Makes sense that science should be able to cover morality and even spirituality. It is simply research and codification of knowledge after all and there is obviously the existence of something to be known here. Though the brain part was an unscientific assumption.
I suspect UR problem is because our Creator God must be revealed & cannot be "proven" to someone who seeks a narrow, modernist, skeptical, materialist proof (because this Creator is, by definition, Transcendent to His creation(not a finite entity in His own creation). According to what we believe about the LORD, He will NEVER make Himself known to anyone who is arrogant, proud & full of their own self-centered conceit. Have you read "Mere Christianity" ? God respects the free will
Thanks for having this video posted. This so informative and comprehensive. Indeed, separation of science and human values is an illusion. Science and human values deal with facts.
I think the biggest problem he runs into here (and not the only one) is the is/ought distinction. Perhaps this is an ignorance on Sam Harris's part, maybe he doesn't know that ethics has been studied hard by philosophers for the better part of at least 2,500 years
The problem was raised by David Hume. Called Hume's guillotine.
You cannot derive an ought from an is. Just because things are a certain way doesn't imply they ought to be so. There is a gap that must be crossed.
@geilman He deals extensively with is/ought, hume, and various areas of philosophy in the moral landscape, and if I remember correctly, this very talk (at least the longer versions). He has a BA in philosophy.
Sorry but to even wonder if he is completely ignorant of moral philosophy when he wrote a book about it is ignorant on your part, not his.
Sam Harris uses words here like right, wrong, truths, morality, etc. without really defining them. Where do those "fact" of morality come from? Who says that some a right and some are wrong, and why are they right or wrong? Science can never answer that! And what's value behind the flourishing of humans? Why flourishing? What's the purpose?
@ThePeacefulAtheistt where do you get this data that "Less religious states have lower crime rates!" That's absurd if you look at Hitler and the like, they were all motivated by atheistic and Darwinian thought.
This is unfortunately the first video I've seen where he is actually in part wrong.
Most of what he says is true but the essence of how science could relate to morality is if it were to be able to objectively tell us what defines right and wrong.
Sam presupposes that harm/happiness occurring to conscious entities is this defining factor but he does not and can not justify this objectively, using science. Morality is a human/biological construct. (Not that religion has it right at all.)
Can somebody tell me how it is still possible to take conscious decisions if our behaviour depends solely upon our genes, cultural influence and randomness?
This entire video is just a stubborn dismissal of the is/ought dichotomy. That is, the FACT that you can not derive an ought from an is. But Harris stomps his foot and says "DERP YESS U CAN!11"
Just come out and admit that morality is religious. Professional atheists like Harris use morality as a way of selling more books and pushing their agenda.
We live in an empty universe and there's no big man to protect you. Morality is trying to apply superpowers to preferences.
hilter was a catholic.. just a little reminder. He ordered the slaughter of jews in order to avange the christian savior... so yeah your argument is stupider than shit.
Nice propaganda piece. I'll object to using The Blessed Virgin Mary as prop, though.Harris is intellectual Judas Goat training "useful idiots" to bow down to the altar of "science". Abortion can be seen as child sacrifice to science cult, which has great influence on youth, who apparently "learn atheism" in schools today.Non-physical God cannot be "discovered" using physical tools. Removing children from their Saviour in the name of vague secular morality won't do, it will turn out badly......
@finishstrongdoc God cannot be replaced by anything else. I am convinced that the Christian God is the true God, and there are millions who believe as I do. Removing children from Christian witnesses a priori through indoctrination, coercion,bullying will not turn out well. I haven't always been a good witness for Christ,but I've often seen God's victory in my failures. Children are taught in secular schools to blame Christians for all the world's woes. Even if it were true, it would just ...
No amount of belief makes something a fact. Muslims, Jews, Hindus, and Buddhist believers are in the millions as well and are convinced that their god exists too.
Christianity and religion is a whole is to blame.
90% of all wars in the world since our existence was motivated by religion.
I challenge you to find one event that was motivated by atheism. There is none. Birth of violence, and crime is due to religion. Learn ur history.
@WindGod12 Conversation btwn 2 atheists,Trotsky&Lenin,1917:Trotsky"Surely now,comrade,we will have freedom"Lenin"Freedom?Freedom for what?"Two mos later,Trotsky was"purged"by the Komsomol.Millions of deaths and &0yrs later,a peaceful,Catholic movement called SOLIDARITYended the secular atheist SovietUnion.In 1917,in Fatima,Portugal,the Virgin Mary appeared to three children,telling them to warn the world about atheism,that it would spread errors and cause wars,if men did not repent.........
Lets look at the conversation. It's obvious that Stalin did not commit his foul deeds because he was atheist or because the belief in no spiritual creature. The other part about Virgin mary: it was her opinion or belief that atheists "would" (BUT IT DIDNT) cause wars and spread errors if men didn't stop being atheist.
People died because of their beliefs, different religions, and intolerance of religions. This quote didn't prove anything. You need to try harder.
@WindGod12 Your atheist beliefs are not my fault & NOW not my problem. Only God can read the heart, and usually most atheists die without repentance. You will or won't it's not up to me. I have done what I was asked to do, now this conversation ends and your choice,your destiny stands in front of you. Take this opportunity to open your heart before it is broken by athiest god.
Understand the direct opposition to faith. Understand the fact that let alone we atheists don't have a god, there simply is no god. That all religious pieces of writing such as the bible are bronze age fairy tales for easily fooled children. The only reason why you continue to believe is because you have either been brain washed, or again...you're an idiot!
@CaveStoryChannel Thanks for response,good questions,observations,but there's no reason we can't avoid hostility here,if we think like reasonable adults.Atheists have contributed much to the debate,and to the welfare of society in material wealth,agreed?Belief in God has caused wars,hatred,theft,slavery,racism etc of "others",agreed? Is it not possible that if the whole world abandoned faith,the world would unite and solve problems better?The answer to that depends on what new philosophy emerges
@finishstrongdoc The 'new" philosophy would have to provide explanation for non-material events and forms,as well as miracles and the religious instinct that can emerge from purely atheistic minds.
Matter and energy can not be created nor destroyed, only changed. Therefore god can not exist as he/she/it would need to break that law, a law in which can not be broken.
You state that you have done what was asked of you? So I can only assume you have killed thousands, raped, stole, committed genocide and infanticide, allowed hatred and slavery, and participated in racism, sexism, and mental child abuse! ..or close to that, i'm sure
@WindGod12 The Virgin of Fatima also told of WWII,if men allowed atheist errors to spread. To show the world that this was a true warning,Virgin caused the sun to spin,pinwheel down toward earth,flashing colors and "dance". 80,000 people witnessed this including many scoffer,atheists,reporters from Secular newspaper O Seculo. In the 1980's a secular govt under Marcos in the Phlpinesended when he sent troops to disperse Rosary rally,witneesses saw angels,soldiers get out of tanks,get on knees
@WindGod12 pray, Marco regime ends. In the 20's in Mexico,the atheist Calles govt killed 1000"s of priests,Catholics,tried to dynamite miraculous image of Virgin of Guadalupe. Explosion bent cruicifix backwards detruction everywhere EXCEPT the image. Science can not prove image wasn't painted by God. Temp of image remains at 98.6.Has survived since 1531 in perfect condition, as if it were created last wk. If all this is "propaganda",it's coming from heaven with a plea for peace. Your response?
@finishstrongdoc "To talk of immaterial existences is to talk of nothings. To say that the human soul, angels, god, are immaterial, is to say they are nothings, or that there is no god, no angels, no soul. I cannot reason otherwise..."
"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality." ~ Albert Einstein~
"If you have an apple and I have an apple and we exchange apples, then you and I will each still have one apple. But if you have an idea and I have an idea and we exchange ideas, we will both have two ideas."
~George Bernard Shaw~
Non-material essences exist; either you get it or you don't
If you believe that moralities are somehow evolving then why do most Atheists have no qualms about vices being legal when vices have been proven time & time again to be negative for society, so much so most of all the modern world's governments have bans or limitations on most. Does this mean Atheists' individual moral compasses is not yet evolved? I know why; Because there is no science of morality. Only humanity has ate of it's fruit. Are we made in God's image or evolution's freak of nature?
