tft-short-4578168
Ken Ammi’s True Free Thinker:
BooksYouTube or OdyseeTwitterFacebookSearch

Should Sam Harris appear on “Hell’s Kitchen”?

Considering his performance, and indeed that is what it was, during his debate with William Lane Craig, perhaps Sam Harris should be on Gordon Ramsay’s the TV show “Hell’s Kitchen.” This is because he served up an all you can eat buffet of undercooked red herring (with a side of hurled elephant).

Sam Harris is an atheist Buddhist mystic who does not like the terms “atheist,” “Buddhist” or “mystic.” He is an atheist activist who runs an anti-Christian support group. The 9/11 attacks upon the USA by Muslim terrorists ignited the fires of his atheist activism and resulted in his touring Muslim countries denouncing Islam, Muhammad and Allah.

Actually, if you know any of the celebrity New Atheists, you know that whilst each has stated that they were motivated towards militant atheist activism by 9/11 they all took a page from Sam Harris’ play book. In a truly brilliant move, Sam Harris decided that the way to deal with religious extremism, of the deadly variety, was to take aim at religious moderates. Thus, no, neither he nor any of the self-styled iconoclastic celebrity New Atheists have toured Muslim countries denouncing Islam, Muhammad and Allah.

atheism2c20sam20harris2c20big20brother2c20true20freethinker-2471782

They would not dare. Rather, Sam Harris and his group-think sect of atheism chose, rather, to stay within the safety, comfort and lucrativeness of countries founded on Judeo-Christian principles, the UK and the USA, and launch attacks at the world’s true evil. No, not radical Islamic terrorists, but rather, the Pope, the Bishop of Canterbury, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, etc. (see The New (Emergent) Atheists).

During the debate, Sam Harris played three—out of tune—notes: 1) red herring spiked elephant hurling, 2) emotionally charged appeals and 3) pseudo-scientific malarkey.

It was not very far into the debate when the first whiff of undercooked red herring filled the auditorium, with a side of hurled elephant, as Sam Harris made a typical New Atheist debate move.

As was done by Dan Barker, during his debate with Kyle Butt, when, in rapid fire succession, he shot off 14 alleged Biblical contradictions (plus 6 other alleged reasons why we can know that God does not exist). Kyle Butt mentioned that when a debater shoots off 20 assertions they are doing two things: 1) They are not allowing the audience to digest but are attempting to overwhelm them.

2) They know very well that their opponent simply will not have enough time to respond to each one or perhaps not even half nor a third, etc.

Sam Harris did likewise and yet, William Lane Craig simply noted that the red herring had been served, offered one or two resources for answering Harris’ objections and kept focused on the topic of the debate.

But Sam Harris was not yet done, he also pulled out another favorite tactic which is to make emotionally charged appeals urging the audience to focus on the children, think of the children. He urged them again and again to “right now” think about suffering children who are dying “right now” drowning “right now.” Yes audience, remove yourselves from the intellectual process of an intellectual debate and “right now” think about a child who is drowning.

This tactic works this way: once he succeeds in coaxing an emotional response, you have a automatic bond with him as he also feels your pain. Thus, since an emotion is something real, something that you can actually feel, his opponent is left to offer an intellectual response which, not matter how logical, simply comes across as impotent because it is an abstract concept which cannot compete with a real sensation.

Not only does Sam Harris offer pseudo-scientific malarkey, he, himself, is a pseudo-scientist. Oh yes, he has the education, the diploma, the certificate and the t-shirt: he is legally and technically allowed to refer to himself as a scientist, a neuro-scientist.

However, before he was allowed into the imitation ivory tower, he was asked the following by Edge – The World Question Center, “What do you believe is true even though you cannot prove it? Here is his response:

What I believe, though cannot yet prove, is that belief is a content-independent process. Which is to say that beliefs about God—to the degree that they are really believed—are the same as beliefs about numbers, penguins, tofu, or anything else… What I do believe, however, is that the neural processes that govern the final acceptance of a statement as ‘true’ rely on more fundamental, reward-related circuitry in our frontal lobes—probably the same regions that judge the pleasantness of tastes and odors… Once the neurology of belief becomes clear, and it stands revealed as an all-purpose emotion arising in a wide variety of contexts (often without warrant), religious faith will be exposed for what it is: a humble species of terrestrial credulity. We will then have additional, scientific reasons to declare that mere feelings of conviction are not enough when it comes time to talk about the way the world is.

The only thing that guarantees that (sufficiently complex) beliefs actually represent the world, are chains of evidence and argument linking them to the world…Understanding belief at the level of the brain may hold the key to new insights into the nature of our minds, to new rules of discourse, and to new frontiers of human cooperation…

Notice his staked deck: “…yet…Once…will be…We will then…”

Religious faith is a humble species of terrestrial credulity and once the neurology of belief becomes clear religious faith will be exposed for what it is: a humble species of terrestrial credulity.

Sam Harris is clearly setting out to prove what he already believes to be true—no doubt, he will prove his beliefs even by gyrations that will strain the very neurons upon which he will be experimenting.

Thus, he is not what a scientists should be an unbiased researcher. Rather, he got into the game in order to prove what he already believes. Thus, he is not a neuro-scientist but a pseudo-scientist—an activist in disguise. ———————

To hear Dr. Glenn Peoples present a talk at the University of Auckland on The New Atheism, Science & Morality see this link to the most excellent audio website Apologetics315

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help out. Here is my donate/paypal page.

Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Twitter
page
, on my Facebook page, on my Google+ page and/or the “Share/Save” button below the tags.


Posted

in

by

Tags: