From: "curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com" <curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com>
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, May 7, 2014 9:35 PM Subject: RE: [FairfieldLife] Note to Rick Conderning his interview with Sam Harris --In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <rick@...> wrote : Thanks. How would you (and Curtis & others) describe Harris in a word or a phrase? I see him referred to as an “atheist”, but from what I’ve read so far, that characterization is very inadequate. My impression of him so far is that everything should stand the test of actual experience, but he’s open to the possibility that experience is not limited to the obvious and mundane. So maybe he’s an agnostic, open to the possibility that God can be experienced. C: Great question. As Richard mentioned, Sam doesn't like to be associated with all the baggage of assumptions the term atheist brings. He feels it is not a good description. But not because he is what you would call an agnostic. One huge misconceptions about atheist thought is that it includes the assertion that "I know there is no god." I have had discussions here trying to establish this only to have it pop up again that I am making an assumption that there could not be any type of god. How could anyone know such an absolute thing? Certainly not someone trying to take a position of epistemological humility concerning the assumptions contained in theism. TB: Rick, in my opinion the very question you bring up is off-base. Why or how would anyone want to describe *anyone* "in a word or phrase?" The very desire to do so assumes that you can pigeonhole a person into a neat little category that can be in *any* sense accurate. Add to this problem the issue of how *both* the words "atheist" and "agnostic" have been distorted in popular usage, and I would stay away from both terms completely. Being called an "atheist" *cannot help but bring up negative connotations* that many people have about those who see no reason to believe in a God. And the term "agnostic" is almost as bad, because many people MISUSE it the way you did above, Rick. Agnosticism is NOT "being open to the possibility that God can be experienced" or even "being open to the possibility that God exists." That's how a *theist* sees the term "agnostic." It really means "a-gnosis" or "not knowing," as in not knowing *anything* for sure. But it's devolved into a set of assumptions held by theists, and its intended purpose is to start an argument/discussion to try to force a supposed atheist into admitting that there is a "possibility" that there is a God. In other words, as I see it the term "agnostic" -- as used today -- is just an extension of the theistic argument, and part of their desire/need *TO* argue. I honestly don't know how Harris would react, not having read enough of his writing to have a feel for such things. I know how *I* would react at being called an "atheist" (especially the way some on this forum use the term, as if it's a negative expletive of some kind) OR an "agnostic." I would see the use of EITHER term as IRRELEVANT to any discussion of spiritual experience. I've never needed the concept of God to explain any experience I've ever had or any belief about the nature of existence I've ever entertained, and likely never will. I've *NEVER* believed in any kind of God, and so I have never been tempted to interpret any of the many spiritual experiences I've had in terms of one, or requiring one. To attempt to bring God into the discussion as if it HAS to be there in order to discuss spiritual thinking is to me an indication of limited, cannot-escape-from-the-box-of-one's-own-assumptions thinking. It's what Edg does periodically, and that I bust him for. He seems *incapable* of discussing spiritual experience without defining it in his mind around the concept of God, whereas for me such a concept is completely unnecessary and irrelevant. It's irrelevant for a neuroscientist, too, if they're being true to science and dealing with what can be measured. It's irrelevant for millions of Buddhists, who (like me) have no need to postulate a God. They have spiritual experiences, too -- it's just that they don't need to bring "God" into the picture to either have them or discuss them. The discussion of spiritual experience ISN'T ABOUT GOD. It's about EXPERIENCE. To pretend that such discussions have to revolve around the existence or non-existence of God is -- to me -- missing the point. As many non-theists have suggested when dealing with argumentative theists, "What would CHANGE about the world you see around you if it turned out that God does not exist." The answer that almost any thinking person has to come up with is "Absolutely nothing. It would continue to be what it is." My point is that this is equally true with regard to spiritual experience. Take the concept of God away, and it's *STILL* spiritual experience." The difference between the atheist and the agnostic is that the atheist has looked at enough of the proofs of god's existence, or examined the reasons people have concluding this and found them unconvincing for a variety of reasons from philosophical to cultural. He has seen the various categories of how people construct their god beliefs and these are inclusive enough that it seems like an unlikely probability that man will come up with some new unknown way to make this claim that would be convincing. Agnostics are more ambivalent, but neither can rule the possibility of there being a god out. Atheism is not a positive belief, it is a lack of a belief which leads to Sam's perspective: “In fact, "atheism" is a term that should not even exist. No one ever needs to identify himself as a "non-astrologer" or a "non-alchemist." We do not have words for people who doubt that Elvis is still alive or that aliens have traversed the galaxy only to molest ranchers and their cattle. Atheism is nothing more than the noises reasonable people make in the presence of unjustified religious beliefs.” ― Sam Harris, Letter to a Christian Nation Quotes by Sam Harris TB: I *LOVE* the last phrase. That's it. Atheists don't sit around and ponder the *lack* of a God the way that many theists sit around and ponder the existence of one. God is simply irrelevant to their lives. *Until* some "believer" tries to get in your face and make it "all about God," that is. Then -- speaking from experience -- one can be tempted to make a few noises to express one's shock and dismay at finding that such archaic ignorance is still being spouted on planet Earth as if it were Truth. The sputtering noises we non-theists make in the presence of rabib theists are a form of laughter. :-) I'll bet his description in his books is how he likes to think of himself. He is a philosopher and neuroscientist (his BA and PHD and the Co-counder and CEO of Project Reason, a nonprofit foundation devoted to spreading scientific knowledge and secular values in society. It will be interesting to see if he includes his long time meditating in his description of his upcoming book as one of his credentials. Letter to a Christian Nation Quotes by Sam Harris 35 quotes from Letter to a Christian Nation: ‘The president of the United States has claimed, on more than one occasion, to be in dialogue with God. If h... View on www.goodreads.com Preview by Yahoo From:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of TurquoiseBee Sent: Wednesday, May 7, 2014 12:57 PM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Note to Rick Conderning his interview with Sam Harris From:Rick Archer <rick@...> From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of steve.sundur@... Rick, I am glad the interviews are gaining a wider audience. I think they deserve that. I chuckled to myself though as I read your preparations for the interview. The thought that popped into my head was, "Does he think he is interviewing God?" I'm just a crazy SOB. Me too. I don’t prepare for all interviews so thoroughly. Don’t have the time. But Harris would be a challenge, and a real opportunity if properly prepared for. I, for one, will be looking forward to your interview. I agree with the delurking poster who described Harris as one of the most interesting minds on the planet at this point. It will be really, really interesting to see the two of you interact, and exchange views. I can only imagine that the experience will be a wonderful one for both of you, and for us, getting to share it via video. Thanks. How would you (and Curtis & others) describe Harris in a word or a phrase? I see him referred to as an “atheist”, but from what I’ve read so far, that characterization is very inadequate. My impression of him so far is that everything should stand the test of actual experience, but he’s open to the possibility that experience is not limited to the obvious and mundane. So maybe he’s an agnostic, open to the possibility that God can be experienced.
