If so, I don’t think Gwyn’s representation of Harris is perfectly accurate. It’s true that Sam Harris repudiates theism, on fairly standard atheist grounds; he rejects the idea of taking anything on faith, and doesn’t believe that the Bible or the Quran is credible as a holy book. But Harris doesn’t actually cite the existence of metaphysical claims as his reason for not believing, and he’s clear that, when it comes to the idea of having a “spiritual relationship with that which we can’t understand” he is “just locat[ing] it in a different spot than classically religious people would locate it.” So when Tyler Austin Harper accuses Sam Harris of being one of those people with “a deep streak of mysticism they don’t even realize is mystical,” I don’t think that’s entirely fair. Harris seems to understand perfectly well that he has a mystical streak.
As for metaphysics, it’s true that Harris claims at 1:23:26 to be “not talking about the metaphysics.” It’s also true that Harris seems to think of metaphysics, as a subject, as being mostly a place where people make wild claims that aren’t credible. Specifically: “I don't follow people like Deepak Chopra into, you know, making metaphysical claims about, you know, how what you experience on acid or in meditation tells you a lot about cosmology or about what happened before the Big Bang, et cetera.” I, too, find Deepak Chopra non-credible, and can understand why Harris would want to distance himself from that sort of thing.
Later on, at 2:03:14, Harris states that he is “agnostic with respect to the metaphysics [of consciousness].” He then goes on into a lot of speculation that is, indeed, clearly metaphysical, but I think it’s fair to take those claims as existing under that caveat of agnosticism. I don’t think Harris is trying to say that all of metaphysics is off limits, merely that it’s a subject with a lot of uncertainty in it that we ought to be cautious of.
Wondering what you mean by metaphysics doesn't need to be non-rational? I couldn't have less respect nor more contempt for Sam Harris. He's just a narcissist fraud. But I whole heartedly agree, as I would understand/define it, with what I think you're saying some of the rebuttals rest on, which is that a description of the whole of existence can only be story time. It can take in more or fewer of the facts about the universe we're pretty confident in - say an agnostic physicist versus an orthodox Abrahamic theologian, respectively - but at the end of the day it's all stories. No one will ever be able to give a fact based answer to why existence. I'm wondering if I'm misunderstanding what you mean and am mentally rebutting a non sequitur?
Yes - that’s why I noted it. No email notification like I see on other posts. Might be an issue on my end, but figured worth mentioning in case you have a system problem.
Aaron Gwyn doesn’t actually tell us what the interview with Sam Harris was, but I think it’s probably this one: https://www.richroll.com/podcast/sam-harris-838/
If so, I don’t think Gwyn’s representation of Harris is perfectly accurate. It’s true that Sam Harris repudiates theism, on fairly standard atheist grounds; he rejects the idea of taking anything on faith, and doesn’t believe that the Bible or the Quran is credible as a holy book. But Harris doesn’t actually cite the existence of metaphysical claims as his reason for not believing, and he’s clear that, when it comes to the idea of having a “spiritual relationship with that which we can’t understand” he is “just locat[ing] it in a different spot than classically religious people would locate it.” So when Tyler Austin Harper accuses Sam Harris of being one of those people with “a deep streak of mysticism they don’t even realize is mystical,” I don’t think that’s entirely fair. Harris seems to understand perfectly well that he has a mystical streak.
As for metaphysics, it’s true that Harris claims at 1:23:26 to be “not talking about the metaphysics.” It’s also true that Harris seems to think of metaphysics, as a subject, as being mostly a place where people make wild claims that aren’t credible. Specifically: “I don't follow people like Deepak Chopra into, you know, making metaphysical claims about, you know, how what you experience on acid or in meditation tells you a lot about cosmology or about what happened before the Big Bang, et cetera.” I, too, find Deepak Chopra non-credible, and can understand why Harris would want to distance himself from that sort of thing.
Later on, at 2:03:14, Harris states that he is “agnostic with respect to the metaphysics [of consciousness].” He then goes on into a lot of speculation that is, indeed, clearly metaphysical, but I think it’s fair to take those claims as existing under that caveat of agnosticism. I don’t think Harris is trying to say that all of metaphysics is off limits, merely that it’s a subject with a lot of uncertainty in it that we ought to be cautious of.
Wondering what you mean by metaphysics doesn't need to be non-rational? I couldn't have less respect nor more contempt for Sam Harris. He's just a narcissist fraud. But I whole heartedly agree, as I would understand/define it, with what I think you're saying some of the rebuttals rest on, which is that a description of the whole of existence can only be story time. It can take in more or fewer of the facts about the universe we're pretty confident in - say an agnostic physicist versus an orthodox Abrahamic theologian, respectively - but at the end of the day it's all stories. No one will ever be able to give a fact based answer to why existence. I'm wondering if I'm misunderstanding what you mean and am mentally rebutting a non sequitur?
I never understood the point of Martha Nussbaum!
These are great. FYI, there is no email that links to these crowdsourcing pieces.
Sorry, what do you mean? You didn't receive the email?
Yes - that’s why I noted it. No email notification like I see on other posts. Might be an issue on my end, but figured worth mentioning in case you have a system problem.
I got one 🤷♂️