Hacker News Reader

Let's be careful not to start an atheist / non-atheist flame war (boring...) but to say Harris just took 7 paragraphs to dismiss religion isn't fair. He's written several best-selling books on the subject and has partaken in several debates with religious leaders. For him to answer this Edge question with a rehash of his arguments on atheism would have been redundant and boring. I'm sure he expected most of the readers on Edge to understand his point of view on the subject and to kick off from there.

I don't want to get into a flamewar, but potential 'religious truth' generally lacks falsifiability. Certainly there could definitely be true things that the religious say but it doesn't really promote a method of thinking that leads us to knowing things that aren't false about the world.

In the method of 'religious truths' everyone is right and everyone is wrong, there is no way to sort out the true from the false.

That's why claiming potential religious truths are "clearly false" is a clear marker of weak thinking.

Saying something is "clearly false" doesn't mean you claim to know everything - you just see there is no evidence for their conclusion. Is Scientology clearly false or should we say they have some good points? If the latter, we might as well explore every fairy tale that comes by - or we could follow real evidence to where it leads us.

Where I come from, if you say "A is clearly false" means there is evidence to support it. I have never heard of any evidence regarding spiritual or religious beliefs; maybe the OP has some. Until he presents some, I'll dismiss his claims as 'clearly false'.

Where I come from, we consider all hypotheses null until significant proof has been shown to back it up. I've seen none of this proof - let alone the scientific method being used. Therefore, it's clearly false - not "100% I can prove it's a duck-false", but it walks, talks and acts like one.

Are you arguing, or are you angry-agreeing with me? The end result is the same: the OP's claim is bogus until proven otherwise.

No anger at all - I'm merely stating what I'm sure you follow every day: If we're going to be pragmatic about exploring the truth (i.e. not wasting our limited time) we should explore claims with more proof than "I believe this to be true".

When someone says, "clearly false", it should be (and in this case is) referencing the absence of any proof at all for the extraordinary claims. In this case, people who defend religion have a burden of proof here. Perhaps more precise wording would be: "arbitrary and totally unverified".

This is why I brought up fairy tales. They are just as arbitrary and unprovable. Do you think we should seriously explore them as well? If not, why does religion get a pass - because so many believe it? Let's not have science by vote of the masses. After all, the scientific consensus is that religion is false ;-)

> Do you think we should seriously explore them as well?

Why not? I find it quite astonishing how often starting with verifiably false assumptions leads to worthwhile results. Your tower of reason is a decent construction. I find it a nice place to visit, but sometimes I prefer the woods. A mind too well-ordered misses the faults in its own assumptions.

"Why not?" - because we only have so much time to make use of. If you'd prefer to live as ignorance is bliss ("the woods") - that's a valid choice, but valid doesn't mean it's consistent with the truth (a.k.a. what science is trying to get close to). To find fault with the mind - one must constantly question their assumptions - in this article: religion.

Religion is not a scientific subject, but a philosophical one. You can't prove "taste" either but most people know "bad taste" when they see it.

You're making several assumptions and leaps in your reasoning here, though. If one were to accept that aesthetics is objective (which you seems to be implying?) then it may just be that we haven't found the epistemological framework to quantify it.

Now then, I don't see how this (meaning, your example of aesthetics) is similar to religion. Religion is just assumed to be relative by most people I think; at least the religious people I talk to seem to say so and use it explicitly as an argument (you do, too, I think) to parry demands for falsifiability. So then your comparison goes out of the window.

No, what I'm saying is that the question "Is there a God?" is both unprovable and unfalsifiable. Science cannot answer every question for us. Philosophy is a better fit for religious questions.

OK, but the second part of your sentence said that in that respect it is like aesthetics, which I don't agree with.

Guilty as charged. I was trying to throw in a sound byte to illustrate how some things can't be illuminated by science (e.g. "I have good taste", "No, you have bad taste, I have good taste", "Well that's obviously in poor taste", "Taste doesn't exist, it's something that has evolved from...", etc.) but I wasn't really happy with it either.

First, it depends on what god you speak of. If you speak of the typical monotheist God (Omnipresent, Omnipotent, Omni-benevolent, Has created our universe, Sentient, Listens to prayers, and sometimes Answers), then the question "Is there a God" is both falsifiable and false. (By "false", I mean of negligible probability given current evidence.)

Religious claims are typically falsifiable, and repeatedly disproved (creationism is a good example). Every time that happens, religions eventually back off, keeping only their claims that are not yet disproved.

