So he called out Eagleman for a debate on religion.
Calling (Out) David Eagleman
The above talk was sent to me by a reader and is well worth watching. In it, the neuroscientist David Eagleman says many very reasonable things and says them well. Unfortunately, on the subject of religion he appears to make a conscious effort to play the good cop to the bad cop of “the new atheism.” This posture will win him many friends, but it is intellectually dishonest. When one reads between the lines—or even when one just reads the lines—it becomes clear that what Eagleman is saying is every bit as deflationary as anything Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens or I say about the cherished doctrines of the faithful.I don’t know Eagleman, but I’ve invited him to discuss these and other issues with me on this blog. He also has a book out on the brain that looks very interesting and which I intend to read:
Tags:
3 comments:
I think Harris had an excessive response. What Eagleman was arguing against was all metaphysics, all validity claims that haven't followed the three strands of good science (including scientism). Harris seems to find that threatening, or he misunderstood what Eagleman was trying to say.
The hardest thing Harris says is that Eagleman is intellectually dishonest. While Eagleman is a charming positivist, I think Harris is right. Eagleman is careful to say that we don't know enough to be atheist, but is quick to toss out ESP. Like him I don't think ESP bears any amount of scientific scrutiny; but theism does? Perhaps the thinnest, most undefined, versions of deism could fall in his realm of the possible, most theist's beliefs are more easily refutable than ESP.
If Eagleman wants to have this much liberality of knowledge, then he might as well embrace the science of the paranormal.
Can you help me understand how you think Eagleman is a positivist? I think if either of the two deserve that label, it would be Harris.
Post a Comment