tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post110465409308344259..comments2024-03-19T07:48:54.021-06:00Comments on Gus Van Horn: Book Review: The End of Faith, by Sam HarrisGus Van Hornhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05126749051688217781noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-42911228449343033822012-01-22T15:09:41.708-06:002012-01-22T15:09:41.708-06:00Danmark,
You are a more fitting spokesman for fai...Danmark,<br /><br />You are a more fitting spokesman for faith than you seem to realize. Thank you for speaking up.<br /><br />GusGus Van Hornhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05126749051688217781noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-33829581928820452272012-01-21T02:54:48.763-06:002012-01-21T02:54:48.763-06:00This was probablly the largest collection of conde...This was probablly the largest collection of condescending, smark, snippy and sarcastic remarks ever collected by a man in a peice of literature. Never has a man written such an acclaimed peice of work that would so horribly impact our world since Mein Kamph. If Sam Harris's world were to come to fruition, a world without faith, mankind would be directionless and hopeless. He has taken a side against faith, the one and perhaps only force powerful enough in this world to move the masses towards good and charityDanmarkhttp://dpurposeofruning.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-25596236873109138592007-09-04T16:16:00.000-06:002007-09-04T16:16:00.000-06:00(1) One needn't explain his entire philosophy in o...(1) One needn't explain his entire philosophy in order to <B>have</B> a systematic philosophy or to argue with one as his basis.<BR/><BR/>(2) Anyone who claims that you can "know" that you do not "see objective reality" is contradicting himself.Gus Van Hornhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05126749051688217781noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-58428271815220553512007-09-04T04:28:00.000-06:002007-09-04T04:28:00.000-06:00I would like to comment on two things in this very...I would like to comment on two things in this very long review: <BR/><BR/>"Harris does not appear to possess a systematic philosophy. "<BR/><BR/>"as a scientist who understands Harris's gratuitous jargon perfectly well, that he is either trying to pull the wool over our eyes or actually believes that our grasp of the world is shaky at best."<BR/><BR/>Regarding the first item there is always the economical question whether a person should really "start with the big bang" every time he tries to explain something? My point of view is that Harris' book wouldn't have become the success it is if one had to wade through a very long-winded "systematic philosophy". I think his decision to simply stand on the shoulders of others and assume a little knowledge in advance by his readers was acceptable.<BR/><BR/>Also, a very long and very academic rendition of "the great philosophical issues that be" would have obscured the very poignant message from Harris (and Dawkins for that matter) that while we debate the finer points of theology there are VERY practical things happening right here in very un-philosophical space: planes flying into buildings, wars being fought and horrible atrocities being committed by the people of faith. I suppose the Wittgenstein quote got lost somewhere, but I have to agree that when it comes to suffering we "just know it's bad". Somehow we hit solid rock. Most humans have the same basic propensities across cultures when you manage to pull out the religious factor. (Was it Harris og Dawkins that explained this best?)<BR/><BR/>As for the last quote I mention, that is a classic fallacy of bifurcation. I offer a third explanation: Harris is simply observing that science has known for a very long time: that we do not so much "see objective reality" as we "construct a perception that is USEFUL for us in this Middle World" (the latter phrase is borrowed from Dawkins and anyone should look up the video "Richard Dawkins on the strangeness of science: tedtalks" on YouTube).Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14488309709769416658noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-69721056763164739952007-03-18T11:59:00.000-06:002007-03-18T11:59:00.000-06:00Gus,I've just given a preliminary skim of your rev...Gus,<BR/><BR/>I've just given a preliminary skim of your review which I will follow up with a careful read when I get a chance. It looks like I am in much the same place you were. I'll let you know what the virdict is upon further reflection.<BR/><BR/>TomThomas Rowlandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02936086526966725798noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-1158096369625143292006-09-12T15:26:00.000-06:002006-09-12T15:26:00.000-06:00Deryk,Thank you, but I think you're letting Harris...Deryk,<BR/><BR/>Thank you, but I think you're letting Harris off too easily.<BR/><BR/>A far better book than Harris's would be Ayn Rand's <I><A HREF="http://www.aynrandbookstore.com/prodinfo.asp?number=AR07B" REL="nofollow">Philosophy: Who Needs It</A></I>. Chapter 7 of that book alone is all that needs to be said -- And it has been said better. -- on the subjects Harris talks about.<BR/><BR/>All the best.<BR/><BR/>GusGus Van Hornhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05126749051688217781noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-1158093738945442472006-09-12T14:42:00.000-06:002006-09-12T14:42:00.000-06:00Thanks for this review. It is a fairly accurate s...Thanks for this review. It is a fairly accurate summary of my thoughts on the book, but I could not have expressed them as well. Plus I'm too lazy to go to all that work. ;-)<BR/><BR/>I've recommended the book to all my friends despite its flaws. I think it is a good book that could have been great, but the ideas in it are ideas that need to be discussed, pondered, dissected, and argued about. By everyone -- agree or disagree with them, the subjects Harris opines on are subjects everyone needs talk about.<BR/><BR/>-- DerykAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-1148466977425285432006-05-24T04:36:00.000-06:002006-05-24T04:36:00.000-06:00Dear Gus,I'm so interested to have a copy of Sam H...Dear Gus,<BR/><BR/>I'm so interested to have a copy of Sam Harris End of Faith.<BR/><BR/> Unfortunately, I live in the most believer country in religion of Islam Saudi Arabia. They will not allow this book for Saudis to read and ordering a hard copy will get me in trouble with local authorities. I'm not sure how you can help me getting a full PDF copy. <BR/><BR/>By the way, there is a considerable number of atheists in Saudi. We cannot reveal ourselves as atheist and lack of freedom to read makes non-believers to minimum. Thanks to internet that allows us read some exerts of the opposite opinion. Believing in Islam in Saudi Arabia is a must not a choice. I wonder how someone chooses to believe when he or she have no choice to not believe.