Steven Pinker - The Great Debate: Can Science Tell us Right From Wrong? (2)

[TomFynn]

Science is what we do if we do not want to fool ourselves.

If science cannot tell us right from wrong nothing can.

[Typho0n86]

yeah good definition on science, :D

[no1hoopsman]

I noticed the part about the historic treatment of prisoners and bad people; yet today, our civilised society condones torture and "throwing ovens at people"

[ZachRose88]

Stop clapping and let the man speak. 

[weefeatures]

@ZachRose88 I applaud your comment!

[CaelaCutie808]

@ZachRose88

lmao

[YAMAstudios]

"cruel punishments were eliminated not by appeal to religious scriptures" but via reason.

“Each of us objects to our own suffering, if suffering is bad for me how can I say suffering is ok for someone else just because there them and I’m me. If suffering is bad for everyone, you can’t coherently maintain that only my suffering counts”"

But it's funny because I'm sure I heard something similar in scripture, "do unto others as you would have them do unto you". Funny that.

[Gnoo]

@YAMAstudios That edict was voice hundreds of years before the bible. Also the bible/scripture tells you to keep slaves and kill gay people, children that talk back to you and those women who aren't virgins on their wedding night.... Best to come to these conslusions through logical thought.

[YAMAstudios]

@Gnoo Well it's a universal truth so I' wouldn't be surprised if someone already beat the bible to the punch. Still , that doesn't detract from it's merit or value and if the scripture gets the message across to more people I'm all for it. However I'm not all for any of the things you listed and whilst I don't doubt the bible, archaic as it can be, contains said things that doesn't mean discarding it totally because it got some things wrong. Use it as a starting point and work from there.

[Gnomefro]

@YAMAstudios "Use it as a starting point and work from there."

Why on earth would you pick a starting point that is so thoroughly disgusting? ANY modern work on ethics will be bette rby leaps and bounds. Seriously... "don't discard it because it got 'some' things wrong"? That manual of murder orders the Jews to burn priest daughters who have sex before marriage(Lev 21:9) This isn't just wrong - it's blatantly satanic.

[YAMAstudios]

@Gnomefro Now I don't know about you but if someone had put some Aristotle or some Kant or god forbid, some Wittgenstein in front of me (hell even the very accessible Peter Vardy) when I was 6 or 7 and just beginning to discern right and wrong in any substantial way I'd probably have just gone back to my colouring book in either boredom, confusion or both. Stories about Jesus and his parables are sound, accessible moral lessons that even children can understand and so make good starting points.

[YAMAstudios]

@Gnomefro Now whether you want your children raised on religious teachings or non-religious ethical texts that is up to the parents. Mostly parents will opt for neither and give their children a basic understanding of right and wrong as they see it even if they’re not always sure themselves which is which. From my Christian beginnings I have gone on to study a diverse range of philosophy and ethics and I think having knowledge of both worlds is invaluable to my continuous moral education......

[YAMAstudios]

@Gnomefro Well it was my starting point, mostly the NT and certain books from the OT, whether I liked it or not. Now I don't think my school teachers ever had me read about burning priest daugthers who have sex before marriage or anything equally abominable and that's because this is the 21st century and that was something BC. It was as wrong then as it is now and such wrongs are obvious to anyone with the most basic inherent moral compass. That's not to say though that all the bible is wrong...

[Gnomefro]

@YAMAstudios At the same time, everything that's said in the New Testament on morality is worthless because of the justification it gives : Behave like the bible says, otherwise you'll be tortured forever by an all loving and mysterious creature. This justification ignores the human interests and empirical facts they discuss in this debate. Those facts are what morality is about. The bible completely misses this point even in its high points.

Discarding the bible can only improve things.

[YAMAstudios]

@Gnomefro A lot of the moral teachings within the OT certainly used the fear of God's retribution and judgment as justification but within the NT Jesus sees virtues as having value in themselves rather than being arbitrarily dictated by authority. I'm no expert on the Bible and I believe it is a flawed imperfect text but considering how positively it has effected so many lives through the centuries what merit it does possess should not be ignored whilst only it's shortcomings are brought up.

[MelonNun]

(facepalm) SCIENCE cannot tell us right from wrong given the nature of its normative epistemology.

[CadaverSplatter]

Sam Harris is the dunce of the group.

[revelwoodie]

Lol - right after I posted that comment, he ceded my point. "Well, if you want to think of social sciences as honorary sciences, then yeah, sure, I agree science can discover moral value." Yes, Steven, they are sciences, and not "honorary" ones. In any case, that certainly is what Sam means by science, so agreeing on terms, you agree with him.

