Sam Harris, author of The End of Faith and Letter to a Christian Nation, talks to Bill Maher on Real Time:
A reasonable blog on atheism, religion, science and skepticism
Follow Patheos
Atheist:
Subscribe through RSS
Follow Patheos on
Faith Channels
Religion Library
Topics
Resources
Copyright 2008-2012, Patheos. All rights reserved. Terms of Service | Patheos Privacy Policy
The Tiger Woods of compassion: So on the leader board Jesus is holding strong at 11 under but Buddha is only three back with two holes to go. Now down to the fairway at 17 where Bapu Gandhi is about to tee off. :)
He’s so cool.
Actually, I like the idea of young people “breaking in” to atheism.
I thought Maher didn’t quite give Harris enough time to work through his thoughts. And I wonder how many people in the studio audience, who love Maher, are a little uncomfortable when he bashes religion (I’m totally comfortable with it).
When I listen to Sam Harris talk about Francis Collins, I feel like Daniel does in his recent post about dealing with nutjobs.
For someone who by his own admission has never been religious, he makes incredible claims about what religious people can and cannot do, such as keeping religious beliefs from “tainting” research, especially when by all counts, Collins is a wonderful administrator and brilliant scientists (ignoring evidence because of an assumption — sound familiar?). And every time I hear him talk/write about the issue, the only objection he has against Collins is that Collins is religious. He’s religious; therefore, he cannot be a good scientist.
Religious fundamentalists scare the atheists on this board, and for good reason.
Sam Harris scares me, and for good reason. He wants to eject religious people from public discourse simply because they are religious. I fail to see how a reasonable person can buy that line of rationalized discrimination.
But, at least phrankygee will like the fact that these two blokes think religion is a disorder; it will lend some credence to his theory.
I like Harris, but disagree with him about Collins. Basically what Harris is suggesting is religious discrimination — not hiring him because he’s a particular religion. Unless it can be shown than his beliefs are causing him to do poorly at his job, it shouldn’t be an issue.
I would even go so far as to say that the example that he gave in this interview is spurious. I don’t see how he can conclude that a belief that God directed the evolution of morality automatically prevents a (non-fundamentalist) Christian who is a scientist from being curious about the actual physical and social mechanisms, or an administrator from funding such research.
If God did interject morality, God would have injected it through the process of evolution (namely, the evolution of the brain).
Mogg wrote: > I don’t see how he can conclude that a belief that God directed the evolution of morality automatically prevents a (non-fundamentalist) Christian who is a scientist from being curious about the actual physical and social mechanisms, or an administrator from funding such research.“After evolution had prepared a sufficiently advanced ‘house’ (the human brain), God gifted humanity with the knowledge of good and evil (the moral law), with free will, and with an immortal soul.”
Again, according to Collins, morality did NOT, evolve. It was gifted to humans only after our brains evolved.
Your mind is closed, Mogg – you are only capable of believe what you want to believe.
brgluker wrote:
“If God did interject morality, God would have injected it through the process of evolution (namely, the evolution of the brain).”
But not according to Francis Collins, who has said in public, “After evolution had prepared a sufficiently advanced ‘house’ (the human brain), God gifted humanity with the knowledge of good and evil (the moral law), with free will, and with an immortal soul.”
So you disagree with Collins.
@Dave
I was not speaking of Collins specifically. He may have said that, but that doesn’t mean that I agree with him. In fact I don’t. Nevertheless, I fail to see why a scientist who happens to be a Christian need automatically to be assumed to be a bad scientist, or a bad administrator of science research. Surely it would be perfectly legitimate for a Christian’s thought process in science to go “goddidit…but how?” I only have a problem with those who stop at “goddidit”. Certainly, I would have serious concerns about that kind of Christian being in the position to administer public research funds.
Incidentally, how do you conclude that I am closed-minded?
Surely it would be perfectly legitimate for a Christian’s thought process in science to go “goddidit…but how?”
That’s the wrong way around as a large and basically untestable premise is already part of the equation.
And yet, most of the foundations of science were established by men (and women) who said exactly that to themselves. And they seemed to do OK.
Prove it, Jabster. If your assumption is correct, then religious scientists should be bad scientists because of the religion and their religion only.
@Jabster
I don’t see how it is any worse than any of the other assumptions that each and every individual brings to the scientific process. Everyone has assumptions which may or may not affect the quality of their work as a scientist. The test should be whether they are doing consistent good science, not whether their world-view is ideologically correct.
I must admit, though, having looked further down the thread, that I’d probably be a bit concerned if my country’s chief scientist genuinely did think that God stopped human evolution and inserted a moral sense at some point. That’s a bit weird.
@Mogg
The point is if the answer is “goddit” to start with and this assumption may not be removed no matter the evidence it’s the wrong way to look at something. Making an assumption is fine and is the right way to start. Making an assumption that you will not change is not.
@brgulker
Did I say that it makes a bad scientist, no I said it’s the wrong way around. Stop reading something into comments that is not there — TBH it sounds as though you are playing the stop persecuting Christians card.
Do you think that starting with goddidit is the right way to look at a problem?
@Jabster
What I’m not understanding is how such an auxiliary hypothesis is relevant, since it doesn’t seem in any way to impact the actual practice of doing science. In what way does a scientist’s methodology or data analysis change because they do or do not believe in one or more deities (or none at all)? Starting with “goddidit” seems simply a metaphysical speculation, no more or less methodologically efficacious than starting with “random collisions of matter did it”, which is also an unnecessary metaphysical hypothesis in order to do the vast majority of science.
It’s not scientific expertise that would be a problem. People who believe irrational things can still do good science. That’s the wonderful thing about compartmentalization. The problem comes in decision making and deciding what directions scientific research should go. This is where the belief system becomes critical. Look at what has happened with stem cell research.
Jabster,
I’m not “playing a card,” so to speak. But there are at least hints of discrimination in Harris’ argument and tone throughout this entire broader conversation.
In my view, one’s starting point is irrelevant; you’re making a moot point over and over again and insisting it’s important.
I’m with Elemenope:
As an example, Collins believes that evolution is the method God has used to bring life into the universe. He is interested in studying it because he believes he learns more about God and the process through which God created. That has absolutely no bearing on his ability to do good science; in fact, an argument could be made that a person with said set of assumptions might work even harder, be more passionate, and be more diligent as a result of that set of assumptions.
And I still want to see you (and Harris) prove that Collins’ body of work disqualifies him from this position. Evidence, please.
@brgulker
Yes you are “playing the card” because you utterly failed to answer anything in my post. Yes I get it that you see persecution of Christians at every corner but if you happened to actually read my post then you will see this is not what I posted.
I’m not sure what post you’re talking about or how you think I didn’t respond, because I definitely did.
You said,
I responded by agreeing with Elemenope.
If all I had said for this entire thread was, “Harris doesn’t like Collins because Collins is a Christian,” then perhaps I would be playing a card. But I haven’t done that. I’ve explained exactly why I think Harris’ assumptions about religious are affecting his judgment. That’s not playing a card; that’s making an argument.
If you’re referring to my “prove it” comment, then all I meant was your premise has validity. If it’s a problem to think that God is the cause of evolution, for example, then you should be able to demonstrate why that is a problem — and not just theoritically, but concretely. How does believing that God is the force behind evolution taint geological or biological research? How does believing that morality comes from God interfere with research into the human brain?
I really would like to know how that’s the case in actually scientific practice, because so far, all I’ve heard from Harris et al is speculation and conjecture.
So, that’s what I meant with, “prove it.”
If you’re referring to my “prove it” comment, then all I meant was your premise has validity.
*you should be able to demonstrate that your premise has validity…
Yes and I was responding to Mogg’s post in general terms and your comment
“Prove it, Jabster. If your assumption is correct, then religious scientists should be bad scientists because of the religion and their religion only.”
To which I posted:
“Did I say that it makes a bad scientist, …”
Of course you then ignored this and went back to Collins, Collins, Collins …
No, you misunderstand.
You made an assertion (the wrong way around) but failed to explain why or what the consequences of getting it “the wrong way around” actually has in real life science.
The reason I’m coming back to Collins is because that what’s the thread’s about, and I’ve read your comments in that context. In other words, Collins has it the “wrong way around” and is therefore worthy of being opposed.
Why? Shouldn’t a person making that claim be able to demonstrate why it has validity? I just want an example. Why is science in general (and/or Collins specifically) worse off by necessity (which is your argument) for getting it backwards?
“Prove it, Jabster. If your assumption is correct, then religious scientists should be bad scientists because of the religion and their religion only.”
To which I posted:
“Did I say that it makes a bad scientist, …”
So please reply to the actual question instead of going of on the all Christians are persecuted route …
“The reason I’m coming back to Collins is because that what’s the thread’s about, and I’ve read your comments in that context. In other words, Collins has it the “wrong way around” and is therefore worthy of being opposed.”
Even though you replied in general terms, yeh right?
@Jabster
I wonder if you and I might be talking about different areas of assumptions. I’m meaning the kind of assumption that Elemenope is saying – a general worldview that doesn’t necessarily have much bearing on the specific scientific question at hand, which makes ‘goddidit’ the equivalent of ‘random collisions of matter did it’. If you’re prepared to ask how, and follow the evidence (which historically is hard for everyone, not just religious types), I don’t see a problem. Of course I have a problem with the attitude “I think God did this, and I’m going to find evidence to prove it!” But I don’t think that a scientist believing in God is automatically more of a problem for the scientific method than a scientist believing that he or she has a lucky pair of socks.
@Mogg
I agree with you but this doesn’t mean that “godditit” is the right or useful place to start. If may have no bearing on the outcome and I’ve never stated that believers can’t be good scientists. Unfortunately this seems to be how some people have taken my comment.
@Jabster
I think we probably agree with each other, then.
@Mogg
The beauty of communication via blog comments! I’m sure there should be some rules somewhere on how to communciate well when it’s not face to face.
@Jabster
Ahh, the wonders of the internetz. *grin*
Mogg wrote: “I was not speaking of Collins specifically. ”
Yes you were. Here’s what you wrote:
“I would even go so far as to say that the example that he gave in this interview is spurious. I don’t see how he can conclude that a belief that God directed the evolution of morality automatically prevents a (non-fundamentalist) Christian who is a scientist from being curious about the actual physical and social mechanisms”
You were specifically commenting on Collins’ claim that a god created morality.
But that’s not what Harris actually said, so you’ve got a double fail. Harris was commenting that Collins rejects the evolution of morality out of hand, and claims it has a supernatural basis.
“Incidentally, how do you conclude that I am closed-minded?”
When you claim this:
‘I only have a problem with those who stop at “goddidit”.’
You’ve leaped to a conclusion before examining the evidence, when someone with an open mind would work it the other way around. That you’re not aware of your closed-mindedness is an indication that you’ve been brain-washed.
@Dave
Er, no. I was saying that Sam Harris’s example of a disqualifier is spurious, not that I agree with Collins. And as I later said, if Collins’ opinion on the matter really is as it has been stated, ie that God stopped human evolution at some point in order to insert a moral law, then yes, I would be watching carefully because that does set off some alarm bells with me. Not enough for me to say he shouldn’t have the job, because so far in his career he apparently has a very good record in administration. But enough for me to watch to see how he funds neuroscience and psychology, and (given that I’m not American), hope that someone calls him on it if he allows that bias to affect his funding decisions.
However, that would be the same for any senior administrator of science funding. Nobody gets to such a position completely unbiased, and I would be hoping that people would call any such powerful administrator out for leaning towards their bias, whatever it is. I just don’t think that a religious bias should be treated any differently from any other.
I’m not sure how you get from me stating that I don’t mind if scientists have a personal religious belief provided that it doesn’t stop them doing good science, to the idea that I’m close-minded. I may well be, but your argument is unclear. I’m also not sure what conclusion I’m supposed to have leapt to, apart from the one where I’m uncomfortable with the idea of automatically assuming that all religious people are unsuitable for science careers (which is a considerably more general statement than Harris’s specific comment on Colllins, and I suppose could be taken as a large extrapolation). Of course I have a problem with the ‘goddidit’ crowd – the YEC’s and ID’s are severely deluded, and it mystifies me that anyone would want to stop with either ‘goddidit’ or ‘it just is, stop asking questions’. However, many non-extreme Christians I have met are not nutjobs, and so I am uncomfortable with non-religious types automatically assuming that all Christians/Muslims/Hindus/whatevers are unsuitable for a career in science or science administration. I am fully aware of having been brainwashed in the past, having been a member of a church that was a borderline cult, and am doing my best to undo it. Which is not much different from many other regular posters here.
“What I’m not understanding is how such an auxiliary hypothesis is relevant, since it doesn’t seem in any way to impact the actual practice of doing science.”
Nope you’re right I can’t think of any examples of believing in gods or gods has effected science. Can you?
Nope you’re right I can’t think of any examples of believing in gods or gods has affected science. Can you?
I can’t think of any modern examples where a scientist believing in god or gods has affected their science without also making them an objectively bad scientist. We’ve already established that he’s a good scientist. So, what’s left? In what way does being religious affect a good scientist’s work?
“So, what’s left? In what way does being religious affect a good scientist’s work?”
… yeh what a great question that is. I mean really what sort of answer to you expect to that?
I dunno. That’s why I was asking. :) I mean, I kinda get the sense you’re being sarcastic, but it’s hard to tell in print and if you are, the implied argument isn’t making much sense to me. If you aren’t, then I agree, there isn’t a very good answer to that question so far as I can see.
@Elemenope
Me being sarcastic never … the comment was refering to the “good scientist” part. If they are a good scientist then be definition it shouldn’t be a problem. Remeber that at no point I have said that any scientist who believes in god is automatically bad which is what both you and brgulker seeming to be implying I have said.
OK, my original comment to you was garbled – I threw in “>” or two that messed things up.
You sound much more reasonable now. But I do take issue with comments like this one:
“Nevertheless, I fail to see why a scientist who happens to be a Christian need automatically to be assumed to be a bad scientist, or a bad administrator of science research.”
Who’s making that assumption? Harris? I don’t think he did.
“Surely it would be perfectly legitimate for a Christian’s thought process in science to go “goddidit…but how?” I only have a problem with those who stop at “goddidit”.”
It might be legitimate for a Christian, but for science, it starts the process backwards, assuming as a starting point that there is a go.
As far as calling you closed minded, I suppose I was in a grouchy mood and acting the part of a troll. However, now that I’m calmer, and even though I see you have some other more rational comments below that I’ve skimmed, I still think you’re closed minded, if you still think starting a premise with “god did it” is valid.
I have possibly used the phrase ‘goddidit – but how?’ to sum up a somewhat different attitude than what I understand you are implying here. In which case I apologise for being unclear. I hope that you got a better idea of what I meant from my other comments. I won’t bother to reiterate for fear of boring you to death.
Perhaps also you are failing to take into account that I was commenting on brgulker’s and Daniel’s comments about the wider implication of discriminating against scientists or public administrators solely on the basis of religious views. It was brgulker that brought up that topic, not me, and I agree that Harris didn’t say that outright in this interview, although I didn’t think the way Harris defined his issue with Collins was legitimate in the context of the interview, and it could be used to support that wider assumption that brgulker made – hence my initial comment. Further information has been presented to make me think that Harris’s concern may have a small but genuine basis, although I think he is taking it way too far. Brgulker says that Harris’s comments in other contexts give him a reason for interpreting the interview the way he did. I haven’t read The End of Faith, so I don’t know if brgulker’s concerns are backed up there, and in Letter to a Christian Nation Harris very carefully points out that he is specifically addressing the subset of dedicated, conservative Christians, not necessarily all Christians. He does, IIRC, talk about the eradication of religion being rather like the eradication of slavery in the summary of Letter, though, and if Harris has consistently said similar things elsewhere then I can see why brgulker, who is a liberal-ish Christian and has displayed no apparent desire to stop anyone believing or not as they wish, might be concerned that there is a threat to him, as well.
If I misread you, Mogg, I apologize. You’re comments to me, below, seem reasonable. If I misread you, I apologize.
However, I must take issue with this:
“I was not speaking of Collins specifically.”
True, you were speaking directly about Harris. But this is what you had to say, indirectly, about Collins:
“I don’t see how he [Harris] can conclude that a belief that God directed the evolution of morality automatically prevents a (non-fundamentalist) Christian who is a scientist from being curious about the actual physical and social mechanisms, or an administrator from funding such research.“
Harris, though, didn’t make that conclusion. He was speaking about Collins. And Collins doesn’t believe morality evolved, he thinks it was a divine gift from god to humans. Read Collins’ book.
So you put the knock on Harris, and tried to make Collins seem reasonable, based on something Harris didn’t say, and Collins doesn’t believe.
Perhaps a non-fundamentalist Christian could be curious about the actual physical and social mechanisms of morality, if she or he believes morality evolved. But Collins by his own admission is not interested in those mechanisms, because he doesn’t believe they exist.
Morality isn’t, for him, something physical that has evolved; he doesn’t think morality is part and parcel of the play of electro-chemical reactions in the brain. It’s a supernatural “gift” from his god inserted into our brains. We weren’t allowed to have that gift until we had evolved enough to receive it.
Collins thinks that gift of morality makes us, as a species of animal, unique among all other animals. It’s his proof that there must be a god.