<BR/><BR/>If by any means you or your readers can send me a PDF copy of the book please send it to: perfume_my_life@hotmail.com<BR/><BR/>Salim<BR/><BR/>ThanksAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-1140545833642651322006-02-21T12:17:00.000-06:002006-02-21T12:17:00.000-06:00B.R.,You say, [Kant] does not say that we do not p...B.R.,<BR/><BR/>You say, <BR/><BR/><I>[Kant] does not say that we do not perceive reality; he says that we do have knowledge of the objectively true world. Wanting to know more than science can provide (what science provides is precisely knowledge of this objective world), that is, wanting a "god's-eye" view of the world, that is what Kant claims we can't have. I seriously doubt that objectivists believe that we can know everything that has ever happened or that will ever happen--that would be exactly what this god's-eye view would provide, and which Kant claims we can't have.</I><BR/><BR/>You could help me understand what you are trying to say by explaining the difference between "perceiving reality" and "having knowledge of the objectively true world" by means of perception. Your argument makes it sound like Kant thinks that to know anything, we must be omniscient. <BR/><BR/>Rand certainly does not claim that we are omniscient, nor is it necessary to have to know everything about reality to know <I>something</I> about it with certainty.<BR/><BR/>If Kant hold that we can "perceive reality[ without having] knowledge of the objectively true world", then he is claiming that we don't grasp reality through our senses.<BR/><BR/>GusGus Van Hornhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05126749051688217781noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-1140390227522675372006-02-19T17:03:00.000-06:002006-02-19T17:03:00.000-06:00As Ayn Rand formulated the argument in For the New...<I>As Ayn Rand formulated the argument in For the New Intellectual:<BR/><BR/>[Kant's] argument amounted to a negation, not only of man's consciousness, but of any consciousness, of consciousness as such. His argument, in essence, ran as follows: man is limited to a consciousness of a specific nature, which perceives by specific means and no others, therefore, his consciousness is not valid; man is blind, because he has eyes -- deaf, because he has ears -- deluded, because he has a mind -- and the things he perceives do not exist, because he perceives them. (p. 30)<BR/><BR/>So how does Harris (who is, like myself, a neurobiologist) make this argument sound scientific? How, that is, does he appeal to our minds to make them believe that they are not really grasping reality?<BR/><BR/>[...]<BR/><BR/>How does Sam Harris know with such certainty that "no human being has ever experienced an objective world?" No answer. I do not intend to present Ayn Rand's full theory of epistemology here to rebut Sam Harris.</I><BR/><BR/>I have only just begun to read the Harris book (and am already having serioud probems with the disinenguous treatment of Chomsky I came across [discussion <A HREF="http://www.samharris.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=93" REL="nofollow">here</A> from Harris's own webpage]).But your remarks on Kant caught my attention. One may well disagree with Kant (it's easy), but one should disagree with what he actually said. Your treatment of Kant seems to imply that he posits a universal subjectivism; this could not be further from the case. The structures of intuition and the categories are (he believes, at least) the very basis for receiving <I>objective</I> content about the world. He does not say that we do not perceive reality; he says that we do have knowledge of the objectively true world. Wanting to know more than science can provide (what science provides is precisely knowledge of this objective world), that is, wanting a "god's-eye" view of the world, that is what Kant claims we can't have. I seriously doubt that objectivists believe that we can know everything that has ever happened or that will ever happen--that would be exactly what this god's-eye view would provide, and which Kant claims we can't have.<BR/><BR/>One may disagree with Kant, either because one believes that objective knowledge is impossible, or because one believes that objective knowledge is obtained in some other way, but to ascribe this kind of subjectivism to Kant is really to not understood his position.<BR/><BR/>Kant does sometimes use the word "reality" [<I>Wirklichkeit</I>] at times to refer to this "god's-eye view" world, but, again, I doubt that Ayn Rand is claiming that humans have that kind of knowledge (otherwise the objection would rest on <A HREF="http://www.fallacyfiles.org/equivoqu.html" REL="nofollow">equivocation</A> involving "reality"). (See the <I>Critique of Judgment</I>, remark to section 76. <A HREF="http://gutenberg.spiegel.de/kant/kuk/Druckversion_kukp761.htm" REL="nofollow">German</A>)<BR/><BR/>OK, maybe I'm being nitpicky. But one should disagree with him for what he actually believed.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-1139800689659773902006-02-12T21:18:00.000-06:002006-02-12T21:18:00.000-06:00Stuart,Thanks, and I'm glad you found this useful....Stuart,<BR/><BR/>Thanks, and I'm glad you found this useful. I would agree that the interest in the book is also fed by fear of our own theocrats in America. This makes Harris's book doubly shameful.<BR/><BR/>GusGus Van Hornhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05126749051688217781noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-1139790488135004632006-02-12T18:28:00.000-06:002006-02-12T18:28:00.000-06:00Gus,You did a yoeman's job dissecting End of Faith...Gus,<BR/><BR/>You did a yoeman's job dissecting End of Faith, finding its strengths and weaknesses. But what I find most interesting about Harris's very provocative but disorganized and over-stuffed book is that it has created such a stir, a stir which continues from hard cover into soft cover, almost two years since its original publication. It is striking a chord, a nerve,an anxiety. If there was no Sam Harris, he'd have to be invented. Perhaps endless struggles with Middle East forces accounts for some of it. But I suspect that the fundamentalist movement in this country may have as much or,increasingly, more to do with it. Theocratic tyranny is frightening to many Americans, whatever its geographic or theological headwater.<BR/><BR/>StuartAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com