Does God have a future? That upcoming debate looks fantastic. I cannot wait to see Chopra get his arse kicked metaphorically kicked from one side of the stage to the other. I’m a big fan of Harris and Shermer. I’ve read everything of Harris’s…5 times. And then listened to the audiobooks. Likewise for Shermer. I wonder…to be a fly on the wall when *they* talk about religion. It seems to me that their views do diverge in several key places…not least of which is Shermer’s insistence that agnosticism is the only way to go because God is unknowable. He fleshes out this position quite comprehensively in “How we believe: The search for God in an age of science”. Now Shermer was once a born again Christian. He got over that, obviously…but it seems to me that prior to the writing of this book he had not ever encountered Harris. Or if he had, he has other reasons for postulating the possible existence of an unknowable God. Does anyone else see that Harris and Shermer might disagree about some significant aspects of how to run the “believer” versus “non-believer” debate? Harris believes that Russell’s teapot argument adequately commits one to atheism rather than agnosticism, while Shermer does seem to suggest at times that atheism itself is just as unreasonable a position as theism.

Now I know that *of course* these two titans of rationality will agree in far, far more places than they disagree. And they are both far more busy debating their differences with the likes of Chopra and apologists for religion than the few disagreements they have with each other. But, again…does anyone else see that these two aren’t entirely on the same page with regards to the religion debate?

Personally, I think a 10 minute conversation with Harris would exorcise Shermer of his agnosticism.

Brett.

Big fan of both men also.

Yes, I think Shermer and Harris have slightly different angles. Shermer was a huge fan of Gould, who was the architect of NOMA. NOMA is the dividing line for nonbelievers. Either you think Science has something to say and possibly disprove about faith and religion, or you think science and faith are separate realms that do not ‘overlap’ and cannot comment on each other. One addresses the material world, the other the spiritual world.

I have heard Shermer say he was an Atheist, so I don’t know his current stand. However, this somewhat new movement seemingly now called ‘New Atheism’ was supposedly kicked off by Harris, and has been joined by Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens and Stenger. Shermer does not seem to be a part of the New Atheist movement, or whatever you choose to call it.

Shermer is also politically a Libertarian which I believe is a bit at odds with the political persuations of the other folks mentioned.

Now having established this, both Shermer and Harris are definitely on the same side of the universe with respect to the views of Deepak Chopra, who in my opinion is nothing less than a con man. I think Shermer and Harris will put their differences aside and both exercise their ‘reasonist’ positions to destroy Deepak Chopra and his unsubstaniated ridiculous ideas.

Yep, I agree, eudemonia. I wonder if, in this encounter that Shermer and Harris will use their slightly different flavours of unbelief to their advantage or if their differences might be taken advantage of? I’ve never seen anyone get one over Harris in a debate - I’m certain that Chopra and his ally aren’t up to the task this time either - but I wouldn’t like to see him identified as someone who argues that there is no problem in arguing for God from “faith” per se - so long as people don’t argue they have evidence for their beliefs. This is what Shermer has said his position is. As a skeptic, when it comes to faith, he can only remain silent - matters of faith are beyond his purview. At least this is what he implies.

In this matter I think Harris is certainly the better skeptic. I think skepticism about faith is a very reasonable position…and one Shermer should adopt.

It’ll be great to watch!

‘I submit that all efforts to prove that which is to be taken on faith with scientific evidence are not only doomed to fail, they are ultimately illogical and counterproductive to the purpose of faith.’

From Brian Dunning who is on Shermers Skeptic Society board.

And as Victor Stenger has said recently-‘Absence of evidence is indeed evidence of absense, when evidence should be there and is not’

If someone of faith makes a claim that can be observed, tested and falsified by the scientific method, then faith fails. If faith remains making claims of the unprovable, then thats the basis of all faith and nobody can deny that.

I have never seen anybody better Sam in a debate either, so I don’t expect to now. All Deepak Chopra has ever done is throw out assumptions, speculations, ideas, suppostions, etc., etc., he has never, that I have seen, reported anything supported by evidence. He lives and dies by the incredulity argument, which is actually all any theist has. That which is not yet scientifically proven…MUST GE GOD!!

Ridiculous.

I like both guys too but Shermer pisses me off now and again with his accomodationist nonsense.

And the insistence with labeling himself “agnostic”.
Theism and non-theism (atheism)... there, two fucking options. Aargh!

Does anyone have any extra tickets available for this event?  I absolutely have to see this event.  If not, do you know someone else who has an extra ticket they may not be using?  Please give it a thought.

Thank you.