It’s the “No True Scotsman Fallacy” in reverse. Any action appearing as moral on the part of an animal can’t be moral, because animals weren’t granted the same god-given gift.
If Collins were to admit what everyone else knows – that animals can act morally – that would blow apart one of the central theses he pushes to convince himself he’s thinking rationally about his god.
He knows what it means – and so do you – if animals can be moral, too. It means that humans aren’t somehow unique, and that morality isn’t a god-given gift. And if he had to admit that, he would have to admit that we all exist, humans and dogs and cats and horses and chimps and pigs, as the result of blind chance.
That’s why he is incurious about that which he doesn’t think exists – physical and social mechanisms of morality. The same applies for all other scientists who deny the true nature of evolution.
That you can’t see that, or ponder the implications, that you distort what Collins believes to fit your own model of reality, led me to my conclusion that you are closed minded.
I went back and watched the video again. I didn’t hear him saying that “He wants to eject religious people from public discourse.” Do you have evidence from other sources for this claim?
Head of NIH is a political appointment and the person in that position is sometimes thought to be the leading spokesperson for science. Collins has endorsed the idea that evolution was brought to a skreetching halt so that God could wave morality into the human species miraculously. That is not good science and is directly in conflict with TOE. Now it may not be sufficient for him to be refused the job but if I were President it would certainly weigh in the decision and no discrimination need be involved.
That Sam Harris criticizes Collins and doesn’t think it a good idea for him to hold the post and the purse strings does not make him an authoritarian or religious bigot.
His recent Op Ed comes to mind. His basic argument is that religious thinking inevitably taints scientific inquiry thus disqualifying (ejecting) any religious person from the pool of candidates. In this video, he’s not that direct, but the undertones are there if you listen for them.
In the first place, how does he know that? He’s not religious and never has been. Who is he to judge the capacity of Collins, let along all religious people, to think scientifically based on one, single criterion? It reeks of arrogance, bigotry, and discrimination.
Second, all the evidence seems to indicate that Collins has been stellar at his job — which runs directly contrary to Harris’ main objection to Collins in the first place (that religious thinking taints scientific discovery). He’s a well-respected scientist, to say that least, and a brilliant manager. Harris is ignoring all of that evidence and focusing in on one triviality and using that one triviality to define Collins. To me, that’s the same type of thinking that Harris has built a career on, ignoring all the evidence so as not to upset one’s presuppositions and assumptions. It reeks of hypocrisy.
It’s a bizarre position when you think about it; while many scientists today are atheist/agnostic, that certainly wasn’t the case for most of Western history. And they seemed to be able to compartmentalize with varying degrees of success; Newton may have been a wacky Socinian, but it doesn’t seem to have affected his optics, his physics, or his calculus.
I am fascinated by that phenomenon. Not only among scientists but others like those mentioned: Bill Moyers. Can’t remember the others but you can throw in Charlie Rose and Cornel West, the President himself (the new one). All apparently able to compartmentalize this one area of irrationality. Of course with scientists the contrast between these simultaneously held conflicting systems of knowledge/belief is much starker.
I remained basically Christian all through my master’s degree and lab work in molecular bio/ neuroscience. While the science raised questions for me, it wasn’t until I completed a degree in philosophy that I ultimately gave religion up (although I still haven’t given up on the possibility of a god, yet). Granted, I was much more liberal of a Christian by the time I was doing my science work, but still seeking and going to church nonetheless.
btw- I wasn’t seeking ultimate answers in science at that time (as I had religion for that), I was interested in research that could help cure people of neurological disorders as I had been a special education teacher and saw the suffering that neurodegenerative disorders caused my students and their families.
Funny, Until just a few years ago I did not think that religion and science were incompatible. Of course I’m not a scientist so it really didn’t matter a whole lot. But then I began reading about what religion actually presupposes. Now I am almost certain that the two are incompatible.
Well, we all have philosophical commitments regardless of our backgrounds. At that time, I was pro-choice and had nothing against embryonic stem-cell research because (1) the embryos were trashed otherwise and (2) I was in it for cures, as I told you above.
Anyhow, I honestly didn’t understand what all Christianity presupposes, because I was going to church to seek God and to be a good person. As that desire increased, I actually learned what Christianity presupposes, and I rejected it because I was always a humanist to begin with.
I think there are lots of scientists like that… such as Ken Miller. There are Jewish scientists (like Eric Kandel, for whom I worked) and there are Hindu and Muslim scientists. For the most part, they operate as humanists and I think that is the important distinction here.
As far as Collins goes, yes I understand he has suppositions about morality that could possibly affect moral psychology studies; however the guys who are the leaders in this particular field are at Princeton (and I think Yale, too) and the likelihood of them being denied funding is pretty slim, given their reputations.
I mean, c’mon, Collins is no Bush…
I went back and reread his op found at: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/27/opinion/27harris.html?pagewanted=2&_r=2&ref=opinion
Here are the last four paragraphs of said piece:
Again, I found nothing here that suggests he wants to eject religious people from public discourse. Why is it out of line for an atheist to prefer an atheist in a political appointment of this nature? Are his fears less worthy than yours?
You claim Harris believes about Collins:
He actually states above that Collins is an accomplished scientist and sincere in his beliefs.
And that is precisely what makes Harris so uncomfortable about Collins’ nomination. Collins’ religion makes Harris uncomfortable enough to object to his nomination. So, he’s a good scientist, but he’s religious; therefore, we should oppose his nomination. That’s exactly what he says when you get right down to it, isn’t it? Whether or not morality evolved is tangential at best; Harris’ real problem is Collins’ religion.
Frankly, I think you and I hear very different things when we read the very same words, given our differing perspectives.
Harris takes one minor disagreement with Collins — whether or not morality evolved — and uses that as a launching pad for an otherwise unfounded assault. Harris’ real problem is that Collins is religious, and his presupposition is that religion will taint science. So, he uses an incredibly trivial example — evolution of morality — as an attempt to undermine Collins as a scientist altogether. Collins doesn’t think neuroscience will offer satisfactory answers to existential questions (those come from philosophy, religion, etc.); Harris disagrees. Therefore, oppose Collins — not over a scientific issue but rather a philosophical/religious/theological one. How is that not religious discrimination?
Further, he’s put all sorts of words in Collins’ mouth. To my knowledge, Collins doesn’t object to the notion that neuroscience can help to explain behavior, which is what Harris accuses him of in the words you quoted:
Science can’t answer existential questions according to Collins — but that’s an entirely different set of questions than explaining certain types of mentor disorders, cognitive patterns, and human behavior. Collins has never said anything that directly undermines neuroscience; he’s simply confessed its limits. The notion that Collins would actively undermine that entire field is a straw man that Harris has built, and that straw man is directly attributable to Harris’ unfounded assumption that religion taints science.
In my opinion, any objection that Harris has raised can be traced directly to his working, albeit completely unfounded, assumption that religion inevitably taints scientific inquiry and discovery, and he objects to religious people holding such a public office based entirely on that assumption — which flies in the face of Collins’ entire body of work as a scientist, mind you.
As I said above, when I read Harris, I feel what Daniel expressed in his thread about nutjobs. All of us make assumptions that we don’t question critically enough. Harris is absolutely doing that right now — and I don’t understand how it’s not totally and completely obvious to anyone who reads him, regardless of perspective or persuasion.
*mental, not mentor disorders.
I serve at a mentoring agency … apparently, I have mentoring on the brain. Maybe neuroscience offers a good explanation as to why I would confuse the two terms? :)
“Harris’ real problem is that Collins is religious, and his presupposition is that religion will taint science.”
Who’s presupposing here? Not having mind-reading capabilities, I prefer to take Harris at his word as to what his “real problem” is.
“and he objects to religious people holding such a public office based entirely on that assumption”
Really? What other religious people has Harris objected to holding public office? Does he oppose all of them? No, he does not, which means that his criticism has been targeted at this one particular instance.
“any objection that Harris has raised can be traced directly to his working, albeit completely unfounded, assumption that religion inevitably taints scientific inquiry and discovery”
Religion takes faith as a virtue, and science does not. Therefore they must conflict at some point.
Really? What other religious people has Harris objected to holding public office? Does he oppose all of them
Maybe we haven’t read the same Harris.
Religion takes faith as a virtue, and science does not. Therefore they must conflict at some point.
That’s the same assumption Harris makes, an assumption that seems unprovable, at least with respect to Collins and his ability to do his job. I’ll try saying this one more time: Collins, to my knowledge, doesn’t oppose neuroscience. He simply thinks that neuroscience is not capable of providing answers to the type of existential questions he wants to ask.
Harris assumes that such a stance will produce apathy or even worse, disparity with respect to neuroscience. But, there’s absolutely no evidence that I’m aware of to support that conclusion.
