Monday, December 3, 2007 | Reason : In the News | print version

Print | Comments |

Beyond Belief 07: Enlightenment 2.0

The Science Network

Thanks to Stephen Reed for the link.

Click here to play videos:
http://thesciencenetwork.org/BeyondBelief2/

View the list of speakers here

UPDATE: For those of you wanting downloadable videos, I think they are coming soon from The Science Network. It sounds like these links are just the 'first wave.'

As you watch the conversation in Beyond Belief: Enlightenment 2.0, it might help to know about one of the sources that was helpful to me in formulating the agenda, assembling the cast of characters, and setting the tone for the meeting. I quoted this passage from Humanity: A Moral History of the Twentieth Century by Jonathan Glover (who directs the Centre of Medical Law and Ethics at King's College, London):

"Now we tend to see the Enlightenment view of human psychology as thin and mechanical, and Enlightenment hopes of social progress through the spread of humanitarianism and the scientific outlook as na�ve...One of this book's aims is to replace the thin, mechanical psychology of the Enlightenment with something more complex, something closer to reality...another aim of the book is to defend the Enlightenment hope of a world that is more peaceful and humane, the hope that by understanding more about ourselves we can do something to create a world with less misery. I have qualified optimism that this hope is well founded..."

I say Amen to that. If Enlightenment 1.0 took a thin and mechanical view of human nature and psychology, I think Enlightenment 2.0 can offer a much 'thicker' and cognitively richer account - less na�ve and also, perhaps, less hubristic. If there's one thing we've learned - particularly from cognitive neuroscience - it is that we need to have some strategic humility about the hobby horses we are inclined to ride.
-Roger Bingham
Director, The Science Network

Posted: Monday, December 3, 2007 | Permalink

Comments 1 - 50 of 109 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #93636 by bladeScythe on December 3, 2007 at 7:21 pm

Oh man have i been waiting for this.

Other Comments by bladeScythe

2. Comment #93639 by BeyondBelief on December 3, 2007 at 7:31 pm

Let the downloads begin...!!!

Wait.... We can't Download? Someone tell me what I'm missing, if this can be dowloaded and saved. I have a lot of long flights that I intend to put to good use with this material.

Other Comments by BeyondBelief

3. Comment #93642 by Carl Champagne on December 3, 2007 at 7:33 pm

Whoa! This'll keep me busy for awhile. Thanks!

Other Comments by Carl Champagne

4. Comment #93645 by Cokane on December 3, 2007 at 7:41 pm

Yes, downloads please!!

ipod fodder this most certainly is!

Other Comments by Cokane

5. Comment #93647 by toomanytribbles on December 3, 2007 at 7:43 pm

yes... downloads.. we.. need... downloads!

Other Comments by toomanytribbles

6. Comment #93648 by fernaoorphao on December 3, 2007 at 7:47 pm

Duuuuuuuuude......I`ve been waiting for this....

Thanxs !!!

Other Comments by fernaoorphao

7. Comment #93649 by roach on December 3, 2007 at 7:54 pm

Sweet. Dawkins didn't speak?

Other Comments by roach

8. Comment #93650 by agg on December 3, 2007 at 8:09 pm

I can't believe this: I finally got around to watching the Beyond Belief videos from last year and they post these too!!!

Other Comments by agg

9. Comment #93652 by Arcados on December 3, 2007 at 8:17 pm

Awesome... I've been waiting to watch this for so long.

Damn you for releasing this when my exams start!

Other Comments by Arcados

10. Comment #93653 by Spinoza on December 3, 2007 at 8:24 pm

So far it's boring me... ugh

Other Comments by Spinoza

11. Comment #93654 by CruciFiction on December 3, 2007 at 8:35 pm

Wrong link at: - "Thursday, November 1: Session 1 of 2"

Someone fixy.

Other Comments by CruciFiction

12. Comment #93658 by Beteo on December 3, 2007 at 8:55 pm

FINALLY!!! oooo... hours and hours.... lovely.

.. for those of you who can't wait to download... try the Firefox "YouPlayer" extension... drag the links into the "YouPlayer" sidebar, right-click and choose 'download' to download the flash video "FLV" file... watch in VLC or GOMPlayer.

Other Comments by Beteo

13. Comment #93659 by shad0w on December 3, 2007 at 9:01 pm

FINALLY!!!!!!!!!

