I think that the second question of the host, concerning the world becoming a 1 dimensional one, where everyone has to feel the same, was already answered very well with the whole peak plot, showing that there are multiple ways of being happy, and different cultures will (hopefully) be at different peaks, not necessarily the same one.
(1) Harris doesn't say that science is essential for morality; he says understanding the human condition is. People understand that hurting people is wrong because they can empathize with them. They understand that hurting them decreased their human well-being.
(2) Again, Harris doesn't say we should use science directly for testing claims of morality. But if a study showed that wearing Burkas increased the happiness of the person wearing it, that might make it morally acceptable
We do not have to be moral relativists if we choose not to derive our morals from science or religion. Most people would agree with him if he replaced science with rationality. Rationality can engage in a discussion about morals. Science cannot seriously engage in such a discussion the way philosophers would. I think he confuses the meaning of "right" from a moralist perspective and the word "right" or "truth" from a scientific perspective. Not very interchangeable
The "written on our hearts" canard is straight out of the buy-bull-- that's not even poetic language thestrugglewithin is referencing, but Romans 2:14-15... preach-alert!
... Harris didn't say that science is the *only* answer to the moral question. Just that it *can* answer moral questions, a lot better than religion. His point is intelligent analysis, not blind acceptance of stone-age morality.
Dawkins has claimed, “As for religion … nobody wields a sharper bayonet than Sam Harris.” Harris debated Craig on 7th April. In his opening statement in that debate, Harris declared that Dr Craig is “the one Christian apologist who seems to have put the fear of God into many of my fellow atheists.” After that debate, the atheist website Debunking Christianity reported: “Bill (Craig) has once again showed himself as the best debater of this generation.” ROFL
To assume that ALL muslim women who where such a covering, are forced in that way and would not do so if they had the total, inconsequential freedom to do so.....Harris obviously thinks for himself, but to make such a generalization is just Dawkins-quality, self-aggrandizing ignorance.
Many of those women do what they do because they believe that they are doing right by God, doing a 'righteous' thing by a *perfect* being.
The fact that he goes down such a route wreaks of a hidden agenda, this 'science and morals' speech is just a pretext to reframe religion as so backward compared to 'modern' science.
This kind of speech is no different to any other 'we need a new world order' speech.
See 18:15 -"we simply must converge, on the answers we give to the most important questions in human life"
It sounds like balance and tolerance, but he means 'with us or against us'.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@thestrugglewithin "The fact that he goes down such a route wreaks of a hidden agenda, this 'science and morals' speech is just a pretext to reframe religion"
I've just explained why he didn't "go down that route" and therefore it is not a "fact". That being the case, the rest of this argument which claims a hidden agenda and "new world order" is also void unless you have other supporting evidence that isn't flawed.
@thestrugglewithin No, not at all. He uses the phrase 'compulsary veiling'. If it is compulsary, it means even women who don't want to wear it will have to. If it is not compulsary it doesn't stop those who do want to wear the veil from doing so.
Perhaps you should read Nawal El Saadawi's Woman at Point Zero. Brainwashing women into believing they should suffer for God by wearing something so cumbersome doesn't make it moral just because they believe they must.
To assume that ALL muslim women who where such a covering"
Strawman number one. He never says "ALL". His whole point was that they aren't just doing right by god, they are doing right by the entire culture which they find themselves in. Because of that, there are very serious repercussions for not doing so. When people are in situations such as that, you can't "take their word for it".
Like a typical atheist, speculates into what context the Bible relates to.
As if the Bible means to beat your kids until bruised, broken skin and blisters.
Of course thats the interpretation an atheist would take because its not about finding the truth, its about finding a reason why they dont need to believe in a God - whether its Christianity, Islam, Buddhism etc.
Science has been knocking down religious ideas for centuries. (astrology is now astronomy) It's just a matter of time before morals and ethics are measured and gauged with scientific accuracy.
Morality is based on culture. However, is every culture "right" in it's morality? A die-hard anthropologist would probably say, "Yes." Therefore, they're stating that female genital mutilation, throwing acid in the faces of women daring to educate themselves, and suicidal adulthood-initiation rights are "right".
Morality should be - according to Harris - based on increasing the well-being of everyone in that society. How is he wrong (or evil) by saying science has anything to say about that?
@montrouslydiminutive Harris is correct in saying moral relativism is a problem. And preferring a moral system that increases well-being is also a fine idea. And perhaps science can provide helpful information. But it can't answer the moral questions for us. And in most (if not all?) cases, common sense and conscience are enough. Surely you don't need a scientific experiment to know that throwing acid in a girls face is evil.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@dooby78 1) Of course we don't, but the important part is that science is capable of telling us that hurting people is bad.
2) We can say "if" and then question any possible condition. The science Harris is talking about is logic and reason in steps.
3)That's because those individuals had a bad moral basis, used that basis as their conclusion, and grabbed whatever facts would fit as their reasoning. They used the scientific method backwards.
Science can tell us what is moral, we listen or don't
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@dooby78 1) But we didnt know animals were similar, infact as late as 1600s they were still thought of to work like a clock, all mechanical. Science can also tell us that mental state and social behaviour affect our physical wellbeing directly, something that was not self given.
2) That burkas are moral is a religious claim.
3) The decisions of how to apply the scientific method is not the shame of science, but the shame of mankind
(1) Is it science, or culture that changed our attitude towards animals? Either way science may provide us with information, but it can't make the decisions for us.
(2) Yes, but why do Harris and I consider it immoral? Is it because of some scientific experiment, or because of conscience, common sense and culture?
(3) Precisely. Morality is in our hands.
I presume therefore that you accept my conclusion?
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@dooby78 "I presume therefore that you accept my conclusion?"
It sounds like you've created an argument against the title of the video and not it's contents. I agree with you as does Sam. Even the description of the video agrees with you, just not the title.
He's whole point is that morality is not completely subjective and that science can give us insight into this issues.
@devious21 Absolutely, and I agree with much of what Harris says. But the title is no small detail. Harris himself states from the outset that he wants to get rid of the "is/ought" distinction, and challenge the common notion that science cannot tell us what we ought to value.
For what it's worth, I agree that we should challenge the notion that Science can tell us what we ought to value. Not absolutely of course but it could possibly tell us which of two choices are more moral objectively.
And again, this is if you agree with his premise of tentatively "defining" moral as "that which reduces suffering/increases well being".
@devious21 Perhaps there are some cases where hooking up somebody to an MRI, or some other mind reading technology can help make a moral decision. For example, to decide if some coma patient should be pulled off life support. But Harris makes the argument that we need science to prove that pouring acid on a woman's face is evil. Have we no sense of morality, that we need arbitration by a machine to tell us this? Does our moral high ground over the Taliban depend on the MRI?
"Perhaps there are some cases where hooking up somebody to an MRI"
It doesn't have to be just a measure of someone's brain state and that wouldn't be the only way to confirm. You can measure the success of different societies using different criteria.
"Harris makes the argument that we need science to prove that pouring acid on a woman's face is evil."
We don't need it. What he's saying is that science would confirm it. Again, reinforcing the fact that it's not subjective.
@devious21 "What he's saying is that science would confirm it." And how do you know this? what if the results are different than you expected, would you then be prepared to change your mind and go against your moral convictions?
Also, since you already know the result of the experiment, then presumably you have some source other than science for your morality. (The way I see it, Plato's Euthyphro argument applies not only to religion, but to science as well)
@dooby78 "And how do you know this? what if the results are different than you expected"
I was just using your example of acid in the face. Yes, we assume science would confirm suspicions that it's immoral.
Could it be POSSIBLE that our findings would contradict it and throwing acid in someone's face is actually moral? Sure. Anything is possible but let's not be silly.
@dooby78 "Have we no sense of morality, that we need arbitration by a machine to tell us this? Does our moral high ground over the Taliban depend on the MRI?"
I didn't come away with the idea that he was implying to use science as a crutch in place of our morality. I got that he was saying the status quo is that Morality is completely subjective and he argues that it's not so. Science can confirm what we "feel" is true and take it out of the realm of just pure opinion.
@dooby78 Basically you are just invoking the the argument of "deriving an ought from an is" from David Hume. My point is that your examples are poor and derived from faulty logic, if this really interests you, you should check out the works on the matter.
@crosbying True, I believe science is the study of the "is". As for the merit of my examples, I don't really care. But so far nobody has stepped up to the plate and said "yes in matters of morality I trust the results of a scientific inquiry more than my current notion of morality." And that's a good thing.
The question of morals is WHY do we perceive right and wrong, without being taught?
Why do we perceive those values independently?
Firstly is because we perceive reality relative to self - thats how sympathy works for example.
The rest of the formula is explained by the same reasons of why people are inherently bad - lie, judge, hate - all of which are contrasts to what we can comprehend as 'perfection'.