[muel0341]

Pinker is badly mistaken. The "knock-down" argument he is quoting is from Plato's Euthyphro. It is commonly known as the "Euthyphro Dilemma" and it has been refuted. The dilemma is states as a question: is good ness good because it is commanded by God, or is God good because he commands goodness. Pinker is saying that Religion couldn't possibly be the basis for right and wrong because God can't make bad things right just by his authority. This is known as a false dilemma...

[annata12]

I think Pinker an Harris just define science differently

[Nerd042]

It's all about potential suffering.

[MrDarkbloom]

I like Pinker very much, but I like Sam Harris more.

[Naturalist1979]

I agree with Harris that we should retort relativism. But he misses a pittfall: there are many kinds of happiness that cannot necessarily be put on a single scale. A full reduction to exact neuroscientific law, to be calculated by a computer, is probably impossible. For, what neuroscientific states will we be prepared to call "full flourishing"? How do you deal with trade offs? The reality of ethics is one of subtleties. It will still be our (reasoned) determination that gives the norms.

[MrDarkbloom]

@Naturalist1979 Harris does not have an obligation to give us all the answers. He has stated time again his uncertainty as to where all this will go or how much we can or how much is useful to know. There are no pitfalls, as you suggest, for him to fall into here.

[Naturalist1979]

@MrDarkbloom There is an obvious one: science brings facts, not norms. Ethics deals with norms. We, as rational beings, are the judges of what facts counts as "flourishing" of "happiness" or "valuable" or "worthwhile" or "justice". Now, there are a lot of facts that are forcefully inidicative of e.g. happiness, but a validation of critical reason will always be necessary. He should stick to: "scientifically informed reason can tell us right from wrong".

[MrDarkbloom]

@Naturalist1979 "scientifically informed reason can tell us right from wrong" - personally I think your distinction is not worth arguing about. We're are obviously both on the same team and, frankly I think there are more important points to make.

[Fortozero]

Pinker's ending is just perfect.

I don't understand Harris' insistence on using the word 'science' as an umbrella term to cover all of philosophy. Sure, philosophy overlaps into the area of science just as all branches of philosophy overlap one another, but that doesn't mean science is all we need to answer philosophical questions.

Science has its purpose, and ethics has its purpose. They both learn from each other but distinctions between the two still need to be made.

[pedropratt]

Nitpicker!

[danielfact]

Steven Pinker got it just right

[RestInPieces777]

Who are the people in the audience? Damn, I'm only about two minutes in, and they're clapping like lemmings every time Dr. Pinker says something even vaguely anti-religious. It's starting to get irritating. I want to watch a serious intellectual debate, not just a bunch of anti-religious one-liners that I can get by visiting any online atheist blog.

[FIGHTFANNERD3]

i cant listen to this guy any more

[FIGHTFANNERD3]

this man is naive about the african thing 

[GoodbeyonDevil]

Nice! Never heard of Steven Pinker before but he's a great speaker. Can anyone recommend some more vids of him?

[sexyloser]

@GoodbeyonDevil Unfortunately, Pinker doesn't give public lectures or debates as often as some of the other panelists, but I agree that he is a great speaker.

[TehMorbidAtheist]

everything he says from 7:00 to 9:00 is an argument for vegetarianism, yet I doubt that many in the audience would catch that

[FIGHTFANNERD3]

@TehMorbidAtheist lol because its stupid

[TehMorbidAtheist]

@FIGHTFANNERD3

what's stupid?

that animals feel pain?

you are a fucking retard and a troll

[jessc1979]

Pinker has one of the best speaking styles.

[dhfjal]

Greetings, mr Pinker, and next time you make generalisations, say "all civilisations but the jewish" instead of "all ancient civilisations"

[dhfjal]

3:28 The Jews have never practised human sacrifice or if they did, it was completely against the Biblie since it strictly forbids such practice

3:48 that's clearly false again, the jewish civilisation never believed in bloodthirsty gods

4:08 The Bible clearly states that the accidents that happen to us on earth are NOT consequences of our good or evil doings (Job, Luke 13, 1-9)

[20cigarrosconfiltro]

@dhfjal You could easily find quotes in your book that say the opposite. That's why we need reason to distinguish "good quotes" from "bad quotes". Either way, pointing at a sentence in an ancient book isn't going to solve anything. I know that book is sacred for you, and even though I can't respect that, I do recognize your right to believe whatever you want. And just as you might advice me to open my heart and let god in, I advice you to get over your book and think for yourself. Peace.

[dhfjal]

@20cigarrosconfiltro I make efforts to think for myself from time to time ;) I certainly wouldn't believe that the Bible is God's Word if it taught things that contradict my reason and moral sense. What I wanted to say is that in my opinion it's a mistake to regard religion and science as opposite things. Reason and religious faith can and should be combined.

