What If Religion Maximises Wellbeing? - Sam Harris
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 2 апр 2024
- Get all sides of every story and be better informed at ground.news/AlexOC. Subscribe for 40% off unlimited access or try it for less than $1 this month.
Watch the full episode with Sam Harris: • Debating The Moral Lan...
For early, ad-free access to videos, support the channel at / alexoc
To donate to my PayPal (thank you): www.paypal.me/cosmicskeptic
- SPECIAL THANKS
A special thanks to Tom Rindell for his support on Patreon.
- CONNECT
My Website/Blog: www.cosmicskeptic.com
SOCIAL LINKS:
Twitter: / cosmicskeptic
Facebook: / cosmicskeptic
Instagram: / cosmicskeptic
TikTok: @CosmicSkeptic
The Within Reason Podcast: podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast...
- CONTACT
Business email: contact@cosmicskeptic.com
Or send me something:
Alex O'Connor
Po Box 1610
OXFORD
OX4 9LL
ENGLAND
------------------------------------------
![How Did The Wealthy Gain Power In The Past? - Yuval Noah Harari [2015] | Intelligence Squared](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/TYAKHLrr51w/mqdefault.jpg)
Get all sides of every story and be better informed at ground.news/AlexOC. Subscribe for 40% off unlimited access or try it for less than $1 this month
hey @CosmicSkeptic, doing piecemeal content, especially prerolling for three days is dishonest as fc*k, and deteriorates goodwill. well, if you need low quality people, then i guess, yay for audience capture! you lost me, though
Not having kids maximizes well being. No life = no suffering.
@@AnonymousWon-uu5yn what happened to evolution?
@@crabb9966 evolution is still going on. Why do you ask?
If we are soulless then it would be stupid to do 'moral good' whatever that would be. It is those that take advantage of others that are smart in that case.
I don't think it's limited to community.
I think the actual beliefs provide people some level of order in a sea of chaos. It gives them a structure to calm their minds.
I imagine the idea of a loving ruling force is inherently calming IF you can sincerely believe in the idea.
I'm an Atheist, so I'm fundamentally unconvinced by the claim of a deity but I can easily understand how it can potentially structure or order reality and in doing so provide some level of comfort.
Just to elaborate - Because I don't think you can reliably argue unconvinced people into believing, the question effectively becomes 'should we indoctrinate kids into religion, if religion is reliably shown to increase well being?'
I think there is probably a good enough argument against deliberate deception. That an uncomfortable truth might still be preferable to a comforting lie, but I guess there's a lot of grey area.
Agreed. Churches tell people their decisions mean something, that morality matters, that the creator loves them so much they’d die for them, that there is objective good and bad, and that following the rules has a real, powerful outcome.
To believe it’s only community is absurd. It’s the beliefs themselves.
I think this is generally true. Confusion about the nature of the universe ("God" made it), fear of death (eternal life), and pain of lost ones (you'll see them in heaven) are the bedrock of faith that almost all religious people, I suspect, struggle to let go. I'd be willing to wager many religious folks would give up all the other things (the weird songs, the funny hats and the bizarre rules) if they could still hold on to those three things. The biggest problem that a non-religious proposition presents is that it can't provide a satisfactory answer to these deep, deep concerns. "We don't know what before the big bang even means", "Nothing happens after you die", and "make the most of it now because it's all you'll get", are catastrophically unsatisfying for most religious folks. I mean... they're unsatisfying to me too, but I'm aware that these are the best answers we currently have.
@@AlmightyFSM It's not just the religious folks that those answers are unsatisfying for, it is the VAST majority of the world.
Atheists are usually educated, scientifically literate, thoughtful, and introspective. The New Atheists and their early supporters were scientists and mathematicians. The flaw of these people was believing that everyone else in the world was like them.
Most average people are just trying to get through the day. They don't have the time, space, or intelligence to consider their grand purpose, to ponder the value of life in a disteological universe - they raise their family and contribute to society because it's what they 'should' do. And in the West, that 'should' is primarily based on Christian ethics.
That purpose has to be ground into people's brains every single day. It needs to be an ever-present reminder, or else there is literally nothing preventing someone from slipping into hedonism and self-serving behavior at the expense of the community. China did this with Communism, Japan did it with Bushido, the West did it with Christianity.
Atheists don't have that. They have nothing. Sam Harris and others have realized they have created an enormous lack of purpose for most people, and in that void is only darkness and depravity. It's why he's trying so desperately to make 'objective morality' into a real concept - so we can teach morals as if they were scientific facts. But he is undone by his own skepticism.
Religion is an opiate.
Alex is excellent at playing devil's advocate. I think this is because he is legitimately curious, and is honestly seeking the truth. He is able to steelman views that he doesn't hold himself (like religion in this case). You can tell a lot of commenters haven't listened to much of Alex or of Sam before seeing this clip. Alex is NOT religious and does not ACTUALLY want Sam to remove The Moral Landscape from publication lmao get a grip. He is just pushing Sam on these points so he can understand his position better!
This is definitely a quirk of British interviewers - I think it stems from the BBC having to be fully impartial so we now just accept it as an excellent interview technique. I remember Ben Sharpiro being subjected to this by Andrew Neil and he stomped off set like a petulant child ranting about how biased and liberal Neil was (words to that effect) and of course Neil is known for being fairly conservative 😄 Alex did a great job here I think.
I think Alex has been on both side of the isle. It is easier to play devil advocate if you were on that side at one point
I don't know of anyone that can practice login in realtime at the level Alex can, he is exceptional. He's deceitful sometimes, but I'm pretty sure he knows he's doing it, so I don't mind so much.
I agree, but I think it speaks more about the lack of integrity in Sam as a philosopher or seeker of wisdom. His attachment to his own judgment is ridiculous and glaringly obvious. I can't take his views seriously because of it
Alex's devil's advocate role is a sign of honesty. However, people must understand that it's a role and that it has a specific purpose. I saw him doing it in the case of Dawkins and Hitchens too. In the case of William Lane Craig it's better to be a real devil (figuratively speaking) though, because those types need to be tested more since they have a lower level of thinking.
The part where you say people go to church even when they don't want to is an important note. Think about how hard it is to get people to go to a birthday party for example - something that is almost always a blast. Getting people to put on clean pants and leave their house is really hard for some reason.
When you take church out of many peoples lives, like my parents who have no kids at home, they wouldn’t have much of a reason to go out to meet people.
They don't not want to go to birthday parties per se, it depends on who's party it is.
@@SiiKiiNI got to church weekly and I loathe meeting new people. It’s a duty the way I see it.
I go to churches cathedrals and public houses when others die if the religion of your choice is heading to worse potentially then get out when you have the chance that's a free moral decision.
@@Hreodrich yes
"Community" is the keyword here. People in religious communities are better because they are in community.
100% I cannot find a community that resembles church in a secular environment. An intergenerational group of people who (in the best circumstances) care about you and your wellbeing and check on you when they haven’t seen you in a couple weeks!? Yah it’s very helpful for the community part
Yes, that’s what religions are
I think that the concept of "community" could be expanded to include "positive social interaction". In the US we have obliterated just about every chance for that. Our cities are no longer walkable, everyone drives to and from home and remain isolated from their neighbors once they arrive at home, children don't play outside anymore, social clubs in small towns are dying or gone (my town use to have many - Civitans, Masons, Rotary Club, Kiwanis, American Legion, etc).
I myself have joined a FreeThinkers group in my area, but we don't meet often enough.
However, I don't think that religion is the only thing that can improve the sense of community. Many Scandinavian countries are considered the happiest in the world but religion has a lesser role. What they DO have is much stronger communities than we have in the US. I'll give you one example - I visited Iceland a few years back. I noticed one place where social interaction takes place are the natural hot baths. Everybody goes there and they talk to each other in this setting.