@thestrugglewithin well how come you're not on that stage then? All you've done is twist things a bit in order to fit your opinion that was their in the first place. This is not dogma and you bore me.
@dooby78 Keep in mind that Sam did say that he does not expect science to be able to answer all moral questions but that it can give us objective answers to broad questions. We don't need experiments to show that hurting people is bad, but it can drive the point home.
@Gripsock The point of my objection is, what do you do if the scientific answer contradicts your notion of human morality? (the specific example of Burkas is not important.)
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@dooby78 You first have to hit that brick wall before you can entertain that. If it's science then it's provable because of specific evidence. You would go back and see what science brings to the table. You can say the same thing about all religions as well though. More than half of the bible contradicts the common christian's morals.
@dooby78 1. No, we don't, but the MRI quantifies why it's bad. 2. The point is that there is no scientific experiment that would prove such a thing. That's the point. 3. Yes, it has, but when it has been used in such a way it has not addressed the welfare ("flourishing") of its targets. Anyway, science is a hell of a lot better than hoping someone read a book that tells them to be kind and fair to you.
@dooby78 Your not understanding what he is saying "science can answer moral questions" is not the statement.
What he is saying is that as we know light is good for plants, in the same way we know happiness is what dictates human value.
So based on happiness we can scientificly determine a good or bad moral choice. If the choice makes life harder or makes someone sufffer it's a naturaly bad choice, and vice versa.
Also, we must all accept that there is moral expertize, the taliban is not right
@dooby78 I think you are misinterpreting 'science':
1) "We don't need scientific experiments to tell us hurting people is bad." - Observing someone's suffering is a scientific experiment in itself. Your senses tell you that the person is in pain and you sympathize: you are the scientific equipment here.
2) This hypothetical can't be proved/disproved until a fair experiment for this is established.
3) Anything that gives you moral authority over others can be used to support bad claims.
@dooby78 Science could help us make more informedl decisions about ethics. Science obviously can give a better foundation for population ethics and possibly even personal donation ethics than our intuitions can. You may not be doing as much good as you think by giving money to random homeless men every week. Science could give us solid things to say about how to best go about doing good in this world, this shouldn't be a controversial thing to say.
1) Harris mentions this in his book. The experiments only improve upon the validity of what we already know.
2) Yes, Harris mentions this in his book as well. If that experiment was performed and confirmed upon multiple times with good reliability he would change his mind.
3) Sam also concedes this. He mentions this in his interviews.
Science helping us make informed decisions is more or less exactly what Sam is advocating. It is the focal point of his entire argument.
@arya1369 Thanks :) Your reply is the best answer to my questions I've seen so far. Harris is a smart guy, and I'm sure he had thought of my objections, and of many more. I'm glad to hear he is indeed willing to back up his words in deeds. Note, that answers (1) & (2) contradict each other.
@dooby78 Our decisions are up to us. But whether or not hurting another individual is bad isn't something you just choose. Whether you like it or not, it's still not a good thing.
@dooby78 We may know that hurting people is bad, I agree that we don't need science to tell us this. However science tells us why hurting people is bad and why we feel that it's bad.
Sam Harris does not (scam people)?! WTF do u call being on the NY Times bestseller list w/ THIS bullshit then?!?! This guy is a classic CHARLATAN, nothing more - a shrewd businessman who happens to have a few letters after his name & can articulate his pseudo-scientific theories eloquently enough to hold ur attention, preying off weaker-minded people. Sam Harris does NOT scam people . . . what a Load of shit!
Does no one else see just HOW ridiculous the relevatist argument is when taken to the extreme, i.e. the guy below implying that Nazism was moral.
Morality is NOT self-determined genius. It's written on your conscience.
Scientists (& people like Harris) you're undeniably brilliant as biologists, chemists, astronomers & physicists & thank u for all your achievements in this area - NOW . . . please stop trying to play Metaphysicist & Philosopher, ur just not up 4 it.
@garyconditjr You misunderstood me: Nazism was evil. I gave at as an absurd example of people who supposedly based their morality on science.
Of course Sam Harris is a very good and intelligent man, and he will use science for good, but his goodness was there to begin with.
I basically agree with the rest of what you wrote. And yes, science may provide us with useful information about wellbeing, but the actual moral decision is still up to us.
And i see no harm in playing armchair philosopher.
Dostoevsky would have a lot to say about two select points here (that a scientific understanding of morality does not reduce us to robots & that this is a good thing).
Dostoevsky would have a lot to say about two select points here (that a scientific understanding of morality does not reduce us to robots & that this is a good thing).
(1) How does Harris know that increasing wellbeing is good? I know it because I have emotions, because I don't like being hurt myself, and because I was educated to be good. don't need an MRI.
(2) I see your point: science can help undermine the claim that we live in such a universe. I think we should emphasize that religion is a matter of faith, and therefore should never be forced.
(3) Harris is no less biased, assuming what is bad before conducting the experiment.
1. Your right, you don't need an MRI to know that hurting people is wrong, you know that
a) you don't like being hurt
b) you feel empathy for others who are being hurt
You do need an MRI to understand why it is that humans (and other animals) feel empathy for each other and the nature of their empathy. Mental states are brain states and subject to scientific investigation.
3. did you just say that Harris was as biased as the NAZI's? or am I misunderstanding you
"We already know that hurting people is bad without scientific proof. getting such a proof is a complete waste of time"
Why is ethical theory suddenly 'a complete waste of time?'
Many scholars, philosophers, scientists, theologians and ethicist's find ethical theory to be incredibly important, they will be very disappointed to find out that it's a "complete waste of time"
Maybe they should find a new job so as to not waste the rest of their lives?
Much of morality is intuitive however as Sam Harris points out in his book our moral intuitions can be subject to bias such as the 'identifiable victim event.'
If you accept that;
- "To talk about morality is to talk about the well-being of conscious creatures"
then it is a rather small step to see how science can enter the discussion
Harris defines science rather broadly as our best effort at understanding reality; this includes experiments, statistics, logic, philosophy ect.
@dooby78 1, We only know this because we test it daily by committing acts that hurt others and therefore reinforcing the idea that hurting someone is bad...the scientific testing is always being done.
2, If Harris is insane or a hypocrite has no influence on what he just presented.(personally attacking some instead of the argument is so childish)
3, The nazis interpreting their science a certain way is not the same as saying/testing a master race is the a peak in the moral landscape.
1. How do you know that hurting people is wrong? Answering this question requires investigation of the physiology of the human brain, evolutionary psychology ect this is the domain of science.
2. imagine a hypothetical universe modelled on the beliefs of the Westboro Baptist Church where all active homosexuals would go to hell and suffer for all eternity, in this universe stopping people from engaging in homosexuality would be a moral imperative and lead to an increase in well-being
3. the Nazi's were at best mistaken in their conclusions and most probably not using the scientific method at all, science takes a hypothesis and tries to falsify it. it would be rather simple to devise an experiment that would falsify the hypothesis "Aryans are better at X then other races" the Nazi's science of 'Racial purity' was as much a science as astrology or creationism.
2. What if a new gospel is found, written by Jesus, demanding all christians rape dolphins? Would you do it? The absurd hypothetical scenario you lay out here makes zero sense in a scientific context. Do yourself a favor and look up the term 'falsifiable evidence'
3. Do you know what the term 'prove' means? They didnt prove anything. They convinced people through circular reasoning and propaganda to believe unproven claims. By the way, that is how religion works.
(2) No, because I do not subscribe blindly to scripture. I do not claim to follow any one absolute source for morality. Harris seems to imply that he does (which I do not believe).
(3) I didn't say Nazi science was good. It was evil propaganda. But again why did they even bother to get scientific proof? They already knew their answer ahead of time (killing Jews is good). And so does Harris (burkas are bad). The science is just an afterthought.
2. Dudebro, he isn't implying anything. He is explicitly stating that science can be applied to moral issue in an evidence based process to understand the concepts we refer to as right and wrong. And that this strategy is more sane than a religious one. How is this confusing to you? Your strawman about 'the burka proof' is meaningless and absurd even posing it makes me wonder if you even know what science is.
3.) Still not sure you understand the concept of proof.
(2) It "confuses" me, because it seems superfluous. For example: I previously thought that pouring acid on women's faces is evil, WITHOUT requiring any scientific evidence (I wont use the word "proof"). Now Harris tells me that I was wrong to make such a bold assumption; That I can only make such a claim if I happen to possess an MRI machine to back it up (avoiding the word "proof" again).
(3) Sure I do, it means "a measure of an alcoholic drink's strength".
(1)... isn't worth answering. If that was the case no one would ever question "why?".