I invite anyone who finds this compelling to goggle and read this article: Philosophy: Who needs it? Reason has had many passionate advocates and the author of this piece is one of them.
If we want to raise consciousness in our societies and convince people of what Sam is rightly pointing out, it seems clear to me we mustn't just go around trying to persuade people through moral reasoning. We must care more about basic human rights. Pulling people out of poverty and giving them the chance of a decent education, health care system and democratic government is the first step here.
Harris seems to have an assumption that human beings existing in the first place has value, which may be scientifically untrue, making his entire assertion erronious. We exist, as evidenced by my typing this, but we exist due to conditions beyond our control. Morals don't really boil down to facts. Scientifically a man who sacrifices himself for his love before she bears children has accomplished nothing, however that action would be considered very morally right.
Values do not reduce to facts. Sam Harris seems to be a reasonable guy, but he has not provided any scientific reason for giving human flourishing priority over anything else. He confuses strategic, conditional oughts with moral oughts. If we want to succeed on an exam, we "ought" to study. If we don't study, then we are stupid, not immoral. We can definitely look at what gives humans well-being scientifically, but we cannot demonstrate scientifically that human well-being is good in itself.
I agree that morality is objective. But he did not say how science can determine values.
"Empathy is better than cruelty" is clearly true. "Empathy is good" is clearly a true value judgment. However, as obviously true as it is, science is completely impotent when it comes to demonstrating it empirically! It does not denigrate science to say this. But science is not omnipotent and cannot determine values.
Sam Harris didn't look very far in his survey of various world moralities; traditional Christian morality is derived from the Aristotelian concept of final causality, from which natural law theory is also derived. In this case, morality isn't derived from concern for the wellbeing of conscious creatures, but rather, that something is Good for a thing, if it is what that thing is teleologically disposed to do.
People, well americans, are too obsessed with 'morality' want wanting to get 'good and wrong' answers for every little piece of life.This is pretty sad on it's own. If you really need answers for those questions,I would that person really lacks some intelligence somewhere.It's not like I've ever had to learn that punching people in the face is "wrong" (in their terms).It's just totally logical.
The whole concept of 'right and wrong"also limits itself to a 'good and 'wrong'asnwer, which it's not
There still are no grounds to say that the well being of human beings is moral. Based on what is the flourishing, surviving, or well being of humans always moral?
@psk6565 Because morality has to, in some way, relate a) to conscious creatures (not *just* human beings) and b) to maximizing well being in order for the word to have any meaning at all. To ask, for example, the question, "But why is the worst possible misery *wrong*?" is much like asking "But why is a perfect circle *round*?" Questions like these express nothing but confusion and lead us away from practical ways of thinking about meaningful projects.
the experience of ourselves is realized in the brain? really, hmmm wheres the scientific proof on that? oh right there is none. With his PhD in philosophy he should know about the philosophy of mind, and how science has NOT proven this, nor any identity theory.
@RlCHART Fyi... his Ph.D. is in Neuroscience. So it is quite possible that he has researched the correlation between experience and one's brain, which of course would yield scientific data. Take care...
what a retard. Harris completely misses the point. I'm just not sure where to start to refute this. He begs the question, argues in a circle, and just plain doesn't accomplish what he sets out to; his logic is flawed. I can't believe that anyone would buy this nonsense.
I should have been a little more precise. What I meant is that he never argues to prove his point, he merely asserts that we can abstract prescription from description, and then proceeds to argue from that circular basis. Might I also add (parenthetically) that he also equivocates with the term "fact," I think. He confuses a description of the way the world is (science) with the "facts" about the way we should act, which are not descriptions; they are categorically different.
He says that we should be moral to protect sentient life from suffering. WHY? Assumed in this assertion that it is good to prevent suffering. WHY IS THAT? What is the foundation for that claim? Biology? Really? He never backs this up. The whole presentation was a waste of time. I don't mean to be offensive, but I just can't believe that he walked on stage with nothing to say; he made no argument.
I did skim it, and the section you pointed out specifically said that suffering was evolutionarily beneficial. I don't understand. The most you could say about suffering is that it isn't advantageous or desirable. I ask again, why is that a bad thing? Why are things that are undesirable morally wrong? Who says that pain is something we are morally bequeathed to alleviate? You don't have an answer for this. And, next time, don't just direct me to a Wikipedia article.
@AOPrinciple I believe that you are being deliberately obtuse, but I will explain it anyway. Discomfort that causes an animal to avoid danger or not eat something poisonous is advantageous. We are speaking of unnecessary suffering. Once a person knows that they have cancer and are being treated, their suffering is unnecessary. Do I need to explain to you that it is better to not have a headache. You understand that people spend their hard earned money on Excedrine, right?
I understand what suffering is, but that has no bearing on whether or not it is a morally charged issue. It is better not to have a headache in what way? Morally? How can you make that case? People buy medicine to ease headache's because it is comfortable; that is, for our purposes, morally neutral. Comfortable does not equal moral. In fact, many things that are comfortable are deemed in many cultures to be morally wrong. It may well be more emotionally confortable to murder...
@AOPrinciple You said not to send you to a wikipedia article, but I have to. You need to read up on morality, the origins of morality, and empathy. All of these articles have plenty of bibliography at the end and you can follow the links to the academic papers that they draw on. I never tried to equate morality to comfort. Please try to be honest in your responses. My point is that easing another's pain is a moral act.
, but it is wrong. And it is wrong because God has commanded that we not. He also wrote His law on our hearts so that it would resonate with our deepest intuitions that murder is wrong. By your standards, murder would be fine if it doesn't cause unnecessary pain. There are many painless ways to murder; are you claiming that it is fine in those cases? The bottom line is that you have nowhere to stand on which to make your case that things that you "like" or that you find...
@AOPrinciple You just invoked a god. You need evidence of the existence of a god to do this. You were just very dishonest again when you said that by my standard painless murder would be moral. Murder is wrong because it deprives another of their life. Please read up on empathy.
"comfortable" are things that people OUGHT to do. You do not have the authority in and of yourself to issue a ubiquitously binding command on mankind. I still am not even beginning to see how this makes any sense whatsoever.
@AOPrinciple You won't even read up on it. You refuse to see it. i can tell that you are intelligent, but your intelligence is useless when coupled with your willful dishonesty. You purposely misinterpret everything I write. Disavow your habit of lying before responding again.
You don't think I understand what empathy is? What does that have to do with your position? I have been explaining myself and asking questions back to you; you have answered none of them. If you actually attempted to answer the questions I put to you it would become clear that either you don't understand what morality is, or that you don't have a position from which to proclaim moral mandate. I am, once again, going to ask you a simple question and if you don't make an attempt...
to explicitly and clearly answer it, I'm not going to discuss this any more.
I don't know what you thought I was doing by referencing God in the discussion, but you misunderstood. I was giving an example of a position that does allow for a grounded system of objective morality which doesn't boil down to contingent preference. Should I demand that you defend the theory of evolution before you articulate your view? That doesn't make any sense.
Lol, my apologies, I forgot to ask the question. Here it is: Why MUST people alleviate suffering such that, if they were to neglect to do so, they would be morally deficient?
Okay, then. I hope it is clear to those that may be following this discussion that one of us is willing to state, explain, and defend his position and one of us is not. If you don't want to answer a pointed question then you are the one shutting down the discussion.
@AOPrinciple In the story, Dr. Manhattan becomes so powerful he essentially divorces himself from humanity. As such, their petty concerns mean nothing to him, and while floating over Mars he observes that the planet seems to "get along just fine [without life]" which brings into question whether Manhattan has any obligation to protect life at all.
It sounds not like you think we are able to abstract objective moral values from a description of the way the world operates materially, but that you would call into question the existence of moral absolutes at all. Operating on that assumption for now, let me say that the materialist who advocates a denial of objective moral values is a consistent materialist. There is only one problem with that (consistent) perspective: you, and everyone else, know that objective moral...
values do exist. There is no way you could convince me otherwise and I hope that, conversely, no one would be able to convince you otherwise, either. Because you are made in the image of God, you know that you are guilty for the things you do "wrong" because they actually are wrong. Only theism can account for that moral framework. To plug your ears and pretend you don't think there is such a thing as objective morality, like there are objective laws of rationality...
is simply to ignore reality and, so, really isn't scientific at all. Back to my original comment, a purely materialistic outlook cannot account for objective, ubiquitously binding, abstract laws, whether they be rational or moral. I find Harris' speech utterly naive and obviously foolish. I think it just demonstrates what lengths people will go to out of desperation to pull together incompatible facets of two different ideologies simply to live comfortably.