There are a lot of toxic "Communities' out there and a lot of those have some religious ground. Forced communities are not a good thing.
I agree that is part of the equation but speaking as a religious person my self the main joy of attending a religious service for me is not just that there is community there but that I actually experience God in those settings.
Alex, brother, thank you for the good work and meaningful discussions… keep it up! I ask selfishly because your work has improved my well being!
I’m Christian and I don’t dream about heaven. I’m too busy with what needs to be done on earth and how I can serve others.
Uploading this as a playlist is another good way of presentation.
Great questions Alex, as always.
Alex you did an excellent job interviewing Samuel 💪🏽🙌🏽🫡
This is a good topic! ❤
In my thirties, I was drawn to secular humanism, influenced by Hitchens and Harris. Their arguments seemed compelling, but as I’ve grown older, I’ve realized their limitations. Life is more complex than any single ideology can capture. My views have evolved, reflecting the richness and nuance of human experience. This journey of learning and self-discovery continues, making life an ever-evolving process of growth and understanding.
It’s wonderful to be free of religious dogma and all its rules and limitations and able to swim in the vast lake of spiritual ideas.
This has been my experience as well. All people, of all beliefs, and places, enjoy the full spectrum of human experience.
Christians have their own brand of intense joy, deep mourning, and experience of the profound.
Muslims, Buddhists, southern whites, and Hindi people enjoy the richness of life in their own ways.
And something else I’ve learned through psychology and interaction, is that we ALL hold irrational beliefs.
Keeping to one ideology, or worse, embracing only the negation of an ideology, is to limit the richness and depth of your own life.
Similar experience, similar conclusion 👍 I’m at a point in my life where I can happily agree with Dawkins one minute and Peterson the next 😆
@@charliekowittmusic Are the women of Afghanistan enjoying the richness of experience in their own ways? Well, yes, if you include under the definition of richness ... richness in ways to suffer. In pursuit of richness of experience, should one seek out and embrace all the ways to live in pain and ignorance? Harris's point is that there is richness and there is poverty of experience, and we can discriminate between them, and it is sensible to seek out the peaks, rather than wallow in the valleys.
And to your final point, to negate fascism is to limit "richness and depth of your own life"? What about negating cannibalism, as a way of life? Harris supports evaluating ideologies on the basis of their capacity to provide better or peak experiences of well-being, versus other ideologies. He does not advocate nihilism (which I think you are confusing with atheism).
@@flybefreethe rules or limitations you are talking about are misleading the audience here, the highest spiritual mystics promise that those “limitations” are the actual discipline to become free… I invite you to read “The Spirit of the Disciplines”, you will increase in wisdom and if you try, you will experience real freedom..
I recommend Robin Dunbar's book. How religion evolved and why it endures.
I mean, lying to yourself can be beneficial in some instances.
You just keep telling yourself that. 😂
@@Jonas-gl9kewhere is the funny
@@Jonas-gl9keprove me wrong, then, champ. You're saying the placebo effect isn't real? You legitimately think that self delusion can't be beneficial in any way? Then prove it... I'll wait😅
@@ShirleyTimple you should prove that lying to yourself is beneficial, not a person you saying it to should prove it otherwise
@@Danila438you should probably read the words in front of you before commenting on them. The placebo effect was mentioned, and is a proven response to untruth being helpful. It's the belief in something that works, not the thing itself. Do you need further hand holding on this?
"When one loses the deep intimate relationship with nature, then temples, mosques and churches become important." J. Krishnamurti
So too schools, sports arenas, business....Krishnamurthis comment very shall and selective.
those are not the same@@dharmayogaashram979
@@dharmayogaashram979 "If you have no relationship with nature, you have no relationship with man." J. Krishnamurti
Sounds like a patently untrue and unconvincing statement for anyone who isn't already in that camp.
@@cyberneticbutterfly8506 Camping in nature ?
I agree with the lack of community in atheism and the benefits of church in that regard. I’ve been toying with the idea of starting an “agnostic church” with some friends; basically get together, have food/coffee, talk about life and literature. The goal is to have everything that organized religion offers in terms of community minus religious dogma
Clubs like that tend to have one or two awkward meetings and then peter out. To keep people coming back, you need them to be emotionally invested. In a church community, that comes from a shared belief. But it's very hard to generate an emotion in someone to the same extent that religion does.
In England this kind of thing used to exist. We called it a pub.. people used to congregate almost daily after work to chat and drink together for about 3 hours before going home to bed. Now we have the screens
secular states tried that, look at USSR or the n@zis, we need God!
This has happened in many places before and they tend to quickly fall apart. It also get's a lot of atheists/agnostics to question it because it's basically a religion in everything but name. Non-believers don't like doing things similar to what religious people do, they actively try to avoid it, hence why it's one of the reasons atheists find it so hard to create secular communties, they naturally become religious/spiritual-type spaces.
Check out the Unitarian Universalist "church." I consider them to be an "agnostic church." They will meet those goals.
I really like your content Alex. Have you given any thought to sharing your thoughts on Buddhism and Daoism? I’d be very interested in your take on the value of these things amongst others, those just being used for example
Nice video as always! :)
I’ve listened to Sam Harris for years and he reminds me of a quote from CS Lewis:
You cannot go on 'seeing through' things for ever. The whole point of seeing through something is to see something through it. It is good that the window should be transparent, because the street or garden beyond it is opaque. How if you saw through the garden too? It is no use trying to 'see through' first principles. If you see through everything, then everything is transparent. But a wholly transparent world is an invisible world. To 'see through' all things is the same as not to see.
Sam seems to see “through” all of human experience in a way that leaves it devoid of wonder. Instead of the whole being greater than the sum of its parts, it becomes somehow less and that will NEVER lead to a secular community that can rival or even come close to that a religious community.
There are hundreds, if not thousands of religious communities that have died out, along with the religions they practiced. There's no reason, absolutely none, to believe that our current religions will not share the same fate.
@@AlanDantes76 perhaps you could say the same for rational materialism
@@buglepong Perhaps I could say that if my grandma had wheels should would have been a bike.
@AlanDantes76 That's like saying, "Many car companies have failed, therefore Ford will fail". Except Ford won't fail because their engines still facilitate combustion, their wheels still turn, and you can get from point A to B. It's the exact same as Christianity. It works, and so it will never fail, and nothing you say can prove otherwise because you're fighting against an 100% success rate.
@@thomaspopescu9952 What a dumb ass comment, and a strawman. Ford was set to fail, as were most automakers years ago, but Obama bailed them out. Guess you missed that. Your mommy and daddy indoctrinated you into Christianity. It's sad you can't think for yourself. If you had grown up in Indonesia you'd be a different religion.
His aversion to religion, in the sense usually attached to the term, was of the same kind with that of Lucretius: he regarded it with the feelings due not to a mere mental delusion, but to a great moral evil. He looked upon it as the greatest enemy of morality: first, by setting up factitious excellencies - belief in creeds, devotional feelings, and ceremonies, not connected with the good of human kind - and causing these to be accepted as substitutes for genuine virtue: but above all, by radically vitiating the standard of morals; making it consist in doing the will of a being, on whom it lavishes indeed all the phrases of adulation, but whom in sober truth it depicts as eminently hateful
John Stuart Mill
But there is no 'genuine virtue' without it.
What do you mean by genuine virtue? 😂 The audacity for an Atheist to mock Christianity and yet pretend like they can still have objective morality.
@@matthewphilip1977there sure is. it’s just not the abrahamic god accompanied with some delusional mythology from ignorant bronze age old men
@@ryanhenneberger2679 Why do you believe that?
