fact, I'm sure it looked like a pretty long(about 10 of the longest minutes of my life! Danny said) one-sided conversation.

The event is likely because it did, in fact, take place. What you choose to believe about it-based on your application of the scientific method, is, as I've said over and over, completely immaterial. You weren't there. You didn't experience it. I did. You cannot say that I didn't. Whatever you choose to believe, it's not going to change my belief about the actual event one iota, and I was the only one to make the observation at the time. You can't reproduce it, because, as I said, the event itself changed me: I'm not the same person that took part in the initial conditions that would have to be replicated for an experiment to take place. You can't try it with someone else, for the same reason.

Short of searching the Jemez Mountains for a talking bear (that I can almost guarantee you won't find :lfao: )it is outside the realm of the scientific method.

 

[RandomPhantom700]

Incidentally elder, is this experience of yours the reason you have an angelic polar bear as your avatar? Just noticed it.