Sam Harris - Believing the Unbelievable

[naomi24]

Not a question, but I thought some in R&S would be interested in seeing this. It addresses the conflict between faith and today's world. (Make a cup of tea before you click the link - the video is 1 hour 9 minutes of total rationality. Good stuff).

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-67343 21991450996691&ei=oOyTScGWMoT0-wHVlK2aDA&q=sam +harris&hl=en

[naomi24]

By the way, I'd be interested to read any thoughts on it.

[Booldawg]

naomi - I notice as an agnostic you post in R and S fairly regularly. Are you trying to sway the beleivers or is it an inner struggle?

[naomi24]

I'm not an agnostic, there's no inner struggle, and I don't specifically aim to sway anyone, Booldawg. I post in R&S because I'm interested in religion, its history, and the psychology of religion. I've studied the subject for years.
It's my passion - or one of them at least. ;o)

[jake-the-peg]

I think a criminologist can be interested in murders without killing anyone .

A psyciatrist doesn't have to be psychotic to practice.

Having a background in science which is almost entirely dependant on rational thought, people who take an irrational approach are interesting.

Unless you think that religion is rational

[naomi24]

^^An excellent assessment, if I may say so.

[Octavius]

Do you also share his view of the rationality of torture?

[mibn2cweus]

Perhaps one should go to the source for any necessary explanations of or justification for their views.

[mibn2cweus]

Perhaps in the case of some who have difficulties with grasping the overall picture and its implications it might be helpful to note that it is faith based religious ideologies that have plunged us into this dark corner where the answers to very ugly questions must be considered and contemplated in preparation for dealing with the inevitable consequences of those acting on behalf of irrational beliefs.

[Octavius]

there are extreme circumstances in which I believe that practices like �water-boarding� may not only be ethically justifiable, but ethically necessary

You agree with that?

[Octavius]

So you do agree with his stance on torture and waterboarding then.

[jake-the-peg]

ROPER: So now you'd give the devil the benefit of law?
MORE: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the devil?

ROPER: I'd cut down every tree in England to do that.

MORE: Oh, and when the last law was down and the devil turned on you where would you hide, Roper, all the laws being flat? This country is planted thick with laws from coast to coast, man's laws not God's, and if you cut them down - and you're just the man to do it - do you really think that you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the devil the benefit of the law, for my own safety's sake.



Robert Bolt - a man for all seasons

[Octavius]

Wizz, I never said I agreed or disagreed, I was asking you et al.

If it can be justified by anyone who wants or needs to use torture, then that must be alright then, eh. That�s rational.

[mibn2cweus]

I think the point is that such should never become necessary and if it did than who do we have to blame for our lack of foresight and preparedness? Kill the disease and there will be no patients.

[Octavius]

Wizzy old chum, just curious is all and keeping the fashionable theme of �rational� going.

�You didn't have to did you, you infer your disagreement.�
Where have I inferred my disagreement? I have not inferred my views either way. Are you being irrational?

I see that you haven�t given an alternative to extracting information from a terrorist that could save innocent lives? Again, is it MORE rational to just sit back and let religious fundies plant bombs?

I imagine Henry�s torturers and the Inquisitors would have felt they were acting for the greater good as well. Is it merely a mater of quantum, as you refer to dozens and hundreds? What about if it was just one person?

Are there any actual events documented that prove information extracted under torture is correct, and where it has been used (not Hollywood) to save hundreds of lives? Seriously, I would like to see evidence of where torture has worked.

How do you determine �extreme� and convey that level of torture justification to your adversaries, so that everyone is clear about what is ok and what isn�t? There are those in the Middle East that believe hundreds of innocent lives are at risk from the Allied Forces, is it ok for them to use torture against soldiers who they suspect might know something?

Just curious is all.

[Octavius]

soz about the italics.

[mibn2cweus]

Octavius, Good questions, perhaps worthy in their own right to a relevant thread. Sam Harris does not advocate what he foresees and we have all witnessed is the inevitable consequence of a tacit tolerance of/for blind faith.