That's why atheists all have the same moral code. They're free from the "dogma" of religion. They never had any mass murder, preventable starvation, arbitrary "purification" of races etc 😅
This is a great question to pose to him
Best ASMR video I’ve ever watched.
There was an Ohio University study in 2018 that found that those with religious beliefs had an average increase of life expectancy of about 4 years. Don’t know how credible the study was or if it’s been replicated but it’d be interesting to know what aspects of religious belief have a significant impact if accurate.
Excellent clip
🎤I was once atheist due to Harris and others like him but i finally reverted back to faith of god and Islam.✊
alhamdullah 🎉 🎉
Why?
Maybe everything just isn’t about maximizing well-being, but it’s about being and doing what is true good and beautiful, regardless if it maximizes whatever your definition of “wellbeing” is
What is true, good and beautiful?
@@Netomp51 what is true is that which conforms to reality, what is good is that in which perfection Is actual, and what is beautiful is that in which there is right proportion.
@@tonywallens217 Focusing solely on what's true, good, and beautiful without considering well-being is like using a compass that always points to north when you're trying to find east-not wrong, but not the whole direction you need, also your definition of true, good and beautiful is lacking objectivity, I have a better response: Jesus Christ, he proclaimed to be the truth the way and the life, his teachings are the true good and beauty of life to maximize the well being.
@@Netomp51 what is true good and beautiful is ultimately God. So yeah I’m with you. But if I just say that in this comment section no one will take it seriously.
Truth, beauty, and goodness are the transcendentals that lead one to God.
If I had to choose who would I like to have as my neighbours..then I would over everyone else love to live next to a christian family with like three children. They are probably quiet, have no rave parties, no drugs and alcohol, I "know" them which means I know what christians try to be like and this makes them less of a threat to me and my wellbeing. I feel more safe. If my children are playing with their children, I am at ease. They are more predictable to me even as strangers. I know all christians are not like that, but I think you get general point here. Having the Flanders family as your neighbours is actually preferred by many.
Harris, Dawkins...they only care about what is TRUE. Not everything thats is true is better. Having irrational beliefs can be much better for you psychologically than being a rationalist. If you are in a foxhole or have to burry your children in small coffins, what is objective and true gives you nothing of value. Believing that you will see your children again or that God watches over you can be much more valuable. Dont act as if you are all rationalists. You believe money has worth. You believe nations and their borders exist. You believe in social constructs, fantasies, stories that we have commonly made up. We need them to trust each other and to cooperate in large numbers which no other animal can do, that is why no other animal will believe that a piece of green paper is worth ten bananas or a small piece of shiny metal can be worth a box of bananas. That is what professor Yuval Harari has long been talking about. We are irrational beings. That is why we have gotten so far.
Also, I can bet an average christian has healthier lifestyle choises then many secular people have.
Fascinating question to explore, thanks for digging in a bit!
My uninformed guess is that the experience of enhanced wellbeing by religion depends on the individual; that it is true for many, and untrue for at least a significant minority.
If so, to maximize wellbeing, it is important to give people options.
A book undermining faith can be therapeutic to people for whom faith is not experienced positively, helping them let go and move on to something that works better for them.
For people who experience faith as a wellbeing enhancing influence, it would still be important to educate them about the risks associated with various forms of belief, and teach critical thinking skills; so that they can better sift through the good and the bad of religion, and maximize the good.
Anyway, just thinking out loud, this question (whether religion enhances wellbeing) is admittedly not something I've researched, outside of belonging to various online support groups for people whose religious beliefs have crumbled, and who are trying to find ways to move on.
How does he measure wellbeing, and how do we measure how our actions harm the wellbeing of others?
I think he concedes, in a different part of the interview, that no one knows the right way to do this calculus
First we have to start by acknowledging that well-being is the goal and thus requires a scientific methodology to study it. We've already started to establish this-check out the studies behind Positive Psychology to start. This domain of inquiry is in its infancy and Sam doesn't claim to have all the answers. He is only claiming that we need to start asking the questions.
I spent my entire life as an agnostic. Became a Christian a year ago. I know every atheist talking points and now the Christian/theist rebuttal. While alive, I feel now a lot happier and hopeful and the choices I’ve made with Christian morals have made me become a better person to those around me and noticed by even my atheist friends. So my faith is rewarding me while alive, even if wrong in the end. If my faith proves to be right then I’m further rewarded upon death.
Amen! Happier now and forever. I’ve been Catholic for about 10 years now, and I’m immensely more happier. My life has meaning and purpose.
Blissful ignorance is the best
@@robertylonen1896 I think time is telling that blissful ignorance is not the best - all the so-called blissful freedoms of doing whatever you want, the sexual revolution, liberal feminism, hook-up culture, harmless pornography continues to have a devastating effect on the world. Try truth - God, based on faith and reason.
In the context of religion, the concepts of truth and reason require careful consideration. Truth is generally understood as the correspondence between a statement or belief and objective reality. However, in the realm of religion, statements and beliefs are often not subject to empirical verification or objective measurement, nor is there any evidence for it.
Reason, on the other hand, refers to the capacity for logical, rational, and analytical thought. When applied to religion, reason can be used to examine religious doctrines, rituals, and practices to determine their logical coherence and consistency. However, it is important to recognize that religious beliefs often transcend rational explanations and may be based on faith, intuition, or personal experience.
Therefore, when interpreting the relationship between truth and reason in the context of religion, it is essential to consider both the objective and subjective dimensions of religious experience. While reason can provide valuable insights into the logical aspects of religion, it may not fully capture the deeper spiritual and emotional dimensions that are central to many religious traditions.
@@robertylonen1896 Empirical evidence is hardly the only source of truth. I would conjecture that the deepest truths are outside the realm of scientific experimentation. If you are limiting your discussion to objective truths, your statement above is correct.
BOTH faith and reason are sources of authority for our beliefs. Faith includes reason, but it is beyond reason -- suprarational. Since God is not in any genus, both faith and reason are necessary components. He is not a being inside our world. As Thomas Aquinas succinctly said of God, "God is the subsistent act of being itself," where essence and existence coexist. Thus, it would be impossible for us to "prove" the existence or non-existence of God, but there are many rational statements one could make for their belief in God.
Two books I highly recommend for the rational side are Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis and The Language of God by Francis Collins. Francis Collins was director of NIH for years, serving under three presidents. He is a Physician/Scientist who received a PhD from Yale and an MD from UNC before heading the Human Genome Project. He was an atheist, but after reading C.S. Lewis' book, which has converted so many, he wrote books on intelligent design and the rationality of a Creator. If you don't like to read, check him out on RUclips.
Believing that you have a sense of freedom/ autonomy certainly maximizes well being.
What do you mean by "freedom"? What do you mean by "autonomy"?
@@omp199 I think he's referring to free will , as opposed to determinism.
I'm very interested in your and Sam's take on what prof. Dawkins said yesterday on lbc
What was it about?
Dawkins has always maintained that he is a cultural Christian and that Christianity, in his view, is better than Islam. There's a 2007 BBC interview where he says this.
@@pockethookhe called Christianity a fundamentally decent religion and Islam not decent, and he finds it wrong for the government to decorate streets for Ramadan as opposed for Easter which is more of what the tradition should be.
@@anshumangaurav that's not the part I want commented on but the part when he said that Christianity is decent and Islam not.
@@bishimback I mean you can argue christianity may not be that great , but at least the mainstream understanding of Christianity in this time is absolutely better than the mainstream understanding of islam ,
Maybe in the dark ages , they were the same .
But not now .
Why do some men wear eye liner, but never mascara? I just saw a mascara ad on youtube. Got me thinking.
Comfort more so than well being, at a serious cognitive cost.