You keep harping on “Harris believes religion taints science” and I think thats something you’ve infered from his op-ed and this interview when in reality I think its something slightly different.
Harris’ book “the end of faith” spent a lot of time pointing out that indeed religion manages to stake a claim to a portion of someones mind and still not interfere with other aspects of their life (ie scientific research) that could/would/should be in direct contradiction to their faith. His biggest problem is he believes the two are logically incompatable…though he recognizes that they exist side by side in pretty much most of the population. I think he actually would agree with the statement: “a devoutly faithful evangelical can be a functionally competent and brilliant scientist.”
With Collins, there is pretty much no objection to his scientific work. But he is now in a position where he no longer does research. Most of his job will be directing research funds and speaking on behalf of our country about science. I think it is, at the very least, a valid concern to wonder if a groundbreaking neurological study proposal about the evolution of morality that could help explain a myriad of social disorders will get the proper/fair consideration by the man in charge of the money who is very clear about where morality came from and what science has to say about it.
Harris would be the first to tell you that faith and science exist side by side everywhere. Just like infideltity and marriage co-exist side by side in many instances. His point is not that they can’t functionally co-exist, but that they do so in a cognatively dissonant, illogical way. Collins has moved past the bench where pipetting and preparing solutions and mapping chromosomes can be carried out succesfully by the most crazy young earth creationist you can find. He is now running an organization that is drawing the blueprint for what our country’s scientific research will be able to discover in the next decade. There will be great philosophical and ethical considerations about almost every decision he makes. It is our duty as citizens to prod and critique those appointed to assure they are the best suited for the job. Collins’ evangelical prosteletyzing (sp?) and blatant statements about not only science’s current limitations but future limitations based on his own dogmatic beliefs have to be taken into consideration as he is the head of an organization that should be least dogmatic and most materialistic if there is to be any progress.
You keep harping on “Harris believes religion taints science” and I think thats something you’ve infered from his op-ed and this interview when in reality I think its something slightly different.
You could be right. I’ve never read his books, only stuff on his website, interviews, and articles.
But, that’s certainly not the tone he takes when he speaks or writes, and when I read/listen between the lines, I hear a deep distrust against religion and any person who is religious. I think this is supported by Harris’ fixation on this one issue; he’s making a mountain out of a mole hill.
I’ve never heard Collins say/write anything that he’s opposed to neuroscience or any type of scientific inquiry, only that science can only make limited types of claims. And given his own personal history, it would be very hard to make the case that he’s not the type of person who would reevaluate his own position based on scientific research, right?
But further, to my knowledge, Collins has never come out against neuroscience research. Harris seems to be arguing that this is the inevitable consequence of his position on morality; yet, that has not happened and does not appear to be happening.
So again, it seems like an entirely moot point, which causes me to ask why Harris is making such a big fuss about it in the first place.
I’ve never heard Collins say/write anything that he’s opposed to neuroscience or any type of scientific inquiry, only that science can only make limited types of claims.
Harris’ problem is with the bolded. What will Collins’ do when a research proposal seeks to make claims that Collins believes (through his own publicly acknowledged evangelical dogma) science cannot (should not…as I’ve come to infer) make? I don’t know, neither does Harris (though admitedly he speaks like he does, as you’ve pointed out).
But IMO this is a serious consideration. There will be many ethical and philosophical boundries Collins’ will have to consider…here his ability to follow protocols and develop protocols (essentially laboratory science that often co-exists with faith even if the ultamite goal of the research is counter to one’s faith) has no bearing…instead the bulk of his work will be decision making that
that effects the world of science, and he has left open the possibility that radical research may not fit into his world view and therefore will not get the proper consideration it deserves.
ThisGodlessEndeavor:
Yes, I think you catch Harris very well. Harris in not saying at all that Collins can’t do science. The concern is that this is a political position.
Another matter of valid concern which you allude to at the end but isn’t being discussed much is this statement by Collins: “…the claims of atheistic materialism must be steadfastly resisted.”
BR:
Think along with me as an atheist. Collins may well be the greatest compartmentalizer in history. Or maybe not. I don’t know. I do know that he is a great administrator and a fine scientist. I also know that his position will hold both the purse strings and the podium. Further, I read things he says that are worrisome. As an atheist, what am I to make of his statement that atheistic materialism must be steadfastly resisted?
The position to support his nomination comes down to a risk/reward evaluation and the way in which Sam Harris comes down is not beyond the pale.
Further, I read things he says that are worrisome. As an atheist, what am I to make of his statement that atheistic materialism must be steadfastly resisted?
I understand your hesitation, but I’m still not convinced that the man’s opinion on religion and atheism has any direct or indirect bearing on his ability to do his job. I understand why it’s threatening, though, or at least disconcerting.
But to flip the coin:
Think along with me as a Christian. What am I to make of Harris et al who actively seek the end of religion? Harris and the new atheists literally want to extinguish religion. Remember the last thread in which we talked about the teacher/separation of church and state? If a teacher had been condemning atheism, this board would have been up in arms. But there’s almost no resistance to a teacher condemning religion.
I can’t help but think a similar thing is happening here. If someone had been appointed to this position who thought that religion was all superstitious nonsense and “steadfastly opposed” the outworkings of religious thought, how would you react? (I’m not asking rhetorically, I’m genuinely interested). I suspect that most people who post here would actually be happy to see something like that.
I feel like we’re at an impasse of sorts, I fear. Neither side will settle for anything less than world domination. ;)
Resistance is Futile! :)
This isn’t a direct answer but I wouldn’t want Harris as head of the NIH.
Just to be clear I couldn’t isolate that one issue and would, as I have already stated, make a risk/reward assessment. I’m not sure what you mean by “steadfastly oppose” but this guy doesn’t sound very appealing. Pretty sure there would be better, less intransigent choices.
What am I to make of Harris et al who actively seek the end of religion? Harris and the new atheists literally want to extinguish religion.
I don’t blame you for ending up at this conclusion, but I don’t think its correct…entirely. I think all the “new atheists” would certainly bask in the enjoyment of a world without religion, but its not the “religion” is not what troubles them. It is the specific claims made by the faithful that are inveitably sheilded from proper criticism by the relgious banner they fly, that so infuriates the new atheists. For instance what good reason is there now in 2009, where doctors are years, maybe months away from being able to perform operations on different continents via remote controled robotic equipment, to believe that anybody every in the history of the world died and subsequently rose from the grave 3 days later?
There is no logical reason to believe this. In modern recorded history billions of people have died and not a single one has risen from the dead. We know so much about the workings of the body and what it is capable of, that we can be assured no human has ever actually died and then came back to life. Yet over 60% of America believes this happend 2000 years ago. And near as many believes that this is the greatest peice of knowledge/truth that one could ever hope to know. These are the things that drive us crazy, not the religion itself.
I can assure you that Harris and Dawkins and HItchens etc would be very happy living in a world filled with religion…as long as we are encouraged/lauded for applying proper criticism to the extrordianary claims made by these religions once they are thrust into the social sphere. If 85% of America believed that Jesus rose from the dead, but kept it to themselves and withing their congregation you would never hear a peep from these writers. But when someone stands up in congress and says “only god can destroy the world, thus global warming is nothing to worry about” we need to apply proper criticism and no longer sit idly by thinking “oh these crazy fundies, what will they say next?!”
Its not about eradication of something they disagree with, its about forcing them to show their cards, demanding that people who claim a soul enters the embryo at the moment of conception show proof that they know this and it holds water in this debate.
brgulker wrote: “So, he’s a good scientist, but he’s religious; therefore, we should oppose his nomination.
How do you square that with your prior comment: “Harris is ignoring all of that evidence” that Collins is good scientist?
You directly contradict yourself.
- First you Harris ignores Collins’ accomplishments, and focuses on a “trivial”claim about morality.
- Then you reverse yourself, now claiming Harris objects to Collins’ religious beliefs in general.
Brgulker wrote: “Collins doesn’t think neuroscience will offer satisfactory answers to existential questions (those come from philosophy, religion, etc.); Harris disagrees.”
First of all, you mistake the meanning of the word “existential.” If you mean “existentialism,” you’re off again. I think you mean “metaphysical.”
Where is your evidence that Harris thinks science will offer satisfactory answers to philosophical questions, which by definition are not scientific questions. Can you show us quote from Harris?
You’re not thinking clearly – or using your dictionary.
Dave,
I know what the terms mean, and I know what I meant when I typed them. Collins argues that the science has limits, and science can’t answer certain types of questions. Harris disagrees. Here on this specific question, the metaphysical and existential intersect.
How do you square that with your prior comment: “Harris is ignoring all of that evidence” that Collins is good scientist?