(2&3) Moral is an interchangeable view of what is right/wrong on the basis of each person. There is the argument that banning homosexuality makes sense in the continuing of the human race. The Nazi's science was self-justified by the improving of the human race (upon which cause all morality is based). To me that both are immoral views, to others moral. Morality is self-determined.
If all aborted babies really do go to heaven then i say we abort all of them. Why take the chance of eternal punishment for a temporary time earth? Oh those silly christians.
Cognitive neuroscience only helps us understand the neurological nature of suffering, and therefore helps us reduce it. It does not answer the fundamental moral questions and it does not prove that morality is about suffering. Sam Harris' moral system isn't objective, it's just secular.
I have heard Dr. Harris previously and from what I gather this is how he thinks we can answer moral question without including religion:
"Imagine a scale of 0 to infinity, where 0 is the absolute worst suffering of everyone on the planet. And as we move away from 0, human (and animal) well being is improved, so any action that we can take to move humans away from 0 is also morally correct."
This video was all about telling people that we don't need religion in order to me good. Thumbs up plse
@Paggee "Is it only me who can get a bit annoyed by the sound of his nose-inhaling?"
I watched the entire thing, and I'm wondering if he has a cold, or something. He did it intermittently throughout the video, with no recognizable trend or pattern to it.
Only theist retards would criticize this video. We can use science to back up this video. But theists can't use science to disprove it. Oh look theists we can back up our claim that
@Jamesishful or those who would level accusations at him for being hypocritical!!
Given his science of morality based on the well-being of conscious creatures, his advocacy of moving away from the 'worst possible misery for everyone" & therefore minimizing the UNNECESSARY suffering in the world, I can't imagine why he wouldn't be a vegan.
He admits to not being able to defend his eating meat.
/watch?v=vLFnJ8pWh8g
BTW I do love Sam Harris, finally a voice of reason for compassion!
I am a Buddhist that has lived in Pakistan, Bangladesh, Malaysia and Egypt...all Muslim countries (apart from others I've lived in). Because of this western idiot philosophy of spreading their view of morality in the world, many of the people I know have STARTED wearing the burkha to prove a point. UNBIASED education is the only way to progress. Any idiot that spreads intolerance (in his own words) is an ignorant fool in need of education himself.
@crudhousefull how can education be so unbiased with such differences in moral opinions? ...its strange at th same time you seem to disagree with sam ,you make clear statements in favor of his views. Tolorents of all human behavior(as you seem to suggest)is immoral in of its self. if you have any answers to my quarries id love to her them .cheers
"We cannot tolerate vast differences in human well being". There cannot be an excuse to not tolerate ignorance. Ignorance is what causes immoral behavior, and the answer to immoral behavior is education. If you act on what you believe is right, others will do the same and there is polarity (which is what is happening in the US). The only answer to any suffering is tolerance and helping the spread of knowledge on tolerance to people who are ready for the message. Othrwise you create radicals
Look at this idiot passing judgement with faulty information he's received from western biased mass media LOL. Even if such things were rife, immoral thinking would be thinking that you had the right to go and kill off half the population to spread your views on morality.
An idiot who thinks that he's qualified to talk about morality, while casually mentioning that a supercomputer might be able to solve the question of whether bombing Iran is moral. LOL
@crudhousefull "An idiot who thinks that he's qualified to talk about morality, while casually mentioning that a supercomputer might be able to solve the question of whether bombing Iran is moral. LOL"
"Now let me be clear about what I'm NOT saying. I'm NOT saying that science is guaranteed to map this space...I DO NOT think, for instance, that you will one day consult a supercomputer to learn...whether we should bomb Iran's nuclear facilities..." - Sam Harris
If your actions will hurt another being or yourself, it is immoral. If your actions further other beings or yourself, they are moral. You cannot weight how moral an action is by deducting the aggregate hurt to the aggregate help you are doing to other beings. No one has any right to hurt another being PERIOD, that is morality
@crudhousefull Unless of course hurting another being is necessary, ie self defense.
If morality means anything it means not causing UNNECESSARY SUFFERING to those beings whose physiology gives them the potential to experience pain to a similar degree that we would.
I emphasis UNNECESSARY, in this context if the word necessary is to mean anything it cannot include AMUSEMENT, CONVENIENCE or PLEASURE.
@crudhousefull do you take medicine to cure your illness's ? you are comiting bacterial genocide....how can you live with yourself!!!?? and did you know that sam harris is a big fan of meditation? he often does retreats for many days...and has not come to the same narrow conclusion as yours.
@AtheistDemon87 My conclusion is narrow because I believe that tolerance is the only way to go? You compare the killing off of hundreds of thousands in the MIddle East to killing bacteria? I used the term 'sentient beings', which means...beings with sentience. You're right though, even killing bacteria is wrong, and when you are compassionate you don't feel like doing even that. Don't confuse fear for killing or hurting with not wanting to do so
@AtheistDemon87 He has meditation retreats? Lol, so many people who go to the east and learn a bit of meditation try to conduct retreats. Meditation is like a very fine sword...if you don't use it just right you cut yourself pretty badly. Ahimsa (harmlessness) is one of the key aspects for reaching Nirvana. If you don't practise it, you can't see the more nuanced mental phenomena and laws of nature.
@AtheistDemon87 Even when this man speaks you can see that he has done a couple of things wrong. When you remove natural fear for pain/death etc., you better make sure that you have proper knowledge and wisdom to continue on your path, or what you instead do is try to judge the world and try to actualize your desires.
@AtheistDemon87 If morality means anything it means not causing UNNECESSARY SUFFERING to those beings whose physiology gives them the potential to experience pain to a similar degree that we would.
Re: Bacterial genocide
Killing for purpose of self defense would not constitute causing UNNECESSARY SUFFERING.
Sam Harris in my estimate has left himself wide open for accusations of being hypocritical, given his science of morality based on the well-being of conscious creatures
Hear what God of Israel YAHUSHUA-YAHUWAH (Son and Father are ONE) saying to our generation by His chosen prophets: Trumpetcallofgodonline. com ; Letter called "Purify Your Faith, and Come to the Father as It is Written": EXCERPT: "Only in the Bible and through these very Letters, of which I have given to My prophet of the end of this age, shall you find Him and know Him."
@Idahoprospector Am I to assume the same about the Catholic Church, the Protestants, Islam and all other religious institutions? .... Everybody lives their lives passionately speaking forth on issues they care about and defend their philosophies .... On the way, they end up gaining popularity and credence and make money.
How different is that from a guy who runs for President? Or a Nobel prize winner?
Note that Sam Harris is not speaking his mind under false pretenses. Religion does.
'Sam Harris is NOT speaking his mind under false pretenses.' This Naturalist Morality argument has been rebutted so often, for centuries now - it's long since been a dead argument (like so many of these religious idiots u refer to). There's nothing new here guy.
And BTW, Harris takes up this whole Great Intellectual Atheist label, when he is a practicing, meditating, mystic himself. His whole charade wreaks of being disingenuous.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@Idahoprospector Kind sir, could you furnish me with specific citations of the aforementioned repeated refutations that you speak with so much passion?
Also, IMO, the greatest respect I have is for a person who is malleable and has a fair degree of indecisiveness. Because such people understand that as new philosophical and scientific language is discovered, as epistemology & logical reasoning progresses, we must also be ready to change our views and change labels.
A libertarian should have the capacity to one day become a liberal/socialist if new arguments pursuade him in that direction. And vice versa.
The result of contemplation is often contradictory - as you discover arguments to support your views and then you balance yourself by discovering arguments to oppose your views. From time to time, you label yourself in certain ways and try to discover confidence in yourself and your belief systems.
@Idahoprospector Eventually, something else might persuade you to change direction.
It is perfectly natural to feel ambivalence, especially about the big questions - if Sam wasn't contradictory, he would cease to be human. He is as much on a learning curve as we all are. He just merely thinks aloud and articulates well. And then start contemplating on our own. And keep an open mind. And fluctuate. And contemplate. Label from time to time. Redefine yourself from time to time. That's how it is.
@Idahoprospector there is nothing pseudoscientific regarding cognitive neuroscience and its application in explaining human behavior and values..(well founded peer reviewed research.. want references?) it just tends to make the religious really nervous (and in your case).. angry.. probably as it helps the otherwise hapless to fend off religious BS.. (is that what bothers you?)
@Idahoprospector If best selling book and pseudo-scientific claims are the requirements are the qualifications for scams, then I suppose Sam doesn't hold a candle to Christianity, Islam and Judaism.
i do i read loads, books that are anti Islam/ books that are pro Islam, i see how history has been affected by religion as well as how religion has made the world a live-able place. There are things that could have happened which would have destroyed the world... religion is something i think you do not want to be a part of, and I'm perfectly fine. As a Muslim, i cannot force anyone to be religious/Muslim. I respect your position so please do not insult mine. Happy holidays.