After listening to Sam Harris, who would want to be an atheist? He’s lost all of his luster. Maybe his enthusiasm is in his shoes.
Atheism is not something people want to be. It's a lack of belief.
Sam Harris is popular because he told people to meditate I believe.
@@avivastudios2311 it is amazing what people get sold on and they think believing people are gullible
@@Shawn-nq7du All people need is something to make them feel good and they subscribe to it.
You can't reduce religion to holding certain propositions. Its is about an entire worldview, lifestyle, practices, community and so on.
I'm sure there's some things that increase well being, but you'd really have to analyze it to see if those benefits can't be obtained by other means.
Honestly, I think the closest thing to what Sam talks about is Zen Buddhism. Has founders and saints, gets together a few times a week, has rituals and community, has a focus on the transcendent, features meditation and ethics, is focused on truth and not dogma, and is even willing to put metaphysical speculation aside to focus on the practical.
This is true, but once I started to get into Zen Buddhism, I realized that all of the great religions are actually quite similar, and that my rejection of Christianity was an inauthentic striving. Actual Buddhists pray for the dead and are open to a realm of religious experience that's foreign to the Western spiritual materialist who just wants to get high on his own supply. Invariably, I ended up becoming Christian, both because I saw Christ as the actual manifestation of the Tao and because I realized how important not being Christian was to me. Look up Seraphim Rose, who was a student of Alan Watts, but who later on became a Christian monk.
Every teaching or body of knowledge becomes dogmatic given enough time. My biggest issue with Sam's version of atheism is that it unfairly and erroneously attributes all the problems of doctrine to religious teachings and metaphysical philosophies themselves.
@@clemonsx90 have you tried a Vipassana 10 day silent meditation course? I don't think anyone should be making their mind up about meditation and it's actual purpose or potential unless they've done one or two of those courses as taught by S.N Goenka. It's entirely Non sectarian. (Not bhuddist)
@@Archeidos-Arcana he doesn't attribute all problems due to those things. He simply highlights that progress is contigent on many factors including the rejection of dogma and un-scientific beliefs
Being introduced to most every religion out there, starting in my early childhood. I always went back to my practice of Buddhism, specifically the teaching of Nichiren Daishonin, chanting daily to elevate our life condition. It’s a truly humanistic practice. And there is so much support and community within the sgi organization. Main focus is world peace by doing our own human revolution.
My father's biggest Mathematical breakthrough came to him in his dream. He is an atheist/agnostic, and I think he explains how this can take place very well.
During REM, our brain goes through our memories/ experiences, and interprets them subconsciously, giving us a new perspective. It's as simple as that: our mind rummages through all of our information, and sometimes happens to combine it in just the right way.
That's how some of the greatest musicians have made some of their pieces. Just because something was revealed in a dream doesn't necessarily mean anything more than that. It's just a dream.
I went to Mass yesterday (07/04/24), the octave of Easter, at the behest of my stepson, raised Muslim, but not a believer. His own motives were impeccable: cultural enrichment through learning about and experiencing the ways different religious communities give expression to their faith.
As I'm sure you know, the Gospel reading of the day was John's account of the post-Resurrection appearance of Jesus to the apostles, and Thomas' demand, as a condition of his belief, that he put his finger in Jesus' wound in his ribs. (I thought our post-Resurrection bodies were supposed to be perfect and unblemished, but that's another story.) In response to my garbled Spanish-to-French translation of John's words, my stepson responded “Oh yes, seeing/touching is believing”, to which I was obliged to reply that while that was indeed Thomas' point of view, the real message of the story, delivered explicitly by Jesus himself, is that “more blessed” are those who believe without proof. He did not reply verbally, but his raised eyebrow spoke volumes.
I think this relates to themes touched on in your discussion with Sam: religious adherence has often (perhaps mostly?) much more to do with “belonging” than “believing”. I suppose, at its worst, it's a form of tribalism, but I would like to feel it has greater value than that. My son and I can call ourselves atheists, but on some level we will always be a “Catholic atheist” and a “Muslim atheist”.
Nobody goes to Heaven when they die.
When you finally realize that there is no god outside of you, that's when your enlightenment starts to unfold.
You realize that you ARE God also. That's when the human consciousness reunites with the soul during ascension.
You become your own Heaven.
There is no communal Heaven.
I think that there are definitely things out there that provide us with social and persomal wellbeing better than religion does. But for many people, religion is the best tool they have access to for that purpose.
Edit: I used the term "tool" to replace the term "technology" so that everyone can be happy ✌️
Technology??? 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
He’s embodying sam harris with the weird vocab lol
Alright, let's use the term "tool" instead of "technology" so that we don't have to focus on semantics I'm really not that interested in 🤷
such as.... ???
Examples?
I think of religion as a feeling of being connected to "the one", meaning you are not alone. Also community is big, as someone else mentioned. It does not exclude pursuing truth, logic or anything else. A positive aspect of Christianity is that it promotes self reflection and work on one self. All major religions probably do that but this is the one I'm most familiar with.
Religion gives you the bookends of life - you know where you came from and you know where you’re going. Religion answers the soul’s deepest questions- why, instead of how. Without religion, you’re just floating and teetering around in life. Life with little meaning and purpose. I’ve been Catholic for almost 10 years and I’m far happier now than in the past. I’m content.
Is it okay for your doctor to prescribe you sugar pills, if he knows based on research that the placebo effect will make you feel better and recover faster?
Could you please please invite dr bruce greyson from The Division of Perceptual Studies (DOPS)? Its kind of frustrating that you always have the "beyond death" and "god" debates with religious people.
I suspect the positive benefit is one of placebo. People of faith are capable of deluding themselves into believing that god will make everything alright. No different to Ron Weasley winning Quidditch for Gryffindor after ‘believing’ he’d taken a luck potion.
Having belief in whatever, despite cold material circumstances, can be highly beneficial.
Placebo is denying God
That's the difference between Sam and Dawkins. Sam puts well-being over what's true; Dawkins pompously pronounces; "I don't care about what's good or evil, I care about what's TRUE!"
I look at it as you can only derive whats good or bad from things that are true/factual first. To me how an opinion of something being "good or bad" gets it's meaning or value/respect because there's some truth about it. "Pain" is an easy way to begin forming an opinion about something being good or bad because "pain" is true first before a person can argue whether it's good or bad. Both quotes are saying the same thing to me.
That's not being pompous, that's just being truthful and actively struggling to look for what is truth. It's living your life by not bearing false witness.
@@deejin25 To look for what is true isn't necessarily pompous, but it often is pompous the way Dawkins goes on about it. And to not care about what's good or evil but care about what's true shows what kind of man he is.
@@Ignirium Sounds like you're talking about good and bad in terms of desirable/undesirable (pain generally being undesirable). They are talking about good and bad in terms of morality.
@@matthewphilip1977 Do you think you can get an is from an ought?
I think you can because i see morality as an emergent property out of things that are real and true (It already is the case that atoms form molecules>cells>organs>nervous systems>brains>many people) hence true things come first and meaningful opinions get their strength by them being matching reality; opinions are based on things being actually true, like pain hurts. Putting Wellbeing over what's true doesn't make sense to me or in itself, why respect what doesn't match/comport to reality?
I have lived an incredible life of spiritual experience and I hope spiritual growth. I've meditated 3 to 7 hours a day for over 25 years and I've experienced incredible things and have a state of consciousness that I don't know a single atheist that has. On my journey with people who believe in some kind of God, I've met many similarly devoted people who have attained very high states of consciousness. Some have attained the fullness of enlightenment. Not a single one of these people is an atheist. It's very hard to imagine a person devoting themselves to love who is an atheist in the same way that the religious people I have known do.
