Right and wrong are just bullshit words that mean whatever you define them to mean. That is what science can tell us about what is right and wrong. The end.
'Sam Harris later admits that by a scientific morality he means even philosophy and economics. Sorry, that's not science.'
By the way, economics and philosophy are social sciences. Harris has explicitly stated that he means 'science' in the broadest sense of the term of "secular rationality and honest truth claims based on honest observation and honest, clear reasoning"
@FryderykFChopin The scientific method is predicated upon testing data that can be replicated and verified. Philosophy is not about lab experiments. To compare the two disciplines betrays stupidity of a high order. And to sell books that promise to establish how science can determine ethics when Harris means by "science" every academic subject including philosophy is a racket. Philosophy is not an empirical discipline. Chemistry is.
Sam Harris later admits that by a scientific morality he means even philosophy and economics. Sorry, that's not science. Not even close. You don't need science to know that murder is wrong. You need common sense. He's talking nonsense here. The worst kind of self-promotion and greed.
@MenOfLetters and if you had actually read my comment properly, you would know that I said nothing of the sort. The Nazis themselves thought that it was 'common sense' to kill as many jews as they could find. What makes your particular idea of 'common sense' more true or better than the 'common sense of the nazis'?
Here is my thing, why do we 'need' the help of anyone or anything to answer questions we can answer ourselves?
We have every ability necessary to discover what we individually consider moral. I know many ppl don't, but our focus should be to show ppl that they can.
What worries me is that when we leave our homework to government or science or any other group, we give up our power. In other words, what if one day the peek science decides upon limits our freedom?
@shabido1 Your freedom is already limited at any peek. You lack the freedom to infringe on someone's rights by murdering, stealing from them, etc. However science will never say that you have no right to be a fat ass or something. It might one day argue that it is irresponsible to feed your kids shitty food, but that's because it is irresponsible provided you have a choice in the matter. If that's the freedom you're looking to have, then what you're opinion of a moral peak is just anarchy.
@twilitprince I'm just saying, even scientists are human, and the reason so many other ppl cringed at this idea, is because of the 'possibility' of infringement over our moral rights. I've been atheist my entire life and am one of the ones who would make certain religion/organizations forbidden, or at least strictly ruled, but morals are not scientific/objective. They simply can't be since we come up with them. No murder is not objective, it is emotional.
At the same time its good to have people like Harris provided that there are other people pushing sense and bringing things home in different manners with the same pasion and efectiveness.
Harrys " Says Science thrives regardles of convincing everyone or not" That might be true, but when you take that point and make it we don´t have to convince everybody to define absolute values for all humans, using Harris words "I don´t know what you are talking about... and I think you don´t know what you are talking about either".
Aside from that, I do have some small understanding on some areas of study like mathematics, physics, even took a 6 month course an aeon ago on quantum physics ( which I dont remember much from it anymore) , and I don´t see where these fundamental and absolute values come from say that e^(pi)*i +1 =0 then its wrong to think different from Harris ? Science is a changing subject and is based on models which are just way of seeing things, It is as dangerous as religion to use it in that way.
I like Harris topics and efforts, mostly I agree and disagree half and half with his ideas. But what I really really dont support on Harris line of thinking is that in my view he is trying to define and absolute for all human race, just because he smarter than most, and in that respect the most uninformed and unwitted man can dispute that saying I don´t understand your point, and then what we have after Harris proposal is ideological persecution, or alienation at the very best.
I don't understand what Harris is trying to do here. He seemingly understands the criticisms against his book. He doesn't attempt to answer the criticisms, but he basically ignores them. Yet, his shitty book has the subtitle "How Science Can Determine Human Values".
Is anybody else pulling there hair out over the lack of rigor coming from his mouth? At all the points where he needs to do the most work, he sidesteps the issue.
For example, he says "if anything is 'bad', the world with maximum suffering is bad".. But he says nothing about what he means by "bad." That is the most important question! Does he mean least preferable? if that's what he means, his argument fails already.
He's an atheist priest. Are we to except what he says about "bad" on faith?
@Cilence13 Hm, not sure if I get your critique here, but it seems to me that the answer is in the question. What's not to understand about "maximum suffering is bad"? That is what he means by bad.
@KingofToxin Ok. so you are saying that HE is saying that "bad" is co-extensive with "things that move us away from a moral peak"...and he MAY even be saying that there is a definitional relation between them.
But if it is definitional, he could avoid pulling on our emotions by not using the word "act X is bad" and instead just using "act X moves us away from a moral peak."
In that case, he still needs to explain how science tells us we OUGHT to move to the moral peak.
@Cilence13 I think if he means by saying "act X is bad", that you can objectively say that a certain act is bad for that person's well being. It's a complicated issue, sure, and for Harris' argument to work we need a goal. I think peenfluteking describes it very well.
@Cilence13 "atheist priest" now there is a stretch... those (like Harris) who do not believe in any god or gods and (whenever possible) and debunk religious dogma are best called skeptics..
@daNDayati But respectable skeptics like Hume thought their arguments through and didn't claim more than they could argue.
Harris disregards reasoned arguments and make incredibly bold philosophical claims (Like: Science can tell us what we ought to value). A priest will say things that the congregation takes on faith. Harris does the same thing.
@Cilence13 Harris relies on the apparent truth of cognitive neuroscience... I would tend to agree with him.. human values (morals if you please) are basically innate .. so why not depend upon method (i.e. science, thanks to our friend Hume) to help us define and refine them.. frankly how would you do it otherwise? I agree that Harris does not want to be drawn into the complicated terrain of philosophical thought..
@daNDayati What?.. You're just as foolish as he is. You can't make one of the boldest claims in philosophical history and then try to avoid being "drawn into the complicated terrain of philosophical thought."
He claims that science can show us what values we OUGHT to have. Not which ones we DO have, not which ones we THINK we should have. OUGHT OUGHT OUGHT.
How does the fact that values are innate and can be studied tell us which ones we OUGHT to have?
@Cilence13 I would love to be as foolish (or as intelligent) as Sam Harris. I should aspire to such heights .. Getting back to your "oughts" on the subject.. He has started a discussion.. about a basic framework on how to begin to address values.. I understand your misgivings about how science and engineering could begin to tell us what we ought to value.. perhaps you are right.. he might have overstepped. It is still early days. it is, after all, a discussion.
It's pretty sad to see that Harris has a degree in philosophy but still thinks that science can come out with morality. He sticks with a posterori rather than a priori. That's his first flaw and killing flaw.
Natural law may be recognizable by all, because it is written in peoples hearts, as the Bible stated. Unfortunately some people are corrupted And their Voice Of reason is darken.
Because Of human corruptions God additionally revealed His will by external means, by written laws like Ten Commandments And ultimately by Jesus teaching And example.
@franciszek8D Yes, those Ten Commandments sure are the measure of morality, like that one about not coveting a neighbor's property, like his wife. And Jesus's teaching of eternal hell for those who didn't believe. What an example, lol.
Imagine something like the Matrix, in fact the first thing the Matrix tried the first time it created a "virtual reality". It take care of us, it keeps us well fed, and happy, but differently to what happened in the movie, everyone believed. It didn´t respect our wish, but it made sure to cheat us well enough that we never realize what´s going on. Now that is actually good for the species, because it regulates very well our being and takes care of us. To science alone, thats´s a good thing.
I´m sorry, i have to get in the debate... no1hoopsman... fuck dammit, WE know about medicine, hydraulics, the formation of the stars, philosophy and atheism, yet, I fail to see how goat herders from 2000 thousands years ago know about even a little fraction of what we know today. Sure, they weren´t in the absolute dark about those things, but if you think that the bible has ANY scientific knowledge, you sir, are talking bollocks.
@Psity Of course they didn't have the technology we do today; nobody claimed that, the idea that they were all totally ignorant is wrong. The History of Egypt and China shows how much was known; atheism was debated with theism and all that stuff long before JC was around; the philosphers made claims still applicable and relevant today; classic history and literature confirm all of this; the people of that time had knowledge...that is the point; commerce went on then as today; Rome ruled
@Psity And the Bible message is relevant today; the story is about man's relationships; emotional and physical and mental, the parables are all about how we deal with our inner self and thoughts; if your brother is preferred over you by your parents and how to deal with it; don't let rules overtake good works in helping your fellow man; how to deal with the talent you are given and the pressure you are under .... every day ... life today is the same in many ways; we just want to live in peace
@Psity and harmony, and be successful and have food to eat and people to love; whether same sex or not; read the history of Rome and Greece to know about how respected and sometimes expected homosexuality was then.
You need to read the words correctly;I say the idea they were all illiterate stupid people is arrogance in extreme. In the Gospel of Luke, the author is believed to be a doctor because the word he used (in Greek) where the eye of the needle bit is referred to in syringe terminology
I think it such a shame that Harris has to portray religious people as all fanatics, extremists who all believe in creationism. This isn't the truth or anywhere near it I suggest, and he does his argument no positive work by painting a mistaken caricature of religion and religious beliefs. He undermines himself in the fist couple of lines by promoting this concept; when in actual fact most believers in the world are nothing like this; this extremist view.
@no1hoopsman I think you're an idiot for what you've just said and basing your opinion of sam's life work on a 15 minute video. sam clearly stated that the religious demagogues are the only ones claiming to know the truth, so he's obviously blaming the shepherds, not the sheep. he's even said in the past that he's got nothing against the faithful who devote their lives to helping others, he's digging at the pope for saying condoms are bad, when they would save lives from malnutrition and disease
@mrcwalk Well you are entitled to your opinion on me just as I am on Harris, but he himself has stated in other video clips as claiming to know "the truth" and where he claims that people who don't have a vengeful God are not really following the bible. My point is that statistically Harris must be wrong because people generally don't act in the manner he portrays. I also wouldn't try to portray everyone as sheep; people think for themselves much more than you assume I suggest
@no1hoopsman can you tell me where one of these video clips are where he claims to know "the truth", cos I've seen a very large number videos of him and never came across one where he has made such a claim. he's only ever argued against irrational behaviour and put forward suggestions of how to live better.
you cannot possibly argue that the gods spoken of in the holy books of the 3 main monotheisms are wicked if you've actually read any of them. if you are a follower, then you are a sheep
@mrcwalk Look up Sam Harris: What happens if you really follow the bible and approx 0:27 seconds into the clip ... he claims to know the Truth. He states...The Truth is...plus, if by a follower you mean sheep and vice versa, then if you follow Sam Harris or anyone, you are a sheep, then let me advise you that all who live and breathe are sheep; we all follow someone in some way I suggest
@no1hoopsman wow, just watched that clip and you really are clutching at straws now!
what do you think he is claiming to know "the truth" about?
he could've replaced "the truth" with "the fact of the matter" and his statement would've meant the exact same thing. he was pointing out that even believers have to ignore most parts of the holy texts if they are using them for moral guidance or they will end up as disgusting as the god they worship.
