Thanks for going into so much depth Judy. I wrote out a response from
my point of view, but I want to take another look at Sam's discussion
from your point of view if I can get there through my own biases of
thinking. Good exercise and not too easy! This is is a great
discussion.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
> <curtisdeltablues@> wrote:
> >
> > Sam Harris is such a great conversation starter!
> >
> > I think my statement was an epistemological assessment of the
> > claim that one can have a subjective experience that can then
> > make you confident that you "know" that Jesus is Lord". Of
> > course people do it all the time. But in the systems of modern
> > epistemology that I studied, this connection is not valid.
>
> But again, is that not an epistemological claim
> ("this connection is not valid") that you can't
> possibly back up? In that sense, what's the
> difference between the claim that Jesus is Lord
> and the epistemological claim that the first
> claim isn't valid?
>
> > If you are a pure rationalist or even a solipsist, you can make this
> > case, but neither of those positions have survived as supportable
> > philosophical positions for decades.
>
> Solipsism--in the broader sense I mentioned earlier,
> that we have no empirical means of determining whether
> there's really anything "out there" that exists
> independently of our minds--is irrefutable. It
> doesn't *require* any support; it's an obvious fact.
>
> What is *not* an obvious fact is the claim that there
> *is* nothing "out there." It's important to make that
> distinction.
>
> > They do continue in the form of
> > archaic philosophies like the Vedic tradition.
>
> Actually, a number of researchers and philosophers
> struggling with the question of consciousness make
> the observation I just made above.
>
> Perhaps my statement
> > lacked a bit of the humility that I claimed was needed! I think
> Sam's
> > point is that cultures that follow this type of philosophical
> > tradition need the same epistemological oil change that has
> dominated
> > the development of liberal democracies.
>
> But let's make sure we're not changing it for oil
> that doesn't have the qualities we think it does.
>
> These ideas need to be
> > challenged the same way we challenge a claim that someone is
> selling a
> > magic pill that keeps you from ever dying.
>
> How would you challenge the claim I made above, that
> there is no empirical means of determining whether
> there's anything "out there"?
>
> That's where epistemological humility has to begin,
> it seems to me. If we take the independent existence
> of "out there" as an axiom, something we "know," it
> throws all the rest of the epistemological exercise
> in question.
>
> It is taboo in society to
> > challenge the basis on which someone asserts that they "know" that
> > Jesus is Lord., and even worse, what that means about how other
> > people should behave.
>
> As far as I'm concerned, the first belief (or any of
> its competitors) is inarguable. As to the second, a
> person's belief that they should get to determine how
> I should behave is likewise inarguable *as a belief*,
> but they're going to have a very hard time implementing
> it, because I'm going to resist it with all my might.
>
> > I think we are shaped by the religious societies that we live
> > in. I don't know how that influence could be avoided by a child
> > not raised by wolves.
>
> Well, of course. But that doesn't necessarily
> mean that it's the *only* influence. As I said,
> I think it's quite wrong for Harris to insist
> that Sullivan must have picked up his initial
> belief in God from that source. He may well have,
> but Harris can't possibly *know* that.
>
> Try this: go back over some of Harris's posts
> and see how many statements he makes that he
> can't back up in the way he insists Sullivan
> should be able to back up his. There are quite
> a few of them.
>