Community is part of it, but it's the God that we all share that brings us together and it's the God that we all experience that is responsible for our awakenings. When asked about this phenomenon, Sam Harris seems to appeal to the future and a kind of faith that one day secular reality will/could produce the same results, but it hasn't and I don't think it ever will. Maybe if we get an atheist version of the Buddha with equal and profoundly deep consciousness that could happen, but I'm doubtful it ever will.
Most of what Sam Harris uses for secular spirituality was borrowed from religion and would have never been discovered without it. His entire approach to secular spirituality seems to be borrowed mostly from Buddhism....
Sam Harris also seems to recognize some quite subtle and profound states that spirituality can produce, but he does also seem to reject the many miracles that sometimes come with those states of consciousness. Although rare and not under personal control I've known many people who have experienced them and I've experienced at least two in person. Miracles are a kind of proof that what we're dealing with is not just a state of consciousness, but it's a state of consciousness that can affect the physical world and affect other people's consciousness. Most deep seekers have experienced this kind of thing enough to know for a fact that there's something more than just our minds at play. For most people it would be a profound loss to not have experienced that and to not know it and would weaken everybody's commitment I think.
I do not think secular spirituality can ever rise to the place that religion holds.
The problem is, we can't determine what story is the most beneficial to believe unless we know all the alternatives including the objective truth. So knowledge of the objective truth would still be important regardless.
Also, who gets to make that determination? For me the truth is important. I'm not saying I would necessarily be able to handle learning the truth. However, assuming I'm ever presented with the opportunity, I think that should be my decision.
It is such a joy to listen to two very smart people converse. Just astonishing the range Harris has. And O'Connor is coming up fast.
It's a bit of a false correlation between `wellbeing` and religious communities. It's more about community and fellowship in general. That appears to be the common thread. Slightly different context, but it reminds me of a movie quote, _"in all our searching, the only thing we've found that makes the emptiness bearable... is each other."_ In my experience over 58 years, I've found that the more meaningful relationships I have, the richer my life is. Moreover, the more people I care about individually, the more I tend to care about people in general. Seems to be a natural consequence.
All is Self, that’s why Christ said the first two commandments are most relevant because they demonstrate that All is Self, and embodying them is acknowledging Truth
Is that consequential to yourself or religion?
@@stephenzaccardelli5863 I'm not entirely sure what you're asking here. Can you reword/clarify it? I just don't want to give an irrelevant answer.
Wrong
@@drewmcmahon2629 Oh well, silly me. Thanks for the wise explanation. 🙄
"Is that the best way to do that better" uhh ok.. even if its not, its better than the currently known alternative. Just sounds like he doesnt want to admit that could be the case.
If lies maximize well-being, why stop at a specific amount of lies as laid out in a religion? Why not add more and more lies to it, until we've maximized well-being as much as possible?
I'd say going to the gym is better than church by a landslide.
why go for witchcraft? A much simpler example is horoscopes and astrology!
My horoscope told me I would not get COVID, so I relaxed and I didn´t. Simple eh? (just kidding)
Well, that had Sam flapping.
Essentially the equation goes along the lines of atheism being better for individuals, and religion being better for societies. Which is fine for Sam & Richard & co when they get to talk about personal truth and all that, and don't have to contend with the black hole of collective societal experience provided by secularists. But even Richard is beginning to understand that the societal impact of what he's been pushing for the last 50 years has consequences he doesn't like. At all.
Sam, by the looks of this, hasn't quite got there yet.
the phrase maximize wellbeing makes me gag. it betrays a misunderstanding of human nature.
The humanist community where I used to live has a weekly get together as well as book and movie discussion groups and talks. It depends where one lives.
And compare these people against Christians and see what happens.
What the studies reveal is the community is important. Not the actual belief in a creator deity.
@@MelFinehout Nah. Try going to a Sunday Assembly (church for atheists). It's ok, but noone is getting the profound experience of a believer.
You are meeting up for socialization and shared interest. Going to church is not for socialization, but to consciously get together to know there's something beyond yourself.
@@riverjustice id say churchers are 99% socialisation
@@riverjustice well, then have someone do the study. I’d update my hypothesis.
This is my intuition based upon my experience and is possible to be wrong.
What did he just waffle about, "is that the best way to that better" well if religious people do better, then it is the best way. The level of mental gymnastics with sam harris is beyond belief
I had to have a defibrillator procedure in the hospital. I was put under with Ketamine. I can assure you there is no religious or secular belief to emulate the experiance .
You are totally conscious just completely unaware of the outside world. It was a disconnect from all external stimuli. A fascinating and wonderful experiance .
You are not high , you are clear minded in a way you have never experienced before .
I am not advocating it as a recreational experiance . I am just saying that of everything that can be thought, felt or experienced. Those moments I was under Ketamine, are a stand alone. There is no category to insert them in
Doing good deeds for others, especially for animals in desperate circumstances, makes me feel better than anything else the world offers-especially religion.
So you do good deeds for others because of how it makes you feel? Shouldn't you do good deeds for others out of your concerns for others? Isn't that more moral than the selfish admission you made?
Um, shouldn't you do good deeds for others because of your genuine concern, rather than how it makes you feel?
@@AlanDantes76 psychological egoism is true I feel. No such thing as a selfless act.
@@AlanDantes76 I can see how it read that way, but No. The discussion is about the assumption that one can only get the sense of deep community ties needed by people through the church.
I take issue with that.
Yes, it is the emotional pain of seeing others suffer that drives me toward them, but in the process I do get an oxytocin payoff. ☺️ People who give of themselves doing things that alleviate suffering are far more important to me. They are who I have an instant bond with. I have seen so my life how church relationships that can easily go ‘sideways’ or toxic due to disapproval and gossip of other parishioners.
Also, per Alex, I don’t need to be taught how to be moral by Bible honkers.
@@LeeLLewis You're singing to the choir with most of your thoughts here, but thanks for the clarification because your statement literally said "doing things for others makes you feel better." One could argue that's quite comparable to religious people doing things because of a fear of going to hell, and expecting rewards from a divine creator.
The most religious countries on Earth have the highest crime rates, highest poverty rates, highest rates of disease, lowest rates of education, least amount of human rights, and the shortest lifespans
China has good human rights?
@@thekillshootable No, but that's not because of lack of religion, it's because of communism and totaIitarianism
@@LilySage-mf7uf Right, so maybe when there’s a lack of religion authoritarianism and communism may fill the void which was originally filled by religion.
@@thekillshootableSouth Korea doesn’t have a religion and the only issue there is lookism and sexism.
@@thekillshootablenot necessarily, just look at South Korea.
If wellbeing is assumed in the free will framework (which is Sam Harris and Robert Sapolsky idea), then we are not really subjective in a sense there is nothing that makes us an agent separated by the objective facts of nature. So morality can be objective in that sense? Of course we cannot know always all the variables and able to maximize in the best possible way wellbeing, but at least we can say it is a real fact of nature and there is a real answer, even though we cannot precisely say. But not knowing 100%, does not mean we know 0%.
Yes, but the direction any one person approaches this objective truth is subjective or rather relative to their own being.
@@UnrealatedContingency ok but looks like resolving a complex equation: sure, everyone can use a different way to solve it (like writing it down, using a calculator, dividing and simplifying some steps) but the solution is one.
So morality is not subjective. You experience it from your point of view, which could be more or less limited by billions of factors, but the same way people experience math differently (some hate it, some less, some love it) those not affect math. And even mathematicians arrive at different possible solutions for a problem they cannot solve, but sure enough they will never say “mathematics is my subjective opinion”.
"Sometimes people deserve to have their faith rewarded" - Batman
Alex O’Connor is the most intellectually honest and sophisticated atheist/agnostic in the bunch.