I would have done better to say, he’s choosing to ignore the fact that Collins is a good scientist and preferring to emphasize a disagreement about the origins of morality (that’s not at all related to whether or not Collins can do his job). The trivial disagreement about the origins of morality is being used as a trump card to demonstrate that a religious person like Collins should be disqualified for this position over an entire career of work that says otherwise.
“Ignoring” is the wrong word to use, but that doesn’t undermine the point I’m trying to make.
And why in your very first post in response to me would you choose hostility? Why would you accuse me of not thinking through my beliefs when:
1) You don’t know what my beliefs are? And,
2) You have absolutely no knowledge about how I have critically evaluated my beliefs?
I’ll welcome a good debate/conversation, but you don’t need to start it with baseless assumptions and accusations based on them. Give a person the benefit of the doubt at least.
@brgulker
Didn’t someone make a case for how religious beliefs regarding the origins of morality could potentially affect the ability of this man to do his job? It is simply not a trivial disagreement when the man takes a position that may change funding and support for research for an entire nation.
It is obvious to me. He implies he knows best, has the corner on being objective and unbiased because it is only the religious have that problem and he is not religious. He does a good job and makes a valid point that religious folks can be very unreasonable, see the world through ‘coke-bottle lenses’. He implies the world would be better at solving problems if we take those lenses off and approach life fthrough scientific reasoning method. The scientific approach at its best is to be and stay open to all possibilities. No human being is without biases, though. It simply isn’t possible, but some are better at staying objective and open than others at.
brgulker wrote: “Harris is ignoring all of that evidence and focusing in on one triviality and using that one triviality to define Collins. ”
Brgulker, you’re making that up to help reinforce your peculiar beliefs. In truth, Harris doesn’t ignore what you call “evidence,” which are Collins’ scientific intellect and past accomplishments; Harris gives those attributes of Collin’s full credit.
You go on to say Harris is “focusing in on one triviality and using that one triviality to define Collins.” OK, let’s put you to the test about what you think is trivial, about what you believe.
For if you really think the origin of morality is a trivial issue, then you are admitting that morality might be part and parcel of evolution.
- You are admitting that the human sense of right and wrong, good and evil, selfishness and altruism might be the result of blind chance.
- You are admitting the god you believe in might not have anything to do with human morality.
You’re god is possibly an amoral god? Then you don’t think much of your god. Or more likely, you haven’t thought through your beliefs.
Brgulker, you’re making that up to help reinforce your peculiar beliefs. In truth, Harris doesn’t ignore what you call “evidence,” which are Collins’ scientific intellect and past accomplishments; Harris gives those attributes of Collin’s full credit.
Then his objection is moot. If Collins is able to excel at his job, his position on the evolution/creation of morality is irrelevant.
For if you really think the origin of morality is a trivial issue, then you are admitting that morality might be part and parcel of evolution.
The issue is trivial because it has nothing to do with whether or not Collins will excel at his job. Morality itself is certainly not trivial; I’ve never said that, so don’t stick those words in my mouth.
Or more likely, you haven’t thought through your beliefs.
Um, yeah, that must be it. Way to make an assumption and an ass of yourself in six words.
>Way to make an assumption and an ass of yourself in six words.<
Calling me an ass doesn't change the limits of your thought processes when it comes religious and rational thought. Name calling does show your character.
“The issue is trivial because it has nothing to do with whether or not Collins will excel at his job.”
This “issue” is only trivial because you say it is.
“If Collins is able to excel at his job, his position on the evolution/creation of morality is irrelevant.”
The point under discussion between Harris and Mahr was that Collins might not excel at his job because of his unsubstantiated belief that certain human attributes are created by supernatural means rather than evolution.
Do you think Bernie Madoff’s wife and children might want him viewed in his totality as a human? Do you think they want to remember the good things about him? That he was a good father? That he worked hard? That he gave to charity?
We read about this all the time in the news. Someone does something terrible, but the judge is asked by an attorney and by family members and friends to minimize jail time because of the otherwise good character of the miscreant.
Collins is not a criminal. Belief in supernatural origins for human attributes, like morality, is not a scientific thought. You think that’s trivial, just as an attorney thinks a crime is trivial compared to the totality of a client’s lifetime of good works.
That is to say, you’re biased because you come to the table here with a belief that Collins’ past good work gives him a pass, and makes any potential failure on his part something “trivial.”
Am I biased? Yes, as biased as any human being is.
But you’re dead wrong about the rest of it. That’s not been my argument at all. My argument has simply been that Collins’ past good work doesn’t “give him a pass” but rather establishes that he’s a good scientists and a highly successful administrator.
The reason I keep using the word ‘trivial’ is because it’s trivial to the topic at hand, whether or not Collins can do his job. He’s demonstrated that he can. And there’s nothing in his body of work that suggests he would be opposed to neuroscience; Harris is arguing a hypothetical.
The issue of the origin of morality is certainly interesting, and as others have noted, can have some serious ramifications for the larger scientific community. But there’s nothing in Collins’ body of work/career that suggests he’d be opposed to neuroscience; Harris seems to be constructing that on his own, meaning, there doesn’t seem to be anything in Collins’ career to support such a claim.
Look, I’m not saying Collins should be immune to public scrutiny; on the contrary, he should absolutely be examined. But, if one is going to argue that he’s not fit for the office to which he has been appointed, one ought to be able to point to more than a metaphysical idea about morality to make the case; one ought to be able to find something from his career that demonstrates why such an objection is in fact valid.
So far, all Harris has is speculation.
>1) You don’t know what my beliefs are?<
I know some of them.
Enough to make definitive judgments about the extent to which I’ve questioned and critically examined my own beliefs?
Or are you simply making assumptions based on generalizations that you’ve made?
>Enough to make definitive judgments about the extent to which I’ve questioned and critically examined my own beliefs?But there’s nothing in Collins’ body of work/career that suggests he’d be opposed to neuroscience; Harris seems to be constructing that on his own, meaning, there doesn’t seem to be anything in Collins’ career to support such a claim.<
You use the word "seems" over and over again in your comments. Why don't you simply comment on what Harris states, rather what you you think he "seems" to state? Well, I know the reason you like to use the word "seems." It means you can make up whatever you want to fit your world view.
But you're right, there's nothing in Collins' career to support the claim that he's opposed to neuroscience, or at least all of neuroscience. Harris, though, doesn't make that claim, whether you think he does or not.
That is, it's not his professional life as a scientist that concerns Harris – it's Collins' non-professional religious beliefs that concern Harris and other rational thinkers.
Collins shies away from science when it comes to "trivial" issues like the origin of morality. He's shut his mind off to the scientific approach, because of a divine revelation he had while on a walk in the mountains.
As Collins puts it in his own words, the proof of his god's existence "came in my 27th year, after a search to learn more about God’s character led me to the person of Jesus Christ."
He already believed in a god; he was searching for it's character. But proof, which according to Collins' requires revelation, came this way:
"As I rounded a corner and saw a beautiful and unexpected frozen waterfall, hundreds of feet high, I knew the search was over. The next morning, I knelt in the dewy grass as the sun rose and surrendered to Jesus Christ." The waterfall, he explained, reminded him of the Holy Trinity.
People who think rationally are are concerned about the priorities of a scientist who claims looking at a frozen waterfall can offer proof of the existence of a god.
People who don't think rationally all the time aren't bothered by Collins' history outside of his professional life.
brgulker wrote:
“My argument has simply been that Collins’ past good work doesn’t “give him a pass” but rather establishes that he’s a good scientists and a highly successful administrator.”
No, you argued that Harris ignored “the evidence” of Collin’s good science.
Far up in the postings (so far up that it’s difficult to find/remember it at this point), you wrote that Harris made claims about Collins,
“when by all counts, Collins is a wonderful administrator and brilliant scientists.”
So again, you’ve contradicted yourself.
- First you claim Collins is credible because he’s a wonderful and brilliant.
- Then you claim your “argument” is that Collins’ good work means, what, that he’s wonderful and brilliant? No one disputes his scientific credentials, so you’ve created an argument out of nothing.
If I’ve understood the argument so far, the contention is that if Harris has already conceded that Collins is a brilliant scientist and wonderful administrator, then the grounds on which Harris is demurring on the Collins appointment is merely his metaphysical predilections (namely, belief in an active God), and some of his out-loud speculations about the consequences of that belief, which has to date not affected his administrative or scientific prowess (which have been universally described as ‘brilliant’ and ‘wonderful’ respectively).
“Dr. Collins will have more responsibility for biomedical and health-related research than any person on earth, controlling an annual budget of more than $30 billion. He will also be one of the foremost representatives of science in the United States.”
I think it is a valid consideration. You need to know that a person with such extensive decision making powers is not going to let irrational beliefs influence his decisions. Just as we want to know these kinds of things about Supreme court nominees (pro/anti) it is even more critical for a high priest of science.