@ndyt: Nowhere does Harris address determinism. His opinions on morality is still bias and not scientific. If an alien race came to earth and decided to rape, kill, and enslave us, can anyone say that they doing anything "wrong" according to science? Of course not, especially since science cannot even prove that this event was NOT inevitable to begin with (WRT Freewill, or lack thereof). Science shows us what is needed to increase well-being, but not that we "ought" to do so.
@yistackness Science explains exactly how morality develops in animal species. There is no need to address determinism. Your aliens hypothetical just demonstrates relativism. Do you feel bad for releasing a flea bomb in your house?
@trueleroix: no man, you're completely off track. You say there is no need to address determinism when speaking about morality. But if it turns out that the universe IS determined, then how can anyone be accountable for their actions? If believing in God without proof is grounds for an atheist to mock them, then believing that Freewill exists without proof is grounds for the theist to mock the atheist since the atheist is asserting that the theist has a choice in the matter of believing in God.
@yistackness Freewill is demonstrated every time you make a decision. There is no evidence for determinism. There are some fun old stories like Oedipus Rex, but no evidence whatsoever. Seriously, forget all that. There is no need to assume a god to explain anything and there is no evidence for any god. Stop with the philosophy, and produce something of merit, or the name calling will ensue shortly.
@trueleroix: Well, resort to name calling you have to, just so long as you don't call me a poo-poo head, ok? Seriously, are we in school yard? Are you going to push me into the hedges? Science pretty much points towards the conclusion that everything IS determined. There may not be 100% proof, but then again what do we have 100% proof of? Pretty much nothing except your own existence. "I doubt, therefore I exist". "Making a decision" is not proof of Freewill - it could still be a chain reaction.
@trueleroix: Poo-Poo head?? Oh no you di-int!! Of course it's philosophy. There's even philosophy of science. Science is permeated with unprovable assumptions that are simply taken at face value in order for theories to hold true. You can't even use the scientific method to prove logic itself! Science uses logic - so to use logic to prove logic would be circular reasoning. My point is that we all are still "rational" for believing in certain things even in the absence of proof. God bless.
@yistackness But you said that I need to prove it. You don't need proof, just evidence, and you have none, but you keep typing this crap, and that sir is why you are a poo-poo-head.
@trueleroix What did i ask you to prove? I'm only saying that if it's stupid to believe in something without proof, then you must believe it's stupid to believe in a lot of things, including the belief in Freewill. If I play pool and break, and 5 balls sink, and then I do it all over again, setting it up exactly the same way with the same cue and the same force and angle, etc. Would anything change? The Big Bang was one cosmic break! It would mean you're determined until proven otherwise.
Yeah, but the decisions you make are arguably determined by your environment and your genetics. Note that I am not religious, but that I'm just refuting the idea that there is evidence of free will.
@annpetasupporter It's a philisophical argument, so no evidence can be presented. He just changed the subject to freewill, because he has no evidence for his imaginary friend. You should read from the beginning. It was bad sportsmanship on his part from the beginning.
Sam Harris did not answer the question that he raised. He asked what we should desire, want or pursue. He then simply said that people generally want certain things and science will tell us how to get it. Dr. Harris, the question is "what should people value?" Telling us that people typically value certain things is irrelevant to asking what they SHOULD want.
"Sam Harris did not answer the question that he raised"
The purpose of the talk is to question the notion that science cannot address questions of values and ethics. Furthermore he points out that we already reject certain poorly formed value systems based on what we know from science.
"No, I never said anything about the best outcome"
Then did you consider that obeying a dictator may be one way to stop the threat of that dictator? In part this is how kings came about, people choosing to obey in return for protection.
"I said that people do not automatically seek the common good above their own needs a good amount of the time."
Never said it was automatic, nor would people necessarily know what best serves the common good. In fact.... tbc
In fact I never said that people were reaching for some "common good". I only said that people would work together but the motivations are necessarily selfish. Protecting yourself from harm, protecting yourself from the pain of seeing loved ones harmed etc.
I never said it would necessarily have any particular outcome. You introduced the term "common good" not I.
"No, that would not necessarily be the case, at least not immediately."
Why would it have to be immediate? Never said that it was.
"This idea that people .... common good all the time is incorrect,"
Your argument is that the best outcome does not always eventuate? I never said that the best outcome would. I offered a general concept condensing history and not one that could be equally applied to every stage of human history. I thought that would've been obvious.
Of course we cant put ideologies on trial. Ideologies exist only potentially. However, to actually exist (as some applications for example), they need to be represented by someone.That was just an applied anthropomorphism, again in response to that (other) guy (since he applied a similar style too). I really dont think thats a big deal...
Why did they (e.g. the Nazis) attempted/tried to find objective explanations to justify their conduct? Ever thought about that one?
I can agree that there are certain profound questions that might never be answered objectively. For example whether its better to exist or not to exist...
"Why did they (e.g. the Nazis) attempted/tried to find objective explanations to justify their conduct?"
it in our nature, generally, to justify the things that we do. Both Stalin and the Nazis sought to piggy back on the credibility to science in order to give weight to their preconceived views, which is polar opposite to what science actually is.
Thats a whole different topic, whether "they" were successful in their endeavors or not. Obviously, Im not arguing they were. Not even to some extent. Indeed, as you say, it all boiled down to the opposite what science actually should be about.
However, because the Nazis (and the Soviets too) failed scientifically and morally, that doesnt mean we should not use related research to our advantage...
Because we (here in the Czech Republic) have put on trial certain henchmen of the former communist dictatorship, therefore we are petty dictators too? Even better, how about the Nuremberg Trials?
It looks like you are lost in some kind of Russels paradox. Wake up, buddy...
And still! Utter majority of those 6.8 billion believes that 2+2=4!
I have no idea what you are talking about. If I remember well, in this thread Ive never claimed "to place some group in power". I responded to a very specific claim, according to which we should put "capitalism" on trial. That would indeed be disastrous since thanks to "capitalism" the vast majority of us has the opportunity to experience consciousness.
Theres nothing "petty" about "putting on trial" communist regimes, nazi regimes, colonialism, early or late feudal regimes, etc...
You seem to be mixing up some things here, dont you. My motivation might be purely subjective, yet the "ways" helping me to reach "my goals" are objectively measurable.
Besides theres nothing subjective about "2+2=4". Apes (humans excluded) are able to comprehend this concept too. Maybe even some monkeys. Some researches claim birds like crows and parrots have similar mental capacity. There doesnt seem to be much difference (if any at all) across (parts of) the animal kingdom.
His argument was articulated well but I found that it made one major assumption. The whole time he started with the assumption that the human condition should be cared about and that our survival is important. Take away those assumptions and then you can see the problems with a science based morality.
The fallacy in this argument is how quickly the speaker jumps to the well-being of sentient creatures as being the basis of value. Saying "in my experience" is extremely anecdotal and non-scientific. Even if this statement is true, however, he also fails to objectify it, he only says that it is. I am of the belief that to establish objective values one would have to consider that the universe was made for us and those values were always floating out there. I'm an atheist so this seems silly
I agree with what David Hume said. "The is can never tell us the ought". How things "ought" to be is subjective and that automatically makes values unscientific. This is fine because in truth we do not really need to make is scientific. We do not need to make everything scientific to make it valid.
reminds me of linear programming, sure you can use a supercomputer to make a decision for you based on certain variables, but it'll still be subjective as we define our own moral scales.
@Imaginefree69 little incentive to act in a moral manner? obviously you dont know much about Christianity. Read, study then come back and try and argue.
@Imaginefree69 Just because you say it, does not mean it is true. You could easily replace the word evolution" (that you use) with Christianity or Marxism and it would make sense within the context of a Christianity community or a Marxist society. Hitler thought that his ideas about racial superiority were based on evolution and look how that turned out.
I agree with Harris that a better understanding of psychology and neuroscience will help us make a better society.
