Beyond Belief 2007: Sam Harris is Not an Atheist
Posted on Dec 4th, 2007
by 
~C4Chaos
~C4Chaos
(Crossposted from www.c4chaos.com)
I just started watching the videos from Beyond Belief 2007: Enlightenment 2.0. You can watch all the videos here.
I've skipped the other videos and went directly to Sam Harris's talk. In this talk Sam Harris expressed his reasoning for shunning the "Atheist" label. He did this before during the AAI 2007 (Atheist Alliance International) conference which, naturally, drew criticisms from (fellow) Atheists.
BB 2007: Friday, November 2: Session 1 of 1
This is the reason why I like Sam Harris. He's not only intellectually fluffy but also ballsy. I think people who casually use the label "integral" should also take heed. Having said that, I'll go out on a limb and say that Sam Harris is probably the most integral among the New Atheists. There I said it. If you have doubts or you don't agree with me, go watch the video and let me know. I'm always open for discussions.
Thanks to RichardDawkins.Net for the heads up!
Note: The video I posted above is a 4-hour unedited version. It also includes a talk by Daniel Dennett, Jeff Hawkins, Daniel Lord Smail, and PZ Myers. Make sure to check out a short talk by the uber-entrepreneur Jeff Hawkins (see video at the 1:50 mark). Hawkins proposed to approach Enlightenment 2.0 a perspective of entrepreneurship. He basically agrees with Sam Harris about avoiding labels such as "Atheism."
The Beyond Belief 2007 (unedited) videos are quite long. Most of them run for 4 hours. So get some popcorn if you're planning to watch them all :)
Access: PublicTagged with: Sam Harris, Jeff Hawkins, Beyond Belief, conferences, religion, integral, atheism, atheist, videos, New Atheists, The Science Network
atheism
July 2008
Thanks for the head up, my friend,
I find myself with an unexpected day off, so it'll be these vids and season 1 of 24 all day. Oh, and maybe some reading/blogging.
Peace,
Bill
LOL. Season 1 of 24, all day?! i warn you! that's crack! :)
looking forward to your take on this Sam Harris video and your 24-hr adrenaline rush experience :)
~C
Sweet! I've been waiting for these, as the '06 debates were hawt! Thanks, ~C :)
Hey ~C,
Yeah, I bought the first five seasons at Costco the other day – a nice box set. And yeah, it IS crack.
I posted a response to the Sam Harris lecture at my blog. Very interesting.
Thanks again,
Bill
~C,
I've been thinking about the Sam Harris video on and off today. What struck me, looking back, is that sometimes I was thinking, “Oh, the same old Sam.” And other times, “Wow, his thinking has changed.”
I wonder if maybe he is in the midst of a stage shift? Maybe moving out of the Orange and into the Green. I'm sure his will be no touchy-feelly Green, so it will be interesting to see where he is going.
I do hope that he is moving out of the purely rational ethical stance that allowed him to defend torture as necessary evil.
Any thoughts on this?
Peace,
Bill
“I've been thinking about the Sam Harris video on and off today. What struck me, looking back, is that sometimes I was thinking, “Oh, the same old Sam.” And other times, “Wow, his thinking has changed.””
i haven't followed Sam Harris as long as you have, so i don't know if his thinking “has changed.” my opinion is that, his thinking has been the same eversince the publication of his book, The End of Faith, it's just that his position was misundertood by people who didn't put careful attention to his views (presently company included). i've read the end notes on his book and i find that his views have fairly been consistent. he didn't even use the word “atheist” or “atheism” in the End of Faith book. Harris said:
“My concern with the use of the term “atheism” is both philosophical and strategic. I’m speaking from a somewhat unusual and perhaps paradoxical position because, while I am now one of the public voices of atheism, I never thought of myself as an atheist before being inducted to speak as one. I didn’t even use the term in The End of Faith, which remains my most substantial criticism of religion. And, as I argued briefly in Letter to a Christian Nation, I think that “atheist” is a term that we do not need, in the same way that we don’t need a word for someone who rejects astrology. We simply do not call people “non-astrologers.” All we need are words like “reason” and “evidence” and “common sense” and “bullshit” to put astrologers in their place, and so it could be with religion.”
i don't have his book with me right now, but he has an end note where he explained his views on eastern and western philosophers saying that the rational accomplishments of western philosophers pale in comparison with the eastern philosophers/mystics when it comes to the nature of consciousness.
“I do hope that he is moving out of the purely rational ethical stance that allowed him to defend torture as necessary evil.”
maybe he watched too much 24? just a warning: after watching all the seasons of 24, you might end up agreeing with Harris :)
seriously, i would like to hear an integral perspective on the topic of torture. is there a situation where torture is ethical (as Harris had argued)? if torture is practiced (underground) anyway regardless of public opinion, then how do we best deal with it from an integral perspective? having said that, i find it hard to disagree with Sam Harris when he said this:
“…our interrogators should know that there are certain circumstances in which it will be ethical to break the law. Indeed, there are circumstances in which you would have to be a monster not to break the law. If an interrogator finds himself in such a circumstance, and he breaks the law, there will not be much of a will to prosecute him (and interrogators will know this). If he breaks the law Abu Ghraib-style, he will go to jail for a very long time (and interrogators will know this too).”
my two cents.
~C