TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- Sam Harris on TED Talks: Science can answer moral questions.
Pages (5): « 1 [2] 3 4 5 »

scientists bashing/mocking religion makes me more rigid.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN scientists bashing/mocking religion makes me more rigid.

Unfortunately, that's exactly what they end up doing to science as well

Imagine the impact of a paradigm shift in Harris' theology, all at once. It's be disastrous!

quote:

Originally posted by nefardec woscar, when you say "i couldnt agree more", with what are you agreeing and why?

I agree with the point he is really trying to get across, which is that we cannot keep relativizing morality for all eternity because it renders morality useless. If we want morality to be useful to society then we have to agree that it is not all relative and that there certainly are truths to be found about what constitutes good moral behavior and what doesn't. This is not a new idea, it was first written about by Plato (arguably).

I have to say that you and JBJ are completely missing the point about what he meant as "science answering these questions". He is not stating that science per se has the answer to moral truths, but rather that having a scientific approach towards finding these truths is a good way to conduct such a search. And by scientific approach, he means through observation, critical thinking, and analysis.

The only part in which he takes a shot at religion is to illustrate how foolish it is to base one's moral code on ancient books allegedly revealed by the creator of the universe. If you know what Harris has written about religion you will notice that he was very careful in restraining himself from commenting further on it on this occasion. This was about morals, not religion. Yet there are always people who will only hear what they want to hear and complain.

Quite frankly, I used to read all your comments on deep and meaningful subjects like philosophy, psychology, music, etc. Adam because you are a very knowledgeable person who has read and has studied them and you always debated reasonably. Now you've turned into a stubborn whiner who likes to play devil's advocate.

It has become quite obvious that you have a certain disdain for science. May I ask why?

quote:

Originally posted by woscar The only part in which he takes a shot at religion is to illustrate how foolish it is to base one's moral code on ancient books allegedly revealed by the creator of the universe.

except that it makes more sense to judge the moral codes themselves. they've been keeping people relatively happy for thousands of years. (there will be wars whether they are about religious ideology or oil. ultimately all wars i believe can be traced to competition for resources, and religious/cultural differences merely act as catalysts or propaganda) There's ultimately no difference whether morality comes from all-powerful all-knowing science or all powerful all-knowing god to the layperson, if he/she doesn't understand why or where they ultimately come from.

but as i've said, what makes this so upsetting to me is that this man's personal belief in science (not widely shared by anthing close to the majority of the world) causes him to propose a universal code that is supposed to govern/control/judge all people, regardless of culture. That's just dangerous.

quote:

Originally posted by woscar Quite frankly, I used to read all your comments on deep and meaningful subjects like philosophy, psychology, music, etc. Adam because you are a very knowledgeable person who has read and has studied them and you always debated reasonably. Now you've turned into a stubborn whiner who likes to play devil's advocate. It has become quite obvious that you have a certain disdain for science. May I ask why?

whoa? what's with the personal attacks man? take it easy, i disagree with you.




i don't have a certain disdain for science any more than i have a certain disdain for religion.

you might say i have a certain disdain for jingoism though.

unfortunately, i think the new atheist movement is making more enemies than friends. at this point all they are saying is "lol religion stupid" which isn't helping their cause at all. it only adds fire to the religious people who think atheists are evil.

i don't think religious people are religious because of philosophical reasons. i really don't think that religious people lose sleep over the fact there are dinosaurs. church is a club, a social gathering. many people do not know why they are there, nor are they rigorous about their study of their relgion. they're just sleep walking. I see this a lot in atheists too but i digress.

new atheists are trying to use reasons to show why religion is bad. like i said, i feel that most people who are religious because of the social atmosphere, and the fear of death. they shouldn't be treating this science vs relgion thing as a philosophical issue because obviously the relgious don't lose sleep over the fact that evolution contradicts fundamentalist christianity. treat it as a social issue, not a philosophical one. all the new atheists are doing is preaching to the choir.

quote:

Originally posted by -FSP- unfortunately, i think the new atheist movement is making more enemies than friends. at this point all they are saying is "lol religion stupid" which isn't helping their cause at all. it only adds fire to the religious people who think atheists are evil.

calling a spade a spade is a necessary task, even if people dislike us labelling their shovel. Considering the unpopularity of atheism generally, I can�t say im too worried about dawkins etc somehow making the situation worse. Being timid and polite never got anyone anything.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN Being timid and polite never got anyone anything.

neither did saying a whole lot about nothing and preaching to the choir.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN Being timid and polite never got anyone anything.