Other Comments by shad0w

14. Comment #93663 by pauliej on December 3, 2007 at 9:22 pm

Yippee!!! All plans for this weekend are cancelled : I have videos to watch!

Other Comments by pauliej

15. Comment #93665 by Zakie Chan on December 3, 2007 at 9:23 pm

Eeeeeeexcellent!!

However, I am having problems with the video loading. It will load it for like 3 minutes, and then completely stops. Does anybody know how to fix this?

Other Comments by Zakie Chan

16. Comment #93667 by Arturo on December 3, 2007 at 9:36 pm

Amazing :) I want to see this so badly :) :) :)

Other Comments by Arturo

17. Comment #93681 by nogodsever on December 3, 2007 at 10:45 pm

Check out the questioner about 40 minutes into Sam Harris' talk. She is so unpleasant that she gave me a completely negative visceral reaction. I think she may be on crack, no joke.

Other Comments by nogodsever

18. Comment #93682 by JanChan on December 3, 2007 at 10:48 pm

Does anyone notice that there seems to be less people in the audience this time? Maybe it's because Dawkins isn't there?

Other Comments by JanChan

19. Comment #93698 by 7Fred7 on December 4, 2007 at 12:02 am

Excellent. I'm eagerly awaiting downloadables!

"...we need to have some strategic humility about the hobby horses we are inclined to ride"
- Roger Bingham.

And many of us need to write that a few hundred times before breakfast.

Other Comments by 7Fred7

20. Comment #93705 by Bonzai on December 4, 2007 at 12:59 am

What the hell is wrong with this guy Greg Epstein? He really gets on my nerve with the touchy feely stuffs. And the singing in the end? WTF?? He should be a TV evangelist.

Other Comments by Bonzai

21. Comment #93707 by L'athee on December 4, 2007 at 1:02 am

Those wishing to download might perhaps think to download mp3directcuts (ask it!) It is a super down loader and its free. Have used it for years without hassle.

Other Comments by L'athee

22. Comment #93710 by jesus_christ_himself on December 4, 2007 at 1:29 am

Could somebody post the details of each session? Who is in it, in what order etc... Thanks

Other Comments by jesus_christ_himself

23. Comment #93719 by Theocrapcy on December 4, 2007 at 1:59 am

HOW TO DOWNLOAD FROM GOOGLE VIDEO
---------------------------------

1. Get Firefox.
2. Install "Fast Video Download" extension.
3. Drink beer and celebrate his noodly appendage.

p.s. you'll also need an "flv player", google it.

Other Comments by Theocrapcy

24. Comment #93720 by toomanytribbles on December 4, 2007 at 2:14 am

as i've noted before, google video is not available worldwide.

Other Comments by toomanytribbles

25. Comment #93761 by celestialtea on December 4, 2007 at 6:45 am

Oh crap. I wonder if I can sue for the detrimental effect this is going to have on my university studies.

Other Comments by celestialtea

26. Comment #93765 by sebmal on December 4, 2007 at 7:07 am

Why didn't Dawkins speak?

Other Comments by sebmal

27. Comment #93783 by toomanytribbles on December 4, 2007 at 8:00 am

does anyone have information about the image on the homepage?

Other Comments by toomanytribbles

28. Comment #93796 by Tomcat on December 4, 2007 at 8:22 am

Yes!!!! I have been waiting!! Especially for Jon Haidt

Other Comments by Tomcat

29. Comment #93799 by Tomcat on December 4, 2007 at 8:24 am

Comment #20 Bonzai: Haha. So the truth comes out. The only reason why people don't like him is because people here don't like touchy-feely things and singing. Do you have a real argument?

Other Comments by Tomcat

30. Comment #93815 by CauchySchwarz on December 4, 2007 at 8:56 am

#27

does anyone have information about the image on the homepage?

I think the painting is named "The Ancient of Days" by William Blake.

Other Comments by CauchySchwarz

31. Comment #93827 by toomanytribbles on December 4, 2007 at 9:14 am

thanks, CauchySchwarz!

Other Comments by toomanytribbles

32. Comment #93854 by eXcommunicate on December 4, 2007 at 10:24 am

Ack! Is there no 2 of 2 for Friday? Sam is cut off.