Second, while some topics (like choosing a morality) are definitely outside the scope of science, the accurate description of our world is definitely inside. If something we could reasonably call "God" exist in our world, it's got to have consequences. I expect science to find out, or at least try. "Science can't have an answer for everything" suspiciously sounds like it shouldn't even try.

I think this is exactly the kind of nonsensical flame war type post everyone wanted to avoid. Since you seem intent to go down that route I'll just leave you to it.

EDIT In response to your edit:

>"Science can't have an answer for everything" suspiciously sounds like it shouldn't even try.

This is your projection, not mine.

Yes, that's my projection. Sorry for the ad hominem argument. It just smelled like a rhetorical trick, so I got carried away. I also admit my post was a bit trolley (I expected down-votes and no reply, actually). But I don't think it was nonsense. I merely stated my (strong) beliefs without the usual "I believe" disclaimer. There's a reason why:

Either God exists, or it doesn't. Of atheists and deists, one group is wrong. As a matter of fact. As you know, I don't believe in God. If I were polite, I would stop there. Same thing for a deist. We could have a conversation, say "I (don't) believe in God", and it would still look like we "respect" the other's beliefs, and therefore we respect the other, period.

Trouble starts when I say "God doesn't exist" (it really doesn't). It's offensive. It makes too obvious that I think deists are wrong (they really are). Such a direct attack to their belief is of course not polite at all (yes, I am not polite). Politeness is secondary, however: we face Freaking Real Death! I bet many would like to solve that problem (and there are slim hopes that it will eventually be).

On the other hand, a deist that really believes in God, should tell me that it exists, that I'm wrong. Being polite is again secondary. Hey, my non-believer's very soul is at stake! I certainly wouldn't want to Burn in Hell for, say, wanting to be immortal.

Another point. You said earlier:

> […] "Is there a God?" is both unprovable and unfalsifiable. […]

This is weird to my ears. I assume that for any thing that have observable effect, science has a hope of detecting (and proving the presence of) that thing. God is no exception. So, if you're right, then the existence of God doesn't have any observable effect (by contraposition). Then, belief in God, an observable effect, isn't linked in any way to the actual existence of God. Meaning, belief in God has no valid justification.

Plus, the way that typical monotheists religions depict it, not only God is observable, it has actually been observed. For instance, any miracle God have performed should have a hope of being detected by archaeologists. (Unless God cleverly erased the evidence but I don't recall anything like that on the Bible. To my knowledge, it isn't written that God evades science.)

Plus, God is almost always depicted as omnipotent, omnipresent, and omni-benevolent (let's live aside sentience etc.). Well, those three characteristics combined should be sufficient to have a pretty big observable effect: living in the best possible world. If we don't (it's pretty clear we don't), then something is off.

So, saying that the existence of God can't be tested strikes me as an extremely weak justification for belief in God. Weaker that plainly stating that God exists because three famous, old, Holy books say so (authority can be a valid argument).

Here's a nice, short article which has evidence for the existence of a spriritual dimension: http://christianthinktank.com/eyesopen.html

Thanks, I'll read that. If you have more, It would be welcome.

For the other side, I suggest http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Reductionism_%28sequence%29 It's longer, but I enjoyed it nevertheless. (I'd like to recommend http://lesswrong as a whole, but it's literally months worth of reading)

there's a bunch of interesting and well-thought out articles on the main site: http://christianthinktank.com/

a topic index is here: http://christianthinktank.com/hway.html

it could be interesting to dialogue on the subject too...

>Yes, that's my projection. Sorry for the ad hominem argument. It just smelled like a rhetorical trick, so I got carried away.

Fair enough. There are so many dishonest people arguing on both sides that one begins to expect the worst.

>Either God exists, or it doesn't. Of atheists and deists, one group is wrong. As a matter of fact.

Agreed. But one can never prove a negative. We can never prove that there is no plane of existence where another being might exist. That's not to say science shouldn't try. Science should, of course, explore every aspect of existence that it can test and observe.

>Politeness is secondary, however: we face Freaking Real Death! I bet many would like to solve that problem (and there are slim hopes that it will eventually be).

Of course. I don't see why a theist should have a problem with trying to cure death. For a Christian (for example), the story of the tower of babel should be enough to feel comfortable that man wont be allowed to do "go to far". If it happens, then it was obviously allowed.

>Hey, my non-believer's very soul is at stake!

Honestly, it is this very urgency from both sides that causes the problems I think. If the climate change situation has demonstrated anything, it has demonstrated that my urgency can not inspire you to action.