You got the words out of my mind. Exactly. Love this boy.
Yep, I do not like 95% of atheists but Alex is great, so so smart.
@@JohnnyTwoFingersyou’ve met them all?
Comparing someone with a religious practice and community against someone with no practice and not community is the problem.
Find a group of people that gather for secular spirituality and meditate daily. Compare them against the Christians and see what happens.
That's hard to do. Even if you get a group of atheists to meet up, they are not going to have the same sense of comradery as a group of religious people will.
Secular spirituality? No such thing.
Maybe replace secular spirituality with secular volunteering? Like a group that does river clean ups, birdwatching or Comic Con. Those are communities not based on religion, that promote relationships/social interaction.
@@Raphael4722 and I think you hit the nail on the head. Is it even possible for a group of secularists to gather and discuss a topic that has as much meaning as God would amongst religious people. If the secularists can’t find the same amount of meaning in that group that makes the camaraderie to them that much more special, then it’s unlikely they will achieve the same wellbeing as churchgoers.
If you gather together to meditate daily, you ARE Christians
But you’d need not call yourself one
Alex, please interview Francesca Stavrakopoulou.
I heard a statistic that Nordic countries get the same benefits from religion as they practice christian rituals in large numbers, even though they are mostly atheist, suggesting belief is optional.
The intrinsically (not extrinsic) religious overwhelmingly correlate positively with higher mental and social wellbeing. Sam’s skepticism is too late.
Someone should tell the catholic church this.
I doubt this. Sweden and Denmark are overwhelmingly atheists and have virtually no crime, higher education, long lifespans and generally happier people. In the USA the more religious a state the higher crime and poverty. In the middle-east that argument speaks for itself. Desperate people will believe in whatever placebo effect remedies sadness
Finland is statistically the happiest country in the world and also a majority 66% Evangelical Lutheran Christians. Japan is among the least happiest developed countries and has a population of 65% atheists. That's not to say religion doesn't play a role in a nations wellbeing, but I think the fact there's no consistency in data shows there are plenty more factors to consider when assessing a nation's happiness other than religion.
UAE has 2x lower crime then Denmark and 3.5x lower crime then Sweden, Finland is "happier" and more religious then the two examples so the correlation isnt there, what does education and lifespan have to do with religion?
Sweden has no crime? 😂😂😂
Wow you’ve been living under a rock. Have another go Stephen. It has one of the worst gang violence problems in the world. You should’ve listened to Mark Twain
Isn’t “happier” a subjective measurement? I don’t put a lot of stock in self reporting surveys based on feelings. Feelings are gauged on expectations being met. Feed a starving country everyday for a year and I’m sure their “happiness” would improve dramatically.
"...the more religious a state the higher crime and poverty." Which came first? Religion leading to crime and poverty? Or poverty, to crime, to religion?
I think it's not about religion, it's about collectivitist mindset. People tend to do better in supportive environment.
It’s also about having trust in God. Letting go of things out of your control, it’s all in the hands of God anyways. Having unconditional hope because of God. Knowing your purpose on earth, knowing that this life is temporary at the end of the day etc.
Religious people also live in the West and I wouldn’t call the West a collectivist society.
I honestly don't know how I would have ever gotten the chance to experience the actual potential of meditation ( which is worlds apart from just feeling calmer or "quieting the mind" etc). Without doing a 10 day silent Vipassana course. The paradoxical nature of the goal, the reasons for sitting, the benefits and the how easily they all come is astoundingly beautiful with this alternate dimensional expansion in perspective. And it's attained through the simplest forms of self observation. All I needed was a tiny bit of guidance and support to sit down long enough and persist long enough to experience it. Without that wisdom from others who have experienced it I would never have even tried, and without their gentle encouragement and quiet/patient support I would have given up on day 2. It's funny when the answers we've been searching for were under our noses all along 😉 I wish you all the very best in your journeys to truly know thyself from experience. ❤
Every time I hear this guy talk I wonder why I ever thought Sam Harris was a formidable mind
Ok.
No matter the number or magnitude of the benefits of ignoring, trivializing or being too stupid to understand or value what is true; lies, untruths and fiction will never maximize wellbeing. The benefits of actually living in a world where the number one priority by far is trying to establish what is true far outweigh living in any alternate world. Furthermore, despite how stupid the world has been and currently is in so many ways, the only way things become irredeemable is if we get to a post-truth world where we are living in a way where what is true is no longer the most valued principle. Some people and corporations already operate in this way but it is not yet the majority. If it becomes the majority, it's game over.
Couldn't agree more 💯
It will never 'maximise', but it may increase the 'perceived wellbeing' for some within the bounded dimension that they themselves created.
There are many secular examples of community that are as useful as religious communities for mental and moral wellbeing. If you think about those that did badly / worse during COVID you get an idea of them- sport (watching and participating), art, music, exercise, reading. We do have secular versions of religious communities that share moralities and are mentally beneficial. People get together to go to music gigs, art shows, sports fixtures etc. it’s ridiculous to argue that these don’t have equivalency with religious get togethers. The morality may be different but no less important. Hearing your favourite band play your favourite song is transcendent, watching Djordevic score against Caen for Nantes is transcendent.
As someone who was an atheist for 20 years,
i can say that even without comunity,
live gets immeasurably easier when comming to believe in something.
Believe provides comfort and certainty for the mind.
For me, the only way to achieve any degree of certainty is through evidence. Wishful thinking provides me with no comfort. Delusion looks counterproductive to me.
Why would you believe in Jewish zombies tho?
And religious rituals enhance social bonding.
@TonyLambregts it might sound cringy, but finding the love of god is some sort of evidence.
When you follow gods guidance, and everything just works out against all odds, i think you can call that evidence.
@@alspezial2747 That sounds like you haven't read an ounce of history. And, why does Finland top the list of happiest countries, with only a third of the population saying they believe a god exists?
Religion made sense when we didn't know about scientific facts, and we needed answers,it is no longer the case
Scientific facts like two genders?
the joke at the end was great
Wow! What a steady flow of obfuscating non sequiturs coming from the mouth of one man! You, Alex, allowed him to side shuffle a multitude of points that I KNOW didn’t escape your analytical mind. But you are gradually becoming too polite. It’s a shame, but you, too, will become the product of your own choices. And of course the failure to choose is also a choice……..
It is not only community.
Judaism teaches me that each and every action I take is in an effort to repair the world and bring heaven closer to earth. When I say a blessing over my food, when I put on tzitzis, when I put on tefillin, when I pray, when I give charity, etc. etc..
The fact that on even my worst day, when I feel I have accomplished nothing, or my plans are falling apart, I can look at the tzitzis hanging from my shirt and say to myself “I am bringing heaven down to earth by wearing these fringes.” Is immeasurably beneficial to mental health.
As long as you can admit your wellbeing is being maximized by actively believing in foolery; then yes. It’s one or the other.
It‘s a powerful delusion, yes
@@jarrichvdv
No. I believe to Torah to be absolute truth. The world being 5784 years old, the whole 9 yards.
It is not possible to believe in something that you also think is “foolery”. You cannot hold a belief that you also believe to be false.
@@gavinriley5232 I do respect your personal rights to hold these beliefs; but I cannot grasp (I tried) being a serious adult in the 21st century who still holds on to ancient relics and mythical books to find comfort; especially when the sole reason you hold these beliefs is because you just happened to be born in the country and family and culture you were born into. That in and of itself should immediately disqualify any legitimacy that we still grant to these belief systems.
I am not trying to be disrespectful; I just really struggle trying to understand.
