How can we be sure that all religions are wrong?

The idea of needing mathematical unity is interesting. Math = logic. Logic = brain (or brain structure/function/input/reason).

If this is true, that we find correspondence between our math/logic and the universe is not surprising. Our whole sensating bent is to take apparent chaos and make it 'reasonable'. This would be, relatively speaking, our 'crude' effort at bringing order to the universe. Math would be a more formal, discrete language. In learning math, we learn the parameters/limits of our logical abilities.

And, just as we have limits on accurately reflecting reality with our senses, our logic fails us at some point as well (through infinities and such). This an aforementioned limit by Saw of our ability to make symbols. God as you mentioned is logos. The Word. Language. Our ability to make symbols. As such, God is as complicated as our logical structures and achieves even greater significance as we progress toward our limits. Its no accident that our logic fails us at infinities and this is the primary attribute we ascribe to God (at least at a logical level).

Incredible irony that John found what God was, but turned the symbolic ghost into reality, losing that truth through the sin of reification.

When I think of these things, I conclude that, as amazing as we are (given evolution), we do not reflect things exactly as they are. We only need enough capacity for knowledge as that which allows survival. Anything else is incidental and 'gravy'.

I like Sam Harris. He is an interesting cat. Good speaker. However, I don't think his fridge-diamond analogy quite works.

A goodly part of how we decide what is reasonable and rational is taken from queue's given to us by others. From the time we are children we are raised around religious people and so as we get older, we unconsciously normalize the existence of God.

We aren't raised with a normalization of diamond-fridges.

I get what he's saying - in a vacuum. His logic is correct. But 'on the ground', as a practical matter, I don't think they are comparable. Some of my family is religious, their kids are between 5 and 7 and the kids are already talking about God as a real entity. Nothing drives the above point home like this.

It is in this sense that I am uncomfortable with calling religious people delusional. It all depends on your definition. Comparing a religious person with a schizophrenic who hallucinates and is paranoid, for example, does a disservice to the way we process information.

If you were to broaden the definition of delusional to include religious people, if you continue to its 'logical' conclusion, you would wind up with all of us being delusional about some things. In fact all of us perceive falsehoods, not just from logical errors or mechanical failures of perception, but psychologically. We all have beliefs that are unconsciously distorted to protect ourselves (our ego). In this sense then, with some things, we are all 'delusional'.

So, at the least, you have to qualify what category of delusional you are talking about. However, because that word is so 'charged', I would recommend using a different word entirely.

I think part of Sam's point is that we are normalized to this and we should not be. Or at least that we should be aware of it and recognize the exception that we grant religious ideas to skepticism and ridicule. He has made this point in different ways in other quotes.

Yeah, I get that he probably realizes this. But again, on an emotional level, its something entirely different. And I'm not sure what his 'remedy' is. Teaching everyone science? There are religious fundamentalist medical doctors. There are people I know with doctorates in Economics (not technically a science, but still, an advanced degree using similar methodologies - at least for creation of a dissertation) who, while not religious, espouse bigoted positions about minorities and gays.

I agree with Sam Harris' ontological conclusions, but I don't know where he wants to go with his 'findings'. And maybe that's on me, because I haven't heard/read enough of his material. Perhaps he explains his prescription elsewhere? If he wants change, ridicule is hardly the way to go. As much as I agree with his conclusions and others like Hitchens, their shrill tone sometimes is too much. What are they trying to accomplish? When they are in this mode, it seems to me they have more of a personal axe to grind than a desire to win their opponent over to 'their side'.

Or is he just disseminating information in hopes that people will be rational enough to see the truth behind what he says and in doing so quit being religious? Or never become religious? And then what? Is it assumed that when people do this, they will become rational so that our problems will be easier to solve? Do we even know (or want to know!) what a non religious world will look like? Does Sam prefer a 'spiritual' world. I'd be interested to know his thoughts on this. Many anthropologist atheists practice religious rituals in an effort to put some kind of 'non-believer' religion or spirituality in their lives, thinking it is a fundamental part of us that should not be discarded. The trick is finding something that doesn't require 'belief' where belief cannot be honest..!

We've seen an unbalanced religious world. I don't think any of us want that again! Right now, we have an approximate balance. China and the former Soviet Union appeared to have a pretty much all secular example. But I don't think their institutions have lasted long enough to provide a good example. Besides, Russian orthodoxy (through the church appears to be making a comeback). I can't speak about China as I know next to nothing about their culture except what I see coagulated on the news/media and in stereotypes.

Maybe I'll dig a little deeper on Harris. I like this style, both literary and personal speaking at least..

As I've stated before, intelligence has nothing to do with religion and politics. Trying to relate intelligence to religion or politics will not succeed.

