| > It sounds like you are already an "atheist" of the wood burning debate As Sam Harris wrote > We love everything about it: the warmth, the beauty of its flames, and—unless one is allergic to smoke—the smell that it imparts to the surrounding air. That describes me. As a kid I loved playing with fire, a lot. > I am sorry to say that if you feel this way about a wood fire, you are not only wrong but dangerously misguided. I am happy to confirm that even after knowing that it's toxic, the above facts don't change, it just means I would probably not indulge in it. I changed my position regarding this on a dime, without the least resistance, while Harris was still talking abour troubles I did not experience, -- I didn't already have it. If it "sounds" that way to you, then simply take my word that it's not true. This is the first time I heard of this, and I was paying attention to my feelings just as instructed. I detected new information, but no resistance. Then impatience as it seemed there might be no point, then amusement when there was none. I can be very convinced of something and still not identify with it, maybe that's the reason. > I have discovered that when I make this case, even to highly intelligent and health-conscious men and women, a psychological truth quickly becomes as visible as a pair of clenched fists: They do not want to believe any of it. If it's some kind of "psychological truth" -- supposedly general and not individually different for each of these persons about none of whom we learn any detail -- so what is it? You say "intended audience" -- what are its features? Sam Harris spends a lot of effort on the padding and decoration, but none on the actual meat, that's what I see. If the truth is that "people can't accept new information when it contradicts something they like", then I hereby proved it wrong. I'm not sure why his anecdotes, with not one conversation recorded, would make a valid point that can't even be spelled out so it might be falsified, but my experience falsifying what the point (whatever it may be) is based on, just doesn't count because I'm not "the intended audience". That's fine, but I still overheard it, that's why I responded ^^ > Of course, if you are anything like my friends, you will refuse to believe this. So is that the psychological truth, being "anything like", or "totally unlike someone"? Fine, so I and Sam Harris are "nothing like" his friends (since he wouldn't be able to write the blog post if he "was committed to living in a world where wood fire smoke is not toxic"), so that's the one positive claim, and even if it's true, it contains no information, no signal. > I think it's a good summary having read the article but not really enough to get the point across for the intended audience. If you know what that point is, can you spell it out? What does this analogy tell us about "confronting religion", much less what does it tell us that would have a constructive effect on doing that? That religious people are just normal people? If there's more than that, what it is it? What does the stretched out version of my "summary" add? |