Other Comments by eXcommunicate

33. Comment #93871 by drenghdndvtm on December 4, 2007 at 11:08 am

This program might help for those who can't view online. Point the URL to this program and download the .flv files to your HD. It's a free program. Hope this helps someone.

http://youtubedownload.altervista.org/

Other Comments by drenghdndvtm

34. Comment #93892 by Kell on December 4, 2007 at 12:08 pm

OMG! Sam Harris just called out Scott Atran to a public debate about Islam, preferably with Ayaan Hirsi Ali.
You can practically hear the saloon doors swinging :D

Other Comments by Kell

35. Comment #93894 by Janus on December 4, 2007 at 12:11 pm

And Atran said Harris doesn't have the slightest idea what he's talking about, heh.

Other Comments by Janus

36. Comment #93897 by Bonzai on December 4, 2007 at 12:23 pm

As far as supposedly religiously motivated terrorism is concerned , Atran has the data, Harris doesn't. Atran does the research, collects and analyzes the data and Harris merely philosophizes based on newspaper clippings . So if you people really respect evidence as you claim you do you should take Atran's criticism very seriously instead of simply dismissing him because he takes your heros to task for not basing their own ideas on evidence.

On the other hand, of course you can criticize Islam on other grounds than trying to argue that there is a direct link from the Mosque to terrorism. I don't think Atran would necessarily disagree.

Other Comments by Bonzai

37. Comment #93899 by Janus on December 4, 2007 at 12:29 pm

Harris himself said that he acknowledges Atran's data and that he agrees with 90% of what Atran said. But in my view, and I think also in Harris' view, Atran has yet to show what the logical link is between his findings and the statement that Islam has nothing to do with suicide bombings. In other words, Atran may have explained part of what motivates suicide bombers, but he hasn't demonstrated that his theory is the full explanation.

Other Comments by Janus

38. Comment #93902 by steve99 on December 4, 2007 at 12:33 pm

and Harris merely philosophizes based on newspaper clippings

I am not sure that is entirely fair. Harris is a scientist too, and, I would expect, understands data and how to interpret it.

However, I would agree that there is a debate to be had.

Other Comments by steve99

39. Comment #93904 by Bonzai on December 4, 2007 at 12:35 pm

Atran may have explained part of what motivates suicide bombers, but he hasn't demonstrated that his theory is the full explanation

Well if Harris agrees with Atran 90% than he is quibling over 10%. Whatever that 10% is you can't argue there is a direct link from theology to terrorism as Harris does. Even if he is absolutely correct for that 10%, it only accounts for 10% and it is a weak link.

Other Comments by Bonzai

40. Comment #93906 by Bonzai on December 4, 2007 at 12:40 pm

Steve

I am not sure that is entirely fair. Harris is a scientist too

He is a neuroscientist so I am sure he is fully rigorous in treating data in his own field. But the dynamics of terrorism belongs to an entirely different area.

P.S. I looked up Harris' bio. He was an English and philosophy major then somehow got into a Ph.D. program in neuroscience after being mostly stoned for 11 years. How does that work??

Other Comments by Bonzai

41. Comment #93915 by Janus on December 4, 2007 at 12:53 pm

Well if Harris agrees with Atran 90% than he is quibling over 10%. Whatever that 10% is you can't argue there is a direct link from theology and terrorism as Harris does. Even if he is absolutely correct for that 10%, it only accounts for 10% and it is a weak link.

I'm pretty sure that Harris doesn't mean that he thinks that Atran's theory explains 90% of suicide bombings. Rather, he agrees with 90% of the statements that Atran makes, but not with the other 10%. Namely, he doesn't agree with Atran that suicide bombings would occur with any significant frequency in what we think of as the Muslim world if it wasn't for specific beliefs contained in the Quran and Hadith. For example, Atran's "soccer team" might very well be the catalyst that propels potential suicide bombers into action, but religious beliefs may still be the root cause of the desire to blow oneself up, without which the catalyst wouldn't have had anything to catalyze.

Other Comments by Janus

42. Comment #93920 by Bonzai on December 4, 2007 at 12:58 pm

I don't know why some of you insist on seeing Atran as some kind of Islam apologist. There are many, many things one can criticize orthodox Islam on with or without terrorism. Most of the misogynistic, homophobic and anti-semitic Muslim clerics are no Abu-Hamzas, but that doesn't make them moderates and as far as I know, Atran never says it is ok to preach hate as long as you don't incite terrorism. All he is saying is that it is naive to think that religion is the main cause of terrorism.

