Online correspondence between Sam Harris and Andrew Sullivan

Dave!

Hey folks,

This is a good debate between Sam Harris and Andrew Sullivan basically about the fundamentals of religious faith, is it reasonable, etc.

I largely skipped over Andrew Sullivan's parts because it's probably the same old sh*t , but Sam Harris is as good as ever

http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Secular-Philosophies/Is-Religion-Built-Upon-Lies.aspx

It's rather extensive and goes on for several pages

One argument that stuck out for me (I hadn't seen it before) was in relation to the soul, consciousness, etc. Sam made the point that, if you have a stroke and lose your sense of sight or your memory for example, then is that particular part of your consciousness floating around on its own and waiting to join up with the rest of you when you die? I'm not explaining it well, but it was interesting nevertheless

Worth a read ! I've been looking over it for the past few nights before I go asleep !

Sullivan is not convinced to renounce his faith by the end of the debate ! Nor indeed does Sam come to appreciate the virtues of religious faith

chozometroid

Dave! wrote: »

One argument that stuck out for me (I hadn't seen it before) was in relation to the soul, consciousness, etc. Sam made the point that, if you have a stroke and lose your sense of sight or your memory for example, then is that particular part of your consciousness floating around on its own and waiting to join up with the rest of you when you die? I'm not explaining it well, but it was interesting nevertheless

As a Christian, I believe our spirit exists independent of the brain, but uses the brain as the "shell" (like the Matrix) for experiencing this physical world. If part of the brain is damaged and sight cannot be processed, it prevents the spirit from perceiving this information, similar to if the eye is damaged and the information cannot reach the brain. The spirit itself, however, is never affected by any physical conditions.
This is related to the question, "what sees the image in your mind?"

Sorry if that's straying a bit.

CerebralCortex

chozometroid wrote: »

As a Christian, I believe our spirit exists independent of the brain, but uses the brain as the "shell" (like the Matrix) for experiencing this physical world....

How is that in any way like The Matrix?

chozometroid

CerebralCortex wrote: »

How is that in any way like The Matrix?

The shell idea is what I meant was like the Matrix, not the brain specifically as a shell. It's the idea of a vessel through which you experience a reality other than your own.

pH

chozometroid wrote: »

As a Christian, I believe our spirit exists independent of the brain, but uses the brain as the "shell" (like the Matrix) for experiencing this physical world. If part of the brain is damaged and sight cannot be processed, it prevents the spirit from perceiving this information, similar to if the eye is damaged and the information cannot reach the brain. The spirit itself, however, is never affected by any physical conditions.

Believe what you want, remember though you're just making it up, and it bears no relation to reality. Modern neuroscience have pretty good models and understanding of the brain, and none of it supports the view that the brain is merely a shell for experiencing the physical world. Core internal functions of the brain, such as emotions and the ability to think/make decisions can be effected by damage and drugs.

chozometroid

pH wrote: »

Believe what you want, remember thought you're just making it up, and it bears no relation to reality. Modern neuroscience have pretty good models and understanding of the brain, and none of it supports the view that the brain is merely a shell for experiencing the physical world. Core internal functions of the brain, such as emotions and the ability to think/make decisions can be effected by damage and drugs.

That is not incompatible with my view. I'm not referring to a virtual reality machine, but an instrument. The fact that our brain is what processes thoughts does not mean that our spirit is not what experiences these thoughts.
Maybe I should put it another way.

The brain is the physical apparatus of the spiritual mind. The mind itself is immaterial.

Sam Vimes

chozometroid wrote: »

That is not incompatible with my view. I'm not referring to a virtual reality machine, but an instrument. The fact that our brain is what processes thoughts does not mean that our spirit is not what experiences these thoughts.
Maybe I should put it another way.

The brain is the physical apparatus of the spiritual mind. The mind itself is immaterial.

Then how do you explain things like someone's personality changing when certain parts of their brain are injured?

Naz_st

Dave! wrote: »

Hey folks,

This is a good debate between Sam Harris and Andrew Sullivan basically about the fundamentals of religious faith, is it reasonable, etc.

+1

I've read over this a couple of times over the last few months (need to take it in small pieces as it's a long corresponence). Sam Harris's reasoning and eloquence are excellent in this - a large number of the standard arguments are comprehensively addressed and often far more clearly than I've seen elsewhere. Well worth reading (or at least dipping into as time allows!).

pts

In regards to dualism, this might be of interest:
"Substance dualism", by the always excellent QualiaSoup.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WsPn5dXfTvA

I would love to hear what you make of this video chozometroid.

MonkeyBalls

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Then how do you explain things like someone's personality changing when certain parts of their brain are injured?

He'll no doubt have some cognitive-dissonance reducing answer to that, but it would be interesting to hear it.

The idea of an immaterial spirit is simply wishful thinking, detached from the real world. We are animals. Your pet dog does not go to heaven when it dies, and neither do you.

chozometroid

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Then how do you explain things like someone's personality changing when certain parts of their brain are injured?

I would say it's because the brain has been injured, and the ability to interpret the environment has been hindered, as well as hormone levels which regulate feelings of comfort or fear. The brain provides the experience of this physical life, I won't argue against that. Topics about brain damage and all that are difficult in regard to a person's "fair chance" and accountability in life, and I don't have the answers.

I never said the brain is a meaningless physical object. All I said is that the spirit, which is the essence of our being, is not directly affected by physical injury. It is indirectly affected. When someone is demon possessed, the demon spirit is in control of the person's brain. The mind controlling the brain is the demon's mind.