@mrcwalk Well you can replace every "truth" with the fact of the matter is then can't you; and I suggest he follows or portrays a God that only the lunatic fringe follow; so he is the same as the fanatical extremists in my book; I don't know that God and certainly don't interpret the Bible in the way he does; nor do the major religions as I am aware of them
@no1hoopsman you can interpret the holy books however you want, they are what they are - claims to be the will and words of god through revelations, and without cherry picking, it is impossible to take the scriptures literally and not come to the conclusion that they are books endorsing atrocious acts and do very little to aid human flourishing.
if you choose to live your life by the wisdom coming from the iron age palestinian desert, thats up to you, but don't claim to be thinking for yourself
@mrcwalk Interpretation is key; as with any book, but to propose only one interpretation as Harris et all do is what I disagree with. Plus, he and Dawkins present a caricature of religion and this is disingenious in order to make their point and substantiate their views. The lunatic fringe are those who believe in a vengeful God; it is okay to kill etc, but of course we have the good ole US of A President sending his country to War with "God Bless America" ...remind you of anything?
@no1hoopsman with all due respect, you are not on the same level as Harris et al.
these are men who have dedicated their entire lives to the sciences; have their work peer reviewed successfully; are regularly used for consultation, lectures and appearances; have books that sell by the millions etc.
It will be an awful long time before an american president will be able to declare being atheist during their campaign and still get elected. the greatest ideas come from those in the minorities
@mrcwalk I wouldn't want to lower myself to the standard of Harris et al, and other people sell books by the millions; film stars and recording artists, do you suggest we look up to them because they have great book sales ? The statement about God Bless America isn't about atheism; it's about the misuse of God to legitimise going to war; God only being on the side of the powerful in that sense; it's wrong either way
@mrcwalk I have a good grip; I don't need to misrepresent atheism in any way to make a point, but they do, in that case they are disingenious; clearly so and many in their own fields have made similiar comments; allies from their own atheistic viewpoint have said they do their cause no favours I suggest. The minute Dawkins comes up againts anyone with a brain and who can talk coherently he toils because he can't be so extreme
@no1hoopsman if you think you are above these men intellectually because you believe a book to be accurate, that was put together from the wisdom of uneducated, middle-eastern psychopaths over 2,000 years ago then you clearly do not have a grip on reality., and further to that, I'd would suggest that you are unaware that you are having hallucinations. the atheism cause requires many approaches - stridence from the likes of dawkins, and philosophically from grayling and pinker etc.
@mrcwalk But that is your interpretation of what I believe...not mine, and you are showing the same mis-interpretation of the bible as these men do I suggest. To miss the point about the US president tells me you are way off the mark here, and your analysis of the writers of the bible isn't accurate either.
I agree that no leader should be going to war stating religious blessings as it undermines the real reasons for going to war.
just so I understand your position though, cos I think the worse thing anyone can do is to assume someones else's stance on a subject - regardless of viewpoints about doing it for oil etc, do you not agree that sadam and other dictatorships needed removing?
by the way i think the foreign policy and military strategy should've been better planned..
@mrcwalk I think any dictator who abuses power and mis-uses people for his own personal gain shouldn't be tolerated; but we tend to supply weapons and aid if it is in "our" own interests
@no1hoopsman yet soon as a poorly educated country becomes the subject of any crisis, the religious are there handing out there holy books as a condition of receiving aid as was seen recently in haiti and long as suffering has been in the spotlight throughout Africa
@mrcwalk I work with an international aid organisation and have done for years; that is not correct about the aid organisations in general, but there are abuses everywhere; with faith and non faith organisations. I suggest we have a free will to make a choice in these matters; some do it in the full knowledge of their belief system, some don't. Abusing and killing people isn't anywhere in my belief system.
@no1hoopsman "abusing and killing people isn't anywhere in your belief system"?, then your belief system does not correlate with the biblical scriptures
@mrcwalk And it's a pity that you now go down the same route as Harris and Dawkins in applying your belief system of the bible to other peoples; exactly what I stated at the outset as the main issue I have with both these guys and Hitchens of course; the paint a caricature of "their view" of religion and then castigate those who don't have that view as "not following the bible" ... this is reductive literalism at it's basic
@no1hoopsman Your argument is without merit. The gentlemen you mention do not rely on some personalized view of religion, but rather the doctrine and dogma of the very religions themselves, without any molestation whatsoever. This is the only appropriate approach. I have never heard any of them reproach someone for 'not following the bible'.
@trythinkingnow Harris does this all the time and his followers too; he suggests if you are a believer you have to believe in a God who persecutes etc; making the Bible and the person look like a ridiculous warmongering idiot; AND if you don't believe in that God you are being selective and not following the Bible instructions. All of them do this with a caricature of religion.Harris has often reproached people for using the Bible for any kind of moral teaching; referring to Leviticus etc..
@trythinkingnow ..and being selective in doing so; yet respond by talking about the morality of the good samaritan for example, and this is dismissed as being selective and people are "picking and choosing" parts of the Bible etc. He accuses people of the very act he himself uses; and yet he doesn't understand which parts are narrative, biographical, auto biographical, symbolic, analagous and the rest. If it is only the book he attacks, then he is self evidently interpreting wrongly
@no1hoopsman "he doesn't understand which parts are narrative, biographical, auto biographical, symbolic, analagous and the rest." LOL Good luck getting a dozen believers to agree on what parts of the bible are which of these. "Interpretation' of the bible is an old and failed defense to arguments against it on its face.
@trythinkingnow Well if he doesn't understand how can he comment ? And good luck with science; getting a dozen to agree on stem cell research methods and what to use them for is pretty straightforward of course, and how science impacts on morality is really clear as well...isn't it
@trythinkingnow Yet he chooses the literalist fundamentalist view that only the lunatic minority use as interpretation; this clearly points to him being the fundie type in all of this
@MrAgentGreeny It means far more than that and you know it .... are you still pissed off at the All Blacks fucking the Aussie's at Rugby ? Is that what is upsetting you ? Why don't you address the discussion points without personal attacks; forget me .... just address the issue with an element of depth and integrity
@no1hoopsman OK you seem like a nice person but you're saying a lot of crap. You seem to think that you can divorce god from religious doctrines, but you can't because they are what created the idea of god. God was made up by people and no matter what your belief, he doesn't actually exist. Belief in god, whether this is the case for you or not, justifies intolerance, prejudice and murder and has done so throughout the ages. It tears the world apart through unprovable claims and it's a bad thing
@MrAgentGreeny I don't agree with that at all; it doesn't stand up because you have to differentiate between the ideal of God, the acts of a religious person and religious acts. What tears the world apart is greed, abuse of power, misuse of people and their well being; slavery is worse now than ever, we kill more innocent people in wars than ever before, we look on some as less than "us" because we think they come from a backward country; the religion In know is about the dignity of the human
@no1hoopsman You claim that all this death and destruction in war is for every reason but the obvious, the fact that we have 2 competing religious sects who have despised and killed each other since the Crusades. Religious acts by religious people, are quite often no more than prejudice and judgement of others, justified by "god's will" in even simple issues like stem cell research, gay marriage, marijuana, abortion. There are deluded people holding society back and freethinkers pushing forward.
@MrAgentGreeny Exactly what 2 sects out of the hundreds are you talking about ? There are lots of different Muslims, Christians and others in religious terms. This is the problem with Harris; he paints ALL religious as extremists; which is clearly not the case. There are plenty of non religious who are pro life, and stem cell research isn't held back by any church I am aware of apart from Joehovah's Witnesses who are against blood transfusion...but that is freedom of choice remember.
@no1hoopsman And I say sect in terms of just Christianity and Islam. 2 groups that, for the most part, would like to see the other religion wiped off the face of the earth. Stem cell research HAS been held back and will continue to be next time a conservative is elected, just as gay marriage and many other advances continue to be opposed on the basis of the bible. It's basing life and law on a bronze age book... That's it. It become more and more irrelevant each day and soon religion will die.
@MrAgentGreeny And we all live in harmony as perfect as any human can (perfection also being an ideal) given our natural failings. Harris takes the extremist and puts them forward as the norm; this is clearly untrue as there would be constant wars all over the place and anarchy everywhere. I was in northern Iraq last week; no trouble there, no suicide bombers in that part of Iraq because they don't have the fractious tribal element there; the Kurds want independence for themselves, autonomy
@MrAgentGreeny They want their own country to run themselves; a country which was swallowed up when the UK decided a greater Iraq was good; but mainly for oil at that time. That was nothing to do with religion; it was about money and power and the people were subjugated. Saddam was supplied by the west with his chemical weapons he used on the Kurds; they don't hold it against us, they just want to be able to run their lives and live in peace; just like 99.99999% of people
@no1hoopsman By the way that isn't the view of all religious people or all christians. For example if you're someone who doesn't believe in war, believes in the rights of all individuals (e.g. Ron Paul), doesn't oppose things like a woman's right to choose, the right to die, the right to smoke pot, stem cell research, other religions, evolution and the big bang etc etc, then good on you. Please continue to be a good person, continue to act like Jesus unlike 80% of the US seem to forget to do.
@MrAgentGreeny You are arguing against your self here in the 2nd post; Harris tries to claim ALL religion is bad; this is self evidently wrong, the whole concept of a God is for good, for our well being, lots of churches marched againts the war in Iraq and Afghanistan and Gaza; Muslim and Jew and Christian and secular marched together; I was with them. It's a nonsense what Harris claims.
@no1hoopsman You are blind. The concept of god is bad because believing in things that aren't real is bad. Period. It makes people focus on the wrong things in life, and makes them think they have answers to questions that they don't have answers to. MANY advances in the world are being held back by religious values from old books, and I'm astounded that people still think it's OK to oppose them to please a god that doesn't exist, or fly planes into buildings, or have wars over holy land, etc.
@MrAgentGreeny The concept of a God; an entity creating for good is entirely correct and relevant to us as humans. The problem is the misuse and abuse of the power of "God"..not the idea or concept in itslef. Harris speaks of ideals where we are all equal, everyone is treated the same, each person to be afforded human dignity, this is the message I get from reading the Bible and from the church. I don't know this God Harris refers to; I have Muslim, Jewish, Hindhu, Protestant and secular friends
@MrAgentGreeny The analogy is since humans keep fighting and killing each other, we must ALL be bad people; humanity must be wrong, therefore lets do away with humanity ... this is Harris viewpoint on religion, and it is a fundamentalist stance
@no1hoopsman Are you insane? He is saying that certain behaviours, quite often from religious, like the many that I have listed, is morally "wrong" from a scientific and rational view of humanity. Any behaviour that causes more suffering and harm than wellbeing and good, no matter if it is in the name of god or any other reason, should be condemned by society, islam is more immoral but xtianity does damage to humanity too. Humanity doesn't need to be stopped, religious actions in gods name do.
@MrAgentGreeny But Harris wants to take the extremist view and make it normal; if you don't interprete scripture the way he does you are not really following the Bible. Rubbish reductive literalism. He misinterprets the bible to suit himself, JC doesn't want war or killing, he argues against that, the mainstream Muslims, Jews, Hindhu and Christians churches all marched against the war in Iraq; how is it they want killing when they march against war ?
