--- In [email protected], Emily Reyn <emilymae.reyn@...> wrote: > > This brings up the idea of moral absolutism for me. Â I always say that I > live in a "grey area between black and white" in most respects. Â Re: burning > wood or other dangerous activities, it isn't a matter of "refusing to > believe", it's a matter of choosing one's action based on circumstances, > about weighing situational pros and cons. Â > > Burning wood is "bad," but if my power goes out, I will start a fire. > Burning wood is "bad," but if camping or backpacking with or without > children, I may start a fire. > DEET is "bad," but I will slather it on to combat hoards of mosquitos. > I can imagine that if I were an atheist, I might still decide to pray to a > higher power if I found myself floating in the ocean after a shipwreck. Â > > The last sentence doesn't really make sense to me except in the context that > the analogy is used to indicate the difficulty in changing others' belief > systems. > > "Of course, if you are anything like my friends, you will refuse to believe > this. And that should give you some sense of what we are up against whenever > we confront religion."
I took it as a statement about our own cognitive gaps, it was directed at non-believers. We all hold beliefs that lack good rational support and act on them too. I took it as a reminder to non-believers that we all share similar emotion centered thinking in some areas of life. The reasons you gave as exceptions are outside the area of his presentation I think. He was specifically talking about fires in fireplaces by choice with no practical reason. I can relate to that so well. I have had fire places from time to time in my different homes and apartments and sitting in front of a fire is a great pleasure that I would not deny myself if I had the chance. But his analysis is factually correct so I would ignore those facts to enjoy my fire. It illustrates to non-believers that we can't be smug as if we are completely different from believers, we all share these cognitive gaps. (Yes I am equating belief in one of the Gods as demonstrating a cognitive gap in reasonableness.) It is so easy for a believer to see through the reasons held by another version of believers. Who here would consider the possibility that Rev. Moon is an avatar, literally God on earth? It seems incomprehensible how people could buy into that belief doesn't it? But not to moonies. They can't conceive of how we could miss the obvious, that Rev. Moon is God. Spiritual beliefs are cobbled together,the basic assumptions (like the belief in God afterlife and soul) are often assumed during childhood without much adult, conscious inspection. The belief in God was that way for me. At the time I first considered the possibility that it was an optional belief, I had never seriously considered that as an option. It took some time to let the possiblity of that idea even touch my awareness in a substantial way. It required a faith in myself as an individual who could imagine such an absurdity. I went through all the self-doubt that get tossed about by theists to atheists, am I being arrogant? Who am I to doubt the reality of God when so many are so sure? It this just me being egomaniacial to think that I could just decide that the evidence I had been constructing as my proof for God was in fact flawed. Who did I think I was! But once the shift happened from surety to questions about the substantial of my belief structure, for me it became impossible to keep it all together with honesty and integrity. Once I decided that my choice of interpretation of what my "mystical" experiences meant, was optional, that I could choose it again, without the assumptions of my past, I couldn't keep the wheels spinning. That was in 1989 and they have never spun for me again. So Sam's piece was for me a reminder that everyone who considers themselves a God believer has in fact rejected hundreds of versions of that belief that sometimes millions of others dearly hold, and often for the same reasons I do. I share with most people here a skepticism that Joseph Smith found gold tablets written by God. But the republican front runner, the guy who could potentially run the country is real sure about that as a fact, an historical event that really happened. How could he believe something that to most posters here is transparently absurd? Hey, hand me the fire place poker will ya? I want to push that log back so I can see those glowing embers, ain't they purdy? Cough cough! > > > > > > ________________________________ > From: curtisdeltablues <curtisdeltablues@...> > To: [email protected] > Sent: Friday, February 3, 2012 8:11 AM > Subject: [FairfieldLife] The Fireplace Delusion by Sam Harris > > > > Me: > This is such an interesting piece about perspectives and our emotional > investment to them.  And it points out how vulnerable to the same emotional > attachment to ideas both believers and non believers are.  There is > something in this for everyone: > > Sam: > It seems to me that many nonbelievers have forgottenâ"or never knewâ"what > it is like to suffer an unhappy collision with scientific rationality. We are > open to good evidence and sound argument as a matter of principle, and are > generally willing to follow wherever they may lead. Certain of us have made > careers out of bemoaning the failure of religious people to adopt this same > attitude. > > However, I recently stumbled upon an example of secular intransigence that > may give readers a sense of how religious people feel when their beliefs are > criticized. It's not a perfect analogy, as you will see, but the rigorous > research I've conducted at dinner parties suggests that it is worth thinking > about. We can call the phenomenon "the fireplace delusion." > > On a cold night, most people consider a well-tended fire to be one of the > more wholesome pleasures that humanity has produced. A fire, burning safely > within the confines of a fireplace or a woodstove, is a visible and tangible > source of comfort to us. We love everything about it: the warmth, the beauty > of its flames, andâ"unless one is allergic to smokeâ"the smell that it > imparts to the surrounding air. > > I am sorry to say that if you feel this way about a wood fire, you are not > only wrong but dangerously misguided. I mean to seriously convince you of > thisâ"so you can consider it in part a public service announcementâ"but > please keep in mind that I am drawing an analogy. I want you to be sensitive > to how