This is not a subject that I have made any firm conclusions on. I still consider the idea that perhaps we are purely physical beings, given life by the breath of God, and what makes us who we are is the physical body we are aware of. Soul just means living creature. Spirit can mean only the breath of life. When we die, it returns to God. As for life after death, the Bible states that we will be raised incorruptible and given new bodies, so it's entirely possible that we will exist as a body with physical features, but we will have a new nature. There is no definition of "spirit" in the Bible, so to say what it consists of is entirely speculation. The spiritual could just be a different type of substance with properties we are not yet able to sense normally.
The video says that energy and sound are physical, and this is a good way of looking at the spiritual. It may not be visible, but it's still physical in some sense. It obviously has function and influence upon the physical world, so it's not something completely abstract which only exists in a parallel dimension.
God is a Spirit, and created the physical. There is interaction there at some level, so there must be a point of particle similarity.

Sam Vimes

chozometroid wrote: »

I would say it's because the brain has been injured, and the ability to interpret the environment has been hindered, as well as hormone levels which regulate feelings of comfort or fear.

Ability to interpret the environment does not change your personality and if your personality is independent of your physical brain and using it as an apparatus to experience the world, neither should hormone levels. I could go on all day listing the vast number of things that prove that your personality is defined by your brain, I could even point out which parts of the brain do it but really there's no point. Your theory of the soul just using the brain as apparatus is a nice idea but it has no basis in reality

chozometroid wrote: »

The brain provides the experience of this physical life, I won't argue against that. Topics about brain damage and all that are difficult in regard to a person's "fair chance" and accountability in life, and I don't have the answers

At least you acknowledge it

chozometroid wrote: »

I never said the brain is a meaningless physical object. All I said is that the spirit, which is the essence of our being, is not directly affected by physical injury. It is indirectly affected. When someone is demon possessed, the demon spirit is in control of the person's brain. The mind controlling the brain is the demon's mind.

Possession and brain injury are two very different things. And I must admit I find it very worrying that there are people in the 21st century who could still misinterpret mental illness as possession

chozometroid wrote: »

This is not a subject that I have made any firm conclusions on. I still consider the idea that perhaps we are purely physical beings, given life by the breath of God, and what makes us who we are is the physical body we are aware of. Soul just means living creature. Spirit can mean only the breath of life. When we die, it returns to God. As for life after death, the Bible states that we will be raised incorruptible and given new bodies, so it's entirely possible that we will exist as a body with physical features, but we will have a new nature. There is no definition of "spirit" in the Bible, so to say what it consists of is entirely speculation. The spiritual could just be a different type of substance with properties we are not yet able to sense normally.

That way of looking at it has at least some grounding in reality

chozometroid

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Ability to interpret the environment does not change your personality and if your personality is independent of your physical brain and using it as an apparatus to experience the world, neither should hormone levels. I could go on all day listing the vast number of things that prove that your personality is defined by your brain, I could even point out which parts of the brain do it but really there's no point. Your theory of the soul just using the brain as apparatus is a nice idea but it has no basis in reality

I never said personality was independent of your brain.
As for the idea of "the spirit using the brain" having no basis in reality, I would have to agree. It's not in a reality you are currently aware of. It's a reality I accept because I have seen it at work.

Possession and brain injury are two very different things. And I must admit I find it very worrying that there are people in the 21st century who could still misinterpret mental illness as possession

I don't know what parallel I was drawing between the two, other than the hierarchy of body>brain>spirit. It's like the mind is the governing entity over brain activity. It is what controls the electrical impulses. As for demon possession, I certainly do believe in it, but not necessarily being the cause of mental illness. But, just for the sake of argument, if you dismiss demon possession as an option because the mental illness can be shown to be caused by "x" area of the brain not receiving the right chemicals or having a gene mutation, I can follow by saying that this is the result of the demon possession.


Thanks.

Dave!

chozometroid wrote: »

But, just for the sake of argument, if you dismiss demon possession as an option because the mental illness can be shown to be caused by "x" area of the brain not receiving the right chemicals or having a gene mutation, I can follow by saying that this is the result of the demon possession.

Or I could follow by saying that it's in fact the result of angelic possession, that the angel Gabriel is causing the mental illness -- but just like your good self, I have no scientific basis for this assertion, so I reckon we'll leave the unfounded bullsh*t out of it.

Sam Vimes

chozometroid wrote: »

I never said personality was independent of your brain.
As for the idea of "the spirit using the brain" having no basis in reality, I would have to agree. It's not in a reality you are currently aware of. It's a reality I accept because I have seen it at work.

If not your personality, what is your spirit? Surely your personality is what makes you you?

chozometroid wrote: »

I don't know what parallel I was drawing between the two, other than the hierarchy of body>brain>spirit. It's like the mind is the governing entity over brain activity. It is what controls the electrical impulses. As for demon possession, I certainly do believe in it, but not necessarily being the cause of mental illness. But, just for the sake of argument, if you dismiss demon possession as an option because the mental illness can be shown to be caused by "x" area of the brain not receiving the right chemicals or having a gene mutation, I can follow by saying that this is the result of the demon possession.

I believe Dave has dealt with this rather well

Osgoodisgood

Dave! wrote: »

This is a good debate between Sam Harris and Andrew Sullivan basically about the fundamentals of religious faith, is it reasonable, etc.

I largely skipped over Andrew Sullivan's parts because it's probably the same old sh*t , but Sam Harris is as good as ever

I tried to read the AS parts out of a sense of balance and fairness. And trust me, I really really tried. But I couldn't. Once he started swimming in the shallow end of the apologetics pool and trotting out the "religion is a powerful force for good" stuff, I gave up. Possibly his logic improved after that but I'm afraid I'll never know!