However, I think human values aren't tied to scientific knowledge. I mean look at the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Bill of Rights or the US constitution.
None of these documents were scientific but they are a reflection of human values.
But the argument is that, with a scienfitic and secular world view, those human values develop naturally without the interference of a mystical deity.
The funny thing is you think you came from a rock (the big bang theory) so why dont you respect the rock ? And then you think you came from a monkey(darwin theory) Can you make up your fu%king mind you are a dumb ass dude those people should ask for there money back !! You make no sense and you cant prove anything you are talking about!! Why dont you Do future genorations a favor and smash your balls with a hammer you dumb $h%t!! That would get better ratings anyway !!! lol
"you came from a monkey(darwin theory)" As you demonstrate, the people who attack evolution have not actually studied it. If they did, they would see that there's nothing TO attack. It isn't a Satanic Conspiracy, it's simply the description of a process, providing a very useful taxonomy and a way to understand relationships. I see no way around this problem of ignorance. And it will become far worse if we allow these untutored people to drag our science education back into the bronze age.
@BrettSchall And it's supposed to be the thing around which the entirety of their lives hinges. I guess they don't value it as much as they claim to. It seems to be more of a toy they can use to pretend to righteousness on the one hand while condemning those they find distasteful on the other.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Sam Harris is talking utter nonsense. None of what he says is based on science, but on philosophy. Show scientific proof that conscious beings matter and deserve happiness.
If you assume that human happiness and alleviation of suffering are ends, which I think most people would agree with, science can measure and determine how effective various methods of achieving those ends are. It's still not gonna be black and white answers, but science can greatly help the determination.
our pursuit of happiness, to the best of our ability and to the constaints of our surroundings, is proof that we value & deserve happiness.
statistics followed by some logic & reason: if, say, 90% of humans evaluate their happiness to be the (naturalistic, genetically hardcoded) maximisation of the survival of the species as a whole, e.g. sex, offspring, health, shelter, good food, being kind & being treated kindly, then those are the values our species as a whole shud strive for.
Does it improve our social wellbeing or does it do the opposite?
If you look at how ppl overwork, get stressed, children dont get enough care from buisness familys etc It could look like capitalism needs to be locked away for trial in my oppinion.
But rather i am fact driven not oppinion based, but what do you think?
I think capitolism tweaked by a federal government to benefit people and not corporate well-being is as good as has been imagined as of yet. The U.S. is far too bent on catoring to corporate values.
Makes sense that science should be able to cover morality and even spirituality. It is simply research and codification of knowledge after all and there is obviously the existence of something to be known here. Though the brain part was an unscientific assumption.
FreeThinkingBeing 2 weeks ago
Very enjoyable thank you
shoppittsburghnow 1 month ago
you have some great stuff here
smuggecko 1 month ago
brilliant video
prchecker 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I suspect UR problem is because our Creator God must be revealed & cannot be "proven" to someone who seeks a narrow, modernist, skeptical, materialist proof (because this Creator is, by definition, Transcendent to His creation(not a finite entity in His own creation). According to what we believe about the LORD, He will NEVER make Himself known to anyone who is arrogant, proud & full of their own self-centered conceit. Have you read "Mere Christianity" ? God respects the free will
shieldsff 1 month ago
I have a hard time telling apart Sam Harris and Ben Stiller. To me, they look like the same exact person. Does anyone else have that problem?
medexamtoolsdotcom 1 month ago
great video thanks
SuperDogbrown 1 month ago
Very Infomative. Thanks.. Goods Vids
Flusercom 1 month ago
Good Video.. Thanks for shared
Spasatcom 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
amazing..i really learned something new today..wonderful job.. :D
dayspeace 3 months ago
Thanks for having this video posted. This so informative and comprehensive. Indeed, separation of science and human values is an illusion. Science and human values deal with facts.
insomniacgrace 3 months ago
I think the biggest problem he runs into here (and not the only one) is the is/ought distinction. Perhaps this is an ignorance on Sam Harris's part, maybe he doesn't know that ethics has been studied hard by philosophers for the better part of at least 2,500 years
The problem was raised by David Hume. Called Hume's guillotine.
You cannot derive an ought from an is. Just because things are a certain way doesn't imply they ought to be so. There is a gap that must be crossed.
geilman 5 months ago
@geilman He deals extensively with is/ought, hume, and various areas of philosophy in the moral landscape, and if I remember correctly, this very talk (at least the longer versions). He has a BA in philosophy.
Sorry but to even wonder if he is completely ignorant of moral philosophy when he wrote a book about it is ignorant on your part, not his.
Nemesis000000 1 month ago
Sam Harris uses words here like right, wrong, truths, morality, etc. without really defining them. Where do those "fact" of morality come from? Who says that some a right and some are wrong, and why are they right or wrong? Science can never answer that! And what's value behind the flourishing of humans? Why flourishing? What's the purpose?
jml04 6 months ago
Comment removed
jml04 6 months ago
Religion gives us morality? LOL
Less religious states have lower crime rates!
ThePeacefulAtheistt 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ThePeacefulAtheistt where do you get this data that "Less religious states have lower crime rates!" That's absurd if you look at Hitler and the like, they were all motivated by atheistic and Darwinian thought.
jml04 6 months ago
What is the value of 72 virgins when you've obliterated your body?
SIMKINETICS 8 months ago
Excellent!
MrChesstime 8 months ago
nice questions, but it's only an arguement if their are someone their for u to argue with,,,,,
ambinautic 9 months ago
This is unfortunately the first video I've seen where he is actually in part wrong.
Most of what he says is true but the essence of how science could relate to morality is if it were to be able to objectively tell us what defines right and wrong.
Sam presupposes that harm/happiness occurring to conscious entities is this defining factor but he does not and can not justify this objectively, using science. Morality is a human/biological construct. (Not that religion has it right at all.)
Jamieishere1 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Can somebody tell me how it is still possible to take conscious decisions if our behaviour depends solely upon our genes, cultural influence and randomness?
Thank you
Tobelli 9 months ago
Interesting hypothesis. However he didn't really provide facts or evidence as to how science can tell us morals. Probably wants us to buy his book.
wowpapa 1 year ago
At no point in this talk did he explain how science can determine human values. Perhaps science can do the job but he did not really explain how.
skinnylugnuts 1 year ago
Horrible.
This entire video is just a stubborn dismissal of the is/ought dichotomy. That is, the FACT that you can not derive an ought from an is. But Harris stomps his foot and says "DERP YESS U CAN!11"
Just come out and admit that morality is religious. Professional atheists like Harris use morality as a way of selling more books and pushing their agenda.
We live in an empty universe and there's no big man to protect you. Morality is trying to apply superpowers to preferences.
theVAGINAntichrist 1 year ago
This is the Best video I have ever seen in youtube.
khalidsayd 1 year ago
again this genocidal atheists..
if eugenics contributes for human flourishing, do it!
if killing senile ppl contributes to our economy, kill them!
if exterminating tax-free churches improves our education system, burn them!
there they are again, poisoning our society.
IloveYOUviruses 1 year ago
@IloveYOUviruses
hilter was a catholic.. just a little reminder. He ordered the slaughter of jews in order to avange the christian savior... so yeah your argument is stupider than shit.
aegisgfx 1 year ago
Nice propaganda piece. I'll object to using The Blessed Virgin Mary as prop, though.Harris is intellectual Judas Goat training "useful idiots" to bow down to the altar of "science". Abortion can be seen as child sacrifice to science cult, which has great influence on youth, who apparently "learn atheism" in schools today.Non-physical God cannot be "discovered" using physical tools. Removing children from their Saviour in the name of vague secular morality won't do, it will turn out badly......
finishstrongdoc 1 year ago
@finishstrongdoc God cannot be replaced by anything else. I am convinced that the Christian God is the true God, and there are millions who believe as I do. Removing children from Christian witnesses a priori through indoctrination, coercion,bullying will not turn out well. I haven't always been a good witness for Christ,but I've often seen God's victory in my failures. Children are taught in secular schools to blame Christians for all the world's woes. Even if it were true, it would just ...
finishstrongdoc 1 year ago
@finishstrongdoc
No amount of belief makes something a fact. Muslims, Jews, Hindus, and Buddhist believers are in the millions as well and are convinced that their god exists too.
