PDA

View Full Version : Sam Harris



Sādhaka
11 May 2011, 06:54 AM
Namaste,

I would like to know your views on him. Personally I find his lectures excellent and agree with quite a lot of his points.

For starters, here is one of his speeches:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LpIeJSkLEg

His views on spirituality and eastern culture starts @ 43:00 :)

Eastern Mind
11 May 2011, 07:35 AM
Vannakkam Sadhaka: This is the first time I've heard this name, so I googled it. Now I am wondering what this has to do with Hinduism. Can you elaborate, please.

Aum Namasivaya

Sādhaka
11 May 2011, 07:47 AM
Vannakkam Sadhaka: This is the first time I've heard this name, so I googled it. Now I am wondering what this has to do with Hinduism. Can you elaborate, please.

Aum Namasivaya
Namaste EM,

The way how explains spirituality in scientific and philosophical terms is excellent. He's an Athiest, but his views are much similar to ours. For eg: See how he answers the question why he's biased towards eastern religion :)

Did you see the video?

OM

Sādhaka
11 May 2011, 07:49 AM
PS: Regardless, he discusses about science and spirituality and I find his views interesting, so I guess it's on topic? It doesn't necessarily have to come with the label of our belief does it? :)

OM

mohanty
11 May 2011, 07:50 AM
Haven't watched the video yet. But I do remember him debating with Deepak Chopra on a program called 'The Future of God'. He struck me as a reasonable voice. He is also one of the big names in the western neo-atheism movement along with Dawkins and Hitchens. But he has worked towards researching and popularising meditation in the west.

Not sure what his views are on the Hindu roots of Yoga, but he is on record saying that even "atheism" as a label needs to go, just like religion is.

Sādhaka
11 May 2011, 07:53 AM
Haven't watched the video yet. But I do remember him debating with Deepak Chopra on a program called 'The Future of God'. He struck me as a reasonable voice. He is also one of the big names in the western neo-atheism movement along with Dawkins and Hitchens. But he has worked towards researching and popularising meditation in the west.

Not sure what his views are on the Hindu roots of Yoga, but he is on record saying that even "atheism" as a label needs to go, just like religion is.
Namaste Mohanty,

Exactly. He mentions the same thing in the video. He's just against dogmatic beliefs of religions (especially Abrahamic ones). I like Dawkins and Hitchens as well, but their views are too narrow for my liking when it comes to philosophy/spirituality.

OM

mohanty
11 May 2011, 08:01 AM
I like Dawkins when he sticks to things he knows about. That's biology. Otherwise he comes across as an ignorant bigot, not unlike the ones he claims to be against.

Hitchens is fun though.

mohanty
11 May 2011, 10:23 AM
Okay. Watched the whole thing. Really liked it. Glad to see someone in the Dawkins camp not seeing the world in black and white.

sm78
11 May 2011, 10:28 AM
I went through some of the small clips on him, and needless to say I like what he says. He seems to be on the camp who believe, consciousness can be reduced to the brain, but otherwise seems a very rational, sane and unbiased voice.

I generally instantly like those who put Islamism in the right place before moving on.

PARAM
11 May 2011, 11:10 AM
After reading your post I googled Sam Harris. This is first time I know about him.

Sādhaka
11 May 2011, 11:51 AM
Okay. Watched the whole thing. Really liked it. Glad to see someone in the Dawkins camp not seeing the world in black and white.

Namaste,
I agree, and that's why I like him. Glad to know you liked it. :)

Sādhaka
11 May 2011, 11:53 AM
@sm: Agree :)

@Param: Do watch the video when you get time.

PARAM
11 May 2011, 12:05 PM
Do watch the video when you get time.

The video length is like a movie, such long video, I will hardly get time.

Id better read some articles

Eastern Mind
11 May 2011, 12:29 PM
Vannakkam Sadhaka et al: Basically I'm with Param. I simply don't have time to delve into such things, so I will just trust others on here that the guy is rational.

I'm not particularly rational. Its not blind faith, but I don't see how rationality can explain some of the things I've done in so-called bhakti moments.

Aum Namasivaya

NayaSurya
11 May 2011, 01:04 PM
Some of the things he speaks of come right out of my mouth to my own children! He is certainly kindred kind to me.

Perhaps on of our only difference is that I have had those "mystical/spiritual experiences" he speaks of so I do have that personal proof. I like that he leaves room for these ones who have had such experiences and respects this.

I put the lecture on while crocheting, so I was able to multi task it.:p

Sādhaka
11 May 2011, 11:27 PM
Namaste,
EM & Param, it's absolutely fine. To each his own. We're all seekers of truth and obviously different paths work for different people. :)

NayaSurya, what he speaks of is exactly what we believe, but he explains it in the light of neuroscience.

Glad to know that you liked it :)

OM

maxpsycho
27 May 2011, 07:25 AM
I am a very great admirer of Sam Harris (even had the pleasure of watching his debate live in London and having him sign my copy of The Moral Landscape and The End of Faith).

Actually he was the first of "the four horsemen of atheism" (Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett and Christopher Hitchens) to have his book published, solely on the topic of faith.