you feel, and to notice the resistance you begin to muster as you > consider what I have to say. > > Because wood is among the most natural substances on earth, and its use as a > fuel is universal, most people imagine that burning wood must be a perfectly > benign thing to do. Breathing winter air scented by wood smoke seems utterly > unlike puffing on a cigarette or inhaling the exhaust from a passing truck. > But this is an illusion. > > Here is what we know from a scientific point of view: There is no amount of > wood smoke that is good to breathe. It is at least as bad for you as > cigarette smoke, and probably much worse. (One study found it to be 30 times > more potent a carcinogen.) The smoke from an ordinary wood fire contains > hundreds of compounds known to be carcinogenic, mutagenic, teratogenic, and > irritating to the respiratory system. Most of the particles generated by > burning wood are smaller than one micronâ"a size believed to be most > damaging to our lungs. In fact, these particles are so fine that they can > evade our mucociliary defenses and travel directly into the bloodstream, > posing a risk to the heart. Particles this size also resist gravitational > settling, remaining airborne for weeks at a time. > > Once they have exited your chimney, the toxic gases (e.g. benzene) and > particles that make up smoke freely pass back into your home and into the > homes of others. (Research shows that nearly 70 percent of chimney smoke > reenters nearby buildings.) Children who live in homes with active fireplaces > or woodstoves, or in areas where wood burning is common, suffer a higher > incidence of asthma, cough, bronchitis, nocturnal awakening, and compromised > lung function. Among adults, wood burning is associated with more-frequent > emergency room visits and hospital admissions for respiratory illness, along > with increased mortality from heart attacks. The inhalation of wood smoke, > even at relatively low levels, alters pulmonary immune function, leading to a > greater susceptibility to colds, flus, and other respiratory infections. All > these effects are borne disproportionately by children and the elderly. > > The unhappy truth about burning wood has been scientifically established to a > moral certainty: That nice, cozy fire in your fireplace is bad for you. It is > bad for your children. It is bad for your neighbors and their children. > Burning wood is also completely unnecessary, because in the developed world > we invariably have better and cleaner alternatives for heating our homes. If > you are burning wood in the United States, Europe, Australia, or any other > developed nation, you are most likely doing so recreationallyâ"and the > persistence of this habit is a major source of air pollution in cities > throughout the world. In fact, wood smoke often contributes more harmful > particulates to urban air than any other source. > > In the developing world, the burning of solid fuel in the home is a genuine > scourge, second only to poor sanitation as an environmental health risk. In > 2000, the World Health Organization estimated that it caused nearly 2 million > premature deaths each yearâ"considerably more than were caused by traffic > accidents. > > I suspect that many of you have already begun to marshal counterarguments of > a sort that will be familiar to anyone who has debated the validity and > usefulness of religion. Here is one: Human beings have warmed themselves > around fires for tens of thousands of years, and this practice was > instrumental in our survival as a species. Without fire there would be no > material culture. Nothing is more natural to us than burning wood to stay > warm. > > True enough. But many other things are just as naturalâ"such as dying at the > ripe old age of thirty. Dying in childbirth is eminently natural, as is > premature death from scores of diseases that are now preventable. Getting > eaten by a lion or a bear is also your birthrightâ"or would be, but for the > protective artifice of civilizationâ"and becoming a meal for a larger > carnivore would connect you to the deep history of our species as surely as > the pleasures of the hearth ever could. For nearly two centuries the divide > between what is naturalâ"and all the needless misery that entailsâ"and what > is good has been growing. Breathing the fumes issuing from your neighbor's > chimney, or from your own, now falls on the wrong side of that divide. > > The case against burning wood is every bit as clear as the case against > smoking cigarettes. Indeed, it is even clearer, because when you light a > fire, you needlessly poison the air that everyone around you for miles must > breathe. Even if you reject every intrusion of the "nanny state," you should > agree that the recreational burning of wood is unethical and should be > illegal, especially in urban areas. By lighting a fire, you are creating > pollution that you cannot dispose. It might be the clearest day of the year, > but burn a sufficient quantity of wood and the air in the vicinity of your > home will resemble a bad day in Beijing. Your neighbors should not have to > pay the cost of this archaic behavior of yours. And there is no way they can > transfer this cost to you in a way that would preserve their interests. > Therefore, even libertarians should be willing to pass a law prohibiting the > recreational burning of wood in favor of cleaner alternatives (like gas). > > 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. > Most people I meet want to live in a world in which wood smoke is harmless. > Indeed, they seem committed to living in such a world, regardless of the > facts. To try to convince them that burning wood is harmfulâ"and has always > been soâ"is somehow offensive. The ritual of burning wood is simply too > comforting and too familiar to be reconsidered, its consolation so ancient > and ubiquitous that it has to be benign. The alternativeâ"burning gas over > fake logsâ"seems a sacrilege. > > And yet, the reality of our situation is scientifically unambiguous: If you > care about your family's health and that of your neighbors, the sight of a > glowing hearth should be about as comforting as the sight of a diesel engine > idling in your living room. It is time to break the spell and burn gasâ"or > burn nothing at all. > > Of course, if you are anything like my friends, you will refuse to believe > this. And that should give you some sense of what we are up against whenever > we confront religion. > > >  >