On the contrary, it seems to be the position of the U.K government that a Muslim qualifies as a "moderate" as long as he's not a jihadist no matter how repugnant his other beliefs are. This is the government which lies to get on the Iraq bandwagon with the neo-con.

Other Comments by Bonzai

43. Comment #93922 by steve99 on December 4, 2007 at 1:00 pm

P.S. I looked up Harris' bio. He was an English and philosophy major then somehow got into a Ph.D. program in neuroscience after being mostly stoned for 11 years. How does that work??

I have no idea. When I was doing my Ph.D. I had only three years of funding to complete it.

Other Comments by steve99

44. Comment #93923 by steve99 on December 4, 2007 at 1:11 pm

All he is saying is that it is naive to think that religion is the main cause of terrorism.

Religion does not have to be the factor that takes you most of the way to terrorism. It only has to be the final enabler. And it works so well at that. We can see this when people are oppressed, or invaded. This has happened all over the world. But only in the context of certain religions have those situations progressed to terrorism.

Other Comments by steve99

45. Comment #93925 by Bonzai on December 4, 2007 at 1:11 pm

What I meant to say was, by fixating on terrorism, people let Islam off the hook for other very ugly things going on in the mosques. I think this is the kind of logic that induces the U.K government, for example, to promote some very reactionary Muslims as "moderates" and try to work with them as long as they are not jihadists.

I have been saying that even before I heard of Scot Atran.

Other Comments by Bonzai

46. Comment #93932 by Bonzai on December 4, 2007 at 1:23 pm

Steve,

Religion does not have to be the factor that takes you most of the way to terrorism. It only has to be the final enabler. And it works so well at that. We can see this when people are oppressed, or invaded. This has happened all over the world. But only in the context of certain religions have those situations progressed to terrorism.

I would agree with that.

Also, I think the role of religion may play a bigger or smaller role depending on the context. In the M.E and especially in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict I think Atran is probably close to 100% correct that Islam is merely a kind of rallying symbol and as he quoted Bin Laden, even without Islam the pagan gods would have demanded the war against the U.S.

On the other hand, I suspect religion does play a big role when new converts or newly radicalized Muslim youths in the West commit terrorism allegedly for political causes that they have no connection to and have no clue about. Some Jihadists in the U.K tried to blow up a bar because "Allah hates slags", that, I think was mostly religiously motivated. Some argue for social alienation, that was surly a factor, but a socially alienated youth who finds the Dalai Lama or LSD would certainly have acted very differently.

Other Comments by Bonzai

47. Comment #93934 by Atticus_of_Amber on December 4, 2007 at 1:26 pm

What Sam Harris is saying is that he agrees with Atran's data but disagrees withhis interpretation of it. And I have to say that Sam's criticisms (and also those of Dan Dennett and the psychologist who spoke at AAI) make sense to me. Whenever I read or hear Atran he seems to make the most inexplicable logical leaps from his data to his conclusions.

Other Comments by Atticus_of_Amber

48. Comment #93937 by chbg21808 on December 4, 2007 at 1:28 pm

What a great suggestion from Sam Harris... I would love to see a debate between Ayaan Hersi Ali and Scott Atran... Atran seems to be blinded by his own facts and figures.

Full respect to Atran for being willing to take up the challenge though.

As to the point that someone on this board mentioned on terrorism... I for one wish the media would stop saying that "it's a fight against terrorism" ...this is simply one external effect that stems from the root cause which is the ideology itself. It is the ideology that leads to terrorist acts... how can you defend yourself against something unless you identify its root cause.

Other Comments by chbg21808

49. Comment #93945 by Bonzai on December 4, 2007 at 1:34 pm

It is good to have debates. What I dislike is the tendency of some people on the site to automatically castigate as enemy pretty much anyone who deviates from the views of the Dawkins-Harris_Dennett trinity. It may not be intended but this is how it often comes across.

Other Comments by Bonzai

50. Comment #93973 by robotaholic on December 4, 2007 at 2:10 pm

yay! excited...- I so saved the first beyond belief sessions to my hard drive and about drove all my friends crazy with clips - i really loved the saturn lady Puerco and the material version of reality and how beautiful it is when stars nova/super- can't wait for 2.0 - oh and I love the moderator - he seems so cool...

Other Comments by robotaholic

Reload Comments | Back to Top

More Comments: 1 2 3 | Next | Last