___________________

quote:

Originally posted by bas we're just rolling in that sweet sweet Beatport chedda SON. I PUT DIAMONDS IN MY SALT SHAKER SO I CAN HAVE CRUSHED DIAMONDS ON MY FOOD...it makes my dookie twinkle!!!

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN lots of things that are fun are wrong.

religion for instance

quote:

Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles Not very good at all, IMO.

Why?

___________________

My Set Archive - MY BLOG

just watched the TED talk.


maybe I'm stupid, but what did this guy have to say other than

"science should/can be a source of morality because religious people have done bad things"

?

he says "there is a difference between right/wrong and science can determine it", but that's IT. he does not say 'how', 'why', etc other than the fact that some religious do things that others don't agree with. he seems to believe that there is some universal code of human conduct that every human can agree with. even worse, it's almost colonial (or missionary!) in saying that if they dont agree with it, they ought to. i also thought showing the blacks versus whites as a demonstration of the classic 'savage' versus 'civilized' binary was a nice racist touch.


am i missing something? this talk seemed to lack any profound insight into the issue, and only shock tactics, reductive analogies, and little jokes but no real substance. in many respects he seemed to be preaching to choir, but about what? it was just some kind of weird pep rally for science to go out and colonize morality.

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?


also i didn't like the way he mischaracterized religon - he seems to be missing the fact that religion for thousands and thousands of years, WAS this universal, enlightened moral code he speaks of as some novel idea. Religion isn't about asking god what is right and wrong, it's a universal code that represented the accumulation of cultural and ecological values for thousands of years. of course it's outdated now, but many of these values are still universal. the problem is not religion, its just keeping up to date. now it's another thing entirely to suggest that there can be a universal morality that suits everyone - unless of course the world consisted of 6 billion sam harrises.


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

watching this was as bad as watching a televangelist.

Last edited by nefardec on Mar-24-2010 at 00:53

He had 20 minutes nefardec..I don't think that's enough time to lay out a universal moral code. It was enough time to get the audience thinking the issue and to send a lot of influential people home with the idea. Hopefully some of them will bring up the conversation within their social circles, write about it, etc..and eventually reach a critical mass where people stop believing perfect morality comes from bronze age texts.

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt He had 20 minutes nefardec..I don't think that's enough time to lay out a universal moral code.

Everyone knows it takes 40 days and nights, a chisel and some stone tablets to do that!

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt He had 20 minutes nefardec..I don't think that's enough time to lay out a universal moral code. It was enough time to get the audience thinking the issue and to send a lot of influential people home with the idea. Hopefully some of them will bring up the conversation within their social circles, write about it, etc..and eventually reach a critical mass where people stop believing perfect morality comes from bronze age texts.

what conversation???

people have been having this conversation for thousands of years!

what the hell is the point of this talk? it's just a pep rally.

like i said, this seems like a total colonialist mentality, 'we know what's best for the world because we're scientists, so let's go out and institute a universal code of morality for everyone. We'll proselytize and institute our own governments in savage African and Islamic nations because they are archaic and dont know what's good for themselves.'

ugh it makes me shudder. New World Order anyone? "Don't worry, just swallow, it's for your good, but you don't know that."

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN Everyone knows it takes 40 days and nights, a chisel and some stone tablets to do that!

I'm full of these pics..

quote:

Originally posted by nefardec what conversation??? people have been having this conversation for thousands of years!

Not on a mass scale.. Harris is part of the "new atheist movement" remember? This seems to be a unique time where the taboo on criticizing religion seems to be falling away. Church attendance is hitting all time lows and secularism is on the march. There have been many best selling anti-religion books in recent years...There is a huge atheist community emerging on Youtube, etc. Philosophers might have been debating this stuff for years, but now is the time to plant these ideas in the consciousness of the masses..most of whom probably still hold some sentimental attachment to religion and a vague "well at least it makes people moral" idea stuck in their heads. It's time to debunk that claim once and for all.

quote:

Originally posted by woscar Why?

He tries to reduce moral questions to questions of human flourishing, but that either (1) is too vague to be very useful except in the few ludicrously easy cases he offers (yeah, we should adopt policies that don't lead to starvation, duh) or (2) runs up against the fact that people can have very different notions of what "human flourishing" means.

To take one of his examples, part of the conservative Islamic definition of "flourishing" civilization would include things like female chastity and submission, male leadership, and so on. Harris might disagree with that, but what independent standard does he have that can decide between two different cultural ideas of what "flourishing" entails? How will a brain scan help us do that?

On a more general level, the equation of flourishing and moral value is problematic because values deal not just with appropriate ends, like the sort of prosperity he discusses, but the question of which means are acceptable in pursuing those ends. Debates about how best to achieve material prosperity and comfort are important, but they tell only a small fraction of the story in terms of morality and living a satisfactory life.

Nothing new really.

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt Philosophers might have been debating this stuff for years, but now is the time to plant these ideas in the consciousness of the masses..most of whom probably still hold some sentimental attachment to religion and a vague "well at least it makes people moral" idea stuck in their heads. It's time to debunk that claim once and for all.

yeah but the problem is you are trying to proselytize the masses and they dont understand why, and in many ways it doesnt even benefit them in their individual lives.

it's always a problem to think of people as 'the masses', and not a bunch of people who all have dear lives full of joy and sorrow.