@@jarrichvdv
I was not born Jewish. I was not born in a Jewish community. I had never met a Jew until I was in college. And a proper Orthodox conversion (that I went through) is a years long process where the Rabbis are required by Halacha to discourage you. My family, while ultimately supportive of me overall, made sure to consistently remind me of the Holocaust and Pogroms. Until I went to Rabbinical Seminary where I met a few other converts, there was not a single human being that encouraged or promoted this to me.
To be frank, there is no logical reason for belief. And I am more than willing to admit it.
What ultimately drew me in was an internal innate need that I cannot explain. When I saw tefillin being wrapped, I simply needed to do it. When I saw the Torah, I simply needed to read it. When I saw the Talmud, I simply needed to study it.
I am obviously not trying to convince you. I have no desire to do so. But the closest I have ever been able to get to explain how I feel (and the other converts I have spoken to seem to agree) is the following:
Yes conversion was a choice. But it did not feel like one. In the same way as feeding you children is a choice that you make every single day, but ultimately you cannot choose anything else.
In all honesty: I used to be a churchgoing person and was involved in a religious community. I think it made me a better person.
Now I live a secular life and I am almost sure that my well-being was better before.
Tempted to go back for mine and my families mental health. We live in a rural community. Not much around us other than churches
I am dealing with this exact struggle currently. Right now looking for a church to go to again, I feel as though I lost a large section of my social life since no longer attending church and it has really done a number on my mental health
Same here, started going back for similar reasons.
Humans are a social species. Don't bother sacrificing your mental sanity/satisfaction for making a point about God. I'm an agnostic from a hindu background(so I don't have an underlying Christian agenda) and tho being non religious is never really an issue in my society, I'd prefer Social connections.
As for being morally good/bad, A Christian 1000 yrs ago thought they were living the life of highest morality, which we now know isn't true. Most people live morally decent lives by standards of their era, and bad lives by standards of the future.
Religious people have a much better sense of community, something that the hyper individualistic secular societies don't seem keen on replicating anytime soon.
Don't sacrifice your sense of belonging, to make a point about some stupid , possibly non existent God, regardless of whether you believe in it or not.
some secular community gatherings: sporting events, fine arts down to amateur theater, local to national political action, professional cultures, conferences
They can help with wellbeing but Alex was talking about the transcendent.
Lol imagine centering the core of your existence around one of these
Those are all religious yet you call them secular
Secularity may be their religion
@@TonyKeeh What's that got to do with anything?
@aitismarka9483 did you watch the video? I just mean in the context of centering a community around something transcendent...which Alex and Sam seem to agree is good.
Alain De Bottom wrote a great book about this called “Religion for Atheists”. He would be a good choice for Alex to Interview
I find it troubling when Harris writes off these studies Alex mentions as untrue because he thinks there was probably confirmation bias on the behalf of the scientists. Harris has a great financial reason for disagreeing with these studies as they oppose the ideas he espoused in his book. Pulling the books off the shelf would be a financial loss for Harris. How he can call the studies out for having confirmation bias without acknowledging his own confirmation bias is mind boggling to me.
People are so fooled by his diction it’s honestly quite frustrating. Type up his responses to the challenges Alex poses in this chat, and read them through. There is so little relevant substance. A bloviator of the highest order.
I reacted to that as well, especially considering what Sam said about religious people believing in things on insufficient evidence (1:01). I thought it was ironic that his own conviction that there can be a superior, secular way of providing the benefits of religion seems to be based on a source of knowledge completely separated from the current scientific evidence which he dismisses without a second thought. He often seems to be promoting scientific sources of knowledge so I'm very curious to know what source of evidence he's found that can so easily supersede it.
@@roykeane1922 I’ll check them out. Thanks for the response
@@ordermind yeah I gave Harris the benefit of the doubt that he has actually read through the studies mentioned, but if these were simply his opinions without having read through the literature, then that is deeply concerning and deeply intellectually dishonest.
Harris's MO: "Don't buy into organized religion, it's all a made up lie. Instead, buy my book and I'll show you how to live your life" 😂😂😂
I don't understand how people have become overly cynical like this about authors. Harris absolutely does not pitch his books as if you need to buy them to lead an enlightened life. You're talking about the guy that makes his podcast available for free for people who are poor and request access.
Why should someone NOT get paid for their work is a better question.
That's the most over-the-top, cartoon strawman of Harris I've ever heard. Besides, it's not as if people don't give a lot of money to organized religion.
@@tox_ph0b0s80well said, i agree and i would take it a step further and say that the appropriate reaction is gratitude to the fact that he shares his knowledge and wisdom. And on top of that im grateful that he is rewarded for it so that he is free to spend his time on doing more of this type of thing and not sacrifice time and energy doing something else to keep food on the table.
@@tox_ph0b0s80 So Harris doesn't write books decrying and bashing religion and proposing his own ideas as to what people should do with their lives morally speaking? And he doesn't write these books hoping they sell by the millions? Are you this simple minded on purpose or just selectively?
@@stuffystuff3482 In basically none of the books Harris writes does he specifically advocate how someone should lead their life.
On religion, he critiques it, like people have done for thousands of years, and he's a specific advocate for the idea that you can replace much of the 'good' functions of religion with secular practices. So in other words secularists don't have to deprive themselves of certain things that most people only get through church, etc.
Also, his harshest critique of religion is basically focused on the more hardcore religious zealotry that is causing immeasurable suffering. He doesn't care about your average dude who goes to church once a week, leads a normal life, and is content.
The idea of the books is to simply remove people from being steeped in dogma. The only book where he takes a specifically strong stance about a specific behavior is his 'lying' book, in which he argues that even 'white lies' are worse than you think, etc.
But even then, he's not *telling* you what to do to be happy or to lead your best life. He acknowledges that 'don't lie' shouldn't be applied universally, but the point is to to challenge oneself to really think about if they *need* to lie in any given situation and the potential ramifications of said lie, instead of just doing it without thinking.
The social community part is a a good reason to belong to a church. There are Jews for example who are non-believers who still attend synagogue due to the social elements. Hindus and Sikhs have a collective meal after services. Catholics have dances and dinners. That serves some purpose especially for the disabled, elderly, singles, and others who my be lonely. Of course people could also get social stimulation by belonging to Toastmasters or a book club.
A sense of purpose and a sense of belonging. Clearly seen as better than reality.
Why can't we take the positives of religion but base it on premises that are true? This would eliminate much of the harm of relogion while retaining much of the benefit.
Secular countries ae better of thsn almost all religious countries, so I think the harm we see in the US is mostly about going against the grain of the culture.
Agree, most of the countries found a healthy relation with religion due to regulation, but americans keep blaming the church instead of the Congress.
Any unregulated human institution gets corrupted.
Because you can’t. Atheists have been trying for years, but it’s not possible at scale. Religion is more powerful and effective because of the beliefs, not in spite of the beliefs.
@@scottm4975 You talking to the wrong person. Christianity has caused so much damage to my family, and my life improved dramatically when I stopped trusting in Jesus. Religious untruths are not the path to optimal outcomes. It's about as healthy as crack, it's a powerful drug, but not overall beneficial.
@@BeccaYoley
Then the problem with Christianity , I suggest you to read more about Islam
Alex’s challenge to Sam’s Moral Landscape here is nothing short of genius. Sam is contradicting himself.
Either “truth” is the primary moral axis. In which case, spreading untruth is immoral.
Or “well-being” is the primary axis of morality. In which case, a lie that improves well-being is moral.
You can’t say “Well-being is the objective measure of morality” and then reverse course when that well-being is a result of religious belief.
Where does Harris say that “truth” is the primary moral axis? Surely he is saying that well-being is capable of being evaluated (scientifically) and those situations that promote it are more moral than those that don't. Certainly he would assert that truth (aka scientific method in search of best explanations) is a more useful tool to investigate how we get to well-being than adherence to dogma. I'd imagine he would concede that religious belief can and does bring about well-being, and in a particular time and place may be the only viable mode, but that other modes of belief/experience also can promote well-being, and that we should explore alternate modes in search of peak modes.
