Sam Harris on spiritual experience

[Edward theurj Berge]

We've all heard about Harris' scathing criticisms of religions of all flavor, including Buddhism. In this 2-part talk at You Tube he defends meditation and contemplation and criticizes the atheist community for throwing the baby out with the bathwater. In my atheistic mind this is indeed a step towards re-visioning the great traditions by nourishing the baby while also pulling the plug on the dirty bathwater.

Also of note is that he echoes kennilingus in claiming one must take up the injunction of meditation before one can criticize its phenomenal experience. He does qualify that one can certainly criticize based on reason alone the metaphysical accoutrements of those who have such experiences. Yet the experiences themselves cannot be refuted by reason alone. And that such experience must be translated into postmetaphysical terms shorn of religious dogma to be of pertinent use in today's world.

[andrew]

Could have been a bad swing on the golf course when he whacked himself on the side of the head with his pitching wedge . Pay attention to your swing plane Mr Harris! 

The only one who is calling this whole bloody mess in the mid-east correctly  is Hedges when he says , 'no body wants to be occupied'. Christian's, muslims and jews have officially regressed to death cult status ( at least the ones who cheerlead for this lunacy). And it's far more than a battle of memes .

I call it the anthropic principle of evil! Friggin' uncanny.

[Edward theurj Berge]

Sam Harris: Call me maybe. Cenk Uygur on Sam Harris' hypothetical nuclear first strike against Islam, and how it plays out with Donald Trump.

[Edward theurj Berge]

See this story wherein Harris challenged Omir Aziz to a debate, but only on Harris' very limiting terms that even he admitted had no precedent in debate format. One of those terms was that Harris could have the only copy of the debate and he could refuse to make it pubic if he so chose. The debate so-called lasted for four hours and then Harris refused to release it. Aziz though recalls what he can from it and lambasts Harris further.

Does this type of debate format remind you of anyone?

[Ambo Suno]

Hi t - Scanning quickly through the Omir Aziz article from Salon, I found it very interesting. His critiques seemed to have merit though I admit the whole territory is a sort of knot of conundrums in my mind-heart-gut. I feel clearly not qualified to make any valuable critique of Aziz, Harris, or the hot and important related topics.

So this feels educational to me, a bit more 'raw data' in a vast landscape.

Wish I had clear insight that came from a worthy level or kosmic locale from which I could reliably proffer opinions and suggestions.

Sheesh & hah.

theurj said:

See this story wherein Harris challenged Omir Aziz to a debate, but only on Harris' very limiting terms that even he admitted had no precedent in debate format. One of those terms was that Harris could have the only copy of the debate and he could refuse to make it pubic if he so chose. The debate so-called lasted for four hours and then Harris refused to release it. Aziz though recalls what he can from it and lambasts Harris further.

Does this type of debate format remind you of anyone?

[Edward theurj Berge]

Harris responds to the controversy in the first part of this podcast. Quite the specious prevaricating Harris, release the debate and let us decide.

[Edward theurj Berge]

Having listened to the first 26 minutes addressing Aziz I'd have to agree that Aziz is antagonistic. But Harris is condescending and indeed rationalizes a lot while trying to dominate the conversation. He also personally insults Aziz frequently under the guise of an impersonal objective stance. Harris is just as much at fault for this conversation going nowhere. So Harris is right about one thing: I wouldn't want to waste my time hearing 4 hours of it.