If any one is interested - here is the podcast of talk I mentioned - http://soundcloud.com/intelligence2/sam-harris-on-the-science-of

Hope you all like it

Mayank

charitra
27 May 2011, 07:08 PM
Namaste. The western atheist camp gained prominence in recent times only because they have attacked Christianity (and Islam) without any scruples, undoubtedly so many Europeans initially and Americans later joined them and cheered them. The plot thickens. The above 4 mentioned in post #17 vocal atheists gained a huge boost when in his last week’s Guardian interview the acclaimed physicist, Stephen Hawking, declared that ‘heaven is a fairy tale’. As someone said above it is fun to watch Hitchens tearing the evangelists apart on prime time TV . Please google him on youtube when you want to have some free entertainment. Hitchens is now cancer stricken sadly.


They (the atheists) are not new though, as they all admirably acknowledged on their own that ‘they are standing on the tall shoulders of some of the ancestors who had it rough in the past’ (in the hands of euro evangelists of course).Here I must underscore that in Dharmic setting it is an old news, charvakas and nastiks were there all along and in recent times, they call themselves as Indian Rationalist Association


The hindu diaspora has nothing much to worry about atheists, ‘cause when the latter flout the bhakti aspect or even the deities of the hinduism, we can let it pass without interruption and then invite them to debate the advaita philosophy and the ‘pure’ doctrines of the faith. It is the mythology they pick on and attack because mythology for them looks as the weakspot. The much promoted consciousness fits in the realm of ‘oneness of it all’ concept of SD, so we must rightfully draw parallels between advaita and the consciousness concepts. We can then look square in the eye and ask them. ’so fellas, whats new?”.

So therefore the westerners admire atheists as the atheists have dismantled both hell and heaven conclusively, and thus the westerners are free now from the throttling compulsion to tow the line of church. No pastor of substance can declare heaven and hell null and void, he knows he will be excommunicated pronto. Atheists by all means can wean the abrahamics away from the heaven and hell camp and inadvertently toss them towards Hinduism. Good for them!! Shanti.

maxpsycho
28 May 2011, 01:50 AM
Namaste. The western atheist camp gained prominence in recent times only because they have attacked Christianity (and Islam) without any scruples, undoubtedly so many Europeans initially and Americans later joined them and cheered them. The plot thickens. The above 4 mentioned in post #17 vocal atheists gained a huge boost when in his last week’s Guardian interview the acclaimed physicist, Stephen Hawking, declared that ‘heaven is a fairy tale’. As someone said above it is fun to watch Hitchens tearing the evangelists apart on prime time TV . Please google him on youtube when you want to have some free entertainment. Hitchens is now cancer stricken sadly.


They (the atheists) are not new though, as they all admirably acknowledged on their own that ‘they are standing on the tall shoulders of some of the ancestors who had it rough in the past’ (in the hands of euro evangelists of course).Here I must underscore that in Dharmic setting it is an old news, charvakas and nastiks were there all along and in recent times, they call themselves as Indian Rationalist Association


The hindu diaspora has nothing much to worry about atheists, ‘cause when the latter flout the bhakti aspect or even the deities of the hinduism, we can let it pass without interruption and then invite them to debate the advaita philosophy and the ‘pure’ doctrines of the faith. It is the mythology they pick on and attack because mythology for them looks as the weakspot. The much promoted consciousness fits in the realm of ‘oneness of it all’ concept of SD, so we must rightfully draw parallels between advaita and the consciousness concepts. We can then look square in the eye and ask them. ’so fellas, whats new?”.

So therefore the westerners admire atheists as the atheists have dismantled both hell and heaven conclusively, and thus the westerners are free now from the throttling compulsion to tow the line of church. No pastor of substance can declare heaven and hell null and void, he knows he will be excommunicated pronto. Atheists by all means can wean the abrahamics away from the heaven and hell camp and inadvertently toss them towards Hinduism. Good for them!! Shanti.

Charitra you made some interesting points, and I for one agree with you wholeheartedly when it comes to the distinction between the different faiths and beliefs. For example, citing Harris, no one ever need worry about Jain suicide bombers, because the more fanatic they become the less violent they tend to be.

So with the point about the comparison of merits and defects of Abrahamic doctrines against eastern philosophies aside, I would like to bring another concept into this discussion. And that is the idea of defining our terms.

What I mean by that is that when someone says that they are a Christian, you can deduce from that comment that the individual, for example, must believe that Christ came back from the dead three days after being crucified, that he was born of a virgin, that God stopped the sun so that Joshua could finish his battle, that Jonah survived in the belly of a "great fish", that two of every living creature were brought onto an ark by a man named Noah etc, etc. Of course you will get cafeteria Christians who would believe the first two impossibilities and not the rest, for example. However what it means to be a Christian, amongst other things, is to believe that these impossible occurrences did in fact take place.

Similarly what it means to be a Muslim, to define that term, would have to include complete belief in the idea about the meeting between the archangel Gabriel and the possibly epileptic prophet Mohammed in the cave, the constant messaging between God and Mohammed with convenient revelations whenever he needed it, the idea that he alone brought the last revelation from the creator of the universe, the rising of Mohammed to heaven on a winged horse etc.

So my question then would have to be, and it is a sincere query on my part as this forms part of my primary reason for posting on these forums, how do you define the term Hindu and Hinduism? I ask this because the vast number of schools of thought and the elasticity of the affirmations that exist within Hinduism, run the risk of rendering the term irrelevant. So what does it mean to be a Hindu? What tenets must you affirm to be allowed that title? And finally, given the many ideologies within the "umbrella term" Hinduism, many of which are contradictory, how would you surmise the basic tenets?

charitra
28 May 2011, 02:18 PM
What I mean by that is that when someone says that they are a Christian, you can deduce from that comment that the individual, for example, must believe that Christ came back from the dead three days after being crucified, that he was born of a virgin, that God stopped the sun so that Joshua could finish his battle, that Jonah survived in the belly of a "great fish", that two of every living creature were brought onto an ark by a man named Noah etc, etc. Of course you will get cafeteria Christians who would believe the first two impossibilities and not the rest, for example. However what it means to be a Christian, amongst other things, is to believe that these impossible occurrences did in fact take place.

Similarly what it means to be a Muslim, to define that term, would have to include complete belief in the idea about the meeting between the archangel Gabriel and the possibly epileptic prophet Mohammed in the cave, the constant messaging between God and Mohammed with convenient revelations whenever he needed it, the idea that he alone brought the last revelation from the creator of the universe, the rising of Mohammed to heaven on a winged horse etc.

So my question then would have to be, and it is a sincere query on my part as this forms part of my primary reason for posting on these forums, how do you define the term Hindu and Hinduism? I ask this because the vast number of schools of thought and the elasticity of the affirmations that exist within Hinduism, run the risk of rendering the term irrelevant. So what does it mean to be a Hindu? What tenets must you affirm to be allowed that title? And finally, given the many ideologies within the "umbrella term" Hinduism, many of which are contradictory, how would you surmise the basic tenets?

Namaste. In your critique you brought up only the skin-deep mythohistory (no one is sure where history ends and mythology begins) that envelops the belief system and sadly avoided any mention of far more vital skeleton support of said faiths, which is the doctrinal system of the same faiths. Mythohistory supplies mouthwatering feast to the insatiable intellectuals who operate in the level playfield called comparative religion. Any aspect of mythology can be used to tarnish any belief system, thus mythology remains the punch bag regardless of the name of the faith, and Hinduism is no exception. It is a slippery slope and one cannot find place to hide if one elects to propel mythology as one’s mainstay of one’s faith.

For me it is the doctrines like dharma, karma, atman and Brahman, rebirth and moksha that keep my ego under check. Advaita or nondualism is right at the top of the list of hindu thought process, and understandably other hindus may think differently. You questioned diversity element within the hindu fold, I think that won’t compromise the above common doctrinal frame work, sampradayas’ with all their denominational differences notwithstanding.

It is the doctrines that are expected to lead one to one’s salvation or moksha that set apart one faith from the next. Om Shanti.

maxpsycho
29 May 2011, 04:52 AM
Namaste. In your critique you brought up only the skin-deep mythohistory (no one is sure where history ends and mythology begins) that envelops the belief system and sadly avoided any mention of far more vital skeleton support of said faiths, which is the doctrinal system of the same faiths. Mythohistory supplies mouthwatering feast to the insatiable intellectuals who operate in the level playfield called comparative religion. Any aspect of mythology can be used to tarnish any belief system, thus mythology remains the punch bag regardless of the name of the faith, and Hinduism is no exception.

I would like to take this opportunity to clarify, that I am fairly aware and do consider myself at least slightly intelligent enough to be able to distinguish fact from fiction. I agree that there are feats which were in the past considered impossible and, through the rigours of science and advances in technology, are now an everyday fact of life.

However, by definition we are able to classify events as myth or historical. Let me illustrate with an example; the resurrection of Jesus is a core tenet of Christianity, and an occurrence that must be taken to be completely true if the label of Christian is to have any meaning. Now, resurrection of the dead after 3 days with a perfect bodily restoration (except the hands as some Christian scholars love to point out) is something which is a suspension of the natural order. A perfect case can be made as an argument that this is a myth. Same can also be said about the meeting between the archangel Gabriel and the epileptic and psychotic merchant of the middle east who began his death cult in the 7th century that is wreaking havoc on peaceful societies even today.

My point is not to try and find what you call "mythohistorical" anecdotes - those, as you conceded and I agree, can be found a dime a dozen in all faiths. My query was more to the point of what central tenets do you have to hold and believe, often in spite of evidence to the contrary, to be able to merit the badge of Hinduism.


It is a slippery slope and one cannot find place to hide if one elects to propel mythology as one’s mainstay of one’s faith.

I am still trying to understand what you mean by "if one elects to propel mythology as one's mainstay of one's faith" - because as I mentioned earlier, these parables of impossible and downright ridiculous feats constitute, among the majority of doctrines on offer, as the core ideas on which faith is to be based. If you can pick and choose what you want to believe, then a Hindu who calls himself a Christian Muslim is just as right as a Muslim Jain, which reduces these labels and identifiers to meaningless noise.