Christianity and religion is a whole is to blame.
90% of all wars in the world since our existence was motivated by religion.
I challenge you to find one event that was motivated by atheism. There is none. Birth of violence, and crime is due to religion. Learn ur history.
WindGod12 1 year ago
@WindGod12 Conversation btwn 2 atheists,Trotsky&Lenin,1917:Trotsky"Surely now,comrade,we will have freedom"Lenin"Freedom?Freedom for what?"Two mos later,Trotsky was"purged"by the Komsomol.Millions of deaths and &0yrs later,a peaceful,Catholic movement called SOLIDARITYended the secular atheist SovietUnion.In 1917,in Fatima,Portugal,the Virgin Mary appeared to three children,telling them to warn the world about atheism,that it would spread errors and cause wars,if men did not repent.........
finishstrongdoc 1 year ago
@finishstrongdoc
Lets look at the conversation. It's obvious that Stalin did not commit his foul deeds because he was atheist or because the belief in no spiritual creature. The other part about Virgin mary: it was her opinion or belief that atheists "would" (BUT IT DIDNT) cause wars and spread errors if men didn't stop being atheist.
People died because of their beliefs, different religions, and intolerance of religions. This quote didn't prove anything. You need to try harder.
WindGod12 1 year ago
@WindGod12 Your atheist beliefs are not my fault & NOW not my problem. Only God can read the heart, and usually most atheists die without repentance. You will or won't it's not up to me. I have done what I was asked to do, now this conversation ends and your choice,your destiny stands in front of you. Take this opportunity to open your heart before it is broken by athiest god.
finishstrongdoc 1 year ago
Your belief is obsolete knowledge from like 13th century
this is the 21st century
this world is government by natural laws , not god.
WindGod12 1 year ago
@finishstrongdoc
Theist (religious): Faithful, ignorant, stupid
Athiest (non-religious): Non-faithful, open-minded, intelligent
Understand the direct opposition to faith. Understand the fact that let alone we atheists don't have a god, there simply is no god. That all religious pieces of writing such as the bible are bronze age fairy tales for easily fooled children. The only reason why you continue to believe is because you have either been brain washed, or again...you're an idiot!
CaveStoryChannel 1 year ago
@CaveStoryChannel Thanks for response,good questions,observations,but there's no reason we can't avoid hostility here,if we think like reasonable adults.Atheists have contributed much to the debate,and to the welfare of society in material wealth,agreed?Belief in God has caused wars,hatred,theft,slavery,racism etc of "others",agreed? Is it not possible that if the whole world abandoned faith,the world would unite and solve problems better?The answer to that depends on what new philosophy emerges
finishstrongdoc 1 year ago
@finishstrongdoc The 'new" philosophy would have to provide explanation for non-material events and forms,as well as miracles and the religious instinct that can emerge from purely atheistic minds.
finishstrongdoc 1 year ago
@finishstrongdoc
Like the universe, my replies are limited.
Matter and energy can not be created nor destroyed, only changed. Therefore god can not exist as he/she/it would need to break that law, a law in which can not be broken.
You state that you have done what was asked of you? So I can only assume you have killed thousands, raped, stole, committed genocide and infanticide, allowed hatred and slavery, and participated in racism, sexism, and mental child abuse! ..or close to that, i'm sure
CaveStoryChannel 1 year ago
@WindGod12 The Virgin of Fatima also told of WWII,if men allowed atheist errors to spread. To show the world that this was a true warning,Virgin caused the sun to spin,pinwheel down toward earth,flashing colors and "dance". 80,000 people witnessed this including many scoffer,atheists,reporters from Secular newspaper O Seculo. In the 1980's a secular govt under Marcos in the Phlpinesended when he sent troops to disperse Rosary rally,witneesses saw angels,soldiers get out of tanks,get on knees
finishstrongdoc 1 year ago
@WindGod12 pray, Marco regime ends. In the 20's in Mexico,the atheist Calles govt killed 1000"s of priests,Catholics,tried to dynamite miraculous image of Virgin of Guadalupe. Explosion bent cruicifix backwards detruction everywhere EXCEPT the image. Science can not prove image wasn't painted by God. Temp of image remains at 98.6.Has survived since 1531 in perfect condition, as if it were created last wk. If all this is "propaganda",it's coming from heaven with a plea for peace. Your response?
finishstrongdoc 1 year ago
@finishstrongdoc
finishstrongdoc 1 year ago
@finishstrongdoc "To talk of immaterial existences is to talk of nothings. To say that the human soul, angels, god, are immaterial, is to say they are nothings, or that there is no god, no angels, no soul. I cannot reason otherwise..."
excerpt a quote by Thomas Jefferson
LionKingFanatic1 9 months ago
@Li
"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality." ~ Albert Einstein~
"If you have an apple and I have an apple and we exchange apples, then you and I will each still have one apple. But if you have an idea and I have an idea and we exchange ideas, we will both have two ideas."
~George Bernard Shaw~
Non-material essences exist; either you get it or you don't
finishstrongdoc 9 months ago
Hi, Dr. Harris. Have you met my friend David Hume?
cda6590 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
If you believe that moralities are somehow evolving then why do most Atheists have no qualms about vices being legal when vices have been proven time & time again to be negative for society, so much so most of all the modern world's governments have bans or limitations on most. Does this mean Atheists' individual moral compasses is not yet evolved? I know why; Because there is no science of morality. Only humanity has ate of it's fruit. Are we made in God's image or evolution's freak of nature?
WILLTHEWGMAN 1 year ago
Holllyyyy shit. Dead on speech! DEAD ON! Wow. This guy is one powerful speaker. A powerful topic, but extremely well delivered. Thank you.
bweazel 1 year ago
I invite anyone who finds this compelling to goggle and read this article: Philosophy: Who needs it? Reason has had many passionate advocates and the author of this piece is one of them.
equsnarnd 1 year ago
If we want to raise consciousness in our societies and convince people of what Sam is rightly pointing out, it seems clear to me we mustn't just go around trying to persuade people through moral reasoning. We must care more about basic human rights. Pulling people out of poverty and giving them the chance of a decent education, health care system and democratic government is the first step here.
MrDarkbloom 1 year ago
Harris seems to have an assumption that human beings existing in the first place has value, which may be scientifically untrue, making his entire assertion erronious. We exist, as evidenced by my typing this, but we exist due to conditions beyond our control. Morals don't really boil down to facts. Scientifically a man who sacrifices himself for his love before she bears children has accomplished nothing, however that action would be considered very morally right.
TheFortressMaximus 1 year ago
morality bad, ethics good
lovingboarding 1 year ago
Values do not reduce to facts. Sam Harris seems to be a reasonable guy, but he has not provided any scientific reason for giving human flourishing priority over anything else. He confuses strategic, conditional oughts with moral oughts. If we want to succeed on an exam, we "ought" to study. If we don't study, then we are stupid, not immoral. We can definitely look at what gives humans well-being scientifically, but we cannot demonstrate scientifically that human well-being is good in itself.
Ledwix 1 year ago
Comment removed
qonf 1 year ago
I agree that morality is objective. But he did not say how science can determine values.
"Empathy is better than cruelty" is clearly true. "Empathy is good" is clearly a true value judgment. However, as obviously true as it is, science is completely impotent when it comes to demonstrating it empirically! It does not denigrate science to say this. But science is not omnipotent and cannot determine values.
Jugglable 1 year ago
Sam Harris didn't look very far in his survey of various world moralities; traditional Christian morality is derived from the Aristotelian concept of final causality, from which natural law theory is also derived. In this case, morality isn't derived from concern for the wellbeing of conscious creatures, but rather, that something is Good for a thing, if it is what that thing is teleologically disposed to do.
magicalhats15 1 year ago
People, well americans, are too obsessed with 'morality' want wanting to get 'good and wrong' answers for every little piece of life.This is pretty sad on it's own. If you really need answers for those questions,I would that person really lacks some intelligence somewhere.It's not like I've ever had to learn that punching people in the face is "wrong" (in their terms).It's just totally logical.
The whole concept of 'right and wrong"also limits itself to a 'good and 'wrong'asnwer, which it's not
PowerRedBull 1 year ago
I just love Ben Stiller, never knew he was an Atheist. Hes a genius and a great actor.
aegisgfx 1 year ago 31
@aegisgfx ...That wasn't Ben Stiller speaking. And I'm pretty sure Ben Stiller is Jewish.