Please join the Global Secular Humanist Movement on Facebook. This is not my group, it is a group I belong to and really believe is excellent. Please thumbs up this comment so everyone joins it. It is at 18,690 humanists now, and we want to get it to 20,000 by New Years. Help what you know is a good cause.
He's not anti-islamic, he's a scientist, and believes in empiricism. You've completely missed the point of what Sam is about if you think he's just out to slam one particular religion... he slams all of them because they most often make ridiculous claims about the universe.
it is obvious this guy is anti Islamic, or islamaphobic. he is of Jewish decent. i do not want to but will go a bit further and say he supports isreal, so him bashing on Islam 90% of the time he talks does not surprise me. People do not reply if you are like him. he is ignorant to the world around, funny how people listen. if you truly want to know Islam read it. but if you do anything without heart, you will never see the meaning, only words. not all Jews are bad.
@cHaOsTw3nTy4 Sam has debated Jewish people and ripped them to shreds, I don't think his dislike for Islam has anything to do with Judaism since he has ripped the God of Abraham up many times.
@cHaOsTw3nTy4 You are one of those people that will never understand the concepts of human suffering. Here you have a brilliant man, offering a way to make people suffer less all over the world. Close your book of jibberish for one second and try to UNDERSTAND something else for once. Why is it always "Read it and you will understand" How about you start reading something else other than your religious book and maybe you will understand?
@cHaOsTw3nTy4 Well you clearly have not read The End of Faith - one of Sam's books - where he states - "Jewish settlers, by exercising their 'freedom of belief' on contested land, are now one of the principle obstacles to peace in the middle east. They will be a direct cause of war between Islam and the West should one ever erupt over the Israeli-Palestine conflict." page 94
Sam Harris is not pro-Israeli. Don't argue what you don't know.
Morality isn't derived from religion. Sam Harris should make this point :
Take a look at asian cultures. I will elaborate on Chinese culture since I am chinese. Religion is not very abroad in our culture, most people do not believe in a sort of god. However we are not godless heathens who run around killing each other. The vast majority of us are hard working, kind, and highly moral people who will not steal, cheat or lie. These values come from actual people like Confucius. God is not required
Much of this comes straight from Aristotle I think.
Pythagoras211 6 hours ago
Why are the top rated comments criticisms of this speech, yet the likes overwhelm the dislikes? What a joke.
crowbs90 23 hours ago
The current top comments disappoint me (those being by dooby78 and librazone). I thought the audience of such a video would be better than that.
ConnorShovel 1 day ago 3
@ConnorShovel I was just thinking the exact same thing.
devious21 1 day ago
I think that the second question of the host, concerning the world becoming a 1 dimensional one, where everyone has to feel the same, was already answered very well with the whole peak plot, showing that there are multiple ways of being happy, and different cultures will (hopefully) be at different peaks, not necessarily the same one.
Maartenkok00 1 day ago
@dooby78
(1) Harris doesn't say that science is essential for morality; he says understanding the human condition is. People understand that hurting people is wrong because they can empathize with them. They understand that hurting them decreased their human well-being.
(2) Again, Harris doesn't say we should use science directly for testing claims of morality. But if a study showed that wearing Burkas increased the happiness of the person wearing it, that might make it morally acceptable
o123p 2 days ago
Thank you for posting this, TEDtalksDirector.
writersblock26 4 days ago
We do not have to be moral relativists if we choose not to derive our morals from science or religion. Most people would agree with him if he replaced science with rationality. Rationality can engage in a discussion about morals. Science cannot seriously engage in such a discussion the way philosophers would. I think he confuses the meaning of "right" from a moralist perspective and the word "right" or "truth" from a scientific perspective. Not very interchangeable
SuperNerd707 6 days ago
12:42... Bravo, Sam Harris!
stevenhorr 6 days ago
"The great fool is the individual who is above wisdom and not below it." G.K. Chesterton
Sounds like Sam Harris.
librazone 6 days ago 19
The "written on our hearts" canard is straight out of the buy-bull-- that's not even poetic language thestrugglewithin is referencing, but Romans 2:14-15... preach-alert!
P0weredByPie 1 week ago
The top comments on this video are extremely disappointing. Get off your asses and vote them down people.
JaredCS 1 week ago
... Harris didn't say that science is the *only* answer to the moral question. Just that it *can* answer moral questions, a lot better than religion. His point is intelligent analysis, not blind acceptance of stone-age morality.
chaosmembrane 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Dawkins has claimed, “As for religion … nobody wields a sharper bayonet than Sam Harris.” Harris debated Craig on 7th April. In his opening statement in that debate, Harris declared that Dr Craig is “the one Christian apologist who seems to have put the fear of God into many of my fellow atheists.” After that debate, the atheist website Debunking Christianity reported: “Bill (Craig) has once again showed himself as the best debater of this generation.” ROFL
RosesOfTimes 1 week ago
awareness
dude16kh 1 week ago
All of is speech is hypothetical :(
eeam1 1 week ago
Why are all the rational comments getting down-voted?
devious21 1 week ago
@devious21 It is a shame that people voted those down. I guess all we can do is vote them up (whether we consider them rational or not).
dooby78 1 week ago
Comment removed
Buddypalbro 1 week ago
Comment removed
Buddypalbro 1 week ago
BEN STILLER.
phezla 1 week ago 2
The audacity of Harris is fascinating.
To assume that ALL muslim women who where such a covering, are forced in that way and would not do so if they had the total, inconsequential freedom to do so.....Harris obviously thinks for himself, but to make such a generalization is just Dawkins-quality, self-aggrandizing ignorance.
Many of those women do what they do because they believe that they are doing right by God, doing a 'righteous' thing by a *perfect* being.
How immoral of her right?
thestrugglewithin 2 weeks ago
@thestrugglewithin *wear
thestrugglewithin 2 weeks ago
@thestrugglewithin
The fact that he goes down such a route wreaks of a hidden agenda, this 'science and morals' speech is just a pretext to reframe religion as so backward compared to 'modern' science.
This kind of speech is no different to any other 'we need a new world order' speech.
See 18:15 -"we simply must converge, on the answers we give to the most important questions in human life"
It sounds like balance and tolerance, but he means 'with us or against us'.
thestrugglewithin 2 weeks ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@thestrugglewithin "The fact that he goes down such a route wreaks of a hidden agenda, this 'science and morals' speech is just a pretext to reframe religion"
I've just explained why he didn't "go down that route" and therefore it is not a "fact". That being the case, the rest of this argument which claims a hidden agenda and "new world order" is also void unless you have other supporting evidence that isn't flawed.
devious21 1 week ago
@thestrugglewithin No, not at all. He uses the phrase 'compulsary veiling'. If it is compulsary, it means even women who don't want to wear it will have to. If it is not compulsary it doesn't stop those who do want to wear the veil from doing so.
Perhaps you should read Nawal El Saadawi's Woman at Point Zero. Brainwashing women into believing they should suffer for God by wearing something so cumbersome doesn't make it moral just because they believe they must.
hastyvictories 1 week ago
@thestrugglewithin "The audacity of Harris is fascinating.
To assume that ALL muslim women who where such a covering"
Strawman number one. He never says "ALL". His whole point was that they aren't just doing right by god, they are doing right by the entire culture which they find themselves in. Because of that, there are very serious repercussions for not doing so. When people are in situations such as that, you can't "take their word for it".
devious21 1 week ago
Like a typical atheist, speculates into what context the Bible relates to.
As if the Bible means to beat your kids until bruised, broken skin and blisters.
Of course thats the interpretation an atheist would take because its not about finding the truth, its about finding a reason why they dont need to believe in a God - whether its Christianity, Islam, Buddhism etc.
thestrugglewithin 2 weeks ago
Science has been knocking down religious ideas for centuries. (astrology is now astronomy) It's just a matter of time before morals and ethics are measured and gauged with scientific accuracy.
jassensmoot 2 weeks ago
Morality is based on culture. However, is every culture "right" in it's morality? A die-hard anthropologist would probably say, "Yes." Therefore, they're stating that female genital mutilation, throwing acid in the faces of women daring to educate themselves, and suicidal adulthood-initiation rights are "right".
Morality should be - according to Harris - based on increasing the well-being of everyone in that society. How is he wrong (or evil) by saying science has anything to say about that?
montrouslydiminutive 2 weeks ago in playlist Favorite videos
@montrouslydiminutive Harris is correct in saying moral relativism is a problem. And preferring a moral system that increases well-being is also a fine idea. And perhaps science can provide helpful information. But it can't answer the moral questions for us. And in most (if not all?) cases, common sense and conscience are enough. Surely you don't need a scientific experiment to know that throwing acid in a girls face is evil.
dooby78 2 weeks ago
Harris is mistaken in stating "science can answer moral questions".