@no1hoopsman JC as a philosopher was terrific, yet most religious people DON'T take his message. You have a majority of uneducated hypocrites in the US supporting wars, opposing rights of others, condemning other religions, basically treating others in a way they would never want to be treated. This is not the "extremist minority," this is a majority. If religious people took the word of JC and ACTUALLY followed it, there would be no problem, despite the OT+NT still being based on fairy tales.
@MrAgentGreeny I'm talking globally here; the war is in Iraq and Afghanistan, the US is only a small part of that in terms of overall population, and if the US is "backward" in religion then don't blame others I suggest; your country goes to war with the US president sending them on their way with God Bless America; a modern day analogy of a bible story.
@MrAgentGreeny We are the same here in the UK, vast majority of christians and believers never wanted war as it is against their principles and beliefs; it's about human dignity. Don't blame the message if the people don't carry it out; there is no guarantee a good message form Harris will be adhered to is there ?
@MrAgentGreeny The Bible is full of symbolism, analogy, historical narrative, auto biographical and biographical, anagogical, metaphor; there are two creation stories. How do you explain this passage froma literal point of view ? "Cover up your excrement so that God will not turn away from you." (Deut. 12-14)
@no1hoopsman A human wrote that so that people wouldn't shit on the floor? All the OT was was a set of rules designed to stop people doing things, and the writers made up the idea of a "god" who would punish you if you were adulterous, homosexual, ate pork, blah blah blah. It's not full of historical narrative, it's mostly made up crap, same as the NT, written by people who DIDN'T know jesus and who made up stories about the "miracles" he performed. Neither is a useful book in modern society.
@MrAgentGreeny Is that the depth of your interpretive knowledge? Would you not even want to investigate what the rest of the passage referred to? A deconstructive critique of any book requires some research. If you have a problem today with your health; we send shit samples through the post to hospital labs; they could tell back then, these peasants, that there was a problem with your guts by looking at your crap. The crap coming from you is based on Harris fundamentalist view
@no1hoopsman OK this is the last thing I want to say. I want you to write in all sincerity that you believe that your holy book, from however many thousand years ago, written by a bronze age society, that describes one of 4000+ gods currently worshipped on earth, which undoubtedly contradicts itself frequently, with no supporting evidence to back up its claims of magic and miracles and divine intervention... has an accurate description of god, morality, the afterlife, and how to get there.
@MrAgentGreeny It wasn't bronze age; they knew about medicine, hydraulics, the formation of the stars, philosophy and atheism as well, so clearly based on your interpretation they couldn't have been so illiterate and stupid as you infer; how arrogant is that and how little historical knowledge you display ? The message I derive from the book is one of a creative power that is for the benefit of all; what you get from the message is your business.He wins in the end anyway
@no1hoopsman OK well good luck in your future endeavours, I'm remembering the first rule of arguing with religious people: "If religious people listened to reason, there would be no religious people." You seem like a nice person but you believe in irrational claims and I hope one day you see that none of it is true. That's all.
@MrAgentGreeny Good luck to you too, but remember it is faith and good works as opposed to faith. Reason is required in any idea of God (whatever you want to apply to that term) otherwise we end up with "an unreasonable God" which is the type you describe. If we spoke about values and left out any terminology of a deity, the discussion would not be so polarised.
@MrAgentGreeny And by the way there is 2000 years of history and tradition to support the church; it would be very narrow minded of you to think there is no substance without further investigation, and much deeper than Harris has gone with his infantile caricature which is not based on reality I suggest, but on his deeply bigotted viewpoint which is not in line with any teaching I know
@no1hoopsman any teaching you know? Well, having a better education is possible; indeed, it's a good thing. Well, we have about 13.7 billion years of history before 'the church' to point to. So, it would seem that this church of which you speak is a bit late to the party, and trying to claim because it's loud and will kill a few guests here and there, its traditions are more important than all of the previous billions of years of no church. Oh, I can be as silly as you - go me!
@integralmath In your analogy we better give way to the dinosaurs then; they ruled much longer here on earth than we did; atheism is as old as deism and older than christianity; decent historical literature informs you today of that fact; the tradition of the church was what was referred to; it is a structured entity with written factual history that can trace it's roots JC and the disciples. The traditions are not irrelevant as they are supposed to and meant to uphold human dignity and purpose
@integralmath You have to take into account the fact that the church was responsible for improvement of and supply of education in lots; today as in history; greater knowledge of ourselves and our universe is called for; these are actually pre-requisites; faith and reason, not blind faith and stupidity which we find in all walks of every society, today as in Bible times. Man's inhumanity to man has not changed since then
@SorryStamin That's a funny one; secular families are qeueing up to get their kids into the Jesuit college over here; they are oversubscribed around the world, but of course the fact that we have nobel scientists and scholars who are jesuit priests is obviously irrelevant; they must be in the wrong science it would seem.
@no1hoopsman Well, I was put into a catholic private school (high and middle school), no doubt it had better education than public but that's because they're paid too. please tell me of a secular organization as rich as any religious organization.
@SorryStamin Thanks for that; the point is that you got a good education, it was about enriching and enlightening your mind and body and all those beneficial aims; it wasn't about brainwashing, you would be taught to think and question and reason for yourself .... that's the point in terms of education
@no1hoopsman Not in science class, they refused to do a packet about human evolution that was mandated, and we had this religion class where we did the rosary, again, and again, and again, and again.
@SorryStamin What was the name of your Catholic School ? I've never ever heard of what you claim. The Jesuit College in Glasgow is one of many and it is most oversubscribed by far. This story you tell me doesn't sound right, but tell me the name of the School and I'll find out
@SorryStamin I checked about your claim; the head teacher; Mrs. Christine Perdomo doesn't think what you claim is right, not wanting to alert her to a discussion point on You Tube of course.
@SorryStamin Maybe that was a problem for the teacher as opposed to the school or the curriculum; did you report it to your parents ? Did it change or alter your view or opinion ? Certainly in the RC Church Evolution is seen as the best possible explanation and there are many scientists within the church; so I don't get that idea of evolution being problemmatic; it certainly wasn't in Europe when the Scopes Monkey Trial was at it's heignt
@no1hoopsman No, I decided not to report anything as my parents were Christian and I liked the teacher, I couldn't get myself in suitable situation to do any such thing. But I rather would have learned that in class other than having to research it myself in case it popped up in a test in high school.
@SorryStamin Absolutely; that's why I said in previous post it seems to be a teacher issue; these should be raised; especially in today's social climate, but I'm aware it isn't always easy. The main point for me is that science and evolution and biology are taught as part of life curriculum; the RC Church embraces the sciences and there are many priests who are mathematicians, biologists, astronomers, medical doctors, basically scientists and professions of all kind,
@MrAgentGreeny What you say about restrictions and freedom applies today in modern society; there are laws governing us all; legal and political and natural; we are probably less free today than they were back then, we just need to visit a therapist or psychologist to know about modern day "freedom" .... isn't that Big Brother on the wall now ?
@no1hoopsman Society has still ADVANCED. We have gay people we don't stone to death, we don't force circumcisions, we don't still have slaves, the moral fabric of society always advances but fundamentalist views that are based on books stay the same. It's time for society to quit living in the past, based on fantasy novels about made up gods and prophets and miracles and creation myths and archaic views of the world, and no longer believe in unprovable claims or let religion affect any laws.
@MrAgentGreeny Really ? Slavery is worse today then ever before; it won't be on FXO news tho, there are gay ministers in certain churches; where does that put your argument ? The fundamentalist view is what Harris takes; he adopts it and pronounces it as standard, when it is only the lunatic fringe that act like that. There are gay and lesbian church support groups, and there are made up Gods in society just now; your vision is not very clear for a free thinking individual
@MrAgentGreeny As far as the sanity bit goes; I believe in a sanity clause. The analogy was obviously wasted on you; do you not understand that if you want to do with away with all religion (which is for good) because of the extreme minority, then we should perhaps do away with all humanity (and it's good) because of the extreme minority ..this is the analogy based on Harris proposal. That is insanity
@no1hoopsman Listen to his proposal really really carefully. If the morally "bad" option for society is the worst possible suffering for all conscious creatures, and things that have a net negative effect on the wellbeing of humanity are "bad" then religion is no justification. You can live in the delusion that religion is "for good" yet it does nothing but fill peoples heads with lies about moral issues, their lives, our place in the universe, what happens after you die, all lies. This is bad.
@trythinkingnow YES! you can't fucking decide for yourself what god said, what was written when, what's a metaphor, what's literal, and most important of all, if you think you can divorce the concept of god from the doctrine of religion, you can not, you are a fool and a coward. if you realize the books are bullshit, recognize that their chief claim is also bullshit, or say no more. The stats on believers are nonsense, i doubt even 10% of people go to church on sunday based on the crap i hear.
@thesearewarningsigns I suggest you can and need to think for yourself about what would be right and wrong; that is the difference between us and the rest of the animals; it is what makes us human, this idea that you don't think but follow blindly is wrong and is following blindly in actuality. A God who "asks or commands" you to kill others is not worth following I would suggest, and certainly nothing to do with the God I am left to reason about and understand in a creative manner.
@thesearewarningsigns I assume when you say "you" you did not mean ME, since I hold the view that god and his magic book are bullshit and his followers are deluded.
@trythinkingnow yes, i meant "you" as in other people, people who think the way i described. Maybe i should have said they or something, but you get the idea.
p.s. sam's philosophies are a major influence in my life, as is richard dawkins, christopher hitchens, a c grayling, daniel dennett, just to name a few......even if I did consider myself a Harristian (which I don't, I just appreciate the thought they put in before they open their mouths), you know what would be great about it?
no jealous requests for worship, no threats, no offering of forgiveness for doing horrible things....you'd have to be immensely stupid to not see where i'm going with this
@mrcwalk I'm pleased for you that you are influenced by such thinkers; good for you. I have no clue what you are referring to; why don't you explain it all to me?
@no1hoopsman you called me a sheep, I don't live my life and base my morality on the ancient scribbling of nomads and goat herders, I take what I can from the great minds of modern day thinking and build on it without subscribing to a set way of thinking.
when I referred to sheep and herders, I was referring to sheep being the believers who take their moral guidance from religious leaders (the shepherds), who should be making more of an effort to re-educate themselves before claiming "the truth"
@mrcwalk You know fine well when you referred to people as sheep in that context it was following blindly and mindlessly; be honest about it for fuck sake. The problem with claiming people as sheep is that there are very many well educated people; scientists and the like, who believe; and they have equally valid arguments to make. Atheism isn't new; it was being debated by the ancient Greeks well before JC and all, and has continued ever since.
@no1hoopsman of course I know what I was implying when I labelled people as sheep, the fact of the matter is, if you are religious, you you are labelling yourself cos you follow blindly and mindlessly - that is pretty much the definition of FAITH, believing something without good reason or evidence.
