The New Science of Morality - Sam Harris P2

The failure of science to address questions of meaning, morality, and values, notes neuroscientist Sam Harris, has become the primary justification for religious faith. In doubting our ability to address questions of meaning and morality through rational argument and scientific inquiry, we offer a mandate to religious dogmatism, superstition, and sectarian conflict. The greater the doubt, the greater the impetus to nurture divisive delusions.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Sam Harris
• Neuroscience
• Philosophy
• Science of Morality
• Edge Conference
• Edge
• Atheist

[markgg1]

@cristianfcao I think people in the future ill look back at people like Sam Harris as one of the great minds of our generation.

Maybe im exaggerating, but I listen to certain people's ideas, and i think if we implemented this way of thinking globally the world would be a much better place.

Imagine if politicians actually used evidence properly to base social policy. We wouldn't have poverty, crime would be a lot lower and people would be more educated. Crime and poverty are not inevitable.

[OrthodoxDarwinist]

Hey Sam Harris, what;s "moral" about ethnically cleansing millions of indigenous Palestinians merely because Zionist Jews like yourself see them as ethnically inferior, and (like in your essays) encourage the IDF in their crimes against humanity???

You support that yet pretend to be a, authority on MORALITY??

Fuck off.

[bary1234]

Thank goodness for Sam Harris. Imagine this man as a president of USA. What amazing things could he achieve. He would probably almost rid the world of superstition during his lifetime.

[markgg1]

@MyQuarterback I dont think thats neccesraily true because countries like Japan, Sweden, Denmark have capitalism, but very low poverty. You do notice they tend to have extensive welfare provsion and good workers rights.... so theres some evidence right now on a good model? US capitalism is mostly free market, and maybe causes some of the problems?

[MyQuarterback]

@markgg1 In a capitalist society poverty and crime seems inevitable.

[ivanmikhailov]

The applause at the end was a bit on the sickly side.

[cristianfcao]

@markgg1 I'm a sociologist, so my work is trying to understand social reality and I tell you: it's not easy! Even more difficult is to convince politicians about certain policies, especially if they are based in counter intuitive findings as those you've mentioned. Do you imagine a republican representative forwarding crime policies according to the fact you've mentioned? BTW, I only say it's difficult, not that we shouldn't try, and that you'd not be acting "as a scientist" (which is fine)

[markgg1]

@cristianfcao Im saying we need a completely new way of approaching things. We need to at least TRY to come up with the best answer based on evidence, instead of just sticking to our ideological positions.

Currently the actual evidence is rarely even considered. For me the most obvious example is police numbers and crime. The link between lower crime and more police is simply not there, yet you ask most people how to combat crime e and they will say 'more police'. This is a expensive error.

[cristianfcao]

@markgg1I absolutely agree that we should make as much as we can to base our policies in scientific findings. But it's extremely difficult to do so because social sciences' results are never clear cut and because there are lots of factors involved in the social and economic realm, including strong ideological positions. Take the example you gave, do you think even a breakthrough scientific finding about fiscal policies will make conservatives or liberals change their views on taxing?