Yeah, but being extroverted and polite does wonders

quote:

Originally posted by nefardec neither did saying a whole lot about nothing and preaching to the choir.

in case you havent noticed, dawkins et al have raised awareness the world over concerning the absurdity that is organised religion. It will never change the world of course, but I don�t believe any of them ever expected that. people want to believe oh so very badly, and you can never compete with that kind of thinking. religion will always exist, it will continue to harm as long as it does, and if nothing else, these writers at least enable the common folk to get another perspective on ideas that have been drummed into them since they were born. That is good in and of itself.

quote:

Originally posted by nefardec except that it makes more sense to judge the moral codes themselves. they've been keeping people relatively happy for thousands of years. (there will be wars whether they are about religious ideology or oil. ultimately all wars i believe can be traced to competition for resources, and religious/cultural differences merely act as catalysts or propaganda) There's ultimately no difference whether morality comes from all-powerful all-knowing science or all powerful all-knowing god to the layperson, if he/she doesn't understand why or where they ultimately come from. but as i've said, what makes this so upsetting to me is that this man's personal belief in science (not widely shared by anthing close to the majority of the world) causes him to propose a universal code that is supposed to govern/control/judge all people, regardless of culture. That's just dangerous. whoa? what's with the personal attacks man? take it easy, i disagree with you. i don't have a certain disdain for science any more than i have a certain disdain for religion. you might say i have a certain disdain for jingoism though.

All I can say is watch it again because you clearly missed the point he was making.

And it was not a personal attack, just making an observation that it used to be pleasant to have an argument with you but now you just whine about everything.

/internetisseriousbusiness

quote:

Originally posted by -FSP- new atheists are trying to use reasons to show why religion is bad. like i said, i feel that most people who are religious because of the social atmosphere, and the fear of death. they shouldn't be treating this science vs relgion thing as a philosophical issue because obviously the relgious don't lose sleep over the fact that evolution contradicts fundamentalist christianity. treat it as a social issue, not a philosophical one. all the new atheists are doing is preaching to the choir.

There's a wonderful and cheerful little movie that you should watch called "Jesus Camp".

quote:

Originally posted by Lira Yeah, but being extroverted and polite does wonders

fuck 'em.

quote:

Originally posted by woscar I have to say that you and JBJ are completely missing the point about what he meant as "science answering these questions". He is not stating that science per se has the answer to moral truths, but rather that having a scientific approach towards finding these truths is a good way to conduct such a search. And by scientific approach, he means through observation, critical thinking, and analysis.

But you cannot reduce it to a scientific approach because concepts like "human flourishing" always spring out of a particular cultural background. There is no universal set of ingredients for a "flourishing" life, because the concept is different depending on which person you ask. This is why his analogy to nutrition is bogus, and why the whole project of treating value as a scientific enterprise is flawed. Science works to map the world because it forces up to bump up against the physical by making our ideas pay rent in the form of predictions, but value is not something measurable out in the world, it is something that grows from within people's minds.

And that's precisely what he is doing: criticizing moral relativism and cultural relativism as an obstruction to getting anything done moral-wise.

What you and Adam are suggesting is that people who happen to be born in a culture that lives by archaic, Bronze Age values should be subjected to those values for no other reason than that it comes with the culture. To use his example, people should continue to be subjected to the raped daughter = shame = murdered daughter line of thinking because it's a "cultural difference"?

Anyways, he's writing a book on this that's coming out later this year. It will be interesting to read his whole ideas rather than just a 20 minute lecture.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN fuck 'em.

That's put me in a lot of trouble... and I'm not sure whether I should fuck myself in this case as well

quote:

Originally posted by woscar What you and Adam are suggesting is that people who happen to be born in a culture that lives by archaic, Bronze Age values should be subjected to those values for no other reason than that it comes with the culture. To use his example, people should continue to be subjected to the raped daughter = shame = murdered daughter line of thinking because it's a "cultural difference"?

It is easy to condemn other cultures when you single out the worst things they do. Of course I think "honor killings" are horrible and I'm sure Adam does as well, but acknowledging that does not automatically imply that ethics can be made into a scientific enterprise.

quote:

Originally posted by woscar it used to be pleasant to have an argument with you but now you just whine about everything.

so any time someone disagrees with something you like, he is whining?