(1) We don't need scientific experiments to tell us hurting people is bad. We knew this even before the first MRI was invented.
(2) If a scientific experiment "confirmed" that forcing women to wear burkas is actually moral; would Harris really change his mind??
(3) Science in the wrong hands can (and has) supported bad moral claims.
At best, science can help us make informed decisions. But morality is up to us.
dooby78 2 weeks ago 19
@dooby78
Hurting is only as bad as the society says.
ChainsawVsGod 2 weeks ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@dooby78 1) Of course we don't, but the important part is that science is capable of telling us that hurting people is bad.
2) We can say "if" and then question any possible condition. The science Harris is talking about is logic and reason in steps.
3)That's because those individuals had a bad moral basis, used that basis as their conclusion, and grabbed whatever facts would fit as their reasoning. They used the scientific method backwards.
Science can tell us what is moral, we listen or don't
intercipio 2 weeks ago
@dooby78 I think he is referring more to those folks who say there can be no morality without religion.
ostinato123675 2 weeks ago
@ostinato123675 Well, that notion was refuted millenia ago in Plato's Euthyphro...
dooby78 2 weeks ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@dooby78 1) But we didnt know animals were similar, infact as late as 1600s they were still thought of to work like a clock, all mechanical. Science can also tell us that mental state and social behaviour affect our physical wellbeing directly, something that was not self given.
2) That burkas are moral is a religious claim.
3) The decisions of how to apply the scientific method is not the shame of science, but the shame of mankind
I see your conclusion as being self-refuting
crosbying 2 weeks ago
@crosbying
(1) Is it science, or culture that changed our attitude towards animals? Either way science may provide us with information, but it can't make the decisions for us.
(2) Yes, but why do Harris and I consider it immoral? Is it because of some scientific experiment, or because of conscience, common sense and culture?
(3) Precisely. Morality is in our hands.
I presume therefore that you accept my conclusion?
dooby78 2 weeks ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@dooby78 "I presume therefore that you accept my conclusion?"
It sounds like you've created an argument against the title of the video and not it's contents. I agree with you as does Sam. Even the description of the video agrees with you, just not the title.
He's whole point is that morality is not completely subjective and that science can give us insight into this issues.
devious21 1 week ago
@devious21 Absolutely, and I agree with much of what Harris says. But the title is no small detail. Harris himself states from the outset that he wants to get rid of the "is/ought" distinction, and challenge the common notion that science cannot tell us what we ought to value.
dooby78 1 week ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@dooby78 Fair enough.
For what it's worth, I agree that we should challenge the notion that Science can tell us what we ought to value. Not absolutely of course but it could possibly tell us which of two choices are more moral objectively.
And again, this is if you agree with his premise of tentatively "defining" moral as "that which reduces suffering/increases well being".
devious21 1 week ago
@devious21 Perhaps there are some cases where hooking up somebody to an MRI, or some other mind reading technology can help make a moral decision. For example, to decide if some coma patient should be pulled off life support. But Harris makes the argument that we need science to prove that pouring acid on a woman's face is evil. Have we no sense of morality, that we need arbitration by a machine to tell us this? Does our moral high ground over the Taliban depend on the MRI?
dooby78 1 week ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@dooby78
"Perhaps there are some cases where hooking up somebody to an MRI"
It doesn't have to be just a measure of someone's brain state and that wouldn't be the only way to confirm. You can measure the success of different societies using different criteria.
"Harris makes the argument that we need science to prove that pouring acid on a woman's face is evil."
We don't need it. What he's saying is that science would confirm it. Again, reinforcing the fact that it's not subjective.
devious21 1 week ago
@devious21 "What he's saying is that science would confirm it." And how do you know this? what if the results are different than you expected, would you then be prepared to change your mind and go against your moral convictions?
Also, since you already know the result of the experiment, then presumably you have some source other than science for your morality. (The way I see it, Plato's Euthyphro argument applies not only to religion, but to science as well)
dooby78 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@dooby78 "And how do you know this? what if the results are different than you expected"
I was just using your example of acid in the face. Yes, we assume science would confirm suspicions that it's immoral.
Could it be POSSIBLE that our findings would contradict it and throwing acid in someone's face is actually moral? Sure. Anything is possible but let's not be silly.
devious21 1 week ago
@dooby78 "Also, since you already know the result of the experiment, then presumably you have some source other than science for your morality."
Yes absolutely. He's not saying our Morals=Science. He's not saying "Science should replace our morals" or something like that.
He's saying moral choices are not immune for the realm of scientific investigation. He's saying that moral choices are not PURELY subjective.
devious21 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@dooby78 "Have we no sense of morality, that we need arbitration by a machine to tell us this? Does our moral high ground over the Taliban depend on the MRI?"
I didn't come away with the idea that he was implying to use science as a crutch in place of our morality. I got that he was saying the status quo is that Morality is completely subjective and he argues that it's not so. Science can confirm what we "feel" is true and take it out of the realm of just pure opinion.
devious21 1 week ago 3
@dooby78 Basically you are just invoking the the argument of "deriving an ought from an is" from David Hume. My point is that your examples are poor and derived from faulty logic, if this really interests you, you should check out the works on the matter.
crosbying 1 week ago
@crosbying True, I believe science is the study of the "is". As for the merit of my examples, I don't really care. But so far nobody has stepped up to the plate and said "yes in matters of morality I trust the results of a scientific inquiry more than my current notion of morality." And that's a good thing.
dooby78 1 week ago
@dooby78
He's wrong from the get-go.
The question of morals is WHY do we perceive right and wrong, without being taught?
Why do we perceive those values independently?
Firstly is because we perceive reality relative to self - thats how sympathy works for example.
The rest of the formula is explained by the same reasons of why people are inherently bad - lie, judge, hate - all of which are contrasts to what we can comprehend as 'perfection'.
The 'law' is written on our hearts.
thestrugglewithin 2 weeks ago 18
@thestrugglewithin well how come you're not on that stage then? All you've done is twist things a bit in order to fit your opinion that was their in the first place. This is not dogma and you bore me.
orbital92hotmail 1 week ago
@thestrugglewithin "The 'law' is written on our hearts."
North Korea? Nazi? Crusades? Inquisition? Dark ages? Old Testament? Etc?
chaosmembrane 1 week ago
@dooby78 No, shut up.
ragnarthelibrarian 1 week ago
@dooby78 hi there mr guy with a doctorate in this field.
now go back to school.
Roksonixx 1 week ago
@Roksonixx Gimme a break, This is a friendly Youtube discussion about a TedTalk, not a peer reviewed scientific article.
dooby78 1 week ago
@dooby78 Keep in mind that Sam did say that he does not expect science to be able to answer all moral questions but that it can give us objective answers to broad questions. We don't need experiments to show that hurting people is bad, but it can drive the point home.
TheJawsThemeSong 1 week ago
@dooby78
1) He saying it can, not that morality doesn't exist without the scientific proof of it.
2) That is just a random hypothetical, you could literally say that about anything.
Gripsock 1 week ago
@Gripsock The point of my objection is, what do you do if the scientific answer contradicts your notion of human morality? (the specific example of Burkas is not important.)
dooby78 1 week ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@dooby78 You first have to hit that brick wall before you can entertain that. If it's science then it's provable because of specific evidence. You would go back and see what science brings to the table. You can say the same thing about all religions as well though. More than half of the bible contradicts the common christian's morals.
Gripsock 1 week ago
@Gripsock Yes, you could say the same thing about religion, which is why religion cannot be an absolute source of morality either.
dooby78 1 week ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@dooby78 Well, I know that christians will lie and cheat to dispute the result.
Zajuts149 1 week ago
@dooby78 1. No, we don't, but the MRI quantifies why it's bad. 2. The point is that there is no scientific experiment that would prove such a thing. That's the point. 3. Yes, it has, but when it has been used in such a way it has not addressed the welfare ("flourishing") of its targets. Anyway, science is a hell of a lot better than hoping someone read a book that tells them to be kind and fair to you.
AngryLittleBirds 1 week ago
@dooby78 Your not understanding what he is saying "science can answer moral questions" is not the statement.
What he is saying is that as we know light is good for plants, in the same way we know happiness is what dictates human value.
So based on happiness we can scientificly determine a good or bad moral choice. If the choice makes life harder or makes someone sufffer it's a naturaly bad choice, and vice versa.
Also, we must all accept that there is moral expertize, the taliban is not right
Siedlerdeo 6 days ago
@dooby78 I think you are misinterpreting 'science':
1) "We don't need scientific experiments to tell us hurting people is bad." - Observing someone's suffering is a scientific experiment in itself. Your senses tell you that the person is in pain and you sympathize: you are the scientific equipment here.
2) This hypothetical can't be proved/disproved until a fair experiment for this is established.