This reference to a primary moral axis sounds very categorical imperative-ish. Harris is clearly a consequences guy, not a deontologist guy ... or only to the extent that moral rules lead to good/better consequences.
@@TheWanderingPensionerYou don't have to be a genius to read between the lines... Sam definitely switched to "truth is the highest value" when he rejected the scientific data that religion provides more wellbeing.
Harris's answer about transcendent experiences is quite telling - that he doesn't really get what religion is about. People consume and relate to religion (most of the time) through STORIES - like the betrayal of Jesus, the relationship between God and Job, the flight of Mohammed from Mecca, the enlightenment of Buddha etc. We understand those stories because they are about PEOPLE, and God also is a CHARACTER. Most people are not scientists who want to solve scientific problems through meditiation. They want a belief system that helps them with moral and social problems, hence why all those religious stories are about people, not chemical formulae.
Alex plz express your views on Dawkins recent take as being a cultural Christian.
Sam Harris has become the living walking meme of idiocy
How so? 🤔
@@user-bb6kr2hu7ythe way he completely dismisses opposition with wild assertations and how he can't just stay consistent and say "yes, if lying maximizes wellbeing we should do that." Speaks Volume that he doesn't really believe what he's saying
"Hey Sam, it turns out religious people are happier. What now?"
"Well, that might not be true, and if it is, there's a better way to be happier."
Serious intellectual, btw. Objective thinker, btw.
Religious people aren't happier though.
"Being deluded makes you happier"
Shouldn't the objective in life try to align your views on what reality ACTUALLY is. While trying to maximise wellbeing of yourself and others. It just seems a no-brainier.
...turns out (some) religious people are happier, but also prone to attacking people who believe in another god or based on what their god tells them supress parts of their society. What now?
There's nothing wrong with that kind of response. It acknowledges the data could be inaccurate, then starts a claim about how while that could be true for some, there are other ways to achieve that. The only questionable part would be claiming one is truly "better" than the other, since different people value different things, and just don't factor in the same requirements for ways to be happy.
@@pnut3844able I was using a bit of hyperbole, but actually in general religious people tend to report higher well-being, happiness, and sense of purpose in pretty much all polling data. That's what Alex was referring to.
The question now remains: if Sam is truly committed to "well-being" as his moral outcome, then it shouldn't matter how you get there. If you have to be deluded to be happy and the goal is happiness, then we should all be deluded. If, on the other hand, the goal is knowledge and awareness, then we should sacrifice whatever happiness we could have by being delusional and live in the potential misery of an absurd and unfair world.
The reason I have no personal issues with religious people is because I think it's totally fair to live in a delusion that makes you happier. I don't accept the excesses of this delusion, i.e. the mistreatment of sexual orientation minorities, but if my dad is happier thinking the Earth is 6,000 years old, I don't really feel any moral imperative to change his mind. That's why I don't personally *encourage* people to be religious because you can get things like Michael Knowles who wants a theocracy, so there still needs to be accountability for these people, but the level to which Sam Harris seems to want the eradication of religion is equally foolish.
Hey Sam why won’t you debate Norman Finkekstein
I feel like Harris is what Peterson wants to sound like. Harris says profound things that actually have a basis in reality. And, even better, he seems to actually know what he’s talking about most of the time.
Purpose maximises wellbeing. Religion can be the purpose in people's lives. But so could binge-watching Netflix.
The problem is Binge watching netflix doesnt tell you to be better. If you not being told to be better and try to be better then you feel empty inside. Binging on netflix will give you depression. There is new science out there proving so.
@@noorzanayasmin7806 not if you keep setting yourself goals for becoming a better netflix binge watcher.
Binge watching Netflix, is inherently purposeless. Progression for progression's sake has no intrinsic value, even though in the moment it feels so, regardless of the direction or content. Like progressing a videogame character, your brain feels satisfied, in the flow state, and there is of course some degree of value in the information, same as netflix, but ultimately you're left with nothing in the end. Progress is not purpose, purpose comes from love, passion, attention, and self sacrifice. If you are truly finding those things in binging Netflix, so be it, but it is easier than it would seem to deceive yourself.
@@milaloup You can try and let us know how you feel. Usually people try to get out of mindless binge watching netflix or youtube browsing. But hey you might be the gem between all the other people
There are so many factors at play with religion that you can't take a lot from those "religions increase happiness" studies. I suspect its belonging in a community rather than belief in a higher power that increases happiness. Would be interesting to compare the happiness of the religious to extroverted atheists who self-describe as socially fulfilled.
I think it only fair to disclose that I am a Christian so my view is biased but I'm not trying to change anybody's views about views about whether that is true to reality or not. That being said, isn't that too simplistic of an approach? Scientific evidence shows pretty conclusively that what we believe about the world does shape our reality, i.e the placebo effect and various mental health disorders that can cause physical changes within the body. All things being equal in community between an Atheist and a Theist, how could believing that you'll see your loved ones again someday, believing an all-powerful being is looking out for your well-being, and believing that death is nothing to fear not have some benefit to mental health? Obviously there is a flip-side that religion can at times manifest in unhealthy feelings of guilt and shame but when it's healthy I think religion, even in social isolation, has undeniable benefits.
I think the struggle with that is that secular communities will likely never have something that genuinely means as much to them as God means to the religious person. And this shared maximal reverence for a greater being creates a strong community and camaraderie that I am suspicious secular people would be able to truly replicate. Would like to see studies comparing secular communities to church communities though.
@@lukemockabee7407 Personally, the issues you speak of never cross my mind. On the other hand, I have witnessed the service groups, social cliques, cookouts and campouts, and mutal aid that religious groups so often have. Maybe there are socially fulfilled atheists suffering from religious angst but anecdotally that is not the case.
@@y5anger Well shoot more power to you man, I genuinely I'm happy that whatever coping mechanisms you have are working. But my best friend was a wreck for months when his dad died last year. My friend with cystic fibrosis was stressed about finances every time she had a doctor's visit. Those issues were incredibly real to them and no amount of community fully wash out the pain of the situations. I understand these are also anecdotal but since you're speaking solely from your own lived experience all I can do is speak from mine.
There are many factors, but I don't think community is one. Monks have found liberation on silent retreat. Their brains and nervous systems are completely changed as a result. Community is great, but the contentment and peace that people seek has to come from a more reliable source, something less conditional.
Humanist Congregations like Ethical Societies, Oasis, Sunday Assembly, etc., currently exist all over the US and offer all the traditional benefits of shared community and moral reflection without any of the dogmatic baggage or commitment to supernatural elements of reality of any kind. If you wish there were more communities like this, you should check them out and see if there is one near you that you can support!
Are you sure there’s no dogmatic baggage? Is it like the ACA where you get shunned for having unpopular beliefs about trangenderism etc?
@@Seethi_C they do tend to be pretty progressive spaces, but I can confirm that there is no bar to membership in Ethical Societies based on your beliefs. If you can't handle being challenged on your beliefs, or if you are asked to leave for becoming belligerent or disruptive, then that's on you.
Would any of these religions still exist if I went back in time and randomized the human population? Would Christianity still exist if I relocated the Jewish people to the Amazon? Without the specific cultural, historical, and social factors that contributed to the formation of all religions, I imagine they would be drastically altered, leading to the potential emergence of entirely different religious traditions or the absence of organized religions seen currently on this planet altogether. A much more important thought experiment instead of wellbeing I think.
That is a great question.
I think Roman gods would still be all the rage. 😀