I would never be unfair & deny there are many educated believers who've contributed, but god has nothing to do with their work & knowing which boxes to tick doesn't always equate to intelligence.
@mrcwalk Your definition of faith isn't the same as mine; there is a rational philosophic explanation for reason in belief of a creative power that relates to us I believe. I would suggest that for a lot of those people who are educated and scientific that God is at the centre of their being and essence in many ways and is looked upon as instrumental; Faith and Reason are certainly required for Catholic dogma not just Faith alone.
@no1hoopsman ok well you've cherry picked again whilst glorifying your belief system, you can't just say god is great cos he has influenced their brilliance - if you say something like that, you've also got to admit that your catholic god is a horrible twat for using Robert Mugabe and Adolf Hitler as instruments for carrying out his will, and for allowing the vicar of christ - Joseph Ratzinger to cover up child abuse and endorse the death of millions every year for denouncing contraception. FACT
@mrcwalk I'm not saying anything like that at all, there is a difference between what we want and do individually and what God would want. I am highlighting the misuses of God, the US President is the same as Mugabe in that sense, although I'm not sure he promotes religion in any sense and his teaching was in a Jesuit School, but these Jesuit schools also taught great scientists of faith and none, so your argument doesn't stack up.
perhaps harris addresses them elsewhere, but he completely ignored a slew of moral/philosophical problems that would need to be addressed before and after his foundation value of "human well being"
Given his science of morality based on the well-being of conscious creatures, I can't imagine he wouldn't be, given his claim to advocating moving away from the 'worst possible misery for everyone" & therefore minimizing the UNNECESSARY misery in the world.
If Sam were not a VEGAN he would be leaving himself wide open to accusations of being hypocritical!! IMHO
@veganath That's a really interesting question, which hasn't really been explored in the mainstream philosophical criticism I've read thus far. Of course, Sam could also just bite the bullet and admit hypocrisy; being a hypocrite doesn't necessarily mean that one's views are false.....(though they are in this case).
@veganath No, no -- you're confusing points. The debate (see Sam's TED video) is over whether or not science *alone* can dictate human values & whether or not the fact-value gap is an illusion. Sam's positions on these subjects are false.
Also, just a clarification -- Sam is a consequentialist, whereas your proposed axiom "Do not cause unnecessary suffering...." is deontological in nature. Sam regards all deontologists as "deluded consequentialists". Just FYI.
@veganath You're still confused; I'm not proposing anything. I'm responding to the thesis (and subtitle) of Sam's newest book that "science can determine human values."
@veganath He would only be a hypocrite if he was eating meat and at the same time poertraying himself to be perfectly moral within his own model, which i'm sure he wouldn't.
Also, he says that we automatically differenciate between levels of conciousness and apply different value to it. Even vegans do this. Killing a mosquito is not as bad as killing a cow - b/c cows, for us, have a bigger, better conscience. Maybe there are reasonable justifications for eating meat in science, maybe not.
@Duplex0r Yes I guess vegans do differentiate between creatures that exhibit differing levels of consciousness, however based on the broadly accepted definition of a vegan they are really only concerned about not causing & preventing unnecessary suffering. Just to clarify, for the word NECESSARY to mean anything in this context it cannot include amusement, convenience or pleasure.
It's 2011, there is no government today that says you need to eat any foods derived from animal sources to live in optimal health. On the contrary main stream medicos are advocating less consumption to prevent the early onset of chronically debilitating diseases.
Therefore the best justification we have for causing unimaginable suffering to billions of animals every year is: 'They taste good!'
We have a long way to go b4 Sams vision of maximum well-being for all conscious creatures is realized
@veganath I can agree with that, i think. As a sidenote: would it then be false for a vegan to kill a fly in his room at night, provided he couldn't manage to get it out of the room in a timely fashion? Or would that be too convinient?
Harris addresses this conflict with an example of how he could possibly justify to spent money on birthday presents for his daughter instead of donating it to charity for starving children in Africa. Vegans buy presents too. being 100% moral is prob. impossible
@Duplex0r I'm working on my love for flies, I'm sure given our superior ingenuity a satisfactory solution that gives equal consideration of interests to both parties would evolve.
Well actual the best way to contribute to alleviating the suffering of starving children is to become vegan, so perhaps it is others who should refrain from buying presents for their children!
When is my daughters birthday?
I'm surprising her with a gift voucher to be given to the Hare Krishna Food for Life..lol
@veganath I'm under the impression you took my questions to be either humorous or mean, given your kind of sarcastic answer. In reality, my questions were sincere, as i asked them to show that it's practically impossible to be 100% moral, so Harris being imoral in one aspect of his life doesn't make him a hypocrite by default as long as he doesn't his shortcomings.
Perhaps there is justifications as it is today, in some sense or not (meat production). Its easy to postulate a world where that is the case though, all depending on the combined sensory input affecting those beings involved. Lets say there was no immediate good way to feed a certain amount of "quantifyable wellbeing" without some way of using meat, then take into calculation the experience of the animal involved and there could prolly be some ways to reduce suffering. nthngs absolute
@veganath did you not listen to him carefully, he said we care more for primates than we do for insects and quite rightly so, so he obviously has not left himself open to criticism. There is still a long way to go, but in most civilised countries, the slaughter of animals has become a lot more humane, so they're not exactly suffering lives of misery are they, they are looked after a lot better than they would if they lived in the wild.
@mrcwalk you are right. It is a given that we NEED to eat, we should do so without causing unnecessary suffering eg, if we have a choice between eating fruits & vegetables or other animals, & if we agree with Sam's advocating moving away from the "worst possible misery for everyone" & therefore minimizing the UNNECESSARY misery in the world. Then consistency obligates us to choose the plant based diet Thousands of people like myself are testament to the nutritional adequacy of a plant based diet
@veganath plants are living organisms, so you eating them is detrimental to their long term survival, especially if you're advocating morality as a reason that everyone should be eating them, which would also lead to another problem, with over 6 billion humans on the earth, we would very quickly deplete our nutritional resources whilst at the same time, causing the extinction of the majority of species that we share the earth with. nice of you to big yourself up before thinking it through. lol
@mrcwalk "did you not listen to him carefully, he said we care more for primates than we do for insects and quite rightly so", your words. So as Sam says we feel less of a moral obligation to plants, BUT WE have to eat!!
Today we have a population of 6billion humans & at any given time of the year 10 billion non-humans that we feed plants. The math is simple, by not inefficiently processing our nutrient through another living being, that we in turn eat, we wouldn't need to grow so many plants.
Right and wrong are just bullshit words that mean whatever you define them to mean. That is what science can tell us about what is right and wrong. The end.
TheOldBeef 5 days ago
Sam starts at 4:13.
ClumsyRoot 1 week ago
'Sam Harris later admits that by a scientific morality he means even philosophy and economics. Sorry, that's not science.'
By the way, economics and philosophy are social sciences. Harris has explicitly stated that he means 'science' in the broadest sense of the term of "secular rationality and honest truth claims based on honest observation and honest, clear reasoning"
FryderykFChopin 2 weeks ago
@FryderykFChopin The scientific method is predicated upon testing data that can be replicated and verified. Philosophy is not about lab experiments. To compare the two disciplines betrays stupidity of a high order. And to sell books that promise to establish how science can determine ethics when Harris means by "science" every academic subject including philosophy is a racket. Philosophy is not an empirical discipline. Chemistry is.
MenOfLetters 2 weeks ago
@FryderykFChopin He actually makes perfect sense. What is wrong, like murder, is common sense (i.e. what I think is wrong).
If you disagree (if you're a fascist) I'm not going to talk to you.
Don't listen to the opposition, have faith! This is called religion...and the religion is strong with this padawan.
badblueman 2 weeks ago
Sam Harris later admits that by a scientific morality he means even philosophy and economics. Sorry, that's not science. Not even close. You don't need science to know that murder is wrong. You need common sense. He's talking nonsense here. The worst kind of self-promotion and greed.
MenOfLetters 4 weeks ago
@MenOfLetters 'common sense'. What do you mean by common sense? The 'common sense' of Nazi Germany? It seems that you're talking nonsense.
FryderykFChopin 2 weeks ago
@FryderykFChopin If you think Nazism is common sense you are a fascist not worth talking to.
MenOfLetters 2 weeks ago
@MenOfLetters and if you had actually read my comment properly, you would know that I said nothing of the sort. The Nazis themselves thought that it was 'common sense' to kill as many jews as they could find. What makes your particular idea of 'common sense' more true or better than the 'common sense of the nazis'?
FryderykFChopin 2 weeks ago
Here is my thing, why do we 'need' the help of anyone or anything to answer questions we can answer ourselves?
We have every ability necessary to discover what we individually consider moral. I know many ppl don't, but our focus should be to show ppl that they can.
What worries me is that when we leave our homework to government or science or any other group, we give up our power. In other words, what if one day the peek science decides upon limits our freedom?
shabido1 1 month ago
@shabido1 Your freedom is already limited at any peek. You lack the freedom to infringe on someone's rights by murdering, stealing from them, etc. However science will never say that you have no right to be a fat ass or something. It might one day argue that it is irresponsible to feed your kids shitty food, but that's because it is irresponsible provided you have a choice in the matter. If that's the freedom you're looking to have, then what you're opinion of a moral peak is just anarchy.
twilitprince 1 month ago
@twilitprince I'm just saying, even scientists are human, and the reason so many other ppl cringed at this idea, is because of the 'possibility' of infringement over our moral rights. I've been atheist my entire life and am one of the ones who would make certain religion/organizations forbidden, or at least strictly ruled, but morals are not scientific/objective. They simply can't be since we come up with them. No murder is not objective, it is emotional.
shabido1 1 month ago
At the same time its good to have people like Harris provided that there are other people pushing sense and bringing things home in different manners with the same pasion and efectiveness.
am101171 1 month ago
Harrys " Says Science thrives regardles of convincing everyone or not" That might be true, but when you take that point and make it we don´t have to convince everybody to define absolute values for all humans, using Harris words "I don´t know what you are talking about... and I think you don´t know what you are talking about either".
am101171 1 month ago
Aside from that, I do have some small understanding on some areas of study like mathematics, physics, even took a 6 month course an aeon ago on quantum physics ( which I dont remember much from it anymore) , and I don´t see where these fundamental and absolute values come from say that e^(pi)*i +1 =0 then its wrong to think different from Harris ? Science is a changing subject and is based on models which are just way of seeing things, It is as dangerous as religion to use it in that way.
am101171 1 month ago
I like Harris topics and efforts, mostly I agree and disagree half and half with his ideas. But what I really really dont support on Harris line of thinking is that in my view he is trying to define and absolute for all human race, just because he smarter than most, and in that respect the most uninformed and unwitted man can dispute that saying I don´t understand your point, and then what we have after Harris proposal is ideological persecution, or alienation at the very best.
am101171 1 month ago
I don't understand what Harris is trying to do here. He seemingly understands the criticisms against his book. He doesn't attempt to answer the criticisms, but he basically ignores them. Yet, his shitty book has the subtitle "How Science Can Determine Human Values".