I can understand how my outlook may seem concentrated on the myths of the religion, except I don't think that the inclusion of myths within religions or the fact that they are so easily available for critique can be attributed as a fault of the non-believers. Remember, when these ideas were introduced around the time when these scriptures were written, they were meant to be taken exactly as they were written. Historically, it would be naive to postulate that the authors of these scriptures wrote them to be scrutinised and evaluated 3000-4000 years later.


For me it is the doctrines like dharma, karma, atman and Brahman, rebirth and moksha that keep my ego under check. Advaita or nondualism is right at the top of the list of hindu thought process, and understandably other hindus may think differently. You questioned diversity element within the hindu fold, I think that won’t compromise the above common doctrinal frame work, sampradayas’ with all their denominational differences notwithstanding.

It is the doctrines that are expected to lead one to one’s salvation or moksha that set apart one faith from the next. Om Shanti.

Would you mind elaborating a little more on the non-dualism point - I may be in error, and would welcome correction, but if I understand it correctly, isn't non-dualism the idea that there is no distinction between the mind and the brain? And therefore, rightly as you said, isn't it completely at odds with the majority hindu teachings, including the concept of the soul or aatman?

charitra
29 May 2011, 10:24 AM
"Let me illustrate with an example; the resurrection of Jesus is a core tenet of Christianity, and an occurrence that must be taken to be completely true if the label of Christian is to have any meaning"

Yes now I see what you mean and agree with you wholeheartedly. Should Christians firm up that it was history and not mythology and they assert myth cannot be implied in any shape or form, then clearly they have shot themselves in the foot, eternally!! Especially in the backdrop where hindus take a position that mythology (as opposed to history) may be the right description for some events which appear super human or miraculous in nature in hindu scriptures. (It is of no use to talk about muslims from my standpoint, so long as we see violence being used as a means of dialogue. Once Saudi establishment permits construction of mandirs and churches, only then we can consider talking about/with them. Till such time they don’t make the cut).

"Would you mind elaborating a little more on the non-dualism point "

Please explore the web, ‘cause it is better to read from various sources on advaita, I may not be as articulate as some scholars who have written about it all over the web. I may inadvertently confuse you on this most important philosophical concept of SD. Most westerners who liked Hinduism were love-struck with the advaita philosophy first and then from there they ventured into Bhakti yoga or maarga. I have a feeling even atheists will look at it favorably. Shanti.

wundermonk
29 May 2011, 11:33 AM
When Western gnu atheists try to engage SD, it will be better for them to first understand what exactly is the God of Hinduism they intend to refute. Otherwise they end up using arguments that are valid against Abrahamics but completely meaningless when applied to SD.

For many Hindus (Dvaitins and Visishtadvaitins) Advaita is atheism.

Per my understanding, Advaitic Brahman can only be comprehended per accidens. Sutra 2 (http://www.swami-krishnananda.org/bs_1/1-1-02.html) of Janmadyadhikaranam of the Brahmasutras defines the Advaitic Brahman completely as that entity that creates, preserves and dissolves the world. Dvaitins and Visishtadvaitins ascribe more direct attributes to Brahman.

Per Advaita, Brahman is impersonal. It doesnt grant wishes and does not take an active role in the day-to-day running of the world. AFAIK, Western gnu atheists are not arguing against such a Brahman. This concept of Brahman is similar to deism which I understand many Western gnu atheists subscribe to themselves.

Now, what is the use of such a Brahman? For that, one would have to *believe* that the purpose of life is to be released from bondage which results in cycles of birth and death. There are many Sadhanas (means/practices) that can help the Hindu achieve this. Advaita focuses on Jnana. Dvaita focuses on Bhakti.

It may also be mentioned that Advaita does not disparage Bhakti, nor does Dvaita disparage Jnana. They each hold that Bhakti or Jnana are useful to progress towards attaining Brahman. They each proclaim that Jnana or Bhakti respectively are the *highest* means of obtaining release from birth/death cycle. So, for me, personally, I find no reason to explicitly hold Jnana or Bhakti as higher than the other since both schools of thought accord respect to both of these forms of Sadhana.

maxpsycho
31 May 2011, 04:19 AM
First of all, I'd like to thank both Charitra and Wundermonk for engaging in this dialogue with me and especially for explaining to me, some of the distinctions between the Dvaita and Advaita philosophies. I just have a few comments and queries around what you mentioned -


When Western gnu atheists try to engage SD, it will be better for them to first understand what exactly is the God of Hinduism they intend to refute. Otherwise they end up using arguments that are valid against Abrahamics but completely meaningless when applied to SD.


Although I agree with the crux of your point here, I think it can be agreed that some of the arguments are fairly uniform against all faiths and religions; primarily the one which is inherent in the distinction between faith and knowledge or fact. By this I mean the idea of basing your knowledge and decisions on unsubstantiated claims that are unsupported by evidence, often in light of contrary scientific evidence.



For many Hindus (Dvaitins and Visishtadvaitins) Advaita is atheism.


I think this very much may be the case that Hindus equate Advaita to atheism, but this may be due to a misconstrual of the idea that atheism is a belief system. Atheism, putting it at it's simplest, refers to the concept of unbelief or lack of belief in the supernatural claims of religion. I'll elaborate on this a little further.


