Brazilian Wax Hidden Cam

Harris vs. Sullivan: Sam Harris sums up



Questo post è il settimo di una serie dedicata al dialogo tra Sam Harris e Andrew Sullivan (che trovate in inglese in due parti: qui e qui ).

Salto nuovamente la parte di Sullivan e traduco la parte di Harris.

---

Caro Andrew,

Molte grazie per il tuo ultimo scritto. Ho molto da dire, quindi permettimi di gettarmi subito a capofitto nella questione.

Tu scrivi che "siamo programmed by evolution to have faith ". Although this statement is questionable, accept it as true. What can we conclude from it? Of course we can not conclude that any particular religious doctrine is true (or that it likely to be true). Nor can we conclude that religious faith is desirable in the twenty-first century, or even compatible with our long-term survival as a species. Here's your quote from Justin Barrett, with some minor editing on my part:

Theology [Viking] shows that individuals were created by [Odin] for [committing rapes and looting]. So why is [Odin] there should be created so that we find [the rape and pillage] quite natural?

is probably true that we have a genetic tendency to rape and pillage. Clearly, rape is an excellent strategy to propagate their genes to the next generation, and is practiced by a variety of species (orangutans are known for this, even raped in human beings). But who is willing to support the moral legitimacy of rape as it gave evolutionary advantages of the rapists? The fact that we have a biological tendency to attribute intentionality to the forces of nature does not mean that it is wise (or moral) fuel this trend.

And the fact that we find difficult concepire la nostra non-esistenza non significa che abbiamo probabilità di persistere in qualche forma divina dopo la morte. Se la storia della scienza ci insegna qualcosa, ci insegna che non dovremmo affrettarci a trarre conclusioni metafisiche dai fallimenti della nostra intuizione. Oggi abbiamo una comprensione piuttosto buona di quanto le nostre intuizioni possono essere sbagliate -- rispetto alla causalità, probabilità, dipendenza logica, e a una vasta gamma di altri parametri che determinano la nostra concezione di senso comune (ed errata) del mondo. Prova a riflettere per un po' di tempo sul problema Monty Hall e, una volta che lo avrai compreso, considera quanto è difficile spiegarlo a qualcuno che non ci ha mai riflettuto prima. Even simple situations can be confusing.

can even be difficult (or impossible) to see what is before our eyes. Consider the following visual illusion (turn the tables "by Roger Shepard):




The two shelves of these tables have exactly the same size and shape. Once you've verified with a ruler that this is true, yet you seem different, because of the way in which your brain is pre-programmed [by natural selection, NDM] to interpret spatial cues. Probably every person who ever lived would perceive these figures as different in shape and size - and a quantity people much greater than those who believe in God The fact is that our intuitions are not always a reliable guide to truth, and in certain situations, we can be confident that they are wrong. So why should we think that our inability / unwillingness to conceive of our non-existence provides a clue as to what happens after death?

And is it really so hard to imagine its absence? I think it might be easier than we commonly say. Presumably you can not find it difficult to accept that there was before being born, so why is it so hard to believe that you cease to exist after you die? Think of all the times and places where today you do not path: the fourteenth century fared well without you (well, not so good). If you're in Washington right now, you are totally absent from any other city on earth. There are people walking the streets of Rome at this time, and they perform without the benefit of your company. Did your absence from a subsequent point in time and space is really so hard to imagine? (The topic of space and time have not invented it. I guess I borrowed from Douglas Hofstaedter.)

Or imagine die by degrees: you have an accident that damaged your visual cortex - in this case would end up where your power of vision? Se un sacerdote dicesse che il tuo "io visuale" è andato in paradiso prima di te, gli crederesti? E se un ulteriore incidente ti facesse perdere la capacità di parlare e di comprendere il linguaggio -- credi che la tua eloquenza debba sopravvivere in qualche forma immateriale? Oggi sappiamo senza alcun dubbio che un danno cerebrale può farci perdere quelle facoltà specifiche che costituiscono il nostro io cosciente. Allora perché è così difficile immaginare che possiamo perdere tutte queste facoltà contemporaneamente? Oppure considera l'analogia del sonno: ogni notte ti addormenti e la tua soggettività scompare. Probabilmente per te tutto questo avviene in modo persino piacevole [..]. Forse credi che noi tutti rimaniamo sottilmente consci anche quando siamo profondamente addormentati (potrebbe essere vero), ma, se sei come me, ti svegli ogni mattina senza la minima sensazione di aver vissuto per la maggior parte della notte. Quindi sai già cosa si prova quando termina la tua esperienza del mondo. È così difficile immaginare la sua cessazione permanente?

Infine: perché il tuo ultimo scritto dovrebbe essere qualcosa di diverso dal "reperto A" in una critica della religione come "negazione della morte"?



Ora vorrei tornare alla domanda se una data dottrina religiosa -- come la dottrina della resurrezione -- sia vera (o abbia probabilità di essere vera). Come ho notato prima, something is the truth or falsity of a proposition, another thing is the effect of psychological / social believe in it. seems to me that most religious people ignore this distinction. Indeed, there is a strong incentive to ignore it, because focus on the plausibility of a doctrine [..] forces us to notice how little credibility are the most religious propositions. The long-term interest in maintaining their faith (and the solace derived from it) generally defeats any attempt to assess this honestly, if a given article of faith or have no chance of being true.