What a bullshitter.
ZombieLincoln666 2 months ago
Is anybody else pulling there hair out over the lack of rigor coming from his mouth? At all the points where he needs to do the most work, he sidesteps the issue.
For example, he says "if anything is 'bad', the world with maximum suffering is bad".. But he says nothing about what he means by "bad." That is the most important question! Does he mean least preferable? if that's what he means, his argument fails already.
He's an atheist priest. Are we to except what he says about "bad" on faith?
Cilence13 2 months ago
@Cilence13 Hm, not sure if I get your critique here, but it seems to me that the answer is in the question. What's not to understand about "maximum suffering is bad"? That is what he means by bad.
KingofToxin 2 months ago
@KingofToxin Ok. so you are saying that HE is saying that "bad" is co-extensive with "things that move us away from a moral peak"...and he MAY even be saying that there is a definitional relation between them.
But if it is definitional, he could avoid pulling on our emotions by not using the word "act X is bad" and instead just using "act X moves us away from a moral peak."
In that case, he still needs to explain how science tells us we OUGHT to move to the moral peak.
Cilence13 2 months ago
@Cilence13 I think if he means by saying "act X is bad", that you can objectively say that a certain act is bad for that person's well being. It's a complicated issue, sure, and for Harris' argument to work we need a goal. I think peenfluteking describes it very well.
KingofToxin 2 months ago
@Cilence13 "atheist priest" now there is a stretch... those (like Harris) who do not believe in any god or gods and (whenever possible) and debunk religious dogma are best called skeptics..
daNDayati 2 months ago
@daNDayati But respectable skeptics like Hume thought their arguments through and didn't claim more than they could argue.
Harris disregards reasoned arguments and make incredibly bold philosophical claims (Like: Science can tell us what we ought to value). A priest will say things that the congregation takes on faith. Harris does the same thing.
Cilence13 2 months ago
@Cilence13 Harris relies on the apparent truth of cognitive neuroscience... I would tend to agree with him.. human values (morals if you please) are basically innate .. so why not depend upon method (i.e. science, thanks to our friend Hume) to help us define and refine them.. frankly how would you do it otherwise? I agree that Harris does not want to be drawn into the complicated terrain of philosophical thought..
daNDayati 2 months ago
@Cilence13 "boredom in the universe is directly related to philosophical jargon and technicalities" -Sam Harris ... cheers
daNDayati 2 months ago
@daNDayati What?.. You're just as foolish as he is. You can't make one of the boldest claims in philosophical history and then try to avoid being "drawn into the complicated terrain of philosophical thought."
He claims that science can show us what values we OUGHT to have. Not which ones we DO have, not which ones we THINK we should have. OUGHT OUGHT OUGHT.
How does the fact that values are innate and can be studied tell us which ones we OUGHT to have?
Cilence13 2 months ago
@Cilence13 I would love to be as foolish (or as intelligent) as Sam Harris. I should aspire to such heights .. Getting back to your "oughts" on the subject.. He has started a discussion.. about a basic framework on how to begin to address values.. I understand your misgivings about how science and engineering could begin to tell us what we ought to value.. perhaps you are right.. he might have overstepped. It is still early days. it is, after all, a discussion.
daNDayati 2 months ago
It's pretty sad to see that Harris has a degree in philosophy but still thinks that science can come out with morality. He sticks with a posterori rather than a priori. That's his first flaw and killing flaw.
TheClosestcontinuer 2 months ago
love to hear harris get a big cheer when he comes on!! :) :D
zerr0ww 2 months ago
Fuck yeah lets keep on OWNING all the stupid creationists arguments!!! Keep it up
Typho0n86 4 months ago
Natural law may be recognizable by all, because it is written in peoples hearts, as the Bible stated. Unfortunately some people are corrupted And their Voice Of reason is darken.
Because Of human corruptions God additionally revealed His will by external means, by written laws like Ten Commandments And ultimately by Jesus teaching And example.
franciszek8D 4 months ago
@franciszek8D Yes, those Ten Commandments sure are the measure of morality, like that one about not coveting a neighbor's property, like his wife. And Jesus's teaching of eternal hell for those who didn't believe. What an example, lol.
MassLiberal1 3 months ago
I'm confused. Is The Great Debate between no1hoopsman and MrAgentGreeny?
BeyondTheTreeline 4 months ago
Imagine something like the Matrix, in fact the first thing the Matrix tried the first time it created a "virtual reality". It take care of us, it keeps us well fed, and happy, but differently to what happened in the movie, everyone believed. It didn´t respect our wish, but it made sure to cheat us well enough that we never realize what´s going on. Now that is actually good for the species, because it regulates very well our being and takes care of us. To science alone, thats´s a good thing.
Psity 4 months ago
I´m sorry, i have to get in the debate... no1hoopsman... fuck dammit, WE know about medicine, hydraulics, the formation of the stars, philosophy and atheism, yet, I fail to see how goat herders from 2000 thousands years ago know about even a little fraction of what we know today. Sure, they weren´t in the absolute dark about those things, but if you think that the bible has ANY scientific knowledge, you sir, are talking bollocks.
Psity 4 months ago
@Psity Of course they didn't have the technology we do today; nobody claimed that, the idea that they were all totally ignorant is wrong. The History of Egypt and China shows how much was known; atheism was debated with theism and all that stuff long before JC was around; the philosphers made claims still applicable and relevant today; classic history and literature confirm all of this; the people of that time had knowledge...that is the point; commerce went on then as today; Rome ruled
no1hoopsman 4 months ago
@Psity And the Bible message is relevant today; the story is about man's relationships; emotional and physical and mental, the parables are all about how we deal with our inner self and thoughts; if your brother is preferred over you by your parents and how to deal with it; don't let rules overtake good works in helping your fellow man; how to deal with the talent you are given and the pressure you are under .... every day ... life today is the same in many ways; we just want to live in peace
no1hoopsman 4 months ago
@Psity and harmony, and be successful and have food to eat and people to love; whether same sex or not; read the history of Rome and Greece to know about how respected and sometimes expected homosexuality was then.
You need to read the words correctly;I say the idea they were all illiterate stupid people is arrogance in extreme. In the Gospel of Luke, the author is believed to be a doctor because the word he used (in Greek) where the eye of the needle bit is referred to in syringe terminology
no1hoopsman 4 months ago
Sam Harris is way ahead of his time. Maybe in a few decades more people will recognize his brilliance.
pedro898 5 months ago
Absolutely brilliant
lenylan 5 months ago
That applause was a bit flacid for old Sam. Damn them!
haydencantact 5 months ago
I think it such a shame that Harris has to portray religious people as all fanatics, extremists who all believe in creationism. This isn't the truth or anywhere near it I suggest, and he does his argument no positive work by painting a mistaken caricature of religion and religious beliefs. He undermines himself in the fist couple of lines by promoting this concept; when in actual fact most believers in the world are nothing like this; this extremist view.
no1hoopsman 6 months ago
@no1hoopsman I think you're an idiot for what you've just said and basing your opinion of sam's life work on a 15 minute video. sam clearly stated that the religious demagogues are the only ones claiming to know the truth, so he's obviously blaming the shepherds, not the sheep. he's even said in the past that he's got nothing against the faithful who devote their lives to helping others, he's digging at the pope for saying condoms are bad, when they would save lives from malnutrition and disease
mrcwalk 6 months ago
@mrcwalk Well you are entitled to your opinion on me just as I am on Harris, but he himself has stated in other video clips as claiming to know "the truth" and where he claims that people who don't have a vengeful God are not really following the bible. My point is that statistically Harris must be wrong because people generally don't act in the manner he portrays. I also wouldn't try to portray everyone as sheep; people think for themselves much more than you assume I suggest
no1hoopsman 6 months ago
@no1hoopsman can you tell me where one of these video clips are where he claims to know "the truth", cos I've seen a very large number videos of him and never came across one where he has made such a claim. he's only ever argued against irrational behaviour and put forward suggestions of how to live better.
you cannot possibly argue that the gods spoken of in the holy books of the 3 main monotheisms are wicked if you've actually read any of them. if you are a follower, then you are a sheep
mrcwalk 6 months ago
@mrcwalk Look up Sam Harris: What happens if you really follow the bible and approx 0:27 seconds into the clip ... he claims to know the Truth. He states...The Truth is...plus, if by a follower you mean sheep and vice versa, then if you follow Sam Harris or anyone, you are a sheep, then let me advise you that all who live and breathe are sheep; we all follow someone in some way I suggest
no1hoopsman 6 months ago
@no1hoopsman wow, just watched that clip and you really are clutching at straws now!
what do you think he is claiming to know "the truth" about?
he could've replaced "the truth" with "the fact of the matter" and his statement would've meant the exact same thing. he was pointing out that even believers have to ignore most parts of the holy texts if they are using them for moral guidance or they will end up as disgusting as the god they worship.
mrcwalk 6 months ago
@mrcwalk Well you can replace every "truth" with the fact of the matter is then can't you; and I suggest he follows or portrays a God that only the lunatic fringe follow; so he is the same as the fanatical extremists in my book; I don't know that God and certainly don't interpret the Bible in the way he does; nor do the major religions as I am aware of them
no1hoopsman 6 months ago
@no1hoopsman you can interpret the holy books however you want, they are what they are - claims to be the will and words of god through revelations, and without cherry picking, it is impossible to take the scriptures literally and not come to the conclusion that they are books endorsing atrocious acts and do very little to aid human flourishing.
if you choose to live your life by the wisdom coming from the iron age palestinian desert, thats up to you, but don't claim to be thinking for yourself
mrcwalk 6 months ago
@mrcwalk Interpretation is key; as with any book, but to propose only one interpretation as Harris et all do is what I disagree with. Plus, he and Dawkins present a caricature of religion and this is disingenious in order to make their point and substantiate their views. The lunatic fringe are those who believe in a vengeful God; it is okay to kill etc, but of course we have the good ole US of A President sending his country to War with "God Bless America" ...remind you of anything?
no1hoopsman 6 months ago
@no1hoopsman with all due respect, you are not on the same level as Harris et al.
these are men who have dedicated their entire lives to the sciences; have their work peer reviewed successfully; are regularly used for consultation, lectures and appearances; have books that sell by the millions etc.