Per my understanding, Advaitic Brahman can only be comprehended per accidens. Sutra 2 (http://www.swami-krishnananda.org/bs_1/1-1-02.html) of Janmadyadhikaranam of the Brahmasutras defines the Advaitic Brahman completely as that entity that creates, preserves and dissolves the world. Dvaitins and Visishtadvaitins ascribe more direct attributes to Brahman.

From what I understand of your comment about the comprehension of "Advaitic Brahman" as being per accidens, it would seem to me that you're referring to the idea that this phenomenon is only accessible through subjective personal experiences. However I would have to argue that these subjective experiences of transcendence are not restricted to any particular faith and the euphoric and numinous sensations that one can experience can be accessed without faith in any deity. Secondly, I would also have to argue that the idea that there exists an entity that creates, preserves and dissolves the world, is a religious belief, and definitely one that requires faith on insufficient evidence.


Per Advaita, Brahman is impersonal. It doesnt grant wishes and does not take an active role in the day-to-day running of the world. AFAIK, Western gnu atheists are not arguing against such a Brahman. This concept of Brahman is similar to deism which I understand many Western gnu atheists subscribe to themselves.

I welcome the distinction that you have drawn here between Advaita and Dvaita; it's demonstrated the difference rather starkly as being deistic and theistic respectively. However I would like to take this opportunity to point out that deism is still a belief system and still one that does not equate with atheism. Albert Einstein was a deist, or more specifically a Spinozist who, as you correctly described, believed in a force that created the universe and left it to its own devices. Nevertheless, the moment that you ascribe the universe to a "creator" of any sort, caring or banal, you have taken up a faith position which is not backed up by any sort of evidence. There is simply no reason to believe that a creator started it all off. And as you rightly mentioned, the theists take this much further by attributing irrelevant trivial attributes to this creator.


Now, what is the use of such a Brahman? For that, one would have to *believe* that the purpose of life is to be released from bondage which results in cycles of birth and death. There are many Sadhanas (means/practices) that can help the Hindu achieve this. Advaita focuses on Jnana. Dvaita focuses on Bhakti.

I appreciate the fact that you agree that, at the end of the day, it all comes down to "belief". Which is my point to begin with - even if there is no evidence for the idea that life is in bondage and needs to be released from it, it is a tenet that must be "believed" in order to be labelled Advaita.

I hope I have done justice to your points and not misrepresented anything that you have said; I would welcome correction if you feel that I may be mistaken anywhere.

wundermonk
03 June 2011, 03:03 AM
(For this post, atheism implies Western-style atheism. Even though Advaita has atheistic strands according to this definition, I will club Advaita with theism - belief in existence of Brahman.)


By this I mean the idea of basing your knowledge and decisions on unsubstantiated claims that are unsupported by evidence, often in light of contrary scientific evidence...Atheism, putting it at it's simplest, refers to the concept of unbelief or lack of belief in the supernatural claims of religion. I'll elaborate on this a little further.

I keep hearing that atheism is a lack of belief in God's existence. I cannot, for the life of me, understand how a lack of belief is different from a belief in the lack of. :o

Could you please elaborate? To me, this lack of belief wording simply seems to be sophism to avoid any burden of proof whatsoever. Keep in mind, that despite centuries of material scientific progress, no one has proved God's non-existence.


However I would have to argue that these subjective experiences of transcendence are not restricted to any particular faith and the euphoric and numinous sensations that one can experience can be accessed without faith in any deity.


I dont disagree. Yet, this does nothing to prove or disprove theism. Advaita, as I pointed out, does NOT believe in deities at all. Also, your quote implicitly seems to suggest that one can compare purely subjective experiences. You didnt do so explicitly. Correct me if I am wrong. If I am wrong (that is, if we cannot compare subjective experiences) then how do you know what subjective experience a theist has?


Secondly, I would also have to argue that the idea that there exists an entity that creates, preserves and dissolves the world, is a religious belief, and definitely one that requires faith on insufficient evidence.

Well, it depends on what evidence you consider valid. What do you think of the following generic cosmological argument:

P1. Every contingent entity has a cause.
P2. The universe is a contingent entity.
C. The universe has a cause.

The cause in C is the creator for theists.

I am fairly certain you will not disagree with P1. You will surely find fault with P2. You will claim that the universe is a brute fact. Can atheists provide a proof of this? Or is such a question disallowed?


Nevertheless, the moment that you ascribe the universe to a "creator" of any sort, caring or banal, you have taken up a faith position which is not backed up by any sort of evidence. There is simply no reason to believe that a creator started it all off. And as you rightly mentioned, the theists take this much further by attributing irrelevant trivial attributes to this creator.


OK. So, yes, you have already disagreed with P2 above. You claim an infinite regress of the universe's existence. (Correct me if I am wrong). Then, I just have to state that there IS evidence that the universe (as we know of it now) started off at the Big Bang a finite time period ago. How do you reconcile your infinite regress with the Big Bang? What caused the Big Bang?


I appreciate the fact that you agree that, at the end of the day, it all comes down to "belief". Which is my point to begin with - even if there is no evidence for the idea that life is in bondage and needs to be released from it, it is a tenet that must be "believed" in order to be labelled Advaita.