3) Anything that gives you moral authority over others can be used to support bad claims.
fatrussian 6 days ago
Comment removed
ryanp123456 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@dooby78 Science could help us make more informedl decisions about ethics. Science obviously can give a better foundation for population ethics and possibly even personal donation ethics than our intuitions can. You may not be doing as much good as you think by giving money to random homeless men every week. Science could give us solid things to say about how to best go about doing good in this world, this shouldn't be a controversial thing to say.
ryanp123456 5 days ago
@dooby78 Learn about objective and subjective morals.
AdmiralAwsomeful 4 days ago
@dooby78
1) Harris mentions this in his book. The experiments only improve upon the validity of what we already know.
2) Yes, Harris mentions this in his book as well. If that experiment was performed and confirmed upon multiple times with good reliability he would change his mind.
3) Sam also concedes this. He mentions this in his interviews.
Science helping us make informed decisions is more or less exactly what Sam is advocating. It is the focal point of his entire argument.
arya1369 4 days ago
@arya1369 Thanks :) Your reply is the best answer to my questions I've seen so far. Harris is a smart guy, and I'm sure he had thought of my objections, and of many more. I'm glad to hear he is indeed willing to back up his words in deeds. Note, that answers (1) & (2) contradict each other.
dooby78 2 days ago
@dooby78 Our decisions are up to us. But whether or not hurting another individual is bad isn't something you just choose. Whether you like it or not, it's still not a good thing.
preston159 3 days ago
@dooby78 I think he means the scientific method more than experimental results
Mandragara 1 day ago
@dooby78 We may know that hurting people is bad, I agree that we don't need science to tell us this. However science tells us why hurting people is bad and why we feel that it's bad.
themongru 1 day ago
Sam Harris does not (scam people)?! WTF do u call being on the NY Times bestseller list w/ THIS bullshit then?!?! This guy is a classic CHARLATAN, nothing more - a shrewd businessman who happens to have a few letters after his name & can articulate his pseudo-scientific theories eloquently enough to hold ur attention, preying off weaker-minded people. Sam Harris does NOT scam people . . . what a Load of shit!
Idahoprospector 2 weeks ago 7
I spent the last 23 minutes reading most of the comments here.
I wish I had that time back so I could just have watched this video again.
algiasphere 2 weeks ago
Does no one else see just HOW ridiculous the relevatist argument is when taken to the extreme, i.e. the guy below implying that Nazism was moral.
Morality is NOT self-determined genius. It's written on your conscience.
Scientists (& people like Harris) you're undeniably brilliant as biologists, chemists, astronomers & physicists & thank u for all your achievements in this area - NOW . . . please stop trying to play Metaphysicist & Philosopher, ur just not up 4 it.
garyconditjr 2 weeks ago
@garyconditjr You misunderstood me: Nazism was evil. I gave at as an absurd example of people who supposedly based their morality on science.
Of course Sam Harris is a very good and intelligent man, and he will use science for good, but his goodness was there to begin with.
I basically agree with the rest of what you wrote. And yes, science may provide us with useful information about wellbeing, but the actual moral decision is still up to us.
And i see no harm in playing armchair philosopher.
dooby78 2 weeks ago
@dooby78 I actually wasn't responding 2 u, I was responding 2 the wazzuuupppp lad/(lass).
garyconditjr 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Dostoevsky would have a lot to say about two select points here (that a scientific understanding of morality does not reduce us to robots & that this is a good thing).
koss121 2 weeks ago
Dostoevsky would have a lot to say about two select points here (that a scientific understanding of morality does not reduce us to robots & that this is a good thing).
koss121 2 weeks ago
I love TED
Hollywoodtoole 2 weeks ago
@Hollywoodtoole Agreed, Does anyone know who puts it (TED) together? Or how often they hold it?
Bigbillpipps 2 weeks ago
What the hell is this nonsense i'm reading in the comment section?
ZialusPT 2 weeks ago
@MrCraniumExplosion
(1) How does Harris know that increasing wellbeing is good? I know it because I have emotions, because I don't like being hurt myself, and because I was educated to be good. don't need an MRI.
(2) I see your point: science can help undermine the claim that we live in such a universe. I think we should emphasize that religion is a matter of faith, and therefore should never be forced.
(3) Harris is no less biased, assuming what is bad before conducting the experiment.
dooby78 2 weeks ago
@dooby78
1. Your right, you don't need an MRI to know that hurting people is wrong, you know that
a) you don't like being hurt
b) you feel empathy for others who are being hurt
You do need an MRI to understand why it is that humans (and other animals) feel empathy for each other and the nature of their empathy. Mental states are brain states and subject to scientific investigation.
3. did you just say that Harris was as biased as the NAZI's? or am I misunderstanding you
BTW look up Godwin's law
MrCraniumExplosion 2 weeks ago
@MrCraniumExplosion
ALSO
"We already know that hurting people is bad without scientific proof. getting such a proof is a complete waste of time"
Why is ethical theory suddenly 'a complete waste of time?'
Many scholars, philosophers, scientists, theologians and ethicist's find ethical theory to be incredibly important, they will be very disappointed to find out that it's a "complete waste of time"
Maybe they should find a new job so as to not waste the rest of their lives?
MrCraniumExplosion 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
dooby78 2 weeks ago
@MrCraniumExplosion Agreed. I shouldnt've made such a comparison, especially when discussing a good guy like Sam Harris.
It's just that there are some things we can know even before we appeal to science.
Look up The Onion video: Multiple Stab Wounds May Be Harmful To Monkeys
dooby78 2 weeks ago
@dooby78 agreed;
Much of morality is intuitive however as Sam Harris points out in his book our moral intuitions can be subject to bias such as the 'identifiable victim event.'
If you accept that;
- "To talk about morality is to talk about the well-being of conscious creatures"
then it is a rather small step to see how science can enter the discussion
Harris defines science rather broadly as our best effort at understanding reality; this includes experiments, statistics, logic, philosophy ect.
MrCraniumExplosion 2 weeks ago
as an Ohioan I am f;n sick knowing how barbaric of an age we are in
ramatirthadasa 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
dooby78 2 weeks ago 11
@dooby78 1, We only know this because we test it daily by committing acts that hurt others and therefore reinforcing the idea that hurting someone is bad...the scientific testing is always being done.
2, If Harris is insane or a hypocrite has no influence on what he just presented.(personally attacking some instead of the argument is so childish)
3, The nazis interpreting their science a certain way is not the same as saying/testing a master race is the a peak in the moral landscape.
ArticX 2 weeks ago
@dooby78 When 3 is tested and it was it was discovered not to be a way of achieving a peak in the moral landscape. Stupid questions
ArticX 2 weeks ago
@dooby78
1. How do you know that hurting people is wrong? Answering this question requires investigation of the physiology of the human brain, evolutionary psychology ect this is the domain of science.
2. imagine a hypothetical universe modelled on the beliefs of the Westboro Baptist Church where all active homosexuals would go to hell and suffer for all eternity, in this universe stopping people from engaging in homosexuality would be a moral imperative and lead to an increase in well-being
TBC
MrCraniumExplosion 2 weeks ago
@MrCraniumExplosion
3. the Nazi's were at best mistaken in their conclusions and most probably not using the scientific method at all, science takes a hypothesis and tries to falsify it. it would be rather simple to devise an experiment that would falsify the hypothesis "Aryans are better at X then other races" the Nazi's science of 'Racial purity' was as much a science as astrology or creationism.
MrCraniumExplosion 2 weeks ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@dooby78
1. lol
2. What if a new gospel is found, written by Jesus, demanding all christians rape dolphins? Would you do it? The absurd hypothetical scenario you lay out here makes zero sense in a scientific context. Do yourself a favor and look up the term 'falsifiable evidence'
3. Do you know what the term 'prove' means? They didnt prove anything. They convinced people through circular reasoning and propaganda to believe unproven claims. By the way, that is how religion works.
beefwave 2 weeks ago
@beefwave
(1) ;-)
(2) No, because I do not subscribe blindly to scripture. I do not claim to follow any one absolute source for morality. Harris seems to imply that he does (which I do not believe).
(3) I didn't say Nazi science was good. It was evil propaganda. But again why did they even bother to get scientific proof? They already knew their answer ahead of time (killing Jews is good). And so does Harris (burkas are bad). The science is just an afterthought.
dooby78 2 weeks ago
@dooby78
2. Dudebro, he isn't implying anything. He is explicitly stating that science can be applied to moral issue in an evidence based process to understand the concepts we refer to as right and wrong. And that this strategy is more sane than a religious one. How is this confusing to you? Your strawman about 'the burka proof' is meaningless and absurd even posing it makes me wonder if you even know what science is.