-Jason

Did listen to Shermer last week at a lecture in Madison, Wic.,  He said he was a Catholic. Great lecture.

Dennis

Shermer went to Pepperdine tio study Theology but took a Statistics class and it changed his thinking forever. Strange what turns people around at times. Mathematical probabilities apparently made a big impression on him.

Got my popcorn and beer on hand, comfy chair, bring on the show :-D

Anyone else go to this thing?

Brief impressions:

Shermer and Harris were generally patient, clear, calm, and occaisionally funny. Despite the few points where I thought they might disagree with each other, they kept the wagons circled. Make of that as you will.

Chopra was generally, rude, belligerent, obfuscatory, and occasionally funny (intentionally and unintentionally). He really doesn’t like Shermer (apparently, for all the back and forth they’ve had over the years, this was the first time they’d actually met) and was constantly trying to interrupt him.

Some of his many gaffs:

1. Incorrectly used “autopoiesis” in place of “abiogenesis.”

2. Quote-mined Einstein (the old “science without religion is lame”)

3. Misused John Searle to support his [strikethrough]argument[/strikethrough] assertion that consciousness must be more than physical (happily, there was a former student of Searle’s in the audience to correct him during the Q & A period).

4. And, of course, there was his deliberate misinterpretation of quantum mechanics (apparently, he’s only heard of the Copenhagen interpretation and doesn’t even seem to understand that. Fortunately, there was a theoretical physicist in the audience to point out this nonsense).

Jean Houston just told rambling, largely irrelevant stories, waxed feministic (the bit about the nebula resembling the birth canal was especially groan-inducing), and generally avoided directly answering any questions she was asked.

I have to say the moderator, Dan Harris (no relation), though funny, frequently held the debate back. At one point, Shermer was trying to give a brief summary of quantum mechanics in order to highlight Chopra’s misuse of it. The moderator simply cut him off with “You lost me already” and moved on to the next question.

IMO, Shermer and Harris won handily. ABC will have to pull off quite a hatchet job with the editing in order to give this debate some semblance of balance (that highest of journalistic ideals) by the time it airs on the 23rd.

I must note, however, that I was a bit bothered by Sam’s several attempts to steer the discussion toward fundamentalism. Chopra is a man of many mental afflictions, but religious fundamentalism is not among them. Now, I can certainly understand why fundamentalism would be a primary focus in a popular publication (especially in America) or in a debate with a fundamentalist apologist, but it should NOT be the primary focus in a debate with someone like Chopra. Don’t give him the opportunity to simply dismiss you with a straw-man accusation. You’re a bright guy, Sam; know your enemy and adapt your game accordingly.

I thought he had ‘come out’ as an atheist.  This, from a few years ago, definitely states this, unless he’s lapsed back into agnosticism since.  He also has a similar stance to ‘labelling’ as Sam does.

I can’t wait to watch it! BTW nobody here has mentioned anything about Karen Armstrong, maybe she simply doesn’t merit a mention I suppose. If you look up in the dictionary the definition of “obfuscatory” or “obscurantist” you’ll find her name.

Shermer has for a long time bounced back and forth with the agnostic/atheist categorizing. I actually don’t think he thinks that it is that important. To Shermer, skeptical thought is the important thing, as reason is to Sam. The men are on about the same page, I think, even though Sam is a little more outspoken and activist about his nonbelief.

The thread title is misleading…. it wasn’t Shermer vs. Harris, it was two rational, sensible, intellectually honest, oxytocin-inducing men vs. the mystic and the metaphoric.

I think the gents did an incredible job and I hope ABC doesn’t edit it to make Chopra look sane, because the guy has obviously lost all of his muons, I mean marbles. Man, Deepak was pure, unadulterated, irrational petulant primate. 

Sam to Deepak: “You are not a physicist.. as every single sentence you say clearly demonstrates”.  PRICELESS

or

“Deepak, just repeating it more loudly and relentlessly doesn’t make it true!” -S Harris-  haha

Ein Sophistry - 15 March 2010 11:40 AM

ABC will have to pull off quite a hatchet job with the editing…

I just watched it, and indeed they did. I think there may have only been 5-6 minutes of heavily spliced debate footage. About as much time went into the buildup (voiceover with montages of crucifixes and rockets, stained glass and pictures of Earth from space); and the whole thing seemed more focused on the personal animosity between Shermer and Chopra than the question framed.

I noticed they only aired one brief segment of Houston, so I’m guessing even the editors thought her input boring, irrelevant, dimwitted or otherwise unusable.

I’m really going to have to watch the whole thing, but the prospect of listening to two hours of an irate Chopra has all the appeal of a bad hangover.