So you don't agree that there are universal truths about moral values that can be reached?

Marcus, there are times when being aggressive works in the context of speaking for atheism. Take Dawkins' controversial line on "The God Delusion":

quote:

The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, fili- cidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.

By reading his preface, you are told clearly to whom this book is directed for and those are the people who are on the fence. In this case, what being "on the fence" generally refers to is people who have been raised in a religious faith and have begun to have doubts about it. People who sense there's something wrong, but don't speak out because of fear or as he puts it "didn't know they could". For this type of person, this line works like a charm.

It could be argued that he might be able to reach a broader audience if he toned things down, but that doesn't seem to be his goal.

quote:

Originally posted by nefardec so any time someone disagrees with something you like, he is whining?

Read your first post on this thread and then read the discussion I am having with JBJ. There's a big difference, isn't it?

quote:

Originally posted by woscar So you don't agree that there are universal truths about moral values that can be reached?

I know I don't.

quote:

Originally posted by woscar Marcus, there are times when being aggressive works in the context of speaking for atheism. Take Dawkins' controversial line on "The God Delusion": By reading his preface, you are told clearly to whom this book is directed for and those are the people who are on the fence. In this case, what being "on the fence" generally refers to is people who have been raised in a religious faith and have begun to have doubts about it. People who sense there's something wrong, but don't speak out because of fear or as he puts it "didn't know they could". For this type of person, this line works like a charm. It could be argued that he might be able to reach a broader audience if he toned things down, but that doesn't seem to be his goal.

He's not being "rude" her, so to speak, but being so harsh is definitely a double-edged sword: at the same time you may convince those who are on the fence, you burn all bridges you could've had with those you disagree with.

quote:

Originally posted by woscar Read your first post on this thread and then read the discussion I am having with JBJ. There's a big difference, isn't it?

yeah the difference is you have it out for me. why?

it's obvious based on your replies including all sorts of put-downs and personal attacks in this thread and the other recent science thread that you have formed an opinion of me as a person that affects your ability or desire to discuss things with me without becoming irate or offensive.

quote:

Originally posted by Lira you burn all bridges you could've had with those you disagree with.

how do you burn imaginery bridges?

quote:

Originally posted by woscar And that's precisely what he is doing: criticizing moral relativism and cultural relativism as an obstruction to getting anything done moral-wise. What you and Adam are suggesting is that people who happen to be born in a culture that lives by archaic, Bronze Age values should be subjected to those values for no other reason than that it comes with the culture. To use his example, people should continue to be subjected to the raped daughter = shame = murdered daughter line of thinking because it's a "cultural difference"?

This I agree with.

quote:

Originally posted by woscar What you and Adam are suggesting is that people who happen to be born in a culture that lives by archaic, Bronze Age values should be subjected to those values for no other reason than that it comes with the culture. To use his example, people should continue to be subjected to the raped daughter = shame = murdered daughter line of thinking because it's a "cultural difference"?

I think we all agree that it's not the best situation.

But what are you going to do? I dare you to go over there and scold the father who kills his raped daughter.

Are you going to police the world? Oh wait, the US already does that..

quote:

Originally posted by nefardec yeah the difference is you have it out for me. why? it's obvious based on your replies including all sorts of put-downs and personal attacks in this thread and the other recent science thread that you have formed an opinion of me as a person that affects your ability or desire to discuss things with me without becoming irate or offensive.

No, the difference is that I consider this far from being reasonable and to be mere whining:

quote:

what is he ultimately proposing? some kind of super united nations of morality? what's the point? so that everyone can live long enough and have enough money to buy 200 new computers in their life?

And this to be a well constructed argument, regardless of my agreeing with it or not:

quote:

Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles But you cannot reduce it to a scientific approach because concepts like "human flourishing" always spring out of a particular cultural background. There is no universal set of ingredients for a "flourishing" life, because the concept is different depending on which person you ask. This is why his analogy to nutrition is bogus, and why the whole project of treating value as a scientific enterprise is flawed. Science works to map the world because it forces up to bump up against the physical by making our ideas pay rent in the form of predictions, but value is not something measurable out in the world, it is something that grows from within people's minds.

I don't have it against you man, but you are not doing yourself or the conversation any good by behaving in this fashion. Let's not make this to be something personal when it's really only a critique of your arguments. I concede that I might have done a better job in writing it the first time.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.