Friday, March 26, 2010

Sam Harris: Why We Should Ditch Religion | CNN


March 25, 2010 on CNN
For the world to tackle truly important problems, people have to stop looking to religion to guide their moral compasses, the philosopher Sam Harris told CNN
Read more
(Thanks Dwayne)

14 comments:

  1. <span>Reason and Beyond<span><span><span><span>Reason is perfectly capable of knowing the superficial, but it cannot dive deep into the depths. It knows only how to swim on the surface. Reason is perfectly good as far as the journey OUTWARDS is concerned, but it is utterly impotent as far as the journey inwards is concerned.Reason is good and adequate if you want to know about matter. But it is utterly incapable if you want to know anything about consciousness. Reason can measure, but consciousness is immeasurable.Reason can weigh, but consciousness has no weight. Reason can see, but consciousness is invisible. Reason has the five senses as its servants, but consciousness is BEHIND the five senses. You cannot touch it, you cannot smell it, you cannot taste it, you cannot hear it, you cannot see it: it is BEHIND the five senses. You cannot touch it, you cannot smell it, you cannot taste it, you cannot hear it, you cannot see it: it is behind these five windows of the senses which open towards the outside.You can see the sunlight, but you cannot see your inner light with your eyes. You can hear the birds singing, but you cannot hear your own heart singing.Reason is capable of measuring. That’s how the word ‘matter’ came into existence. ‘Matter’ means that which can be measured; ‘measurable’ is the meaning of the word ‘matter’. Reason measures, so whatsoever can be caught in the trap of reason is matter.But there are things which are immeasurable. How to measure love? How to measure consciousness? The immeasurable is there. But if you insist that you will use only reason to know it, then you will remain ignorant of the immeasurable. Then you will remain ignorant of God.</span></span></span></span></span>

    ReplyDelete
  2. <span><span>Reason is perfectly capable of knowing the superficial, but it cannot dive deep into the depths. It knows only how to swim on the surface. Reason is perfectly good as far as the journey OUTWARDS is concerned, but it is utterly impotent as far as the journey inwards is concerned.Reason is good and adequate if you want to know about matter. But it is utterly incapable if you want to know anything about consciousness. Reason can measure, but consciousness is immeasurable.Reason can weigh, but consciousness has no weight. Reason can see, but consciousness is invisible. Reason has the five senses as its servants, but consciousness is BEHIND the five senses. You cannot touch it, you cannot smell it, you cannot taste it, you cannot hear it, you cannot see it: it is BEHIND the five senses. You cannot touch it, you cannot smell it, you cannot taste it, you cannot hear it, you cannot see it: it is behind these five windows of the senses which open towards the outside.You can see the sunlight, but you cannot see your inner light with your eyes. You can hear the birds singing, but you cannot hear your own heart singing.Reason is capable of measuring. That’s how the word ‘matter’ came into existence. ‘Matter’ means that which can be measured; ‘measurable’ is the meaning of the word ‘matter’. Reason measures, so whatsoever can be caught in the trap of reason is matter.But there are things which are immeasurable. How to measure love? How to measure consciousness? The immeasurable is there. But if you insist that you will use only reason to know it, then you will remain ignorant of the immeasurable. Then you will remain ignorant of God.</span></span>

    ReplyDelete
  3. <span><span><span><span>Reason is perfectly capable of knowing the superficial, but it cannot dive deep into the depths. It knows only how to swim on the surface. Reason is perfectly good as far as the journey OUTWARDS is concerned, but it is utterly impotent as far as the journey inwards is concerned.Reason is good and adequate if you want to know about matter. But it is utterly incapable if you want to know anything about consciousness. Reason can measure, but consciousness is immeasurable.Reason can weigh, but consciousness has no weight. Reason can see, but consciousness is invisible. Reason has the five senses as its servants, but consciousness is BEHIND the five senses. You cannot touch it, you cannot smell it, you cannot taste it, you cannot hear it, you cannot see it: it is BEHIND the five senses. You cannot touch it, you cannot smell it, you cannot taste it, you cannot hear it, you cannot see it: it is behind these five windows of the senses which open towards the outside.You can see the sunlight, but you cannot see your inner light with your eyes. You can hear the birds singing, but you cannot hear your own heart singing.Reason is capable of measuring. That’s how the word ‘matter’ came into existence. ‘Matter’ means that which can be measured; ‘measurable’ is the meaning of the word ‘matter’. Reason measures, so whatsoever can be caught in the trap of reason is matter.But there are things which are immeasurable. How to measure love? How to measure consciousness? The immeasurable is there. But if you insist that you will use only reason to know it, then you will remain ignorant of the immeasurable. Then you will remain ignorant of God.</span></span></span></span>

    ReplyDelete
  4. Socrates? LOL @ all the psychobabble

    ReplyDelete
  5. I'm sorry, but... What?

    ReplyDelete
  6. @Socrates:  Your comment looks like one of of those spam e-mails where the spam software tries to get past Bayesean filters by randomly pasting together English words in syntactically correct patterns but without any regard to the semantics.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I just submitted Socrates' comment to Fundies say the Darndest Things.  (http://www.fstdt.com/)

    ReplyDelete
  8. <span>GOD certainly is not a hypothesis.
    A hypothesis can only be part of an objective science. You can experiment upon it, you can dissect it, analyze it.
    That’s what Karl Marx has argued: ”unless God is proved in a scientific lab, I am not going to accept him.” What Karl Marx is saying is that, ”I can accept God as a hypothesis, but a hypothesis is not a truth. It has yet to be proved, and the proof has to be scientific.”
    But if God is put into a scientific lab, in a test tube, and dissected, analyzed, and we know all the constituents that make God, will it be the God who created the world? And if Marx is going to accept God only then, that means God has to be reduced into a thing.
    Then what would be the difficulty in manufacturing God? Once you have analyzed all the constituents of God, all the chemicals, then there is no problem. Get your discovery patented, and start manufacturing God. But that manufactured God will not be the God you are asking about.
    God is not a hypothesis, cannot be a hypothesis, because the very word hypothesis takes the ground from beneath His feet. God is not to be proved. If science has to prove God then the scientist becomes higher than God. The poor God will be just like a white rat. So you play around and make boxes, and God moves from one box to another, and you find out how much intelligence God has.</span>

    ReplyDelete
  9. Socrates, sorry if it was implied but which 'god' are you referring to? From your message it seems you believe in a single one. Which one is "He"? There are so many to choose from!

    ReplyDelete
  10. Socrates = Word Salad

    ReplyDelete
  11. Everytime I see Sam Harris I think Ben Stiller.  Am I the only one?

    ReplyDelete
  12. This socrates is TOTALLY delusional. WTF's he on?!

    ReplyDelete