It will be an awful long time before an american president will be able to declare being atheist during their campaign and still get elected. the greatest ideas come from those in the minorities
mrcwalk 6 months ago
@mrcwalk I wouldn't want to lower myself to the standard of Harris et al, and other people sell books by the millions; film stars and recording artists, do you suggest we look up to them because they have great book sales ? The statement about God Bless America isn't about atheism; it's about the misuse of God to legitimise going to war; God only being on the side of the powerful in that sense; it's wrong either way
no1hoopsman 6 months ago
@no1hoopsman lower yourself to their standards - get a grip!
mrcwalk 6 months ago
@mrcwalk I have a good grip; I don't need to misrepresent atheism in any way to make a point, but they do, in that case they are disingenious; clearly so and many in their own fields have made similiar comments; allies from their own atheistic viewpoint have said they do their cause no favours I suggest. The minute Dawkins comes up againts anyone with a brain and who can talk coherently he toils because he can't be so extreme
no1hoopsman 6 months ago
@no1hoopsman if you think you are above these men intellectually because you believe a book to be accurate, that was put together from the wisdom of uneducated, middle-eastern psychopaths over 2,000 years ago then you clearly do not have a grip on reality., and further to that, I'd would suggest that you are unaware that you are having hallucinations. the atheism cause requires many approaches - stridence from the likes of dawkins, and philosophically from grayling and pinker etc.
mrcwalk 6 months ago
@mrcwalk But that is your interpretation of what I believe...not mine, and you are showing the same mis-interpretation of the bible as these men do I suggest. To miss the point about the US president tells me you are way off the mark here, and your analysis of the writers of the bible isn't accurate either.
no1hoopsman 6 months ago
I agree that no leader should be going to war stating religious blessings as it undermines the real reasons for going to war.
just so I understand your position though, cos I think the worse thing anyone can do is to assume someones else's stance on a subject - regardless of viewpoints about doing it for oil etc, do you not agree that sadam and other dictatorships needed removing?
by the way i think the foreign policy and military strategy should've been better planned..
mrcwalk 6 months ago
@mrcwalk I think any dictator who abuses power and mis-uses people for his own personal gain shouldn't be tolerated; but we tend to supply weapons and aid if it is in "our" own interests
no1hoopsman 6 months ago
@no1hoopsman yet soon as a poorly educated country becomes the subject of any crisis, the religious are there handing out there holy books as a condition of receiving aid as was seen recently in haiti and long as suffering has been in the spotlight throughout Africa
mrcwalk 6 months ago
@mrcwalk I work with an international aid organisation and have done for years; that is not correct about the aid organisations in general, but there are abuses everywhere; with faith and non faith organisations. I suggest we have a free will to make a choice in these matters; some do it in the full knowledge of their belief system, some don't. Abusing and killing people isn't anywhere in my belief system.
no1hoopsman 6 months ago
@no1hoopsman "abusing and killing people isn't anywhere in your belief system"?, then your belief system does not correlate with the biblical scriptures
mrcwalk 6 months ago
@mrcwalk And it's a pity that you now go down the same route as Harris and Dawkins in applying your belief system of the bible to other peoples; exactly what I stated at the outset as the main issue I have with both these guys and Hitchens of course; the paint a caricature of "their view" of religion and then castigate those who don't have that view as "not following the bible" ... this is reductive literalism at it's basic
no1hoopsman 6 months ago
@no1hoopsman Your argument is without merit. The gentlemen you mention do not rely on some personalized view of religion, but rather the doctrine and dogma of the very religions themselves, without any molestation whatsoever. This is the only appropriate approach. I have never heard any of them reproach someone for 'not following the bible'.
trythinkingnow 4 months ago
@trythinkingnow Harris does this all the time and his followers too; he suggests if you are a believer you have to believe in a God who persecutes etc; making the Bible and the person look like a ridiculous warmongering idiot; AND if you don't believe in that God you are being selective and not following the Bible instructions. All of them do this with a caricature of religion.Harris has often reproached people for using the Bible for any kind of moral teaching; referring to Leviticus etc..
no1hoopsman 4 months ago
@trythinkingnow ..and being selective in doing so; yet respond by talking about the morality of the good samaritan for example, and this is dismissed as being selective and people are "picking and choosing" parts of the Bible etc. He accuses people of the very act he himself uses; and yet he doesn't understand which parts are narrative, biographical, auto biographical, symbolic, analagous and the rest. If it is only the book he attacks, then he is self evidently interpreting wrongly
no1hoopsman 4 months ago
@no1hoopsman "he doesn't understand which parts are narrative, biographical, auto biographical, symbolic, analagous and the rest." LOL Good luck getting a dozen believers to agree on what parts of the bible are which of these. "Interpretation' of the bible is an old and failed defense to arguments against it on its face.
trythinkingnow 4 months ago
@trythinkingnow Well if he doesn't understand how can he comment ? And good luck with science; getting a dozen to agree on stem cell research methods and what to use them for is pretty straightforward of course, and how science impacts on morality is really clear as well...isn't it
no1hoopsman 4 months ago
@trythinkingnow Yet he chooses the literalist fundamentalist view that only the lunatic minority use as interpretation; this clearly points to him being the fundie type in all of this
no1hoopsman 4 months ago
@no1hoopsman That is entirely untrue.
trythinkingnow 4 months ago
@trythinkingnow It is entirely true as far as he is concerned with the Bible message; the message that he gets or takes from it
no1hoopsman 4 months ago
@no1hoopsman
Fun·da·men·tal·ism - noun
Strict maintenance of ancient or fundamental doctrines of any religion or ideology.
Rea·son - verb
Think, understand, and form judgments by a process of logic.
You, sir, are part of the lunatic majority.
MrAgentGreeny 4 months ago
@MrAgentGreeny It means far more than that and you know it .... are you still pissed off at the All Blacks fucking the Aussie's at Rugby ? Is that what is upsetting you ? Why don't you address the discussion points without personal attacks; forget me .... just address the issue with an element of depth and integrity
no1hoopsman 4 months ago
@no1hoopsman OK you seem like a nice person but you're saying a lot of crap. You seem to think that you can divorce god from religious doctrines, but you can't because they are what created the idea of god. God was made up by people and no matter what your belief, he doesn't actually exist. Belief in god, whether this is the case for you or not, justifies intolerance, prejudice and murder and has done so throughout the ages. It tears the world apart through unprovable claims and it's a bad thing
MrAgentGreeny 4 months ago
@MrAgentGreeny I don't agree with that at all; it doesn't stand up because you have to differentiate between the ideal of God, the acts of a religious person and religious acts. What tears the world apart is greed, abuse of power, misuse of people and their well being; slavery is worse now than ever, we kill more innocent people in wars than ever before, we look on some as less than "us" because we think they come from a backward country; the religion In know is about the dignity of the human
no1hoopsman 4 months ago
@no1hoopsman You claim that all this death and destruction in war is for every reason but the obvious, the fact that we have 2 competing religious sects who have despised and killed each other since the Crusades. Religious acts by religious people, are quite often no more than prejudice and judgement of others, justified by "god's will" in even simple issues like stem cell research, gay marriage, marijuana, abortion. There are deluded people holding society back and freethinkers pushing forward.
MrAgentGreeny 4 months ago
@MrAgentGreeny Exactly what 2 sects out of the hundreds are you talking about ? There are lots of different Muslims, Christians and others in religious terms. This is the problem with Harris; he paints ALL religious as extremists; which is clearly not the case. There are plenty of non religious who are pro life, and stem cell research isn't held back by any church I am aware of apart from Joehovah's Witnesses who are against blood transfusion...but that is freedom of choice remember.
no1hoopsman 4 months ago
@no1hoopsman And I say sect in terms of just Christianity and Islam. 2 groups that, for the most part, would like to see the other religion wiped off the face of the earth. Stem cell research HAS been held back and will continue to be next time a conservative is elected, just as gay marriage and many other advances continue to be opposed on the basis of the bible. It's basing life and law on a bronze age book... That's it. It become more and more irrelevant each day and soon religion will die.
MrAgentGreeny 4 months ago
@MrAgentGreeny And we all live in harmony as perfect as any human can (perfection also being an ideal) given our natural failings. Harris takes the extremist and puts them forward as the norm; this is clearly untrue as there would be constant wars all over the place and anarchy everywhere. I was in northern Iraq last week; no trouble there, no suicide bombers in that part of Iraq because they don't have the fractious tribal element there; the Kurds want independence for themselves, autonomy
no1hoopsman 4 months ago
@MrAgentGreeny They want their own country to run themselves; a country which was swallowed up when the UK decided a greater Iraq was good; but mainly for oil at that time. That was nothing to do with religion; it was about money and power and the people were subjugated. Saddam was supplied by the west with his chemical weapons he used on the Kurds; they don't hold it against us, they just want to be able to run their lives and live in peace; just like 99.99999% of people
no1hoopsman 4 months ago
@no1hoopsman By the way that isn't the view of all religious people or all christians. For example if you're someone who doesn't believe in war, believes in the rights of all individuals (e.g. Ron Paul), doesn't oppose things like a woman's right to choose, the right to die, the right to smoke pot, stem cell research, other religions, evolution and the big bang etc etc, then good on you. Please continue to be a good person, continue to act like Jesus unlike 80% of the US seem to forget to do.
MrAgentGreeny 4 months ago
@MrAgentGreeny You are arguing against your self here in the 2nd post; Harris tries to claim ALL religion is bad; this is self evidently wrong, the whole concept of a God is for good, for our well being, lots of churches marched againts the war in Iraq and Afghanistan and Gaza; Muslim and Jew and Christian and secular marched together; I was with them. It's a nonsense what Harris claims.
no1hoopsman 4 months ago
@no1hoopsman You are blind. The concept of god is bad because believing in things that aren't real is bad. Period. It makes people focus on the wrong things in life, and makes them think they have answers to questions that they don't have answers to. MANY advances in the world are being held back by religious values from old books, and I'm astounded that people still think it's OK to oppose them to please a god that doesn't exist, or fly planes into buildings, or have wars over holy land, etc.
MrAgentGreeny 4 months ago
@MrAgentGreeny The concept of a God; an entity creating for good is entirely correct and relevant to us as humans. The problem is the misuse and abuse of the power of "God"..not the idea or concept in itslef. Harris speaks of ideals where we are all equal, everyone is treated the same, each person to be afforded human dignity, this is the message I get from reading the Bible and from the church. I don't know this God Harris refers to; I have Muslim, Jewish, Hindhu, Protestant and secular friends
no1hoopsman 4 months ago
@MrAgentGreeny The analogy is since humans keep fighting and killing each other, we must ALL be bad people; humanity must be wrong, therefore lets do away with humanity ... this is Harris viewpoint on religion, and it is a fundamentalist stance
no1hoopsman 4 months ago
@no1hoopsman Are you insane? He is saying that certain behaviours, quite often from religious, like the many that I have listed, is morally "wrong" from a scientific and rational view of humanity. Any behaviour that causes more suffering and harm than wellbeing and good, no matter if it is in the name of god or any other reason, should be condemned by society, islam is more immoral but xtianity does damage to humanity too. Humanity doesn't need to be stopped, religious actions in gods name do.