If you really want them to go away (though I don’t know why- they’re interesting to talk to) I’ve found that telling them I’m a lesbian atheist pregnant with an unnamed man’s child usually works on the younger ones : )
nomad,
What more do you need than Collins’ own track record to put those fears to rest?
His track record demonstrates that he’s fabulous at what he does. But that’s not good enough for Harris. Why not?
Yeah, I responded above before I read this.
First, I see this from brgulker:
> And every time I hear him talk/write about the issue, the only objection he has against Collins is that Collins is religious. He’s religious; therefore, he cannot be a good scientist.the example that he gave in this interview is spurious.<
So which IS it, brgulker and Mogg? You two are in direct conflict with each other.
- As a matter of fact, brgulker, Harris didn't say Collins couldn't be a good scientist about everything science might explore. Harris said Collins might be biased when it comes to the subject of evolution because Collins a priori rejects morality as anything other than a supernatural trait, which he believes was implanted in humans by a Christian god.
Didn't you learn not to generalize back in high school, brgulker? ;-)
- And as for you, Mogg, the point Harris made is that Collins is not "curious about the actual physical and social mechanisms" of morality, because Collins, by his own admission, doesn't believe those mechanisms exist.
You missed that course in logic back in your college days, didn't you, Mogg ;-)
I loved the description of religion being a social disorder. Now I’ll stop looking at our uber religious acquaintances as though they are crazy. They’re just afflicted with a social disorder.
Which reminds me. Does anyone have a creative way to send Jehovah’s Witnesses packing pronto when they show up on my doorstep. “I’m not interested” doesn’t seem to be in their vocabulary.
Annie, I don’t have a good answer to the question, mostly because I tend to be hesitant and polite, annoying the hell out of myself, but the situation reminds me of a Gary Larson “Far Side” cartoon about the Blob Family at home. They are peeking out the window as people with literature approach the door, and one of them cries, “Oh no, Jehovah’s Witnesses! Everybody act like beanbag chairs!” It was great!
“I am not even remotely interested,” works at my house.
If you tell them you are a former Jehovah’s Witness they will leave immediately and never return. They are forbidden to communicate with those who left their faith.
Not precisely true.
If you are just a former member because you stopped going to their meetings and so on, that may actually cause them to call on you with greater fervor to win you back.
If you tell them you were kicked out, or ‘disfellowshipped’, that will stop the low level JW’s from coming back, as they are indeed forbidden association with disfellowshipped members. However, it may also result in their ‘Elders’ coming to see if they can help you get reinstated back into the fold.
Basically, all of the various lies people use to get rid of them have inherent problems. That’s why the honesty of “I’m not even remotely interested” which also leaves no wiggle room for them works best.
Mention something about grabbing your same-sex partner to join in on the chat.
Again, that will only prolong the conversation.
These people think they can fix that.
interesting he never was exposed to religion. People I meet like that look at those that are religious with complete and utter dismay. Almost like watching a bunch of monkeys in a cage drinking their own piss. They look at them and scratch their heads…how strange…..snakes and apples are up to no good…okay and you say that with a straight face??? hmmmm
interesting he never was exposed to religion. People I meet like that look at those that are religious with complete and utter dismay.
I grew up in a secular household and have been an Atheist since I can remember thinking about it (circa eight or nine yrs. old), and I don’t look at religious people generally with dismay or perplexity.
It’s been my personal experience in general. I had a brilliant engineer tell me that he cannot play chess with me or eat american chicken because they are not killed properly. He refused to shake hands or touch anyone he suspected of eating pork. I thought it odd – especially coming from such a brilliant person.
He just didn’t want to lose at chess.
It’s not that Collins is religious, it’s that he is actively promoting ideas which are antiscientific, and that is a big problem when you’re talking about him being in a post where he’s responsible for a lot of science funding.
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/07/sam_harris_on_collins_appointm.php
It is important to consider the specific criticism made by Harris, because he is arguing out of concern for the future of his own lab work. Harris is working on a PhD at UCLA in Neuroscience, focusing on the nature of belief, nonbelief, and morality at the level of the brain.
Collins statements about the divine origins of morality annoy Harris because he draws conclusions that Harris sees as unsupported. Other than this particular subject, Collins is going to carry out an agenda that is likely to be supported by Harris and other secularists. For example, Collins is a supporter of embryonic stem-cell research and a critic of intelligent design.
The fact of the matter is that Collins is a useful political tool for President Obama to be able to pursue a progressive scientific agenda while also appeasing Christians who might otherwise feel that their beliefs are being compromised.
In Harris’ view, federally funded embryonic stem cell research (he has criticized the notion of a “soul in a petri dish”) and opposition to teaching intelligent design as science are no brainer policies, and it is therefore unnecessary to have to appease Christians that may feel rankled.
In fact, I would bet that Sam Harris is partially motivated by spite. After all, why should Christians have to be appeased in order to pursue policies that they were wrong to oppose in the first place?
Harris is dismayed by the fact that the our president, who has given greater legitimacy to nonbelief than any other president in recent memory, needs to make a religious appeal in order to pursue policies that are scientifically sound.
His perspective is as objective and open to the evidence as anyone, perhaps most. I like the challenge he gives the religious and makes an excellent point on how religious beliefs inhibit scientific method, reasoning and decision-making. It was interesting and honorable, then Mahr got into belittling and name-calling. His attitude became a sort of ‘them and us’ perspective. He does list people whom he respects BUT seems to scratch his head that they have faith. Mahr and Harris both act like they have the final answer on truth and knowledge, like these respected, capable guys couldn’t possibly know something they don’t. I was disappointed at the end.
“In so far as somebody believes something, it inevitably shows up in the world…” Sam Harris on Real Time.
“There is, after all, nothing more natural than rape. But no one would argue that rape is good, or compatible with a civil society, because it may have had evolutionary advantages for our ancestors.” Sam Harris, Letter to a christian nation.
So, the only thing that’s keeping ‘good ole’ Sam from acting upon his belief that rape is a male reproductive strategy is his belief that rape is morally abhorrent. Ovulating women everywhere can let out a collective sigh of relief.
Anita Cobby, on the other hand, wasn’t so lucky. The five men who responded to a ‘natural urge to spread their seed’ by raping her, beating her and slitting her throat, had no such moral compunction.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Anita_Cobby
Please, Sam Harris, stop talking out of your arse.
Perhaps I missed some connection here, but what does the despicable act against Ms. Cobby have to do with Sam Harris and his perspective on science? Either you did not understand the intent of the statement he made or you are acting purposefully ignorant in your inference. He is obviously referring to basic biological urges that, until fairly recently, were not morally abhorrent to a large portion of the world population (even though it is to those of use who are both reasonable and civilized). Please enlighten me as to how this oh so tenuous thread of connection between Harris and a specific rape contributes anything to this discourse.
Well, you get to use the word Sam Harris and Rape in the same sentence. Thats enough for the ‘tards.
@ idea1013.
Damn. Now I know what it would be like to fart loudly at the Pope’s funeral.
I didn’t follow the cock fights closely before posting my comment and it is kind of off-topic. But I do believe that all the modern data about sexual violence contradicts Harris’ and Thornhill and Palmer’s (in A Natural History of Rape) views.
By the way, I’m a born and bred atheist. I’ve been allergic to Abrahamic religions my whole life. I also happen to strongly disagree with some of the points made by the Four Horsemen.
All the best.
And that’s why they went to jail for life. Point?
Sam’s arse isn’t the only one talking, I see.
Elemenope wrote:
“If I’ve understood the argument so far, the contention is that if Harris has already conceded that Collins is a brilliant scientist and wonderful administrator, then the grounds on which Harris is demurring on the Collins appointment is merely his metaphysical predilections (namely, belief in an active God), and some of his out-loud speculations about the consequences of that belief, which has to date not affected his administrative or scientific prowess (which have been universally described as ‘brilliant’ and ‘wonderful’ respectively).”
No, that’s not the argument. I think you ran a little long in your assertion. Not to mention you’ve screwed up the “if-then” concept, i.e. Harris doesn’t “argue” that Collins’ belief in a god is made valid or invalid because he’s brilliant and wonderful.
Harris “argument” is that Collins might make less than rational choices about the allocation of resources under his control because he has demonstrated irrational thought. Specifically, Collins irrationally thinks morality is a supernatural trait, rather than a natural trait.
Harris doesn’t “argue” that Collins’ belief in a god is made valid or invalid because he’s brilliant and wonderful.