Atheism to me is ALSO a belief. To claim that it is not is mere sophism with the idea of avoiding the burden of proof.

Atheists have a tendency to piggy-back on theist arguments using destructive logic to try and negate theistic arguments without providing any positive proof in support of the truth value of their position. Can you provide any positive proof that atheism is true and accurate?

maxpsycho
14 November 2013, 01:54 PM
I keep hearing that atheism is a lack of belief in God's existence. I cannot, for the life of me, understand how a lack of belief is different from a belief in the lack of.
Could you please elaborate? To me, this lack of belief wording simply seems to be sophism...

Hi Wundermunk, firstly let me apologise for the two-year delay in responding to you; I have had a lot on my plate. I thought I’d return to the forum to see what’s been posted and found your reply, so here’s my response (long overdue!).

‘Lack of belief in’ and ‘believing in the lack of’ are indeed two distinct positions. Let me try to explain why.

Having belief in the lack of something assumes that the likelihood of its existence is equal to the likelihood of its non-existence.

While this equivalence sounds neutral it isn’t in and of itself scientific because it does not begin from the position of a null hypothesis.

The null hypothesis for any theory is by definition, that the particular variable in question does not work, does not exist, does not do what we’re investigating etc. And from that point a theory is proven when that variable does do, exist or work.

For example the null hypothesis for a new medication, may be that it is not any more effective than a current selling drug. However through examination and testing, you determine either that your null hypothesis is true, or that the new medication is indeed more effective.

That’s what the lack of belief in refers to. It’s the starting position that one approaches any new phenomena with.

If someone came to you and said that the universe was formed by the sputum of giant raccoon like overlords fighting over the meaning of a galactic rapper’s lyrics; ‘you’ may decide that since this is not disproven, it could be true and therefore anyone who doesn’t believe it has to ‘believe that it isn’t true’.

However that is not the scientific way of verification. Scientifically, when faced with such phenomena, the rational response is to ask the one who’s making the claim, to present evidence to support that claim. Lack of belief in, therefore, is the anti-position to 'belief in'. Belief in the lack of is not the opposite position as it is still a position of belief. (I apologise for my poor eloquence, as I have just had another knockout week at work.


“...Yet, this does nothing to prove or disprove theism. Advaita, as I pointed out, does NOT believe in deities at all. Also, your quote … If I am wrong (that is, if we cannot compare subjective experiences) then how do you know what subjective experience a theist has?”

I’m not suggesting that I know what subjective experience a theist has. In fact, I would go as far as to say, that subjective experiences, by definition are unique, and therefore no two individuals can ever have two indistinguishable experiences. However, by the claims of the religious and non-religious alike, the euphoric experiences of ecstasy or awe, carry with them very similar descriptions, whether the source happens to be religion or a psychotropic drug.



Well, it depends on what evidence you consider valid. What do you think of the following generic cosmological argument:

P1. Every contingent entity has a cause.
P2. The universe is a contingent entity.
C. The universe has a cause.

The cause in C is the creator for theists…. you have already disagreed with P2 above. You claim an infinite regress of the universe's existence. (Correct me if I am wrong). Then, I just have to state that there IS evidence that the universe (as we know of it now) started off at the Big Bang a finite time period ago. How do you reconcile your infinite regress with the Big Bang? What caused the Big Bang?

Ha! One of the things that I have learnt through debating with various religious apologists, is that once the debater reverts to the Kalam cosmological argument, then he or she is on their back legs, and the only last two remaining steps are presuppositionalism, followed closely by, “it’s my faith, and you can’t argue with it’. Let’s dismantle the Kalam argument once and for all.
I actually have a problem with both premises.

Let’s start with P1. Traditionally, it’s stated as “Everything that begins to exist, has a cause”. So let’s start with what your basis is for this first premise.

What is this premise based on? General observation of everyday occurrences is not the best indicator of what happened at the beginning to start of our universe. This is because time as we understand it (and time being the fundamental parameter by which cause and effect have any meaning), only began at the big bang. So to attribute causal mechanisms to a point beyond which we have no idea of how ‘time’ works, is nonsensical.

Secondly, to say that everything that begins to exist has a cause means that there are essentially two sets of things - things that begin to exist and things that don’t begin to exist. Do you know of anything that doesn’t begin to exist? Because if the only entity that doesn’t begin to exist or isn’t contingent, is God, then your argument essentially boils down to – 1. Everything that isn’t God has a cause, 2. Universe isn’t God, 3. Universe has a cause. So unless you have a candidate, in the set of things that don’t begin to exist, that isn’t God, your premise and your argument is circular.

Premise 2 is of course nonsense too. The universe did ‘begin’ at the big bang, but to say that it’s beginning is the same as the production of a car, or the birth of a baby, is to make a knowledge claim that far surpasses the realms of tested scientific knowledge. As I said, no one is yet capable of knowing what happened before the big bang. So no one can make the claim that the universe began the way that we understand limited beginnings. Many physicists have put forward the theory that the universe goes through phases of contraction and expansion, and the big bang is essentially the ‘beginning’ of the next cycle of expansion, which is completely different from the kind of beginning that many link with creation. Remember, that by definition, the universe has always existed for all ‘time’ because time has only existed since the beginning of the universe. What happened ‘before’ is a poorly phrased question unless we understand how time and spatial existence of matter was before the big bang.