MrAgentGreeny 4 months ago
@MrAgentGreeny But Harris wants to take the extremist view and make it normal; if you don't interprete scripture the way he does you are not really following the Bible. Rubbish reductive literalism. He misinterprets the bible to suit himself, JC doesn't want war or killing, he argues against that, the mainstream Muslims, Jews, Hindhu and Christians churches all marched against the war in Iraq; how is it they want killing when they march against war ?
no1hoopsman 4 months ago
@no1hoopsman JC as a philosopher was terrific, yet most religious people DON'T take his message. You have a majority of uneducated hypocrites in the US supporting wars, opposing rights of others, condemning other religions, basically treating others in a way they would never want to be treated. This is not the "extremist minority," this is a majority. If religious people took the word of JC and ACTUALLY followed it, there would be no problem, despite the OT+NT still being based on fairy tales.
MrAgentGreeny 4 months ago
@MrAgentGreeny I'm talking globally here; the war is in Iraq and Afghanistan, the US is only a small part of that in terms of overall population, and if the US is "backward" in religion then don't blame others I suggest; your country goes to war with the US president sending them on their way with God Bless America; a modern day analogy of a bible story.
no1hoopsman 4 months ago
@MrAgentGreeny We are the same here in the UK, vast majority of christians and believers never wanted war as it is against their principles and beliefs; it's about human dignity. Don't blame the message if the people don't carry it out; there is no guarantee a good message form Harris will be adhered to is there ?
no1hoopsman 4 months ago
@MrAgentGreeny The Bible is full of symbolism, analogy, historical narrative, auto biographical and biographical, anagogical, metaphor; there are two creation stories. How do you explain this passage froma literal point of view ? "Cover up your excrement so that God will not turn away from you." (Deut. 12-14)
no1hoopsman 4 months ago
@no1hoopsman A human wrote that so that people wouldn't shit on the floor? All the OT was was a set of rules designed to stop people doing things, and the writers made up the idea of a "god" who would punish you if you were adulterous, homosexual, ate pork, blah blah blah. It's not full of historical narrative, it's mostly made up crap, same as the NT, written by people who DIDN'T know jesus and who made up stories about the "miracles" he performed. Neither is a useful book in modern society.
MrAgentGreeny 4 months ago
@MrAgentGreeny Is that the depth of your interpretive knowledge? Would you not even want to investigate what the rest of the passage referred to? A deconstructive critique of any book requires some research. If you have a problem today with your health; we send shit samples through the post to hospital labs; they could tell back then, these peasants, that there was a problem with your guts by looking at your crap. The crap coming from you is based on Harris fundamentalist view
no1hoopsman 4 months ago
@no1hoopsman OK this is the last thing I want to say. I want you to write in all sincerity that you believe that your holy book, from however many thousand years ago, written by a bronze age society, that describes one of 4000+ gods currently worshipped on earth, which undoubtedly contradicts itself frequently, with no supporting evidence to back up its claims of magic and miracles and divine intervention... has an accurate description of god, morality, the afterlife, and how to get there.
MrAgentGreeny 4 months ago
@MrAgentGreeny It wasn't bronze age; they knew about medicine, hydraulics, the formation of the stars, philosophy and atheism as well, so clearly based on your interpretation they couldn't have been so illiterate and stupid as you infer; how arrogant is that and how little historical knowledge you display ? The message I derive from the book is one of a creative power that is for the benefit of all; what you get from the message is your business.He wins in the end anyway
no1hoopsman 4 months ago
@no1hoopsman OK well good luck in your future endeavours, I'm remembering the first rule of arguing with religious people: "If religious people listened to reason, there would be no religious people." You seem like a nice person but you believe in irrational claims and I hope one day you see that none of it is true. That's all.
MrAgentGreeny 4 months ago
@MrAgentGreeny Good luck to you too, but remember it is faith and good works as opposed to faith. Reason is required in any idea of God (whatever you want to apply to that term) otherwise we end up with "an unreasonable God" which is the type you describe. If we spoke about values and left out any terminology of a deity, the discussion would not be so polarised.
no1hoopsman 4 months ago
@MrAgentGreeny And by the way there is 2000 years of history and tradition to support the church; it would be very narrow minded of you to think there is no substance without further investigation, and much deeper than Harris has gone with his infantile caricature which is not based on reality I suggest, but on his deeply bigotted viewpoint which is not in line with any teaching I know
no1hoopsman 4 months ago
@no1hoopsman any teaching you know? Well, having a better education is possible; indeed, it's a good thing. Well, we have about 13.7 billion years of history before 'the church' to point to. So, it would seem that this church of which you speak is a bit late to the party, and trying to claim because it's loud and will kill a few guests here and there, its traditions are more important than all of the previous billions of years of no church. Oh, I can be as silly as you - go me!
integralmath 4 months ago
@integralmath In your analogy we better give way to the dinosaurs then; they ruled much longer here on earth than we did; atheism is as old as deism and older than christianity; decent historical literature informs you today of that fact; the tradition of the church was what was referred to; it is a structured entity with written factual history that can trace it's roots JC and the disciples. The traditions are not irrelevant as they are supposed to and meant to uphold human dignity and purpose
no1hoopsman 4 months ago
@integralmath You have to take into account the fact that the church was responsible for improvement of and supply of education in lots; today as in history; greater knowledge of ourselves and our universe is called for; these are actually pre-requisites; faith and reason, not blind faith and stupidity which we find in all walks of every society, today as in Bible times. Man's inhumanity to man has not changed since then
no1hoopsman 4 months ago
@no1hoopsman Yes, education that furthered their own selfish goals xD
SorryStamin 4 months ago
@SorryStamin That's a funny one; secular families are qeueing up to get their kids into the Jesuit college over here; they are oversubscribed around the world, but of course the fact that we have nobel scientists and scholars who are jesuit priests is obviously irrelevant; they must be in the wrong science it would seem.
no1hoopsman 4 months ago
@no1hoopsman Well, I was put into a catholic private school (high and middle school), no doubt it had better education than public but that's because they're paid too. please tell me of a secular organization as rich as any religious organization.
SorryStamin 4 months ago
@SorryStamin Thanks for that; the point is that you got a good education, it was about enriching and enlightening your mind and body and all those beneficial aims; it wasn't about brainwashing, you would be taught to think and question and reason for yourself .... that's the point in terms of education
no1hoopsman 4 months ago
@no1hoopsman Not in science class, they refused to do a packet about human evolution that was mandated, and we had this religion class where we did the rosary, again, and again, and again, and again.
SorryStamin 4 months ago
@SorryStamin What school was that?
no1hoopsman 4 months ago
@no1hoopsman Catholic, obviously I haven't been in a Jesuit school but I'd imagine it's because it is the only local college. Is it?
SorryStamin 4 months ago
@SorryStamin What was the name of your Catholic School ? I've never ever heard of what you claim. The Jesuit College in Glasgow is one of many and it is most oversubscribed by far. This story you tell me doesn't sound right, but tell me the name of the School and I'll find out
no1hoopsman 4 months ago
@no1hoopsman St. Teresa, Carson City NV.
SorryStamin 4 months ago
@SorryStamin I checked about your claim; the head teacher; Mrs. Christine Perdomo doesn't think what you claim is right, not wanting to alert her to a discussion point on You Tube of course.
no1hoopsman 3 months ago
@no1hoopsman I distinctly remember where my science teacher skipped a part in the book about the evolution of early man, he even discussed about it.
SorryStamin 3 months ago
@SorryStamin Maybe that was a problem for the teacher as opposed to the school or the curriculum; did you report it to your parents ? Did it change or alter your view or opinion ? Certainly in the RC Church Evolution is seen as the best possible explanation and there are many scientists within the church; so I don't get that idea of evolution being problemmatic; it certainly wasn't in Europe when the Scopes Monkey Trial was at it's heignt
no1hoopsman 3 months ago
@no1hoopsman No, I decided not to report anything as my parents were Christian and I liked the teacher, I couldn't get myself in suitable situation to do any such thing. But I rather would have learned that in class other than having to research it myself in case it popped up in a test in high school.
SorryStamin 3 months ago
@SorryStamin Okay, it certainly seems strange though; all of the RC schools here teach evolution and science and biology; no problem.
no1hoopsman 3 months ago
@no1hoopsman Then again, you didn't go the school did you?
SorryStamin 3 months ago
@SorryStamin Absolutely; that's why I said in previous post it seems to be a teacher issue; these should be raised; especially in today's social climate, but I'm aware it isn't always easy. The main point for me is that science and evolution and biology are taught as part of life curriculum; the RC Church embraces the sciences and there are many priests who are mathematicians, biologists, astronomers, medical doctors, basically scientists and professions of all kind,
no1hoopsman 3 months ago
@SorryStamin I'm pleased you didn't suffer any long term damage though by your experience. Have a good day
no1hoopsman 3 months ago
@MrAgentGreeny What you say about restrictions and freedom applies today in modern society; there are laws governing us all; legal and political and natural; we are probably less free today than they were back then, we just need to visit a therapist or psychologist to know about modern day "freedom" .... isn't that Big Brother on the wall now ?
no1hoopsman 4 months ago
@no1hoopsman Society has still ADVANCED. We have gay people we don't stone to death, we don't force circumcisions, we don't still have slaves, the moral fabric of society always advances but fundamentalist views that are based on books stay the same. It's time for society to quit living in the past, based on fantasy novels about made up gods and prophets and miracles and creation myths and archaic views of the world, and no longer believe in unprovable claims or let religion affect any laws.
MrAgentGreeny 4 months ago
@MrAgentGreeny Really ? Slavery is worse today then ever before; it won't be on FXO news tho, there are gay ministers in certain churches; where does that put your argument ? The fundamentalist view is what Harris takes; he adopts it and pronounces it as standard, when it is only the lunatic fringe that act like that. There are gay and lesbian church support groups, and there are made up Gods in society just now; your vision is not very clear for a free thinking individual
no1hoopsman 4 months ago
@MrAgentGreeny As far as the sanity bit goes; I believe in a sanity clause. The analogy was obviously wasted on you; do you not understand that if you want to do with away with all religion (which is for good) because of the extreme minority, then we should perhaps do away with all humanity (and it's good) because of the extreme minority ..this is the analogy based on Harris proposal. That is insanity
no1hoopsman 4 months ago
@no1hoopsman Listen to his proposal really really carefully. If the morally "bad" option for society is the worst possible suffering for all conscious creatures, and things that have a net negative effect on the wellbeing of humanity are "bad" then religion is no justification. You can live in the delusion that religion is "for good" yet it does nothing but fill peoples heads with lies about moral issues, their lives, our place in the universe, what happens after you die, all lies. This is bad.