I didn’t say that he did, either. I said, rather, “the grounds on which Harris is demurring on the Collins appointment is merely his metaphysical predilections (namely, belief in an active God), and some of his out-loud speculations about the consequences of that belief”:
Broken down, Harris demurs, despite Collins’ credentials, because
1. Collins believes in an Active God
2. That belief has informed further metaphysical speculation about the origins of moral phenomena
3. Harris somehow thinks that those speculations ill befit a potential Director of the NIH
Harris “argument” is that Collins might make less than rational choices about the allocation of resources under his control because he has demonstrated irrational thought. Specifically, Collins irrationally thinks morality is a supernatural trait, rather than a natural trait.
Well, to be really accurate he has stated he believes that the presence of moral thought among humans was due to supernatural intervention, not that morality itself or the brain algorithms that make it up are themselves supernatural. It’s a hypothesis about origins, not substance.
I wrote: “Harris doesn’t “argue” that Collins’ belief in a god is made valid or invalid because he’s brilliant and wonderful.
Elemenope then wrote: “I didn’t say that he did, either.”
But you did. You led off with a clause recapping of the “argument” by stating “If Harris has already conceded that Collins is a brilliant scientist” and followed it with a “then” clause, linking your conclusion to Harris’ concession.
But your sentence was so long even you couldn’t figure out what you’d just written.
You do better here:
“1. Collins believes in an Active God
2. That belief has informed further metaphysical speculation about the origins of moral phenomena
3. Harris somehow thinks that those speculations ill befit a potential Director of the NIH”
See, no need to brag on Collin’s intellectual and organizational skills this time.
However, by writing “Harris someohow thinks,” you’ve tipped your hand to what YOU think, not to what you think the “argument” is about.
Harris doesn’t put forth fuzzy “somehow” thoughts, as you claim he does. Why do you refuse to discuss his specific thoughts? Because you have already made up your mind about the “argument.”
Here’s what Harris specifically worries about: that an otherwise rational person, who believes irrationally in the supernatural intervention of a make-believe god, might not fairly administer resources under his control.
With all due respect, I understood what I wrote just fine, and then I broke it down into more easily digestible bits because you seemed to be interpreting it inaccurately. I mentioned Collins’ skills as a scientist and administrator as *exclusionary criteria*, specifically employed in this case to exclude possible competing explanatory hypotheses for why Harris might demur about Collins’ appointment. The if-then argument I actually made was “If Harris acknowledges Collins’ abilities, then his objection must be on some other grounds” and then I went on to name those grounds.
Harris doesn’t put forth fuzzy “somehow” thoughts, as you claim he does. Why do you refuse to discuss his specific thoughts? Because you have already made up your mind about the “argument.”
I said he holds a hypothesis that God interceded to introduce morality into the human species (he has never made an argument as to *how* God did this, so far as I know; feel free to correct me with a quote of his if I’m wrong.)
Because of that belief, Collins personally has evinced a personal belief that science will not avail when attempting to reveal the origins of morality. I suppose it’s on the edge of reasonable to conclude that (despite any extant behavioral evidence), a person who has expressed such beliefs would attempt to stymie research in that area by redirecting funding. But only just. For one, governmental appointees do not work in a vacuum (plenty of people are looking over their shoulders), and for another, as a professional he is almost certainly well aware of his responsibility to be objective despite any personal feelings he might have. In any case, it is far *more* likely that such a person (a scientist with that belief) would welcome research in the area, as if he is right such research would confirm the null hypothesis.
> I mentioned Collins’ skills as a scientist and administrator as *exclusionary criteria*, I said he holds a hypothesis that God interceded to introduce morality into the human species (he has never made an argument as to *how* God did this, so far as I know; feel free to correct me with a quote of his if I’m wrong.)<
Who is "he?" I mentioned Harris, you are apparently bringing up Collins. I know what Collins thinks. ;-) I don't think you know what Harris has to say, or can't bring yourself to say it.
"governmental appointees do not work in a vacuum (plenty of people are looking over their shoulders),"
What makes you think your claim is true? Who might these other people be? The people that make the appointments? I remember Bush looking over Michael Brown's shoulder, in New Orleans. "Great job, Brownie!"
Collins isn't Brown, and Harris doesn't think Collins actions would be on par with Browns. But even in the case of gross incompetence, as per Brown, it's not a given that anyone is looking over their shoulder.
"In any case, it is far *more* likely that such a person (a scientist with that belief) would welcome research in the area, as if he is right such research would confirm the null hypothesis."
Research in what "area?" The origin of morality? He already rejects out of hand that morality can have an evolutionary basis. It's a gift – a supernatural gift – from god.
You didn't answer my question, by the way. Do you think animals other than human animals think or act morally?
Elemenope wrote:
“Well, to be really accurate he [Collins] has stated he believes that the presence of moral thought among humans was due to supernatural intervention, not that morality itself or the brain algorithms that make it up are themselves supernatural. It’s a hypothesis about origins, not substance.”
So morality is natural. Fine, I’ll give you that, if you want. It leads naturally, though, to a natural question: Why would a god put a natural, but as yet non-existent attribute, inside our brains via an unnatural delivery system?
For Collins, your imaginary god did that because it’s what makes us unique. Collins, for example, claims that only humans can have moral thoughts and feelings (well, animals could, except god didn’t gift them with a sense of morality). Because only humans have evolved far enough to be able to us the gift of morality.
Do you agree, Elemenope, with Collins, that only humans can think and act morally?
Do you agree, Elemenope, with Collins, that only humans can think and act morally?
No, I do not. I think his hypothesis is incorrect.
Of course, the really neat part of science is that neither my nor Collins’ opinions matter. Only the facts do. And as a scientist, as I pointed out above, he would welcome the experiment because if he is right, the null hypothesis would be confirmed, and if he was wrong, he would learn something unexpected. His narrow point, about the etiology of morals, is probably correct (i.e. science will not avail conclusively on the matter of moral etiology), only because science (being an empirical set of disciplines) is not really built for that sort of investigation.
If animals can have moral thought, as you say, without it being a gift from god, then its existence in humans is not necessarily a gift from a god.
Is there a third explanation, between natural and supernatural causes?
“i.e. science will not avail conclusively on the matter of moral etiology”
You think this because you have closed mind on the subject. Just as does Collins.
Collins “would welcome the experiment because if he is right, the null hypothesis would be confirmed, and if he was wrong, he would learn something unexpected.”
Which has nothing to do with whether or not he might properly allocate science resources. Neither you nor I need an experiment to demonstrate that other animals than humans have moral thoughts.
Collins, though, rejects that out of hand, even as you and I know he’s wrong. He’s brilliant, he’s a good administrator, but he thinks irrationally about some subjects – not just who or what has moral thought – and his demonstrated irrational beliefs are what disturbs Harris and other rational thinkers.
You think this because you have closed mind on the subject. Just as does Collins.
No, I think this because it lies on the metaphysical side of Popper’s demarcation line. I cannot speak to why Collins thinks this, though I have to imagine that because he’s a practicing scientist he too is aware of what sorts of questions fall on the science side of the line and which fall on the metaphysics side of the line. “How” questions are almost exclusively the former, and “why” questions almost exclusively the latter.
Neither you nor I need an experiment to demonstrate that other animals than humans have moral thoughts.
Well, actually, yes, you do. Without some rigorous data all we have are our “common sense” opinions, which any scientist knows are a piss-poor guide to actual knowledge of the universe and its phenomena.
Collins, though, rejects that out of hand, even as you and I know he’s wrong.
I think that he’s wrong, or perhaps even more accurately, I believe that he’s wrong. To claim that I know that he is wrong, as you do, would be to claim that I have access to rigorous empirical studies that in all likelihood do not yet exist, which I of course do not.
He’s brilliant, he’s a good administrator, but he thinks irrationally about some subjects – not just who or what has moral thought – and his demonstrated irrational beliefs are what disturbs Harris and other rational thinkers.
Everyone is irrational about a great number of things. Those things differ from person to person, and what is amusing/annoying about this case is only the specific irrationality about a specific category of things that has everyone here in something of a tizzy. We are not Vulcans (nor, IMO, should we aspire to be so).
“We are not Vulcans (nor, IMO, should we aspire to be so).”
Oh, but that new Spock is sooooooooo cute!!! LOL!
LOL. He (Quinto) did an excellent job, I thought. There was one moment, when he was turning down the Vulcan Science Academy, where he said “live long and prosper” and the inflection made it feel like “f**k off and die”. Pitch perfect, given what jerks they were being to him.
Yes. Sooooo cuuuuuutteeee… *swoon*
Uhura digs him.
He’s my kind of guy… cool, confident, intelligent, complicated, tall, dark, and handsome. Now if such a guy existed in real life…
:)
Well, on the downside, he is a bit, um, emotionally unavailable.
LOL!
“No, I think this because it lies on the metaphysical side of Popper’s demarcation line”
Well, whoop-de-doo. I’m so glad you choose to speak with authority because you’ve read about Karl Popper. Of course, Popper contended that a theory could be considered scientific if – and only if – it is falsifiable.
