Drinking a warm cup of coffee or hot chocolate next to a wood fire during a cold night is possibly one of the most enjoyable and stress reducing activities I can think of. Life isn't about evaluating every risk.
Here's a small list of that has a high probability of harming my body:
* Snowboard when I'm not at my prime
* Use MSG in my cooking once in awhile
* Smoke seldomly
* Eat fatty meats such as lamb / duck
* No sleep consistently
* Have too much stress
No one is going to refute these scientifically, but at the same time, just because we ignore the warnings, do not mean that we do not accept the warning as truthful. There is simply a more complex heuristic function we use to evaluate our decisions than a purely risk adverse one.
It's not about the harm you're doing to your own body, it's about the harm you're doing to other people and their property without their consent. Snowboarding or missing sleep doesn't harm anyone else. Burning wood does, and that's why it's different.
However, missing sleep and then driving (a rather common occurrence) is incredibly dangerous to the person doing it and others. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleep-deprived_driving) In fact, I think it's fair to argue that sleep deprivation plus daily activities (work or otherwise) likely puts more people at risk than burning wood, many of them without their consent (as they are not the sleep deprived ones).
I disagree that it is different. Not every theoretical harm to property is a violation of consent. In practice, one has to demonstrate harm and be able to assign blame to an entity. In most cases, short term exposure to burning wood won't cause any demonstrable harm. (Just ask the residents of Providence, RI on Saturday nights during the summer.)
Therefore, it's not just that "burning wood" causes harm, but that a certain level of exposure to burning wood causes harm.
You may think me a pedant, but consider the top post in this sub-thread:
> Drinking a warm cup of coffee or hot chocolate next to a wood fire during
> a cold night is possibly one of the most enjoyable and stress reducing
> activities I can think of. Life isn't about evaluating every risk.
Which is clearly talking about recreational wood burning. I would argue that one cannot (typically) demonstrate harm from such an activity, either because the exposure is too short or the blame cannot be laid on any one particular entity.
Therefore, I would say that they are indeed not different at all, at least with regard to a practical implementation of property law. Otherwise, nearly anything could be misconstrued as harm. (e.g., I have dependents and snowboarding could cause me to break my leg and put me out of work, which would cause harm to those relying on me.)
What about your loved ones? Run into a tree and break your neck and life is not too rosy for them is it? Also your argument can be stretched to eating: if I eat some bread, it is harming you... because you can't eat it, so you starve, also their excreta might suddenly overwhelm and drown you (as you sleep).
This is the trouble with silly polemical arguments - they run out of control really easily!
There was an excellent bit of trivia regarding the "dangers" of MSG on one of the "The mind of a chef" episodes. Apparently it was made into the issue largely by the ignorance of the press.
Power to thee if you actually acknowledge the risks and consciously choose to indulge yourself. Most people don't quite understand the risks involved, and with the specific example of fireplaces: how damaging it can be on the kids around. It is well-known that humans are poor judges in evaluating the chance of occurrence of black swan events.
This doesn't seem to be what the article is about at all though. It sounds like you accept evidence whereas he's trying to draw a parallel between the difficulty of arguing with people who reject evidence.
But you're also framing this in terms of personal experiences with limited spheres of effect. Operating wood burning stoves in a neighborhood would appear (I'm not 100% sure on his evidence here, but going with it) to lead to the harm of others. As he opens: "There is no amount of wood smoke that is good to breathe."
There's also a third category, in which I seem to fall- not rejecting evidence, but ignoring it on purpose. As in, "Yes, you are pretty much right, but I don't want to change my ways so I am going to stop thinking about this".
I have a feeling that most people on either side of the debates Harris are involved in are more in your category than logic-driven or emotion-driven. People are inertia-driven; we're comfortable with what we carve out, and accept change if we are sufficiently comfortable with the process and/or the results. Many religious people are likely religious because of choosing to follow tradition. Many irreligious people are likely just apathetic and not inclined to believe in an organized belief in the supernatural.
At the end of the day, I don't think it's about getting people to overcome their emotional attachments, or convincing them with logic. It's about stirring them out of their apathy. Both believes and nonbelievers will have to confront the third category.
I don't choose to sit by a fire (or smoke a cigar, for another example) because of apathy. I choose to value the purported benefits of an activity over the risk I take by partaking in said activity.
I'm not sure how to apply that analysis to a religious belief, which leads me to conclude that the analogy drawn by Sam Harris is flawed in at least some cases.
For that matter, doing everything right and avoiding absolutely anything that could harm you still has a 100% mortality rate. Not holding my breath waiting for Calico to fix that...
Here's a small list of that has a high probability of harming my body:
* Snowboard when I'm not at my prime
* Use MSG in my cooking once in awhile
* Smoke seldomly
* Eat fatty meats such as lamb / duck
* No sleep consistently
* Have too much stress
No one is going to refute these scientifically, but at the same time, just because we ignore the warnings, do not mean that we do not accept the warning as truthful. There is simply a more complex heuristic function we use to evaluate our decisions than a purely risk adverse one.