What do you think of this quote from Sam Harris?

Question

"When we have reasons for what we believe, we have no need of faith; when we have no reasons, or bad ones, we have lost our connection to the world and to one another. Atheism is nothing more than a commitment to the most basic standard of intellectual honesty: One’s convictions should be proportional to one’s evidence. Pretending to be certain when one isn’t--indeed, pretending to be certain about propositions for which no evidence is even conceivable--is both an intellectual and a moral failing. Only the atheist has realized this. The atheist is simply a person who has perceived the lies of religion and refused to make them his own."

Answer 1

While I truly enjoy watching Richard Dawkins speak more than Sam, I find Sam Harris' ability to carefully prepare and support logical arguments, superior even to Dawkins.

Letter to a Christian Nation and 'The end of faith' (from which I believe this quote to be taken) are both outstanding works.

They are so accurate, well researched, well argued- that I'm surprised the religious right hasn't tried to have them banned in America yet.

Answer 2

Perhaps if this were pertaining to agnosticism I would buy it. There is no evidence G-d does not exist. Therefore an atheist is "pretending" just as much as any believer. At one time, there was no evidence in Europe that America existed. Denying or not knowing of its existence didn't make it any less so. Emphatically denying something that you cannot know to be false is just as intellectually dishonest as emphatically accepting something you cannot know to be true.

Edit: Tardis Girl - Perhaps I took a more narrow definition of the term atheist than you personally use. That being, one who denies the existence of a god. And, I don't disagree with a single thing you said. All I meant was that I think that agnosticism is intellectually more honest, more open minded than either atheism or theism. For as soon as you close your mind to the possibility of something, you throw intellect out the window and emotion and pride step in.

I am not arguing the validity of atheism, but rather the validity of the quote from Sam Harris (which is the question after all).

Answer 3

this could be a faux assertion and uinfortunately the Atheists have swallowed it total. they arrive forth with areas of this assertion each and every of the time. Sam Harris did not understand the Bible and that's the reason he have been given fact became around. it incredibly is basically his opinion, and unhappy that many others desperate to have self belief what he suggested. All catastrophes would be stopped after the conflict of Armageddon is won and Christ turns into King over each and every of the earth, the recent earth.

Answer 4

Kudos to Sam Harris.

I've enjoyed his books.

Edit: Gemma S. I consider atheism as the lack of belief in deities, as no religion has provided evidence that a god exists, especially within the narrow social and cultural confines that religions claim.

I do not say there is 100% no chance stuff exists that we have no evidence for (quite the opposite -- we didn't know about infrared light 100 years ago or dark matter 40 years ago), but I do not commit to an idea without evidence. The concepts in religion are ridiculous when considered with an empirical world view: In a universe of hundreds of billions of galaxies (see the simulation below), it is incompatible to believe in specific human deities, and the concept of gods is rather unlikely:

Simulation of 20 million galaxies, 1.5% of the observable universe. Each galaxy contains so many stars that it is impossible for the human intellect to grasp them without mathematics. Earth is just a smudge.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=W35SYkfdGtw&mode=related&search=

Answer 5

The Buddha told his followers not to believe what he said simply because HE said it. Rather, they are to take his path and try it for themselves. In other words - gather the evidence of a paths truthfulness and go from there. In the Buddha's case, they were to engage in the practices he taught them and if it brought them peace in a world of suffering then they would have the evidence they need.

Of course, Buddha is not God and adamantly maintains that point. He asks for intelligent belief.

Answer 6

Sam Harris Rocks!
As an intellectual, He expresses his self very good.
However, His beliefs are not necassarly my own.

Answer 7

That was silly. It is like saying God is not real just because there is no evidence. If you think about it hard enough you can feel it in side and... Oh, no, that was just gas, never mind.

Answer 8

I do not agree with the entirety of the statement but I like many of the points and enjoy the completeness of the thoughts I share.

Answer 9

Very clear reasoning.

Answer 10

Where's his proof of that statement? There's no proof for that, merely acquired assumptions based upon those he's met of religion, and it shows he is unaware of any sincere religionists (even if he has met them), that is no proof to their non-existence.

Faith = being faithful to obligations and vows, and to have intimate understanding, it is not blind optimism, or imitations of dogma. Even his definition of the word is misappropriated based upon common experience instead of its actual, and original, meaning.

He was absolutely right about having to have truth in their lives, and not act according to what they've been told by others. His assessment there is perfect and true, but he doesn't abide by it, so he practices what's called "bad faith". All religionists also practice bad faith if they are not truthful in every way, and free from prejudice, each person in their degrees.

He fails by his own standards of truth. It reminds me of "Everything I tell is a lie - I'm lying right now." All that means to imply is that sometimes I lie, even to myself. It is no contradiction, merely an aperture of variance of times and choices.

There is no valid evidence that atheism is true, it merely presumes itself so because it does not know and deems itself the highest truth, so is trying to have the worth of being all-knowing by assertion rather than by validation. That's what I'd call making man into god.

Hypocrites are always self-evident, and generally we all are from time to time, so we are not any God worthy of being called God, and thus can not say what God is, merely suppose that Singular Perfection is conceivable, and therefore a reality, of mere potential to us, but manifest to its own being.

The universe didn't come from non-existence, it's always been there, as nothing comes from nothing, and everything from Everything as matter of Principle, and therefore every potential of it has always been there, and time-space is an effect of that All-Potential, so it follow that it is all from One First Cause.

Genius is Latin for Guardian angel, and it is the same thing as what's called Atman in Hinduism, the Highest Self of humanity, and that is subservient to the First Cause. Atheist can not be Genius by definition, except by accident, because they deny such a thing exists, imitators and false religionists also deny such a thing, preferring to follow blindly.

Do not cease to love them of bad faith (everyone), for somewhere deep down they are perfect, but do not manifest it except in claims, and are then like children, reading the pictures put to their own words, and claiming they are reading the written words. All children deserve more love and caring than the strong and wise, for the wise stand on their own, while children need help and guidance whether they admit it or not.

In sum, he implicatively says "Shame on you for being imperfect like me, you who practice religion, should be perfect." Which I agree, but no more than he should be likewise at least to his own knowledge, for we are all created from the same dust, and have the same origin, and the same goal.

God bless.