Collins denies the supernatural origin of morality can be falsifiable. He claims he knows this by divine revelation, and by his observation (through rigorous expermiments? see below) that animals lack morality.
Whatever side of the demarcation line you think you stand, you’ve already admitted that a supernatural origin of morality is BS. It’s too late for you to now attempt – lamely – to appeal to authority.
“Without some rigorous data all we have are our “common sense” opinions, which any scientist knows are a piss-poor guide to actual knowledge of the universe and its phenomena.”
When my dog acts in a moral fashion, I haven’t set up an experiment, nor do I need to in order to understand what’s going on with my dog. When I visit Death Valley and stand on the salt flats I don’t need rigorous experiments to know what the white stuff at my feet will taste like. I don’t need to experiment to know what falls out of the sky when it rains.
“Everyone is irrational about a great number of things”
Except in my case, you’re right. ;-) That’s why Harris has qualms about Collins having power over purse-strings: Collins is not always rational when it comes to science (and religion).
We don’t let pedophiles who have acted on their impulses have access to children, even though some pedophiles claim love between adults and children is rational. The rest of us know otherwise. These same pedophiles are rational in all other thoughts.
People who think t.v., radio, and wireless Internet connections are controlling their brains aren’t in charge of mental hospitals. In other ways, these people are perfectly rational.
It would be irrational for Democrats to put Republicans in charge of their caucuses, and vice versa.
Belief in a god based on seeing a frozen waterfall is irrational, particularly since it comes from an otherwise brilliant scientist. And belief that dogs are not moral because a god doesn’t infuse their brains with that attribute is irrational, too.
Harris distrusts Collins because Collins thinks irrationally about issues that are important to humans. Collins thinks a god inserted morality into our brains. I’m not aware that Harris had a better candidate in mind. He was discussing, at Bill Maher’s urging, Collins’ irrational beliefs and their potential effect.
Which of course is what happens here everyday.
Well, whoop-de-doo. I’m so glad you choose to speak with authority because you’ve read about Karl Popper. Of course, Popper contended that a theory could be considered scientific if – and only if – it is falsifiable.
Speak with authority? I thought that my nickname appearing at the top of every post was a pretty big clue that everything which followed inside it was my opinion. For what it’s worth, yes, I’ve studied the philosophy of science quite a bit, which include Popper, Kuhn, Feyerabend, Latour, Laudan, and many others. Does that make me right? Not necessarily. But it does make my opinion an informed one. Popper’s demarcation criteria is a good starting point for discussing what is science and what is metaphysics, though I have my own problems with falsificationism.
Collins denies the supernatural origin of morality can be falsifiable.
He is certainly right about that. The supernatural origin of morality is not a falsifiable hypothesis.
When my dog acts in a moral fashion, I haven’t set up an experiment, nor do I need to in order to understand what’s going on with my dog.
Then, no offense, but you would make a poor behavioral scientist.
When I visit Death Valley and stand on the salt flats I don’t need rigorous experiments to know what the white stuff at my feet will taste like.
Considering it ain’t all NaCl, you might be in for a shock if you actually tried that.
I don’t need to experiment to know what falls out of the sky when it rains.
You would not know the composition of the raindrops (their acidity, etc.) unless you, ahem, did an experiment (or, rather, many).
We don’t let pedophiles who have acted on their impulses have access to children, even though some pedophiles claim love between adults and children is rational. The rest of us know otherwise. These same pedophiles are rational in all other thoughts.[...]People who think t.v., radio, and wireless Internet connections are controlling their brains aren’t in charge of mental hospitals. In other ways, these people are perfectly rational.
Come on, this is apples and bricks. Do I really have to tear this one apart?
Harris distrusts Collins because Collins thinks irrationally about issues that are important to humans. Collins thinks a god inserted morality into our brains. I’m not aware that Harris had a better candidate in mind. He was discussing, at Bill Maher’s urging, Collins’ irrational beliefs and their potential effect.
Harris distrusts Collins because Collins has a non-falsifiable hypothesis about a small area of human experience and then is extrapolating from that one hypothesis an alarmist view about what Collins may or may not fund as the Director of NIH. Given the absolute paucity of data available that would suggest that Collins is at all prone to such behaviors as de-funding projects he disagrees with ideologically, I’d say that that extrapolation was a sloppy and unjustified one.
OK, Elemenope – I’ll give you the last word, if you want it. There will undoubtedly be other discussions.
Undoubtedly. Good debate.
Sorry I only skim read that thread, I’m about to go to work, but for all the people defending Collins. Would they be happy with his appointment if instead of being Christian, he believed in Voodoo, Witchcraft, Father Christmas, Fortune Telling ETC.
Its all ANTI scientific.
It would be like appointing an Atheist as the next Pope.
Harris makes a persuasive argument in The End of Faith. Beliefs, he says, are statements that we accept as true, describing the world that we live in. If you believe as Francis Collins does, your interactions with the world will be distorted to the same magnitude that your view of the world is divorced from reality.
For example, if you honestly, truly, and incorrectly believe that you have won the lottery, then you will buy lots of things that you don’t actually have the money for.
Collins believes things about morality that would squelch scientific explanations – evolutionary psychology, etc.
How is this not a problem for science?
It’s actually a poor argument on his part, because it ignores tons of evidence regarding how people actually behave in the real world. Tons of people loather their bosses and think their departure from this world would brighten it considerably, and yet you don’t see people expressing that opinion at work, much less offing their bosses in record numbers. Under most circumstances, people suppress the activity of their beliefs and the behaviors that would normally result from their application, for some other long-term good or just out of sheer politeness. A person may believe (even with good evidence) that a sexual partner may be overweight or have unsavory habits at home, but often would not voice or act on those beliefs.
Harris seems to be arguing, without any evidence that Collins will stifle research in certain areas because he has personally held and expressed beliefs that may conflict with the progress of some of those theories. This ignores his stellar record as a good scientist and objective administrator, and assumes that Collins is incapable of doing something that nearly every function human being does each and every day in many areas of their lives.
Please excuse the sloppy word forms and assorted grammatical errors in the above. Benadryl makes me woozy. :)
Someone who believes the death of their boss would improve their life are much more likely to murder their boss than someone who does not. Beliefs are where actions come from. That you might believe something else, such as “committing murder would make my life worse to a greater extent than my boss’s death would make it better” does not invalidate the claim.
I don’t think anyone is arguing that Collins is a bad scientist; it is a political position. It seems obvious and reasonable to me that someone who thinks religion is anti-scientific would object to the appointment of a religious person to a position with a great deal of authority over the direction and funding of scientific research.
Someone who believes the death of their boss would improve their life are much more likely to murder their boss than someone who does not.
This is undoubtedly so. It’s also likely the difference of less than a tenth of a percentage point in prior probability of the act. The vast majority of people aren’t murderers, but more to the point, the ones that are are unlikely to need the justification of improving the world by killing one’s boss, while the ones that aren’t are unlikely to act on their belief even if it is strongly held.
Beliefs are where actions come from.
I’d really like to believe this (because it would make everything so much simpler), but I think it is about 90% wrong. Most of human actions, including the ones we manage to rationalize away after-the-fact, are driven by instinct, not belief. To the extent that people are motivated by beliefs, the way the belief is personally interpreted has much more of an effect than any disembodied rendering of that same belief set. This is why if someone tells you they are a Christian (or a Jew, or a Buddhist), this piece of information alone is next-to-useless to predicting their actions in most situations.
That would be true if I had said “beliefs are the only motivator of actions”. Only 10%? Fine. That is still an immense influence. It’s also the only motivator that is mutable, if we can’t change instincts or the actions of others (counting “reaction” as an action-motivator).
Disagree. Depends on the situation. It may not help you predict, say, their favorite sport, but if the question is whether they’ll eat pork, support stem-cell research, or fail to meet violence with violence, knowing their belief system will aid your accuracy immensely.
(* Hm, you did write “most situations”, which I suppose is accurate, but I contend that there are key situations where their beliefs are quite important.)
Perhaps it was an overly strict reading of “beliefs are where actions come from”, but even if beliefs are a substantial element of decision-making, I have difficulty agreeing with the underlying premise, namely that we have substantial control over our beliefs. To go all recursive, 90% of actions are driven by instinct and 10% perhaps selected consciously as following from belief, but in turn 90% of the selection and retention of belief is instinct (either raw, or instinctively programmed responses to stimuli; i.e. experiences).
I’d like to think that I have a lot of choice and that I deliberately chose being an Atheist, a Libertarian, etc.., but I suspect that these things were primarily informed by the way my brain is wired, and how those wired-in biases affect how I understood experiences throughout my life.