3.) Still not sure you understand the concept of proof.
beefwave 2 weeks ago
@beefwave
(2) It "confuses" me, because it seems superfluous. For example: I previously thought that pouring acid on women's faces is evil, WITHOUT requiring any scientific evidence (I wont use the word "proof"). Now Harris tells me that I was wrong to make such a bold assumption; That I can only make such a claim if I happen to possess an MRI machine to back it up (avoiding the word "proof" again).
(3) Sure I do, it means "a measure of an alcoholic drink's strength".
dooby78 2 weeks ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@dooby78 Replying in order;
(1)... isn't worth answering. If that was the case no one would ever question "why?".
(2&3) Moral is an interchangeable view of what is right/wrong on the basis of each person. There is the argument that banning homosexuality makes sense in the continuing of the human race. The Nazi's science was self-justified by the improving of the human race (upon which cause all morality is based). To me that both are immoral views, to others moral. Morality is self-determined.
waaazzzzzuuupppppp 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
If all aborted babies really do go to heaven then i say we abort all of them. Why take the chance of eternal punishment for a temporary time earth? Oh those silly christians.
HoBustinJopson 2 weeks ago
If you haven't already, check out Sam's Latest book, "The Moral Landscape." It's excellent!
OldSchoolSkill 3 weeks ago
Cognitive neuroscience only helps us understand the neurological nature of suffering, and therefore helps us reduce it. It does not answer the fundamental moral questions and it does not prove that morality is about suffering. Sam Harris' moral system isn't objective, it's just secular.
iwontswallow 3 weeks ago
I have heard Dr. Harris previously and from what I gather this is how he thinks we can answer moral question without including religion:
"Imagine a scale of 0 to infinity, where 0 is the absolute worst suffering of everyone on the planet. And as we move away from 0, human (and animal) well being is improved, so any action that we can take to move humans away from 0 is also morally correct."
This video was all about telling people that we don't need religion in order to me good. Thumbs up plse
Singh13saab 3 weeks ago
sam harris why dont you respect the right to worship?,you dont understand that simple thing? you pathetic insect.
proximaism 3 weeks ago
@proximaism "right to worship"-because it's idiotic.
Flash13Magic 3 weeks ago
@proximaism he respect that right. he just knows it's stupid.
loosekarrott 3 weeks ago
@proximaism Yeah, because religion does such great things for the world.
ihaaateutube 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@proximaism "sam harris why dont you respect the right to worship?,you dont understand that simple thing? you pathetic insect."
"I'm not talking about voluntary wearing of a veil, I mean, women should be able to wear whatever they want..." - Sam Harris
I'm sure he isn't attempting to force people not to believe or do as they wish. Rather, he challenges the validity of the ideologies themselves.
themediocrenontheist 3 weeks ago
Is it only me who can get a bit annoyed by the sound of his nose-inhaling?
Paggee 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Paggee "Is it only me who can get a bit annoyed by the sound of his nose-inhaling?"
I watched the entire thing, and I'm wondering if he has a cold, or something. He did it intermittently throughout the video, with no recognizable trend or pattern to it.
themediocrenontheist 3 weeks ago
lost me in the first few minutes. Boring like you would not believe to me.
jamesabout 3 weeks ago
Super excellent!
dewpoint88 3 weeks ago
Science is the reason for our morals but you can't use anything logical and scientific to prove your god solution to morals
Jamesishful 3 weeks ago
Only theist retards would criticize this video. We can use science to back up this video. But theists can't use science to disprove it. Oh look theists we can back up our claim that
Jamesishful 3 weeks ago
@Jamesishful or those who would level accusations at him for being hypocritical!!
Given his science of morality based on the well-being of conscious creatures, his advocacy of moving away from the 'worst possible misery for everyone" & therefore minimizing the UNNECESSARY suffering in the world, I can't imagine why he wouldn't be a vegan.
He admits to not being able to defend his eating meat.
/watch?v=vLFnJ8pWh8g
BTW I do love Sam Harris, finally a voice of reason for compassion!
veganath 3 weeks ago
I am a Buddhist that has lived in Pakistan, Bangladesh, Malaysia and Egypt...all Muslim countries (apart from others I've lived in). Because of this western idiot philosophy of spreading their view of morality in the world, many of the people I know have STARTED wearing the burkha to prove a point. UNBIASED education is the only way to progress. Any idiot that spreads intolerance (in his own words) is an ignorant fool in need of education himself.
crudhousefull 3 weeks ago in playlist More videos from TEDtalksDirector
@crudhousefull how can education be so unbiased with such differences in moral opinions? ...its strange at th same time you seem to disagree with sam ,you make clear statements in favor of his views. Tolorents of all human behavior(as you seem to suggest)is immoral in of its self. if you have any answers to my quarries id love to her them .cheers
AtheistDemon87 3 weeks ago
@crudhousefull You are an idiot. They wear he burqa because they are instructed to. stop blaming religous ignorance on Sam Harris
outlaw87100 3 weeks ago
@outlaw87100 Sure they are you stupid bastard. How many countries have you lived in again? How many muslims do you know?
crudhousefull 3 weeks ago
"We cannot tolerate vast differences in human well being". There cannot be an excuse to not tolerate ignorance. Ignorance is what causes immoral behavior, and the answer to immoral behavior is education. If you act on what you believe is right, others will do the same and there is polarity (which is what is happening in the US). The only answer to any suffering is tolerance and helping the spread of knowledge on tolerance to people who are ready for the message. Othrwise you create radicals
crudhousefull 3 weeks ago in playlist More videos from TEDtalksDirector
Look at this idiot passing judgement with faulty information he's received from western biased mass media LOL. Even if such things were rife, immoral thinking would be thinking that you had the right to go and kill off half the population to spread your views on morality.
crudhousefull 3 weeks ago in playlist More videos from TEDtalksDirector
An idiot who thinks that he's qualified to talk about morality, while casually mentioning that a supercomputer might be able to solve the question of whether bombing Iran is moral. LOL
crudhousefull 3 weeks ago in playlist More videos from TEDtalksDirector
This has been flagged as spam show
@crudhousefull "An idiot who thinks that he's qualified to talk about morality, while casually mentioning that a supercomputer might be able to solve the question of whether bombing Iran is moral. LOL"
5:40 - 6:03
"Now let me be clear about what I'm NOT saying. I'm NOT saying that science is guaranteed to map this space...I DO NOT think, for instance, that you will one day consult a supercomputer to learn...whether we should bomb Iran's nuclear facilities..." - Sam Harris
themediocrenontheist 3 weeks ago
If your actions will hurt another being or yourself, it is immoral. If your actions further other beings or yourself, they are moral. You cannot weight how moral an action is by deducting the aggregate hurt to the aggregate help you are doing to other beings. No one has any right to hurt another being PERIOD, that is morality
crudhousefull 3 weeks ago in playlist More videos from TEDtalksDirector
This has been flagged as spam show
@crudhousefull Unless of course hurting another being is necessary, ie self defense.
If morality means anything it means not causing UNNECESSARY SUFFERING to those beings whose physiology gives them the potential to experience pain to a similar degree that we would.
I emphasis UNNECESSARY, in this context if the word necessary is to mean anything it cannot include AMUSEMENT, CONVENIENCE or PLEASURE.
veganath 3 weeks ago
You feel sorry for mammals more than insects because you have no idea what life is. Meditate and you'll feel the same about all sentient beings.
crudhousefull 3 weeks ago in playlist More videos from TEDtalksDirector
@crudhousefull do you take medicine to cure your illness's ? you are comiting bacterial genocide....how can you live with yourself!!!?? and did you know that sam harris is a big fan of meditation? he often does retreats for many days...and has not come to the same narrow conclusion as yours.
AtheistDemon87 3 weeks ago
@AtheistDemon87 My conclusion is narrow because I believe that tolerance is the only way to go? You compare the killing off of hundreds of thousands in the MIddle East to killing bacteria? I used the term 'sentient beings', which means...beings with sentience. You're right though, even killing bacteria is wrong, and when you are compassionate you don't feel like doing even that. Don't confuse fear for killing or hurting with not wanting to do so
crudhousefull 3 weeks ago
@AtheistDemon87 He has meditation retreats? Lol, so many people who go to the east and learn a bit of meditation try to conduct retreats. Meditation is like a very fine sword...if you don't use it just right you cut yourself pretty badly. Ahimsa (harmlessness) is one of the key aspects for reaching Nirvana. If you don't practise it, you can't see the more nuanced mental phenomena and laws of nature.
crudhousefull 3 weeks ago
@AtheistDemon87 Even when this man speaks you can see that he has done a couple of things wrong. When you remove natural fear for pain/death etc., you better make sure that you have proper knowledge and wisdom to continue on your path, or what you instead do is try to judge the world and try to actualize your desires.
crudhousefull 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
veganath 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AtheistDemon87 If morality means anything it means not causing UNNECESSARY SUFFERING to those beings whose physiology gives them the potential to experience pain to a similar degree that we would.