Pinker seems to be convinced that being an intellectual he has to be an enemy of religion and that - I think - is not true.

Cheers

[20cigarrosconfiltro]

@dhfjal You assert: "I certainly wouldn't believe that the Bible is God's word if it taught things that contradict my reason and moral sense". Why is religious faith needed then to shape reason and moral sense? Don't you think it doesn't contradict your reason and moral sense because precisely you have been "indoctrinated" in the bible's morality? A muslim, just as you, can say the koran doesn't contradict his reason and his moral sense.

These are sincere questions, just trying to understand.

[dhfjal]

@20cigarrosconfiltro I don't think that the most important value that christianity intruduces is shaping moral sense. These teachings were crucial 2 thousand or 6 hundred years ago when people used to put others to death without a reason, many people were starving in the streets or dying of some painful diseases abandoned by everyone, thrown out of the city. But nowadays moral standards ale different - very high compared to what used to be, that's obvious.

[dhfjal]

@20cigarrosconfiltro I know perfectly moral atheists and I know very nasty Christians and no honest Christian could dispute with that.

The most important value of Christianity is of course Christ and His Gospel. But to be more definite - faith is a continuous call to improvement and a source of happiness and peace of mind. (I'm speaking about Christianity; I'm aware that not every religion can be described in this way.)

[dhfjal]

@20cigarrosconfiltro I don't think the Bible doesn't contradict my moral sense because I have been "indoctrinated" in its morality. I think God's commandments are not His arbitrary whims and can be justified by logical reasoning.

Yes, scientific laws are objective but whether or not thay can tell us objectively wright from wrong, answer the questions that mankind has been posing for thousands of years like:

[CamronJohn]

@dhfjal I'll just echo what Steven Pinker said in regards to one point you made: if 'gods commandments... can be justified by logical reasoning', then why not just get rid of the middle man (ie: Him)?

[dhfjal]

@20cigarrosconfiltro is it worth it to be good and why, what should we do with the time that is given to us and why etc - it's disputable. I'm inclined to agree with Blackburn rather than Harris.

Cheers

[20cigarrosconfiltro]

@dhfjal I agree that science alone can't tell us right from wrong, but I think science is essential to inform our decisions. The purpose of science is to describe the world as it is, and in order to make a moral judgement, or any kind of judgement for that matter, we must take into account the reality that surrounds us and how the universe works.

[20cigarrosconfiltro]

@dhfjal About the questions I posted, I was just curious about your reasoning, that's all. I don't mean to engage in an everlasting discussion about a very private and subjective matter as religion is.

Thank you for your time.

[dhfjal]

@20cigarrosconfiltro take care

[20cigarrosconfiltro]

@dhfjal Regarding science and faith, I think that epistemologically speaking, they are incompatible. Science tries to know the universe based on empirical evidence interpreted through logically consistent reasoning. Science doesn't recognize authority, tradition or revelation as a source of knowledge. Science is universal: it has no ethnicity, nationality, gender, religion, etc. What is true about gravity for an american christian, is true for an arab muslim. Religion is entirely subjective.

[MrDarkbloom]

@dhfjal Yes, in order to be a decent moral human being in the 21st century you DO have to reject any doctrinal reading of the three Abrahamic religions. Those religions are at THEIR CORE violent and divisive in thought and deed and even if you pick and choose from the texts what you like and don't like, you are still BOUND to get a lot of ethics wrong, because you are choosing from such a toxic source.

[TacticusPrime]

@dhfjal Jews, historically, were Canaanites. (There is no archeological evidence for any kind of Exodus) So they believed in Canaanite gods, reputed by the Torah of course, that were quite bloodthirsty. Why would the Bible tell them not to sacrifice their children if none of them were doing it?

Job gets kicked around by God and then gets told to suck it up. He's petty and cruel, then dismissive. That may mean accidents don't come from good or bad behavior, but hardly a reason to worship.

[dhfjal]

@TacticusPrime You're right, I was too fast to write that one. Still, the fact that some people practised such atrocities (some probably still do) because they believed some gods want them to do it doesn't mean that we should dismiss all religious beliefs. And this is what Pinker does, he just dismisses every religion. He doesn't seem to notice huge differences between religions. In his vocabulary there exists only RELIGION.And this RELIGION tells people to believe something without good reasons

[TacticusPrime]

@dhfjal Yes, that's why I lean toward Harris in this debate. There are some religions that we really don't have to worry about. Jainism is a pantheist religion that's central tenant is non-violence. The more extreme a Jain you are, the less dangerous you become.