JessieTufte 1 year ago
@JessieTufte
regardless, it made the act of touching myself far more soothing and enjoyable...
aegisgfx 1 year ago
@JessieTufte
WHOOPS, I was responding to another comment! Disregard me please!
aegisgfx 1 year ago
@aegisgfx Not Ben Stiller
necr0sys 1 year ago
@necr0sys
atheists, no sense of humor.
aegisgfx 1 year ago
@aegisgfx lol didn't know you were being sacastic. Good one :D
necr0sys 1 year ago
@aegisgfx Ben Stiller is Jewish and a Believer.
What the dickens are you talking about? lol!
KTK401 1 year ago
@KTK401
some get my jokes, some don't.
aegisgfx 1 year ago
Comment removed
simoneliasbjorkman 2 months ago
@simoneliasbjorkman
lol no kidding??
aegisgfx 2 months ago
@aegisgfx Don't be silly. This is not Ben Stiller, it's Sam Harris, neuroscientist and star of Zoolander.
Nemesis000000 1 month ago
There still are no grounds to say that the well being of human beings is moral. Based on what is the flourishing, surviving, or well being of humans always moral?
psk6565 1 year ago
@psk6565 Because morality has to, in some way, relate a) to conscious creatures (not *just* human beings) and b) to maximizing well being in order for the word to have any meaning at all. To ask, for example, the question, "But why is the worst possible misery *wrong*?" is much like asking "But why is a perfect circle *round*?" Questions like these express nothing but confusion and lead us away from practical ways of thinking about meaningful projects.
poolerboy0077 1 year ago
the experience of ourselves is realized in the brain? really, hmmm wheres the scientific proof on that? oh right there is none. With his PhD in philosophy he should know about the philosophy of mind, and how science has NOT proven this, nor any identity theory.
RlCHART 1 year ago
@RlCHART Fyi... his Ph.D. is in Neuroscience. So it is quite possible that he has researched the correlation between experience and one's brain, which of course would yield scientific data. Take care...
AndiRoxAss 1 year ago
what a retard. Harris completely misses the point. I'm just not sure where to start to refute this. He begs the question, argues in a circle, and just plain doesn't accomplish what he sets out to; his logic is flawed. I can't believe that anyone would buy this nonsense.
AOPrinciple 1 year ago
@AOPrinciple I would like to see you show how he begs the question or argues in a circle.
trueleroix 1 year ago
@trueleroix
1
I should have been a little more precise. What I meant is that he never argues to prove his point, he merely asserts that we can abstract prescription from description, and then proceeds to argue from that circular basis. Might I also add (parenthetically) that he also equivocates with the term "fact," I think. He confuses a description of the way the world is (science) with the "facts" about the way we should act, which are not descriptions; they are categorically different.
AOPrinciple 1 year ago
@trueleroix
He says that we should be moral to protect sentient life from suffering. WHY? Assumed in this assertion that it is good to prevent suffering. WHY IS THAT? What is the foundation for that claim? Biology? Really? He never backs this up. The whole presentation was a waste of time. I don't mean to be offensive, but I just can't believe that he walked on stage with nothing to say; he made no argument.
AOPrinciple 1 year ago
@AOPrinciple suffering bad.
trueleroix 1 year ago
@trueleroix
I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and not assume that you're just baiting me.
Why is suffering bad?
AOPrinciple 1 year ago
@AOPrinciple Wikipedia: suffering. Read the whole thing. Pay special attention to the parts about psychology, physiology and neurochemistry.
trueleroix 1 year ago
@trueleroix
I did skim it, and the section you pointed out specifically said that suffering was evolutionarily beneficial. I don't understand. The most you could say about suffering is that it isn't advantageous or desirable. I ask again, why is that a bad thing? Why are things that are undesirable morally wrong? Who says that pain is something we are morally bequeathed to alleviate? You don't have an answer for this. And, next time, don't just direct me to a Wikipedia article.
AOPrinciple 1 year ago
@AOPrinciple I believe that you are being deliberately obtuse, but I will explain it anyway. Discomfort that causes an animal to avoid danger or not eat something poisonous is advantageous. We are speaking of unnecessary suffering. Once a person knows that they have cancer and are being treated, their suffering is unnecessary. Do I need to explain to you that it is better to not have a headache. You understand that people spend their hard earned money on Excedrine, right?
trueleroix 1 year ago
@trueleroix
1
I understand what suffering is, but that has no bearing on whether or not it is a morally charged issue. It is better not to have a headache in what way? Morally? How can you make that case? People buy medicine to ease headache's because it is comfortable; that is, for our purposes, morally neutral. Comfortable does not equal moral. In fact, many things that are comfortable are deemed in many cultures to be morally wrong. It may well be more emotionally confortable to murder...
AOPrinciple 1 year ago
@AOPrinciple You said not to send you to a wikipedia article, but I have to. You need to read up on morality, the origins of morality, and empathy. All of these articles have plenty of bibliography at the end and you can follow the links to the academic papers that they draw on. I never tried to equate morality to comfort. Please try to be honest in your responses. My point is that easing another's pain is a moral act.
trueleroix 1 year ago
@trueleroix
2
, but it is wrong. And it is wrong because God has commanded that we not. He also wrote His law on our hearts so that it would resonate with our deepest intuitions that murder is wrong. By your standards, murder would be fine if it doesn't cause unnecessary pain. There are many painless ways to murder; are you claiming that it is fine in those cases? The bottom line is that you have nowhere to stand on which to make your case that things that you "like" or that you find...
AOPrinciple 1 year ago
@AOPrinciple You just invoked a god. You need evidence of the existence of a god to do this. You were just very dishonest again when you said that by my standard painless murder would be moral. Murder is wrong because it deprives another of their life. Please read up on empathy.
trueleroix 1 year ago
@trueleroix
3
"comfortable" are things that people OUGHT to do. You do not have the authority in and of yourself to issue a ubiquitously binding command on mankind. I still am not even beginning to see how this makes any sense whatsoever.
AOPrinciple 1 year ago
@AOPrinciple You won't even read up on it. You refuse to see it. i can tell that you are intelligent, but your intelligence is useless when coupled with your willful dishonesty. You purposely misinterpret everything I write. Disavow your habit of lying before responding again.
trueleroix 1 year ago
@trueleroix
1
You don't think I understand what empathy is? What does that have to do with your position? I have been explaining myself and asking questions back to you; you have answered none of them. If you actually attempted to answer the questions I put to you it would become clear that either you don't understand what morality is, or that you don't have a position from which to proclaim moral mandate. I am, once again, going to ask you a simple question and if you don't make an attempt...
AOPrinciple 1 year ago
@trueleroix
2
to explicitly and clearly answer it, I'm not going to discuss this any more.
I don't know what you thought I was doing by referencing God in the discussion, but you misunderstood. I was giving an example of a position that does allow for a grounded system of objective morality which doesn't boil down to contingent preference. Should I demand that you defend the theory of evolution before you articulate your view? That doesn't make any sense.
AOPrinciple 1 year ago
@trueleroix
3
Lol, my apologies, I forgot to ask the question. Here it is: Why MUST people alleviate suffering such that, if they were to neglect to do so, they would be morally deficient?
AOPrinciple 1 year ago
@AOPrinciple If you need to ask, then you are morally deficient. I'm done with you.
trueleroix 1 year ago
@trueleroix
Okay, then. I hope it is clear to those that may be following this discussion that one of us is willing to state, explain, and defend his position and one of us is not. If you don't want to answer a pointed question then you are the one shutting down the discussion.
AOPrinciple 1 year ago
@AOPrinciple It is very clear that I am the one that I will do all that, and you won't even read an article. Your hypocrisy knows no bounds.
trueleroix 1 year ago
@AOPrinciple As Dr. Manhattan observed in Watchmen: "Mars is devoid of life, and seems to get along just fine"
TheFortressMaximus 1 year ago
@TheFortressMaximus
I'm not sure what that means
AOPrinciple 1 year ago
@AOPrinciple In the story, Dr. Manhattan becomes so powerful he essentially divorces himself from humanity. As such, their petty concerns mean nothing to him, and while floating over Mars he observes that the planet seems to "get along just fine [without life]" which brings into question whether Manhattan has any obligation to protect life at all.
