Comments 1 - 4 of 4 Search these comments
HydroCabron
2016 Apr 29, 2:24pm
Sorry, Sam.
You can't prove using human methods that other humans (or a machine) cannot prove something exists.
It's against the rules.
Heraclitusstudent
2016 Apr 29, 3:02pm
That doesn't even mean anything.
You're better at parodying republicans, though we can't always tell you're not in fact a republican.
Shaman
2016 Apr 29, 3:41pm
Let's just examine the title: "the end of faith." That would refer to the end of people believing in something, without absolute provable evidence to back up that belief. We all revere the scientific method, where you do repeatable experiments to prove things about the natural world, but what about the world of society? Having faith in the actions of unknown strangers to conduct themselves according to a certain set of parameters is something that everyone must have to get by in this world. We must have faith in the grocer that his products will sustain our bodies and not kill us. We must have faith that bankers will give our money back when we ask for it. We must have faith that others will not attempt to murder us or violate or homes. When we drive we must have faith that the other drivers will adhere more or less to the rules of the road, else wise we would have accident upon accident and the roads would be completely impassible. We must have faith in money itself that it is worth something as a medium of exchange. We have faith in countless people known and unknown. Faith, the trust in other people to perform in a certain way, is absolutely essential to civilization itself!
Thus, this title about the "end" of faith should be very troubling to anyone who isn't a face-eating anarchist.
Heraclitusstudent
2016 Apr 29, 3:56pm
We don't have blind "faith" in any of the things you mention. We have evidence that they happen the way they should most of the time.
If we didn't have any evidence that bankers will give our money back when we ask for it, we wouldn't give it to them.
The attitude in religion is totally different. Some people feel convinced enough to blow themselves up without the slightest relevant evidence that they will in fact get what they are told (and much evidence that they won't).
It's a long podcast. Anyway I just thought I'd share it.
www.GnWM0osZp4Y
I agree with much he says:
- points out the stupidity of religious beliefs and the problem they create
- singles out Muslims for the violence they cause
- incriminate moderates as defending the beliefs which in their pure form become the problem.
- but recognize that reason alone is not enough, but that the any spiritual pursuit should and can be within the bound of what is known through evidence.
This guy is getting the PC hammer too for his views on Islam even though he is mostly liberal.
http://quillette.com/2016/04/21/free-speech-and-islam-in-defense-of-sam-harris/