However, I would focus on the plausibility of certain doctrines in competition:

1. there is no God;
   
   
2. there is a God, but all of our religions have distorted reality. Jesus was just an ordinary prophet who had the good fortune to become the center of a cult creator of myths. God loves everyone and has never worried about what a person believes. After the death of all people, Christians and non-Christians, simply merge with the deity in a loving embrace;
   
   
3. Christianity is the only true religion, and Catholics have the truest version.

You seem convinced of substantially 3. Needless to say, I bet my money on one. But suppose we know with absolute certainty that I'm wrong and that one of the hypotheses 2 and 3 is true. How much money would you be willing to bet on the divinity of Jesus? We bet your life on it? you could say that we have already staked their lives, but this is not exactly true. You have invested much time, energy and excitement in being Catholic. But given the benefits that you say you get from your faith, this seems less an investment and a withdrawal of more money. Forget for a moment the consolations of your faith and ask what is wrong are you sure that 2 and 3 is true.

a chance and I'll try to read my mind: I suspect that if the truth of the proposition 2 will be revealed in a glorious epiphany, you would be greatly relieved by a part (and who would not?), but the other would not be so surprised to discover that the doctrine of Christianity was fundamentally wrong. If a revelation of 2 does not completely surprise you, how can you claim to be so sure that Jesus was the son of God? While

admits to being 'a bit evasive "on the details of your Christianity, I think this is less of a problem that you have not answered many questions raised by me that (in my opinion) hurt your argument in support of faith . Of course it is inevitable a certain amount of [slippage] in any such exchange, and I have certainly contributed to the problema dilungandomi così tanto. Ma rileggendo il nostro scambio di lettere ho notato che in genere hai evitato con delle piroette i miei punti principali, spesso come risultato di un fraintendimento. Ecco alcune questioni che non credo tu abbia affrontato adeguatamente:

• Moderazione contro fondamentalismo. Sembra non esserci in linea di principio alcuna separazione tra la moderazione religiosa e il fondamentalismo religioso, al di fuori dell'inclinazione al dubbio. Ma quando è che il dubbio diventa troppo? Perché non dubitare in blocco di tutto, come faccio io? Il Papa sembra credere molte cose di cui tu invece dubiti. Hai ragione di credere che il Papa si sbagli sulla vera dottrina della cristianità, or simply do not like the social consequences of some of his beliefs? You warrant that you assume the intermediate position to Catholicism in terms of truth and falsity (rather than a consolation and lack of it)? And if you do not agree that the truth of an idea can be clearly separated from her consolation, what do you mean by the phrase "unwarranted optimism" [wishful thinking]?
  
  
• The inadequacy of the Bible. What is the intellectual justification for considering the Bible as the inspired word of God, given the amount of bad things that are inside (like slavery), and given the amount of good things there are (Like all science)? Do you really think that no ordinary mortal could have written Mark, Matthew, Luke and John? Not even the combined talent of Virgil, Dante, Shakespeare and Tolstoy? It seems to me that the following statement is really the heart of the matter: or the Bible is a book like so many other great literary works, or is it a magic book. Once it is accepted that a magic book, I agree that it follows a wide range of religious implications, but if you do not accept this claim, the basis for being a Christian (rather than anything else) seems to evaporate. You'd be surprised if God really told you that the Bible is the product of human minds and fallible? And do not be surprised if this particularly (that is, not what you'd be surprised to discover that George Washington never existed), how can you claim to be so sure of the doctrine of Christianity?
  
  
• Weirdness ontological. whole question that God is "by definition" the creator of the universe, outside of the space of time, etc., simply does not hold. The "marzipan in the center of the sun" is by definition the center of the sun . Does this mean that there is a marzipan in the center of the sun?
  
  
• The contingency of our faith. Like you said, if you had been raised by a Buddhist, you'd probably be a Buddhist. Yet, also believe that Christianity is the only true faith. This seems to imply that, for a mere historical accident, you were raised and culturally conditioned to believe in the one true faith. Do you really believe that? Does it seem more likely that you simply accept that religion in which by chance did you get (like most people) because of social, emotional comfort, attachment to tradition, etc.?
  
  
• The example problems of other religions. Do not you think that Mormons and Muslims have similar stories to tell feel comforted in the presence of death, hearing voices and so on? I could not Mormons and Muslims use the same arguments you used you, the cultural success of their faith, to assert their claims to truth? How come you refuse their claims, and at the same time you hear your own religious beliefs put to?
  
  
• The topic of cultural success. Apart from the fact that the argument of cultural success can be used by every religion that has millions of faithful, it is also simply untrue. The success of Christianity (or any faith) is not an argument in favor of its truth. Although dialogue and consensus (ie, the cultural success) actually play a role nel nostro reperimento di conoscenza, non si fa epistemologia coi plebisciti. La maggioranza delle persone può davvero avere torto -- così come hanno torto la maggioranza dei cristiani americani sull'età dell'universo e sull'evoluzione della vita su questo pianeta.
  
  
• I miracoli antichi sono meno sorprendenti dei miracoli moderni (ma i miracoli moderni non ti colpiscono). Il cristianesimo si fonda sull'affidabilità del resoconto fatto dai Vangeli dei miracoli di Gesù. Eppure ci sono libri moderni che elencano i miracoli fatti dagli adepti induisti, scritti da occidentali istruiti. Perché non dare a queste testimonianze ancor più credito dei Vangeli? Scommetto that you do not even want to read this literature, much less to organize your life around it. So why not look at the Gospel with the same skepticism?

These are just some of the areas where I think your defense of faith collapses. I've listed here, do not ask you to answer each question in sequence, but to give you and our readers an idea of \u200b\u200bwhere I remain unconvinced by what you've written so far.

Thanks again for your willingness to discuss these things in this expansion.

All the best, Sam