[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 55 KB, 490x375, samharristheendoffaith.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6863276 No.6863276 [Reply] [Original]

>Because most religions offer no valid mechanism by which their core beliefs can be tested and revised, each new generation of believers is condemned to inherit the superstitions and tribal hatreds of its predecessors.

>The idea, therefore, that religious faith is somehow a sacred human convention—distinguished, as it is, both by the extravagance of its claims and by the paucity of its evidence—is really too great a monstrosity to be appreciated in all its glory. Religious faith represents so uncompromising a misuse of the power of our minds that it forms a kind of perverse, cultural singularity—a vanishing point beyond which rational discourse proves impossible.

>> No.6863279
File: 1.08 MB, 160x192, uh.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6863279

>>6863276

Ah shit, here we go again with this thread.

>> No.6863283
File: 5 KB, 275x183, asdf.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6863283

Oh, look!

Another /lit/ circlejerk about how much we haet Sam Harris' and worhsip da Zizek amirite gais? xDDD

>> No.6863285

>>6863283
zizek and hegel are nonsense

>>6863276
harris strikes me as the kind of guy who never really goes to art museums because you can look up pictures of the paintings on google images

>> No.6863293
File: 134 KB, 1080x720, sam flim flam can't even jam.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6863293

>>6863276
Got the book right here. Read it. It's positive babble. I am not even religious, and I can't stand this new atheist bullshit. Never once do these dolts mention the secular study of religion, there is an entire field dedicated to the study. They never mention it because it doesn't fit their positive agenda.

Not a fan, but them edgy 20 year olds love it I hear.

>> No.6863294

>>6863285
>harris strikes me as the kind of guy who never really goes to art museums because you can look up pictures of the paintings on google images

I seriously doubt that... He used to do tons of acid and go hang out with buddhists in Asia etc.

>> No.6863295

>>6863285
he's right tho
why should I waste gas and money.
I've impressed every qt art chick just by know what dadaism is.

offering them some methadone helped also

but ya I got laid

>> No.6863296

>>6863276
Except this is demonstrably untrue.
Judaism has a history of what is basically theistic debate (Spinoza, Leibniz, the whole Talmudic tradition)
Medieval Christian philosophy worked within the faith to great success (Abelard/Heloise, Aquinas, Ockham).
A fundamental aspect of faith is the testing of it. What Hitchens has set up, I feel, is a deliberate dichotomous misrepresentation and is dismissive of the history of ethics, metaphysics, and reason.

>> No.6864251

>>6863276
anyone got that Zizek quote about Sam Harris?

>> No.6864482

>>6864251
I also want it.

>> No.6864564

>>6864251
>>6864482

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifpIw3EK7-A

The hate for sam harris is one of the few things Slavy is absolutely un-ironic and sincere about

>> No.6864602

>>6864564
>I HATE IT
sensible chuckle

also thanks

>> No.6864624

>>6863276

He really should have read Aquinas.

>> No.6866191

>>6864564

LOL. Go Zizek. Not a fan of him, but happier about the fact that he hates Harris

>> No.6866212

reason schmeason

every type of knowledge, even scientific knowledge, is a kind of belief

>> No.6867825

>>6863293
Harris isn't opposes ro the secular study of religion. If that's the only reason you think the book is bullshit, then I think you need to revise your opinion. New atheism doesn't equal getting rid of religion totally.

>> No.6867838

>>6867825

Not in that sense, but it does want to completely exile any religious impulse or motivation from the public sphere. It also regards religious people as on the same level as untreated shizophrenics. I guess that would imply that they should be 'treated' in some way

>> No.6867857

>>6866212
Shit Americlaps say

>> No.6867889

>>6867825
>Harris isn't opposes ro the secular study of religion.

I'm not saying he is oppose to it. Shit, what I'm saying is he never mentions it, ever! I find this alarming. He doesn't even care to mention sociological or psychological theories based around religious development, structures, or needs. It's weird. Just once I would be curious to hear him talk about Max Weber, Jonathan Z. Smith, Ninian Smart, Mircea Eliade, Mary Douglas, or the anthropologist Clifford Geertz.

Like I said, he just flat out ignores it. This has me scratching my head why? Until I keep reading and realize he isn't interested in a normative approach, he is dead set on a positive approach. And for this, I think he is ridiculous.