Re: Bacterial genocide
Killing for purpose of self defense would not constitute causing UNNECESSARY SUFFERING.
Sam Harris in my estimate has left himself wide open for accusations of being hypocritical, given his science of morality based on the well-being of conscious creatures
veganath 3 weeks ago
Solomon wrote Proverbs you fucking idiot.
panthergod 3 weeks ago
This is a great video, and in no way disproved God.
greenorangeviolet 4 weeks ago
@greenorangeviolet the topic of debate was not proving or disproving god
nickallah 3 weeks ago
@greenorangeviolet It didn't disprove pink unicorns.
DerrenBrown100 3 weeks ago
Disciple: Hey!
God: hi
Disciple: And how are you?
God: ok u
Disciple: I'm doing great! Glad I finally got in touch with you :P lol
God: Yeh (:
God: brb
Disciple: Okay
Disciple: You still there?
EllyMcCormack 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Hear what God of Israel YAHUSHUA-YAHUWAH (Son and Father are ONE) saying to our generation by His chosen prophets: Trumpetcallofgodonline. com ; Letter called "Purify Your Faith, and Come to the Father as It is Written": EXCERPT: "Only in the Bible and through these very Letters, of which I have given to My prophet of the end of this age, shall you find Him and know Him."
Watch:
" youtube.com/watch?v=YZPmTH6sloo"
"youtube.com/watch?v=lutJYDxP6ys"
"youtube.com/watch?v=R9ike7PKd8U"
Regards.
TrumpetCallofGodLT 1 month ago
Comment removed
Idahoprospector 1 month ago 9
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@Idahoprospector.....do you really believe what you are claiming here? If so, why? If not, why be so mischievous?
backyardscienceguy 1 month ago
@Idahoprospector Am I to assume the same about the Catholic Church, the Protestants, Islam and all other religious institutions? .... Everybody lives their lives passionately speaking forth on issues they care about and defend their philosophies .... On the way, they end up gaining popularity and credence and make money.
How different is that from a guy who runs for President? Or a Nobel prize winner?
Note that Sam Harris is not speaking his mind under false pretenses. Religion does.
raigandalf 1 month ago
@raigandalf
who said anything about Religion?!
'Sam Harris is NOT speaking his mind under false pretenses.' This Naturalist Morality argument has been rebutted so often, for centuries now - it's long since been a dead argument (like so many of these religious idiots u refer to). There's nothing new here guy.
And BTW, Harris takes up this whole Great Intellectual Atheist label, when he is a practicing, meditating, mystic himself. His whole charade wreaks of being disingenuous.
Idahoprospector 1 month ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@Idahoprospector Kind sir, could you furnish me with specific citations of the aforementioned repeated refutations that you speak with so much passion?
Also, IMO, the greatest respect I have is for a person who is malleable and has a fair degree of indecisiveness. Because such people understand that as new philosophical and scientific language is discovered, as epistemology & logical reasoning progresses, we must also be ready to change our views and change labels.
[CONT]
raigandalf 1 month ago
@Idahoprospector
A libertarian should have the capacity to one day become a liberal/socialist if new arguments pursuade him in that direction. And vice versa.
The result of contemplation is often contradictory - as you discover arguments to support your views and then you balance yourself by discovering arguments to oppose your views. From time to time, you label yourself in certain ways and try to discover confidence in yourself and your belief systems.
(PS: Sorry for boring you)
[CONT]
raigandalf 1 month ago
@Idahoprospector Eventually, something else might persuade you to change direction.
It is perfectly natural to feel ambivalence, especially about the big questions - if Sam wasn't contradictory, he would cease to be human. He is as much on a learning curve as we all are. He just merely thinks aloud and articulates well. And then start contemplating on our own. And keep an open mind. And fluctuate. And contemplate. Label from time to time. Redefine yourself from time to time. That's how it is.
raigandalf 1 month ago
@Idahoprospector You can be a meditator and not believe in bullshit.
JarethGT 1 month ago
@Idahoprospector there is nothing pseudoscientific regarding cognitive neuroscience and its application in explaining human behavior and values..(well founded peer reviewed research.. want references?) it just tends to make the religious really nervous (and in your case).. angry.. probably as it helps the otherwise hapless to fend off religious BS.. (is that what bothers you?)
daNDayati 3 weeks ago
@Idahoprospector If best selling book and pseudo-scientific claims are the requirements are the qualifications for scams, then I suppose Sam doesn't hold a candle to Christianity, Islam and Judaism.
jsmd09 2 weeks ago
@Idahoprospector
You're a border collie with human hands, aren't you. Be honest.
beefwave 2 weeks ago
i do i read loads, books that are anti Islam/ books that are pro Islam, i see how history has been affected by religion as well as how religion has made the world a live-able place. There are things that could have happened which would have destroyed the world... religion is something i think you do not want to be a part of, and I'm perfectly fine. As a Muslim, i cannot force anyone to be religious/Muslim. I respect your position so please do not insult mine. Happy holidays.
cHaOsTw3nTy4 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Please join the Global Secular Humanist Movement on Facebook. This is not my group, it is a group I belong to and really believe is excellent. Please thumbs up this comment so everyone joins it. It is at 18,690 humanists now, and we want to get it to 20,000 by New Years. Help what you know is a good cause.
TheMessiersAndromeda 1 month ago
He's not anti-islamic, he's a scientist, and believes in empiricism. You've completely missed the point of what Sam is about if you think he's just out to slam one particular religion... he slams all of them because they most often make ridiculous claims about the universe.
WigganNuG 1 month ago
The book is a very engaging read...I have one chapter to go then it's on to reading Hitchens God is Not Great...
enyskept 1 month ago
Ha!...A philosophy degree...
enyskept 1 month ago
it is obvious this guy is anti Islamic, or islamaphobic. he is of Jewish decent. i do not want to but will go a bit further and say he supports isreal, so him bashing on Islam 90% of the time he talks does not surprise me. People do not reply if you are like him. he is ignorant to the world around, funny how people listen. if you truly want to know Islam read it. but if you do anything without heart, you will never see the meaning, only words. not all Jews are bad.
cHaOsTw3nTy4 1 month ago
@cHaOsTw3nTy4 Sam Harris read the Quran and thats why he's speaking out against it.
ram0000100 1 month ago
@ram0000100 you did not see what i wrote last? reread, it works wonders.
cHaOsTw3nTy4 1 month ago
@cHaOsTw3nTy4 "not all jews are bad" Sam harris is an atheist, not jewish. Sorry if I've got the wrong end of the stick.
Bornofbadger 1 month ago
@Bornofbadger no, no... i did not say that towards him. I simply stated that because some people tend to misconstrue the two, zionist and Jewish.
cHaOsTw3nTy4 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Bornofbadger no, no... i did not say that towards him. I simply stated that because some people tend to misconstrue the two, zionist and Jewish.
cHaOsTw3nTy4 1 month ago
@cHaOsTw3nTy4 He's anti religion. ALL religions. And no he doesn't support Isreal, actually.
BigBagsForRent2 1 month ago
@cHaOsTw3nTy4 Sam has debated Jewish people and ripped them to shreds, I don't think his dislike for Islam has anything to do with Judaism since he has ripped the God of Abraham up many times.
theBartone9119 1 month ago
@cHaOsTw3nTy4 You are one of those people that will never understand the concepts of human suffering. Here you have a brilliant man, offering a way to make people suffer less all over the world. Close your book of jibberish for one second and try to UNDERSTAND something else for once. Why is it always "Read it and you will understand" How about you start reading something else other than your religious book and maybe you will understand?
Knowyourroots1 1 month ago
@cHaOsTw3nTy4 Well you clearly have not read The End of Faith - one of Sam's books - where he states - "Jewish settlers, by exercising their 'freedom of belief' on contested land, are now one of the principle obstacles to peace in the middle east. They will be a direct cause of war between Islam and the West should one ever erupt over the Israeli-Palestine conflict." page 94
Sam Harris is not pro-Israeli. Don't argue what you don't know.
oh and whose the ignorant one again?
zerr0ww 3 weeks ago
Do you ever just look at Sam Harris and think, 'Wow, inside that skull in an incredible brain. Oh how I envy that glorious brain of his.'?
I do.
snackingoncoughdrops 1 month ago
Morality isn't derived from religion. Sam Harris should make this point :
Take a look at asian cultures. I will elaborate on Chinese culture since I am chinese. Religion is not very abroad in our culture, most people do not believe in a sort of god. However we are not godless heathens who run around killing each other. The vast majority of us are hard working, kind, and highly moral people who will not steal, cheat or lie. These values come from actual people like Confucius. God is not required
bunji1990 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I have a raging Sam Harris boner.
VanillaGorillaVEVO 1 month ago