|
Sam Harris on TED Talks: Science can answer moral questions. (pg. 5)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| nefardec |
| 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.. |
|
|
| woscar |
| 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. ;) |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
how do you burn imaginery bridges? :p |
Not all religious people are fundamentalists.
If you approach them with a preachy voice and an aggressive tone, it's very unlikely that you'll ever persuade them. If, however, you treat them as equals, you may not do wonders at first, but they'll sure be more receptive to whatever it is that you've got to say.
Fundamentalists are a lost case, though. |
|
|
| nefardec |
| quote: | Originally posted by woscar
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. ;) |
Who do you think you are? We're on a trance messageboard here. Save it for the classroom. Talk about being a 'stubborn whiner', at least I am accused of whining about something worth whining about.
I don't make arguments on a message board. I post messages.
If you want to critique arguments, critique arguments. How can you say these things are not personal?
"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."
"LOL Adam, you usually say pretty smart things. I hope this is just a brain fart that will go away once you read what you are writing and realize how dumb it is." |
|
|
| woscar |
| quote: | Originally posted by nefardec
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.. |
I know you are not big on criticizing religion, but ceasing to imbue religions with the ridiculous amount of respect they have gained throughout their history would be a fantastic start.
Making the set of religious beliefs that tolerate this kind of behavior disappear is another great start. This doesn't mean to extinguish all religious belief in the world, it means to eradicate the twisted ideas that have plagued it over their existence. I think that only an idiot would disagree with the fact that the overall message of the story of Jesus, which comes to a pinnacle with the sermon on the mount, is a positive one for mankind (regardless of his being a divinity or not). |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
If you approach them with a preachy voice and an aggressive tone, |
they'll feel right at home? :toothless
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
it's very unlikely that you'll ever persuade them. If, however, you treat them as equals, you may not do wonders at first, but they'll sure be more receptive to whatever it is that you've got to say.
Fundamentalists are a lost case, though. |
you dont have to be a fundamentalist to be forcing your superstitions into the public sphere, and onto other people. these are the only people i care about, and i say em. like i said earlier, these so-called new atheists will never (can never) change the world, so why not infuriate some theists in what little time we have? the dear lord knows they us to tears. ideas dont deserve automatic respect, and i fail to see what placating the peddlers of filth is ever going to achieve. but you never know, a quick, amusing insult (such as dawkins and hitchens are famous for) could just wake up the non-committal. and if not, well i certainly enjoyed it :stongue: |
|
|
| woscar |
| quote: | Originally posted by nefardec
Who do you think you are? We're on a trance messageboard here. Save it for the classroom. Talk about being a 'stubborn whiner', at least I am accused of whining about something worth whining about.
I don't make arguments on a message board. I post messages.
If you want to critique arguments, critique arguments. How can you say these things are not personal?
"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."
"LOL Adam, you usually say pretty smart things. I hope this is just a brain fart that will go away once you read what you are writing and realize how dumb it is." |
Yes, I get it. I have been guilty of doing the same thing I am giving you for now.
I conceded that it was a stupid way of saying it. Can you accept the apology and move on? |
|
|
| Lomeli |
Let me ask, what do these arguments accomplish?
---
MOVIN' ON. |
|
|
| nefardec |
| quote: | Originally posted by woscar
I know you are not big on criticizing religion, but ceasing to imbue religions with the ridiculous amount of respect they have gained throughout their history would be a fantastic start.
Making the set of religious beliefs that tolerate this kind of behavior disappear is another great start. This doesn't mean to extinguish all religious belief in the world, it means to eradicate the twisted ideas that have plagued it over their existence. I think that only an idiot would disagree with the fact that the overall message of the story of Jesus, which comes to a pinnacle with the sermon on the mount, is a positive one for mankind (regardless of his being a divinity or not). |
I was a self declared atheist for years and have always remained a critic of book religion.
Universal morals don't make sense. Your hero himself said that things like human health change over time. This guy said that values are primarily based on preserving conscious experience. Since conscious experience changes based on advances in science in technology, that means values will likely change as well.
So what is the point of universal morals if they need to constantly change to adapt to changing values? Obviously they won't change at the same time everywhere around the world, and obviously different cultures will react differently to them.
Not to mention that the pure machinery/red-tape/bureaucracy needed to enforce these morals on a governmental scale would be highly impractical and probably autocratic.
Do I think that theoretically there are universal morals? Maybe. However it's surely not pragmatic, and highly dangerous territory in the area of civil liberties and cultural diversity. Human civilization is an ecosystem of sorts. In any ecosystem, sustainability is guaranteed through diversity. Sort of a checks and balances situation. I believe human civilization requires the same sort of cultural diversity to prosper. (and also diversity in nature, but that's another topic...) |
|
|
| nefardec |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lomeli
Let me ask, what do these arguments accomplish?
---
MOVIN' ON. |
What does anything accomplish? You end up in a different spot than when you started. |
|
|
| woscar |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
but you never know, a quick, amusing insult (such as dawkins and hitchens are famous for) could just wake up the non-committal. and if not, well i certainly enjoyed it :stongue: |
Yeah, and I think they have built a nice fan-base from people like you and me that enjoy the out of statements like these:
"To "choose" dogma and faith over doubt and experience is to throw out the ripening vintage and to reach greedily for the Kool-Aid. "
-Christopher Hitchens
"Religious people split into three main groups when faced with science. I shall label them the "know-nothings", the "know-alls", and the "no-contests""
-Richard Dawkins
Edit: Adam, just read your last post but I'm too tired to type out a response right now. I'll hit the sack now, and type it out tomorrow. ;) |
|
|
|
|