Therefore with both premises decimated, the Kalam argument stands, as it has since it was first propounded, naked, meaningless and silly.



Atheism to me is ALSO a belief. To claim that it is not is mere sophism with the idea of avoiding the burden of proof. Atheists have a tendency to piggy-back on theist arguments using destructive logic to try and negate theistic arguments without providing any positive proof in support of the truth value of their position. Can you provide any positive proof that atheism is true and accurate?

If you still think that atheism is a belief, then let’s try the simplest example to illustrate that it’s not sophistry but a real distinction in terms. If I was to claim, that I ‘KNOW’ that god doesn’t exist, then I would be making an unscientific (albeit probably true) claim which would require evidence. However that is not atheism. You cannot prove a negative. Instead atheism is a responsive point of view to belief. In the same way as if somebody today believes in Zeus, and tells me that Zeus indeed exists and was responsible for our creation, I would ask for the evidence, and in light of the lack of any evidence, would resort to the null hypothesis that the claim is not true. As Richard Dawkins puts it, atheism is a 6.9 on a 7 point scale, where 7 is the positive position that there is no God. One cannot make that claim, as one cannot prove a negative. Look for Russell’s teapot if I have expressed myself poorly here.

ShivaFan
14 November 2013, 05:47 PM
Namaste

Here is an old story, hopefully correct.

There was a recluse girl who was born blind. Her parents, who were rich, put her in a cave because they feared the boys of the village would abuse their blind daughter. Her name was Aja, she lived not far from where the lions were. Aja also would make sounds such as "aaaa jaaa" sporatically and uncontrolled.

Every morning, the mother would go to the cave with food and water for the girl. They kept a guard in front of the cave day and night.

One day the father decided the girl now 8 years old needed religious teaching.

The father decided to send 3 teachers, one was a Jain, one was a Buddhist, and one was a Saiva. All three came on the same morning to the cave.

The Jain came in a white robe, and spoke of Jain dharma. The Buddhist came in a yellow robe and spoke of Buddhist dharma. The Saiva came in a saffron robe and spoke of Sanatana dharma.

The girl would sometimes make the sound. But she did listen also. She bowed and touched the feet of each teacher after the lessons, she would feel across the floor of the cave to find their feet.

The father was very pleased and left the girl alone to think.

Then Devi appeared in the cave. It so happened that an ancient murti of Devi was once hidden in the cave at the time of invasion.

She asked the girl, "Can you make me a garment? - I am naked. Give me the robe of one of those 3 men. Which color would I look best in?"

The girl said, "For some reason I can see you. But I could not see the colors of the robes worn by those 3 men. I could only hear their words. Forgive me Goddess, I do not know. But You are a color, I have seen a color for the first time because of You. I do not know it's name, but it is bright."

"Then I will stay naked for now" said the Goddess. "Is it so bright you cannot see Me naked?" She asked.

"Yes, You are that bright!" said Aja.

The guard outside was startled that the girl could speak so plainly. When he looked inside, Aja was with a small old murti in front of her made of blackish stone. Aja then turned and looked at the guard. She was no longer blind. The guard ran to the village to fetch the father.

The father came with the mother in joy to find the girl no longer blind. Hearing of the Goddess from Aja, he solemly brought the murti back to the village to be established in a temple. Everyone was amazed.

The 3 teachers were also given praise. Did their teachings awake the Goddess in the cave?

They heard of the request for one of their robes. Each was willing to give their robe to dress the murti of Devi. But which robe?

This started a big controversy in the village. She asked which color would She look best in. Some said it is white. Others said yellow. Others demanded it was saffron.

Everyone started fighting with each other. Aja volunteered that all three robes would be used. But it would not be. The fighting even started not only between villagers, but even between the 3 teachers.

"She is a Jaina Goddess!" yelled one, "No She is an ancient Hindu Goddess!" another would say, or "She is the Mother of Lord Buddha come to us!" and so on.

So the question was, how to prove what She is, a Jain, a Buddhist or a Hindu?

Aja asked the Goddess, help us to pick which color robe is the best color for You to wear?

She told the villagers, "I will wear the robe with the brightest color!" - All 3 teachers heard this reply from the Goddess as clear as the birds singing.

Then all 3 teachers slowly started to say things like, "Oh white is brighter than saffron and yellow" or "saffron is brightest and seen first from a distance", or "the Sun is the brightest, and the Sun is yellow" and things like that.

Prove which robe is the brightest, asked Aja to them.

So they went back to the cave with the 3 robes. They then ordered the guard to cover the entrance to the cave so it would leave only the 3 teachers and Aja in darkness.

Which robe would shine in the darkness?

But the proof failed. In the dark, all three robes were the same.

When they opened the door and went out, they were sad. They knew it was beyond their ability to say which robe was the brightest. Their eyes could not see in the dark. Nothing could be proven to them without the ability to see which color was the most bright. They had no such eyes.

