Chatting with Sam Harris HERE!!!!!

I do think there will be such a time -- or we're more or less doomed. I do not think, for instance, that there is much of chance of our incompatible religious certainties enduring for hundreds of years.
The path to a future free of religious dogma has to be the path of reason. But it has to include a reasonable discussion of ethics, spiritual experience, ritual, etc. I can't be just science, narrowly construed.

[Professor Chaos]

FROM: ManInTheWild:

You write, “It seems profoundly unlikely that we will heal the divisions in our world simply by multiplying the opportunities for interfaith dialogue. The endgame for civilization cannot be mutual tolerance of patent irrationality.”

Currently, it is political suicide for our leaders in the U.S. (as well many other parts of the world) to speak of themselves as anything other than dedicated believers. How then can we elevate the conversation about the dangers posed by religion to national and international levels? More specifically, have you spent anytime thinking about what a national strategy to address religion would look like?

Good question. I think we are a long way from this goal. The first step is to keep observing, in as public a way as possible, how strange the U.S. appears among developed nations at this point. The rest of the developed world is comparatively very free of religious constraints upon public discourse (with the exception of pressure applied to Western Europe my Muslim immigrants).

Sam,

Thanks for taking time out of your busy schedule to correspond on the message board here with the members. I just wanted to publicly vocalize my support for your work (again), as I do often. Thanks so much for being a voice of reason in a society ruled by unreason. It's been a good week. Ted Haggard, Rumsfeld on the way out, stem cell support in MO, Dems claiming they'll push stem cell research further, Arizona rejected ban on gay marriage, oh the list is too long to mention. We should carry ourselves a bit higher today, whether it's your efforts, the grass rooters, or something altogether different, today things are looking up just a little bit.

I don't have an official question (they've got a whole system in how we can ask them), just an official thank you. I already had my chance for questions, in fact I might as well post the link (for the audience) of our discussion/interview: http://www.rationalresponders.com/Sh...rris64Flam.mp3

Again Sam thanks for all you do,

Brian Sapient
www.RationalResponders.com




EDIT IN:

Sam Harris wrote

On the meeting I just referred to here. I am reviewing currently. Here is a snippet of what I wrote prior to coming online with you all, in case you are interested. It was very depressing.


..... I am here to report that we still have considerable work to do in some of the nearby trenches.

As soon as I made the above post I see this depressing tale. :-( Nevertheless, I think we should at least pause for a moment to be happy for the possible tiny bit of progress enlightening efforts like "ours" (all of us) have made.

[Professor Chaos]

From KaKnowledge:

In recent years, any and all attempts at unifying the atheist/agnostic community have been met with very little enthusiasm. Multiple attempts have been made to rename ourselves (e.g Brights, Free Thinkers etc.) and most opinions of these titles have been less than emphatic. Do you feel that it would be in the best interest of the atheist/agnostic community to organize as other minority groups have in the past or do you feel it will ultimately be more damaging to our cause?

Thanks Sam and I should have qualified my statement that "rational discussion apparently does not work" by saying that "in my experience, rational discussion apparently does not work." I'll keep trying and thanks again.

Many thanks, Brian. Keep up the great work.

[Professor Chaos]

From KaKnowledge:

In recent years, any and all attempts at unifying the atheist/agnostic community have been met with very little enthusiasm. Multiple attempts have been made to rename ourselves (e.g Brights, Free Thinkers etc.) and most opinions of these titles have been less than emphatic. Do you feel that it would be in the best interest of the atheist/agnostic community to organize as other minority groups have in the past or do you feel it will ultimately be more damaging to our cause?

Atheist unification -- I tend to skeptical of this. I am not at all a fan of cut monikers like "bright." I think this criticism against religion has come from all sides, all at once, for as long as it takes. It should be very diffuse and relentless -- and if it works, we'll arrive at time when we can't even figure out what all the fuss was about.

[Professor Chaos]

FROM: WITHTEETH

I'm curious what Sam Harris means by "spiritual moments" that we really do have. Is this metaphysical, metaphorical, is he just trying to spruce up his vocab with words Christians can relate too?


Also What philosophies Sam Harris lives by and has had an effect on him.

P.S. That should have been "cute monikers"

spiritual experience -- I'm not making metaphysical claims here, just experiential. A person, for instance, can lose his feeling of separation from the universe (this is possible)-- but is says nothing (or not very much) about the universe. It doesn't entitle you to make metaphysical claims about there only being the "one mind", for instance.

[Professor Chaos]

From DrunkMonkey:

Question:

What is the funniest/strangest/scariest hate mail you have ever received?

phiosophies to live by -- I'm not sure how to answer this question. I just keep trying to fight my way toward a coherent understanding of myself and the world. It's not the product of a specific philosophy. In philosophical terms, I'm a "realist", I suppose. Which means, I think our beliefs can be more or less right (or closer to or further from the truth). I am not a relativist in any important sense.

[Professor Chaos]

Sam, once again I thank you for joining us tonight. Our members are very excited talking about your responses, and have many questions for you. I understand that your time is valuable, so please just let me know when we're short on time so that we can get one or two last questions in. Next up:

FROM: myst7426

Sam, what is your opinion on how we should engage theists? Encounter seems to never end in victory - escpecially for an atheist when a crowd is present. I personally want to ignore them. In situations that I do not, the conversation ends with "I will believe what I want and nothing you say can change it". There is no victory for atheist and the theist leave thinking he won.