Islam, whose primary prophet was a conquering warrior-merchant, has a more violent pedigree. Obviously there are Muslims who choose non-violence, but they are required to ignore even more text than Christians or Jews.

[dhfjal]

@TacticusPrime or to stop using their brains or to kill people. What he says about religion is a dishonest, one-sided view. That's why I wrote this short defence of religion.

Cheers

[MrDarkbloom]

@dhfjal Instead of selectively quoting the Bible, you will do better to simply REJECT the Bible full stop. It's too flawed and immoral a text for ANYONE in the 21st century to take seriously as ANY kind of decription of (or prescription for) ethics or how we should live. It is largely irrelevant as this stage of the game.

[dhfjal]

2:45 yes we probably CAN skip the middle Man provided our reason is so great, enlightened, bright, well developed and etc what we can achieve certainty about what is good and what is bad. God has good reasons to believe that most people do NOT posess such great minds or if they do, they are not always willing to use them, so He delivered some - justifiable from the scientific point of view- comandments so as to guide us.

[dhfjal]

but what's more important, faith doesn't mean believing in God at all. Faith is an attitude - a willingness to become a better person, living with constant awarness of the fact that God is next to you and you don't wish to hurt Him.

1:43 agreed, these are indeed terrible reasons to believe something as long as this "something" contradicts reason or comes from an unreliable source which is not the case as far as the christian Bible.

[dhfjal]

1:21 faith doesn't mean believing in something without a good reason. There are many good reasons to believe there is a God, from philosophical (like the First Cause argument), historical (like : why was the jewish religion, their consept of God so radically different from conspects of people that surrounded them, what made it be so one of a kind?") to "arguments from supernaturalness" of numerous events (like the Miracle of Lanciano or visions of Maria Valtorta to mention just a tiny percent)

[Tinsi33]

Awesome. Pinker and Sam Harris are so sharp! Excellent.

[LoopuleasaIonut]

2:42 Win. 8:45 Win. Whole video, epic win.

[dasunshiine]

Always a pleasure listening to Steven Pinker

[MrDarkbloom]

They ARE scientific arguments, Steve!!! Listen to Sam Harris!

[TacticusPrime]

@MrDarkbloom Exactly. How much pleasure is gained vs how much horror is inflicted is a measure of brain activity. The level of deterrent caused is a measure of brain activity. They are fact claims.

[FIGHTFANNERD3]

@MrDarkbloom indeed

[Itsrothytime]

@MrDarkbloom I think he did. The issue that Pinker may have with Harris could be due to the fact that Harris does not make a distinction between other rational inquiry and science. I have the same issue.

[MrDarkbloom]

@Itsrothytime Well, for a start, you can't have science without rational and honest inquiry. Rational and honest inquiry done in any focused way, espcially though recognized disciplines, will yield data that can help us in some way figure out what is going on in the universe. I believe in process as much as product.

[Itsrothytime]

@MrDarkbloom I completely agree with you but I believe you have missed the point entirely. My point is that science is not the sum of all rational inquiry as Harris presupposes. Rather, it is one method of rational inquiry into the nature of the universe. Unlike Harris, I do believe that there is a meaningful, though not always clear, distinction between science and other methods of rational inquiry such as philosophy, economics, history, etc. Pinker sees this distinction.

[revelwoodie]

@MrDarkbloom Agreed. I think Steven's problem here is what I hear a lot of people saying on this topic. They think that what we mean by a science of morality is scanning people's brains or something. Sure, neuroscience is part of it. But so is economics, sociology, criminology, etc. Sciences all. Steven clearly is missing that point, since he demonstrated that his own moral argument was NOT scientific by pointing out it was first advanced by an economist. Very smart guy, but DUH!

[lacansfoolosopher]

@MrDarkbloom Then listen to Singer to understand how Harris is out of his element when it comes to prescriptive/descriptive language and how science is not in the business of the former. Or read some actual philosophy of science to understand the purpose of science instead of swimming in the murky and vague semantic waters that Harris treads.

[Dimi8448]

@MrDarkbloom Yeah, if by science you really mean philosophy that takes into consideration the empirical world. Which has been the case for, uhm, hundreds of years.

[kidpresentable]

Steven Pinker is the man!

[nondescriptman]

@kidpresentable indeed!

[FIGHTFANNERD3]

@kidpresentable he's naive

[jameshanley40]

@kidpresentable

I wish pinker would just shut up and stop talking about god, it's not relevant to this discussion amongst people that are beyond that. he's pulling the discussion back, and getting claps from the idiot audience. Sam Harris is at least moving the discussion forward.

[jameshanley40]

@jameshanley40 Pinker did stop about god ... about halfway.. better late than never. His end point should really have been the start of his talk, not the end.