It's somewhat similar to economics; it's a societal phenomenon, and not science. There's no way to measure it.

No doubt!

It may be that his "audience" isn't religious people, but non-religious people who already agree with his positions but cannot express them well enough. He's a master of expressing his ideas.

But even after he has repeatedly blasted his debate opponents out of the water with withering logic, they still show up in other debates, unchanged, mouthing the same inanities.

well, in his debates, his audience is at least partly religious. Its been a while since I've watched his manner, but if his manner is as shrill as some of the others, its not wonder the people he debates come back unchanged mouthing the same inanities..

I posted this on this or another thread, not sure, but if you haven't already seen it, check out Shelly Kagan debate William Lane Craig. It is one of the best debates I've ever seen and the only one where Craig seems to get rattled and might actually think about the truth that Shelly espouses (yeah, right!).

What I like about the debate is that Shelly maintains his position - forcefully, but without ridicule of Craig's position. He disagrees with it, explains why he disagrees with it, but with a tone of civility I find missing in other debates.

If you are truly debating to change your opponents mind (and not just flash your intellect) then there are psychological considerations as well as intellectual. One of which is not to demean your opponent by expressing that they are delusional or 'crazy'. Even if you feel they are.

If you don't care about changing your opponents mind, well then, all bets are off..

btw, I'm not saying this about Harris in particular, in fact my memory of him is that he is pretty calm. However, you don't have to rage at your opponent to offend. like I said, I'll have to go back and take a peek at his stuff to see what I view his tone as..

It works for me.



I agree that social currents control us more than our own psychology.



I am sorry we were not friends growing up because if we were you may have been there when we were trying to dig up them diamonds.



I do agree, I think we should all be considered to be delusional at times.



What word would you prefer? There are others that may not offend you who see things even more harsh than Sam Harris.

Many people will hate this man but I listen to all ideas even though I disagree with many.

“If you walk in My statutes and keep My commandments, and perform them … you shall eat your bread to the full, and dwell in your land safely. I will give you peace in the land, and you shall lie down, and none will make you afraid; I will rid the land of evil beasts, and the sword will not go through your land. You will chase your enemies, and they shall fall by the sword before you. Five of you shall chase a hundred, and a hundred of you shall put ten thousand to flight; your enemies shall fall by the sword before you.” Leviticus 26:3
“It is God who arms me with strength, and makes my way perfect. He makes my feet like the feet of deer, and sets me on high places. He teaches my hands to make war, so that my arms can bend a bow of bronze … I have pursued my enemies and overtaken them; neither did I turn back again till they were destroyed, I have wounded them, so that they were not able to rise; they have fallen under my feet. For You have armed me with strength for the battle; you have subdued under me those who rose up against me.” Psalm 18:32
1 Samuel 23:2
Verse Concepts
So David inquired of the LORD, saying, "Shall I go and attack these Philistines?" And the LORD said to David, "Go and attack the Philistines and deliver Keilah."

Idont think all religions are wrong. Religion never teach wrong and never do wrong

Then maybe you need to Google the Inquisition, for starters.

Religion is the opium of the people... (someone said)
One wonders, how does a necessity is wrong ???
That which still exists its Necessary!

Like you, I am a Muslim and I say prayer (Salat or Namaz). There are of course lots of benefits in religion and believe in God because once you say " There is a God" the whole this life becomes meaningful and your permanent question : " Then what?..........." finds a firm and strong answer.
But I don't think that religion never teaches wrong or never do wrong.
Just look how many wars have been imposed on nations under the name of religion. Battle of Nahrawan might be a prime example if you know the history of Islam. Or look at those apparently Muslims who behead people in Syria. All of them under the name of religion.
After the Golden era of Islam, Muslim countries fell into weakness ( at least until a few decades ago when some important revolutions occurred) and on the other side, the West started a prosperous times where they improved their lives incorporating science and knowledge and democracy in their daily life (not the so called Religion) .
Religion is like a knife in your hand. It is useful if you know how to use it and if you don't, it could be a disaster ..

You don't seem to have studied religious history.
No need to go back into history. The Catholics and protestants in Northern Ireland is a recent history. All Muslims are not peaceful against each other.

It's ongoing, but now we tend to call them Unionist/Loyalists and Republicans/Nationalists.

I was in North Ireland "recently" and didn't see the conflict. I doubt very much the tour company would have taken us there if any danger existed.

Trouble spots aren't usually on the tourists itinerary. City centres and affluent middle class suburbs are fine, it's working class estates where the rivalry exists.

And the lack of an answer to that is why 'Religion' of any variety has become vulnerable to the charge of 'All Religions are wrong'.

It's true of 'modern Christianity and it's true of Islam and all the rest.

We Must have a good answer to "Then what?...."

We did see the Peace Wall with graffiti on it.