So they dressed Her in black. Just like the cave.

Om Namah Sivaya

maxpsycho
15 November 2013, 03:53 AM
Shivafan, I'm not sure what the relevance of this anecdote is to the topic being discusssed (apart from maybe being an indictment of cruel parents who decided to leave their blind girl in a cave - a surefire solution apparently for childhood bullying).

Sudas Paijavana
15 November 2013, 09:19 AM
Namaste,

I have read two of Harris' books. I have found them to be well-written, and strong in reason.

Jaskaran Singh
15 November 2013, 07:24 PM
Namaste,

I have read two of Harris' books. I have found them to be well-written, and strong in reason.

Wow MV, I never thought you were the type of person who would like Sam Harris. In my opinion, the majority of his views are far too extreme and much of his rhetoric verges on propaganda. My personal favorite anti-theist is Daniel Dennett, and I still disagree with him on quite a few issues.

Sudas Paijavana
15 November 2013, 07:38 PM
Wow MV, I never thought you were the type of person who would like Sam Harris. In my opinion, the majority of his views are far too extreme and much of his rhetoric verges on propaganda. My personal favorite anti-theist is Daniel Dennett, and I still disagree with him on quite a few issues.

Pranam-s,

I don't know who in the world this "MV" fella is, but I do enjoy reading Harris' work.

Sahasranama
16 November 2013, 06:49 AM
I don't like Sam Harris, he is an idiot. He likes to use Jainism as an example of a peaceful religion, but the pacifist attitude of Jainism has done India more harm than the aggression of Christianity and Islam combined. Jainism has weakened India's kshAtra dharma from the inside. He is like the many westerners who are into meditation, but don't understand the traditional purpose of the practice.

Sudas Paijavana
16 November 2013, 07:12 AM
but the pacifist attitude of Jainism has done India more harm than the aggression of Christianity and Islam combined. Jainism has weakened India's kshAtra dharma from the inside.

Pranam-s,

Extremely, extremely, extremely interesting...

In fact, I used the same argument not too long ago. But, unfortunately, I was lambasted right away, for I carelessly hurt the sensitivities of a certain syncretist (cough you-know-who-you-are cough). :p

maxpsycho
18 November 2013, 04:00 AM
I don't like Sam Harris, he is an idiot. He likes to use Jainism as an example of a peaceful religion, but the pacifist attitude of Jainism has done India more harm than the aggression of Christianity and Islam combined. Jainism has weakened India's kshAtra dharma from the inside. He is like the many westerners who are into meditation, but don't understand the traditional purpose of the practice.

Saharanama, I am impressed that only you, it seems, knows what the traditional purpose of meditation is.

Nevertheless, I think you misunderstand Sam Harris' argument when he talks about Jainism. His point isn't that 'Jainism is good' - his underlying point is that overall when compared, Jainism is pacifist, as you agree, and therefore is unable to be violent in the same way as Christianity and Islam. Therefore the more fundamental you are as a Jain, the less likely you are to attack and kill anyone in the name of Jainism. He isn't arguing that any religion is good. The central theme of his books is that religion at its core is not good as it demands that we abandon thought in favour of belief.

Sahasranama
18 November 2013, 12:15 PM
Saharanama, I am impressed that only you, it seems, knows what the traditional purpose of meditation is. I did not say that I am the only one who knows the traditional purpose. The traditional purpose of meditation in the Indic traditions has always been liberation from the cycles of birth and death. Modern atheists only use meditation for psychological reasons.


Nevertheless, I think you misunderstand Sam Harris' argument when he talks about Jainism. His point isn't that 'Jainism is good' - his underlying point is that overall when compared, Jainism is pacifist, as you agree, and therefore is unable to be violent in the same way as Christianity and Islam. Therefore the more fundamental you are as a Jain, the less likely you are to attack and kill anyone in the name of Jainism. He isn't arguing that any religion is good. The central theme of his books is that religion at its core is not good as it demands that we abandon thought in favour of belief.Please stop talking out of your behind. Sam Harris has clearly stated that a spread of Jainism is beneficial. He says, "A rise of Jain fundamentalism would endanger no one. In fact, the uncontrollable spread of Jainism throughout the world would improve our situation immensely"

maxpsycho
18 November 2013, 12:27 PM
I did not say that I am the only one who knows the traditional purpose. The traditional purpose of meditation in the Indic traditions has always been liberation from the cycles of birth and death. Modern atheists only use meditation for psychological reasons.

I'd have to argue that the resulting effect is psychological whether you're an atheist or not.


Please stop talking out of your behind. Sam Harris has clearly stated that a spread of Jainism is beneficial. He says, "A rise of Jain fundamentalism would endanger no one. In fact, the uncontrollable spread of Jainism throughout the world would improve our situation immensely"

Please refrain from using gutter language - you don't have to reveal the level of your upbringing just because you're passionate about a topic. Secondly, your issue comes from 'quote mining'. Here again, the point he's referring to is the fact that fundamental Jainism is at it's core pacifist. Meaning that if everyone decided to become fundamentally non-violent to the extreme, overnight, of course the human condition would be improved dramatically. I'm not sure what issue any thinking human can have with that position.