TheFortressMaximus 1 year ago
@TheFortressMaximus
It sounds not like you think we are able to abstract objective moral values from a description of the way the world operates materially, but that you would call into question the existence of moral absolutes at all. Operating on that assumption for now, let me say that the materialist who advocates a denial of objective moral values is a consistent materialist. There is only one problem with that (consistent) perspective: you, and everyone else, know that objective moral...
AOPrinciple 1 year ago
@TheFortressMaximus
2
values do exist. There is no way you could convince me otherwise and I hope that, conversely, no one would be able to convince you otherwise, either. Because you are made in the image of God, you know that you are guilty for the things you do "wrong" because they actually are wrong. Only theism can account for that moral framework. To plug your ears and pretend you don't think there is such a thing as objective morality, like there are objective laws of rationality...
AOPrinciple 1 year ago
@TheFortressMaximus
3
is simply to ignore reality and, so, really isn't scientific at all. Back to my original comment, a purely materialistic outlook cannot account for objective, ubiquitously binding, abstract laws, whether they be rational or moral. I find Harris' speech utterly naive and obviously foolish. I think it just demonstrates what lengths people will go to out of desperation to pull together incompatible facets of two different ideologies simply to live comfortably.
AOPrinciple 1 year ago
@ndyt: Nowhere does Harris address determinism. His opinions on morality is still bias and not scientific. If an alien race came to earth and decided to rape, kill, and enslave us, can anyone say that they doing anything "wrong" according to science? Of course not, especially since science cannot even prove that this event was NOT inevitable to begin with (WRT Freewill, or lack thereof). Science shows us what is needed to increase well-being, but not that we "ought" to do so.
yistackness 1 year ago
@yistackness Science explains exactly how morality develops in animal species. There is no need to address determinism. Your aliens hypothetical just demonstrates relativism. Do you feel bad for releasing a flea bomb in your house?
trueleroix 1 year ago
@trueleroix: no man, you're completely off track. You say there is no need to address determinism when speaking about morality. But if it turns out that the universe IS determined, then how can anyone be accountable for their actions? If believing in God without proof is grounds for an atheist to mock them, then believing that Freewill exists without proof is grounds for the theist to mock the atheist since the atheist is asserting that the theist has a choice in the matter of believing in God.
yistackness 1 year ago
@yistackness Freewill is demonstrated every time you make a decision. There is no evidence for determinism. There are some fun old stories like Oedipus Rex, but no evidence whatsoever. Seriously, forget all that. There is no need to assume a god to explain anything and there is no evidence for any god. Stop with the philosophy, and produce something of merit, or the name calling will ensue shortly.
trueleroix 1 year ago
@trueleroix: Well, resort to name calling you have to, just so long as you don't call me a poo-poo head, ok? Seriously, are we in school yard? Are you going to push me into the hedges? Science pretty much points towards the conclusion that everything IS determined. There may not be 100% proof, but then again what do we have 100% proof of? Pretty much nothing except your own existence. "I doubt, therefore I exist". "Making a decision" is not proof of Freewill - it could still be a chain reaction.
yistackness 1 year ago
@yistackness Yeah, I can't prove it. That's why it's philosophy, poo-poo-head.
trueleroix 1 year ago
@trueleroix: Poo-Poo head?? Oh no you di-int!! Of course it's philosophy. There's even philosophy of science. Science is permeated with unprovable assumptions that are simply taken at face value in order for theories to hold true. You can't even use the scientific method to prove logic itself! Science uses logic - so to use logic to prove logic would be circular reasoning. My point is that we all are still "rational" for believing in certain things even in the absence of proof. God bless.
yistackness 1 year ago
@yistackness But you said that I need to prove it. You don't need proof, just evidence, and you have none, but you keep typing this crap, and that sir is why you are a poo-poo-head.
trueleroix 1 year ago
@trueleroix What did i ask you to prove? I'm only saying that if it's stupid to believe in something without proof, then you must believe it's stupid to believe in a lot of things, including the belief in Freewill. If I play pool and break, and 5 balls sink, and then I do it all over again, setting it up exactly the same way with the same cue and the same force and angle, etc. Would anything change? The Big Bang was one cosmic break! It would mean you're determined until proven otherwise.
yistackness 1 year ago
@yistackness Not proof, evidence...learn to read...over and out.
trueleroix 1 year ago
@trueleroix: ok fine, then give me evidence that this universe is not determined. over and out "beep-boop....beep-beep-boop-beep!"
yistackness 1 year ago
@trueleroix
Yeah, but the decisions you make are arguably determined by your environment and your genetics. Note that I am not religious, but that I'm just refuting the idea that there is evidence of free will.
annpetasupporter 1 year ago
@annpetasupporter It's a philisophical argument, so no evidence can be presented. He just changed the subject to freewill, because he has no evidence for his imaginary friend. You should read from the beginning. It was bad sportsmanship on his part from the beginning.
trueleroix 1 year ago
Sam Harris did not answer the question that he raised. He asked what we should desire, want or pursue. He then simply said that people generally want certain things and science will tell us how to get it. Dr. Harris, the question is "what should people value?" Telling us that people typically value certain things is irrelevant to asking what they SHOULD want.
benwantstosk8 1 year ago
@benwantstosk8
"Sam Harris did not answer the question that he raised"
The purpose of the talk is to question the notion that science cannot address questions of values and ethics. Furthermore he points out that we already reject certain poorly formed value systems based on what we know from science.
TheGodlessGuitarist 1 year ago
WEseekTHETRUTH . ORG
305LaTiNo 1 year ago
@benjmann2
"No, I never said anything about the best outcome"
Then did you consider that obeying a dictator may be one way to stop the threat of that dictator? In part this is how kings came about, people choosing to obey in return for protection.
"I said that people do not automatically seek the common good above their own needs a good amount of the time."
Never said it was automatic, nor would people necessarily know what best serves the common good. In fact.... tbc
Tenebrous76 1 year ago
@Tenebrous76
In fact I never said that people were reaching for some "common good". I only said that people would work together but the motivations are necessarily selfish. Protecting yourself from harm, protecting yourself from the pain of seeing loved ones harmed etc.
I never said it would necessarily have any particular outcome. You introduced the term "common good" not I.
Tenebrous76 1 year ago
@benjmann2
"No, that would not necessarily be the case, at least not immediately."
Why would it have to be immediate? Never said that it was.
"This idea that people .... common good all the time is incorrect,"
Your argument is that the best outcome does not always eventuate? I never said that the best outcome would. I offered a general concept condensing history and not one that could be equally applied to every stage of human history. I thought that would've been obvious.
Tenebrous76 1 year ago
@benjmann2
Of course we cant put ideologies on trial. Ideologies exist only potentially. However, to actually exist (as some applications for example), they need to be represented by someone.That was just an applied anthropomorphism, again in response to that (other) guy (since he applied a similar style too). I really dont think thats a big deal...
Wrath0fKhan 1 year ago
@benjmann2
Why did they (e.g. the Nazis) attempted/tried to find objective explanations to justify their conduct? Ever thought about that one?
I can agree that there are certain profound questions that might never be answered objectively. For example whether its better to exist or not to exist...
Wrath0fKhan 1 year ago
@Wrath0fKhan
"Why did they (e.g. the Nazis) attempted/tried to find objective explanations to justify their conduct?"
it in our nature, generally, to justify the things that we do. Both Stalin and the Nazis sought to piggy back on the credibility to science in order to give weight to their preconceived views, which is polar opposite to what science actually is.
TheGodlessGuitarist 1 year ago
@TheGodlessGuitarist
Thats a whole different topic, whether "they" were successful in their endeavors or not. Obviously, Im not arguing they were. Not even to some extent. Indeed, as you say, it all boiled down to the opposite what science actually should be about.
However, because the Nazis (and the Soviets too) failed scientifically and morally, that doesnt mean we should not use related research to our advantage...