>science has a hope of detecting (and proving the presence of) that thing

We can't even detect the things we think we know about (e.g. dark matter). We can't expect to be able to detect things we don't even know about yet.

>not only God is observable

Not God, but actions of God. And I agree, some occurrences in a holy book should be able to be discovered.

>If we don't (it's pretty clear we don't), then something is off.

You seem to be assuming God would be in the same plane of existence as us. If I build a house I am not confined to that house, why would God be constrained by his own creation.

>saying that the existence of God can't be tested strikes me as an extremely weak justification for belief in God

It wasn't my intention to justify belief in anything, but rather defuse the absolute certainty of a position that can never be absolutely certain. My hope is that if people realize that no one has or can have all the answers that they'll stop trying to convince everyone all the time.

From what I've seen, the people who preach their message to strangers the loudest tend to be the worst representatives said message, regardless of faith (or lack thereof).

Here again I disagree (with, I admit, a minute part of your point and one that was probably thrown in as an afterthought), in the same way I disagreed with loewenskind when he made an analogy with aesthetics. Morality and religion are dissimilar - maybe we will one day fully understand morality, but religion is (by religious people) in my understanding defined in terms that make it explicitly exempt from reasoning. Morality, we 'just don't understand' (maybe, depends on your position on the nature of morality, really); whereas religion is by its very nature we are said to be incapable of understanding.

I agree with your real point, though; what I'm saying is that religion in a class of its own, because the religious make it (or should I say 'make it up') to be that way.

(Related to this point, I do think that one day religion will be explained: when we fully understand the brain, how thoughts develop etc.; at that point, religion will be shown to be just a figment of our (rather, 'their') imagination. Maybe it served an evolutionary role once, who knows. Of course it won't give us insight in the nature of 'god', it will merely show that 'god' is a fabrication of our unconsciousness).

Err… I agree. I said that choosing a morality is outside the scope of science. But I agree that science can (and probably should) study morality. See Eliezer Yudkowsky, who is trying to build a Friendly AI. He will probably need a complete theory of Intelligence and Morality to do that.

Your other points are related to http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Anti-epistemology and http://lesswrong.com/lw/of/dissolving_the_question/ (I suspect you know about these, but others may find them interesting.)

Oh yes I see, you're right, I misunderstood your point.

As far as I remember Sam Harris does know quite a lot about Neuroscience in fact he is a PhD in that very area.

With regards to potential religious truths then the problem of course is that you can't verify religious claims thus the very idea of talking about truth in this context seems rather misguided.

Doesn't science appear to do this as well? It models what it observes, but it certainly doesn't nail everything down. And I wouldn't consider this approach misguided.

Scientific claims are verifiable. That doesn't mean that they are true.

Religious claims are by definition and practical circumstances not verifiable since they are claims about things outside what we can observe.

But they are also claims that there is a metaphysical reality which we cannot access through science but contain truths about the world we can access. And that is where it falls apart IMHO.

I believe you misread the essay.

His major point is this: "There is no discrete self".

He isn't making an argument to discredit any potential religious 'truth' (in fact, he is using the existence of certain religious 'truths' as evidence for his argument). His comment about 'clearly false' religion was not his main point (although for some of us, extreme lack of evidence and verifiability is enough).

The annihilation of the self is an idea/concept/experience that occurs in many religious traditions, and also when exposed to certain drugs (hallucinogenics, I think). It is also a common theme in literature dating back to antiquity. The Bacchus is an example. Enlightenment in Buddhism is about annihilation of the self. Not that I am an expert on either.

By annihilation of the self, I mean the elimination of the concept of the self, not suicide. The thought being that the concept of the self is actually an absurdity. "Can a man step in the same river twice." This is what he is referring to when he talks about the flow of thoughts.

The concept of self leads to a lot of problems, selfishness, fear of death, things like that.

Try reading it as opinionated writing, rather than a mathematical proof of something that is offensive to you personally.

IMHO one should be able write without the pretense of neutrality and be judged holistically rather than dismissed out of hand.

Imagine if all your circumstances sucked and all your mind could focus on was reality...

You'd probably do something to improve your reality rather than try and replace a miserable life with some form of escapism (not picking only on religion here, even World of Warcraft fits the bill).

i don't know about the religion stuff, but the focus thing does sound very silly. it reminds me of a certain philosopher - Kant maybe - who described "the self" in a way that was obviously characteristic of his specific personality, but couldn't be applied in my case, nevermind all humans'