MrAgentGreeny 4 months ago
@trythinkingnow YES! you can't fucking decide for yourself what god said, what was written when, what's a metaphor, what's literal, and most important of all, if you think you can divorce the concept of god from the doctrine of religion, you can not, you are a fool and a coward. if you realize the books are bullshit, recognize that their chief claim is also bullshit, or say no more. The stats on believers are nonsense, i doubt even 10% of people go to church on sunday based on the crap i hear.
thesearewarningsigns 4 months ago
@thesearewarningsigns I suggest you can and need to think for yourself about what would be right and wrong; that is the difference between us and the rest of the animals; it is what makes us human, this idea that you don't think but follow blindly is wrong and is following blindly in actuality. A God who "asks or commands" you to kill others is not worth following I would suggest, and certainly nothing to do with the God I am left to reason about and understand in a creative manner.
no1hoopsman 4 months ago
@thesearewarningsigns I assume when you say "you" you did not mean ME, since I hold the view that god and his magic book are bullshit and his followers are deluded.
trythinkingnow 4 months ago
@trythinkingnow yes, i meant "you" as in other people, people who think the way i described. Maybe i should have said they or something, but you get the idea.
thesearewarningsigns 4 months ago
@no1hoopsman who make up the lunatic fringe by the way?
mrcwalk 6 months ago
p.s. sam's philosophies are a major influence in my life, as is richard dawkins, christopher hitchens, a c grayling, daniel dennett, just to name a few......even if I did consider myself a Harristian (which I don't, I just appreciate the thought they put in before they open their mouths), you know what would be great about it?
no jealous requests for worship, no threats, no offering of forgiveness for doing horrible things....you'd have to be immensely stupid to not see where i'm going with this
mrcwalk 6 months ago
@mrcwalk I'm pleased for you that you are influenced by such thinkers; good for you. I have no clue what you are referring to; why don't you explain it all to me?
no1hoopsman 6 months ago
@no1hoopsman you called me a sheep, I don't live my life and base my morality on the ancient scribbling of nomads and goat herders, I take what I can from the great minds of modern day thinking and build on it without subscribing to a set way of thinking.
when I referred to sheep and herders, I was referring to sheep being the believers who take their moral guidance from religious leaders (the shepherds), who should be making more of an effort to re-educate themselves before claiming "the truth"
mrcwalk 6 months ago
@mrcwalk You know fine well when you referred to people as sheep in that context it was following blindly and mindlessly; be honest about it for fuck sake. The problem with claiming people as sheep is that there are very many well educated people; scientists and the like, who believe; and they have equally valid arguments to make. Atheism isn't new; it was being debated by the ancient Greeks well before JC and all, and has continued ever since.
no1hoopsman 6 months ago
@no1hoopsman of course I know what I was implying when I labelled people as sheep, the fact of the matter is, if you are religious, you you are labelling yourself cos you follow blindly and mindlessly - that is pretty much the definition of FAITH, believing something without good reason or evidence.
I would never be unfair & deny there are many educated believers who've contributed, but god has nothing to do with their work & knowing which boxes to tick doesn't always equate to intelligence.
mrcwalk 6 months ago
@mrcwalk Your definition of faith isn't the same as mine; there is a rational philosophic explanation for reason in belief of a creative power that relates to us I believe. I would suggest that for a lot of those people who are educated and scientific that God is at the centre of their being and essence in many ways and is looked upon as instrumental; Faith and Reason are certainly required for Catholic dogma not just Faith alone.
no1hoopsman 6 months ago
@no1hoopsman ok well you've cherry picked again whilst glorifying your belief system, you can't just say god is great cos he has influenced their brilliance - if you say something like that, you've also got to admit that your catholic god is a horrible twat for using Robert Mugabe and Adolf Hitler as instruments for carrying out his will, and for allowing the vicar of christ - Joseph Ratzinger to cover up child abuse and endorse the death of millions every year for denouncing contraception. FACT
mrcwalk 6 months ago
@mrcwalk I'm not saying anything like that at all, there is a difference between what we want and do individually and what God would want. I am highlighting the misuses of God, the US President is the same as Mugabe in that sense, although I'm not sure he promotes religion in any sense and his teaching was in a Jesuit School, but these Jesuit schools also taught great scientists of faith and none, so your argument doesn't stack up.
no1hoopsman 6 months ago
@no1hoopsman wow
mrcwalk 6 months ago
I don't recall saying atheism is new
mrcwalk 6 months ago
That's an all-star panel right there!
ZachRose88 6 months ago
perhaps harris addresses them elsewhere, but he completely ignored a slew of moral/philosophical problems that would need to be addressed before and after his foundation value of "human well being"
mebe84 7 months ago
DOES ANYONE KNOW IF SAM HARRIS IS A VEGAN?
Given his science of morality based on the well-being of conscious creatures, I can't imagine he wouldn't be, given his claim to advocating moving away from the 'worst possible misery for everyone" & therefore minimizing the UNNECESSARY misery in the world.
If Sam were not a VEGAN he would be leaving himself wide open to accusations of being hypocritical!! IMHO
veganath 8 months ago
@veganath That's a really interesting question, which hasn't really been explored in the mainstream philosophical criticism I've read thus far. Of course, Sam could also just bite the bullet and admit hypocrisy; being a hypocrite doesn't necessarily mean that one's views are false.....(though they are in this case).
panther451 8 months ago
@panther451 So Sam is wrong, & so you propose??
I would propose a universal 'Moral Axiom' - Do not cause unnecessary suffering to conscious beings.
Seems to me this is what Sam is advocating, & your saying that it is 'false'.....hmm?
veganath 8 months ago
@veganath No, no -- you're confusing points. The debate (see Sam's TED video) is over whether or not science *alone* can dictate human values & whether or not the fact-value gap is an illusion. Sam's positions on these subjects are false.
Also, just a clarification -- Sam is a consequentialist, whereas your proposed axiom "Do not cause unnecessary suffering...." is deontological in nature. Sam regards all deontologists as "deluded consequentialists". Just FYI.
panther451 8 months ago
@panther451 Again,so you BELIEVE Sam is wrong, why, & so what do you propose??
Well, no my proposal would be consequentialist, due to the brevity of the statement it may appear deontological.
Do you believe we should not cause unnecessary suffering to conscious creatures?
veganath 8 months ago
@veganath You're still confused; I'm not proposing anything. I'm responding to the thesis (and subtitle) of Sam's newest book that "science can determine human values."
panther451 8 months ago
@panther451 Sorry, I guess, as I always do, phish for insight into what others believe, I just need to remind myself that belief isn't important.
The only caveat that gets my attention is when what others believe is the impetus to cause unnecessary suffering.
Have debated people like yourself in the past, you don't appear to have a position on what you consider morally reprehensible or morally kosher.
You mentioned "mainstream philosophical criticism" do u mind to post a URL for me, thanks?
veganath 8 months ago
@veganath No apologies for being probing or searching, though I'm not sure what you mean you've debated "people like me in the past" haha.
It's not that I'm being dodgy or evasive about my moral suasions....I'm not an ethicist!
Of course, one need not be an ethicist in order to evaluate Sam's book from a lay perspective -- which is what I am doing.
For mainstream criticism -- see book reviews by Thomas Nagel or Russell Blackford, University of New Castle.
panther451 8 months ago
@veganath He would only be a hypocrite if he was eating meat and at the same time poertraying himself to be perfectly moral within his own model, which i'm sure he wouldn't.
Also, he says that we automatically differenciate between levels of conciousness and apply different value to it. Even vegans do this. Killing a mosquito is not as bad as killing a cow - b/c cows, for us, have a bigger, better conscience. Maybe there are reasonable justifications for eating meat in science, maybe not.
Duplex0r 7 months ago
@Duplex0r Yes I guess vegans do differentiate between creatures that exhibit differing levels of consciousness, however based on the broadly accepted definition of a vegan they are really only concerned about not causing & preventing unnecessary suffering. Just to clarify, for the word NECESSARY to mean anything in this context it cannot include amusement, convenience or pleasure.
veganath 7 months ago
It's 2011, there is no government today that says you need to eat any foods derived from animal sources to live in optimal health. On the contrary main stream medicos are advocating less consumption to prevent the early onset of chronically debilitating diseases.
Therefore the best justification we have for causing unimaginable suffering to billions of animals every year is: 'They taste good!'
We have a long way to go b4 Sams vision of maximum well-being for all conscious creatures is realized
veganath 7 months ago
@veganath I can agree with that, i think. As a sidenote: would it then be false for a vegan to kill a fly in his room at night, provided he couldn't manage to get it out of the room in a timely fashion? Or would that be too convinient?
Harris addresses this conflict with an example of how he could possibly justify to spent money on birthday presents for his daughter instead of donating it to charity for starving children in Africa. Vegans buy presents too. being 100% moral is prob. impossible
Duplex0r 7 months ago
@Duplex0r I'm working on my love for flies, I'm sure given our superior ingenuity a satisfactory solution that gives equal consideration of interests to both parties would evolve.
Well actual the best way to contribute to alleviating the suffering of starving children is to become vegan, so perhaps it is others who should refrain from buying presents for their children!
When is my daughters birthday?
I'm surprising her with a gift voucher to be given to the Hare Krishna Food for Life..lol
veganath 7 months ago
@veganath I'm under the impression you took my questions to be either humorous or mean, given your kind of sarcastic answer. In reality, my questions were sincere, as i asked them to show that it's practically impossible to be 100% moral, so Harris being imoral in one aspect of his life doesn't make him a hypocrite by default as long as he doesn't his shortcomings.
Duplex0r 7 months ago
@Duplex0r
Perhaps there is justifications as it is today, in some sense or not (meat production). Its easy to postulate a world where that is the case though, all depending on the combined sensory input affecting those beings involved. Lets say there was no immediate good way to feed a certain amount of "quantifyable wellbeing" without some way of using meat, then take into calculation the experience of the animal involved and there could prolly be some ways to reduce suffering. nthngs absolute
RipTheJackR 7 months ago
@RipTheJackR i completely agree.
Duplex0r 7 months ago
@veganath did you not listen to him carefully, he said we care more for primates than we do for insects and quite rightly so, so he obviously has not left himself open to criticism. There is still a long way to go, but in most civilised countries, the slaughter of animals has become a lot more humane, so they're not exactly suffering lives of misery are they, they are looked after a lot better than they would if they lived in the wild.
mrcwalk 6 months ago
@mrcwalk you are right. It is a given that we NEED to eat, we should do so without causing unnecessary suffering eg, if we have a choice between eating fruits & vegetables or other animals, & if we agree with Sam's advocating moving away from the "worst possible misery for everyone" & therefore minimizing the UNNECESSARY misery in the world. Then consistency obligates us to choose the plant based diet Thousands of people like myself are testament to the nutritional adequacy of a plant based diet
veganath 6 months ago
@veganath plants are living organisms, so you eating them is detrimental to their long term survival, especially if you're advocating morality as a reason that everyone should be eating them, which would also lead to another problem, with over 6 billion humans on the earth, we would very quickly deplete our nutritional resources whilst at the same time, causing the extinction of the majority of species that we share the earth with. nice of you to big yourself up before thinking it through. lol
mrcwalk 6 months ago
@mrcwalk "did you not listen to him carefully, he said we care more for primates than we do for insects and quite rightly so", your words. So as Sam says we feel less of a moral obligation to plants, BUT WE have to eat!!
Today we have a population of 6billion humans & at any given time of the year 10 billion non-humans that we feed plants. The math is simple, by not inefficiently processing our nutrient through another living being, that we in turn eat, we wouldn't need to grow so many plants.
veganath 6 months ago