Wrath0fKhan 1 year ago
@Wrath0fKhan
"because the Nazis (and the Soviets too) failed scientifically and morally, that doesnt mean we should not use related research to our advantage"
Of course not. However given their shoddy approach, anything they did needs properly reviewing
TheGodlessGuitarist 1 year ago
@TheGodlessGuitarist
As Ive said... Thats a whole different topic... ;-)
Wrath0fKhan 1 year ago
@benjmann2
Because we (here in the Czech Republic) have put on trial certain henchmen of the former communist dictatorship, therefore we are petty dictators too? Even better, how about the Nuremberg Trials?
It looks like you are lost in some kind of Russels paradox. Wake up, buddy...
And still! Utter majority of those 6.8 billion believes that 2+2=4!
Wrath0fKhan 1 year ago
@benjmann2
I have no idea what you are talking about. If I remember well, in this thread Ive never claimed "to place some group in power". I responded to a very specific claim, according to which we should put "capitalism" on trial. That would indeed be disastrous since thanks to "capitalism" the vast majority of us has the opportunity to experience consciousness.
Theres nothing "petty" about "putting on trial" communist regimes, nazi regimes, colonialism, early or late feudal regimes, etc...
Wrath0fKhan 1 year ago
@benjmann2
You seem to be mixing up some things here, dont you. My motivation might be purely subjective, yet the "ways" helping me to reach "my goals" are objectively measurable.
Besides theres nothing subjective about "2+2=4". Apes (humans excluded) are able to comprehend this concept too. Maybe even some monkeys. Some researches claim birds like crows and parrots have similar mental capacity. There doesnt seem to be much difference (if any at all) across (parts of) the animal kingdom.
Wrath0fKhan 1 year ago
His argument was articulated well but I found that it made one major assumption. The whole time he started with the assumption that the human condition should be cared about and that our survival is important. Take away those assumptions and then you can see the problems with a science based morality.
lockdown260 1 year ago
Morality can be meaningful for us, but it would not be based on anything objectively only subjectivity. Moral objectivism cannot work for atheists.
sarevor 1 year ago
NOBEL PRIZE!!!!
frankdarabont 1 year ago 4
The fallacy in this argument is how quickly the speaker jumps to the well-being of sentient creatures as being the basis of value. Saying "in my experience" is extremely anecdotal and non-scientific. Even if this statement is true, however, he also fails to objectify it, he only says that it is. I am of the belief that to establish objective values one would have to consider that the universe was made for us and those values were always floating out there. I'm an atheist so this seems silly
jdubbin78 1 year ago
I agree with what David Hume said. "The is can never tell us the ought". How things "ought" to be is subjective and that automatically makes values unscientific. This is fine because in truth we do not really need to make is scientific. We do not need to make everything scientific to make it valid.
skinnylugnuts 1 year ago
Good quote!
jdubbin78 1 year ago
reminds me of linear programming, sure you can use a supercomputer to make a decision for you based on certain variables, but it'll still be subjective as we define our own moral scales.
gsadler82 1 year ago
pollitically correct morons
BeantownJim 1 year ago
I feel compassion for rocks.
CanadiaNecro1 1 year ago
I don't. Because they don't have much compassion for not hurting me when they fall on me or I fall on them.
Grospoliner 1 year ago
I saw the whole talk on TED, and it was awesome.
frankystein12 1 year ago
Evolution supplies all that is needed for the development
of codes of conduct that preserve and facilitate
survival and co-operation,
which is precisely what these "laws" do.
Such sensitivities in no way support your particular god.
In fact, as Christians believe that their most heinous acts
will be magically vanished and forgotten via human sacrifice,
they actually have very little incentive to act in a moral manner.
Hmmm..
That just might explain a hell of a lot.
Imaginefree69 1 year ago 18
@Imaginefree69 little incentive to act in a moral manner? obviously you dont know much about Christianity. Read, study then come back and try and argue.
RlCHART 1 year ago
@Imaginefree69 Just because you say it, does not mean it is true. You could easily replace the word evolution" (that you use) with Christianity or Marxism and it would make sense within the context of a Christianity community or a Marxist society. Hitler thought that his ideas about racial superiority were based on evolution and look how that turned out.
jemmre 1 year ago
@jemmre
" Just because you say it, does not mean it is true."
Of course not.
I say these things because they are true.
Big difference.
Sure, one could replace the word "evolution"
with "Xianity" or "Marxism"
but the statement would no longer be true.
Imaginefree69 1 year ago
I agree with Harris that a better understanding of psychology and neuroscience will help us make a better society.
However, I think human values aren't tied to scientific knowledge. I mean look at the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Bill of Rights or the US constitution.
None of these documents were scientific but they are a reflection of human values.
Minamakhlouf 1 year ago
But the argument is that, with a scienfitic and secular world view, those human values develop naturally without the interference of a mystical deity.
Grospoliner 1 year ago
Great art, but Enigma is the piece that will forever stay with me.
alizee2010 1 year ago
The funny thing is you think you came from a rock (the big bang theory) so why dont you respect the rock ? And then you think you came from a monkey(darwin theory) Can you make up your fu%king mind you are a dumb ass dude those people should ask for there money back !! You make no sense and you cant prove anything you are talking about!! Why dont you Do future genorations a favor and smash your balls with a hammer you dumb $h%t!! That would get better ratings anyway !!! lol
Standingwithgod 1 year ago
Imaginefree69 1 year ago 36
@Imaginefree69 too right my friend
asdfghjkl81023 1 year ago
@Imaginefree69 Ironically, they don't seem to read the very books they claim to believe in, either.
BrettSchall 1 year ago 11
@BrettSchall
That's correct;
VERY few christians have read the Bible through,
and most of THOSE have followed a denominational system that ensures a lack of comprehension.
Q- What do you call a christian who has really read his Bible?
A- An atheist!
Imaginefree69 1 year ago
@BrettSchall And it's supposed to be the thing around which the entirety of their lives hinges. I guess they don't value it as much as they claim to. It seems to be more of a toy they can use to pretend to righteousness on the one hand while condemning those they find distasteful on the other.
MagisterPridgen 2 months ago
sam just makes so much sense to me, he is a very well spoken man
stonecoldatheist93 1 year ago
Sam harris at TED!? Brilliance!!!
DELPHIIII 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Sam Harris is talking utter nonsense. None of what he says is based on science, but on philosophy. Show scientific proof that conscious beings matter and deserve happiness.
Birdieupon 1 year ago
@Birdieupon Nothing is good or evil but thinking makes it so.
schwan023 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Nothing is good or evil but thinking makes it so."
Remember you said that the next time somebody treats you badly.
Birdieupon 1 year ago
@schwan023 I think the buddha said something similar, either way its true.
MrNemy86 1 year ago
If you assume that human happiness and alleviation of suffering are ends, which I think most people would agree with, science can measure and determine how effective various methods of achieving those ends are. It's still not gonna be black and white answers, but science can greatly help the determination.
lifeofbob 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@lifeofbob
"If you assume that human happiness and alleviation of suffering are ends, "
Exactly. And science cannot prove that. It has to be, as you say, "assumed".
" science can measure and determine how effective various methods of achieving those ends are"
Okay, so get loads of happiness-inducing drugs, stay inside, play video games and enjoy your life.
"'science can greatly help the determination"
Science can produce incredible tools, but can't tell you how to use them.
Birdieupon 1 year ago
@Birdieupon
our pursuit of happiness, to the best of our ability and to the constaints of our surroundings, is proof that we value & deserve happiness.
statistics followed by some logic & reason: if, say, 90% of humans evaluate their happiness to be the (naturalistic, genetically hardcoded) maximisation of the survival of the species as a whole, e.g. sex, offspring, health, shelter, good food, being kind & being treated kindly, then those are the values our species as a whole shud strive for.
neurocrater 1 year ago
I wonder, Is capitalism a good way to live?
Does it improve our social wellbeing or does it do the opposite?
If you look at how ppl overwork, get stressed, children dont get enough care from buisness familys etc It could look like capitalism needs to be locked away for trial in my oppinion.
But rather i am fact driven not oppinion based, but what do you think?
AnimusRat 1 year ago 3
@AnimusRat capitalism is the best form of government socialism is the best way to live
PIKLEWEAZL95 1 year ago
I think capitolism tweaked by a federal government to benefit people and not corporate well-being is as good as has been imagined as of yet. The U.S. is far too bent on catoring to corporate values.
cobrompton 1 year ago