slug.com slug.com

9 1

Can Science Inform Morality?

Neuroscientist Sam Harris, a member of IDW, argues that science can discover moral truths. He also argues the focus should be on trying to determine things that generally contribute to the well-being of most people most of the time. He writes in his 2010 book, The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values:

On the first account [referring to religion], to speak of moral truth is, of necessity, to invoke God; on the second [secularism], it is merely to give voice to one’s apish urges, cultural biases and philosophical confusion. My purpose is to persuade you that both sides in this debate are wrong. The goal of this book is to begin a conversation about how moral truth can be understood in the context of science.

While the argument I make in this book is bound to be controversial, it rests on a very simple premise: human well-being entirely depends on events in the world and on states of the human brain. A more detailed understanding of these truths will force us to draw clear distinctions between different ways of living in society with one another, judging some to be better or worse, more or less true to the facts, and more or less ethical.

I am not suggesting that we are guaranteed to resolve every moral controversy through science. Differences of opinion will remain -- but opinions will be increasingly constrained by facts.

The scientific community’s reluctance to take a stand on moral issues has come at a price. It has made science appear divorced, in principle, from the most important questions of human life. . . . . It seems inevitable, however, that science will gradually encompass life’s deepest questions. How we respond to the resulting collision of worldviews will influence the the progress of science, of course, but may also determine whether we succeed in building global civilization based on shared values. . . . . Only a rational understanding of human well-being will allow billions of us to coexist peacefully, converging on the same social, political, economic and environmental goals. A science of human flourishing may seem a long way off, but to achieve it, we must first acknowledge that the intellectual terrain actually exists.

If Harris is right, there is bound to be a backlash. A key question asks if morals that foster well-being as seen by empirical science can eventually displace incompatible morals grounded in religion. That will be an interesting social experiment.

The other point to note is Harris' assertion that opinions will be increasingly constrained by facts. That is a core belief behind pragmatic rationalism. [slug.com] Harris sounds a lot like a pragmatic rationalist, whether he knows it or not.

Germaine 6 Mar 28
Share

Be part of the movement!

Welcome to the community for those who value free speech, evidence and civil discourse.

Create your free account

9 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

0

Okay, a lot of back and forth in the comments. I read some, and I'll get to the others. It's interesting.

Science is NOT an adequate tool for all inquiry. For example, science has nothing to say about religion. The fact some scientists have asserted knowledge about God or no-god beyond, 'I don't know' is harmful to science. Good idea, jack with ethos for some facile political gain. Using science for stuff it's not suited for is like using a spoon as a gun--not very useful in a gunfight. You're going to lose. Bad. Soapbox issue. Everyone run!

Morality is an interesting topic. Does Harris justify morality? I think we show by our ability to be wildly immoral that morality itself isn't a purely biological function. We may be predisposed to morality by some slight margin, but I see no evidence that's the case. While we're here trying to be moral, others are RIGHT NOW planning a robbery or plotting someone's death.

I won't argue religious morality here. I'll generalize the religious case to continuance (extending beyond death). What purpose does morality serve without continuance? It's not that secular people--or people that don't continue--can't choose 'morality', but that choice would not be substantively different from choosing to be immoral. SO, you do you, and I'll do me (wow, that sounded okay when I thought it).

Without continuance in some form, nothing really matters except pursuit of your own immediate wants and desires. Why even educate your kids? Why explore space or have this conversation? The knowledge we gain doesn't mean anything. Knowledge isn't stored. It's deleted from the universe with our last member. No entity has any benefit of it after we're all gone. Our existence doesn't mean anything, and our continued existence through the continuance of mankind (ancestry or future generations) doesn't mean anything. Without continuance, meaning is a waste of time, unless that happens to serve yourself in the relative moment--some kind of biological defect. Saving someone from death would not be distinguishable from raping a child. Everyone just does what they feel like doing and can get away with. Depravity is a word based in morality.

I think it is so hard to break outside of our western religious values, that people trip over them in this conversation. YOUR western judeo-christian values are taken for granted and assumed as part of the 'real' world and the source of their origin is unintentionally ignored like we ignore the ground that we walk on or the air that we keep breathing. Same goes for Sam Harris, of course. This lack of awareness is deeply embedded in most of these conversations, including religion or not. You have to aggressively strip all of that away--go down to the nothingness--sort of like the white nothingness construct in The Matrix. Now, from that point--why morality? Defend morality from that perspective. Start adding assumptions. What would this mean if we're all animals. What would it mean if there's a God (or some kind of continuance)? Before Harris can propose a thing like creating morality from science, first justify morality.

@Daryl, I think you're dismissing as 'religion' something that isn't religious. Easier, but problematic from an epistemological point of view. Continuance is simply another stage of life, and whatever form that continuance comes in may or may not be religious. Let's please remember, God isn't religion to the degree that God is real. If God is real, God is simply part of truth, and it's not subject to rejection. Rejection in the case that God is real is simply flawed man. Important distinctions. Not at all irrelevant. Science says more information is always better than less information. I wouldn't be quick to reject data because it doesn't come in a form you like.

Harris can be interested in whatever he wants. That doesn't in itself provide meaning outside of Harris.

You immediate desires could easily apply here. You want to feel smart, you want to have an answer to a vexing question you've had trouble answering. You want to revere Sam Harris. A fundamental tenet of science--and one too often ignored today--is acknowledging where science ends and you being. A better way of saying that is the reverse--where you end and science begins. You are inextricably part of your scientific pursuits. It's not possible to be other. Do the best you can to remove you, and then acknowledge the association.

Who cares what point society is at now? Let's say human beings on this planet ended tomorrow, and there is no continuance in any form. What's that stuff mean now? Who does it mean anything to?

Your final paragraph proves my point, and that's okay. It's where we all come from. MY impression is you worship at the altar of science with a fervor that screams faith. Yep, a religion. I'll try to refocus the lens for you to see, and you'll swat it away because it doesn't fit what you want to believe. A better approach is to see what value can be had.

I think if Harris wants to construct some type of space for a science-dependent morality, he'll need to justify that morality is good thing in the first place. That's not self-evident.

@chuckpo

Science is NOT an adequate tool for all inquiry. For example, science has nothing to say about religion.

This is weird to me because it seems like your whole argument is based on that. While I agree that science has nothing to say about religions, I would agree with the opposite too. But how does religion have better reason to talk about morality than science? If god was undeniably part of the "truth" then it could be an easier question to defend, but that is not the case.

You said "I wouldn't be quick to reject data because it doesn't come in a form you like." The only reason it can't be used against you is because there has yet to be proper studies about it.
Religion is older than recorded science but its ground for morality can easily be associated to the beneficial decision that humans took for its tribe/society.

@Daryl

I believe in an empirically detectable and testable real world point of view. I 100% reject everything supernatural (not detectable, not testable, not ever) as metaphysics and mostly or completely human self-delusion. That's the real world basis of my epistemology.

Like you said, you BELIEVE. You have no claim on 'the real world basis' of anything. You do have your INTERPRETATION of the real world basis--like me.

I don't know what you are talking about. That is metaphysics, not reality. And, I reject an omnipotent or supernatural God as anything real. That concept originates in the human mind, not cold, hard measurable reality.

Nope. Broaden your thinking. Ignorance, lack of a vantage point--two alternative explanations that don't need to include God or supernatural anything. YOU don't own the truth. You observe it from the same limited perspective I and everyone else do. Man's ignorance is not cold, hard measurable reality. That's like saying you're going to start being more mature. Nope. You're going to be as mature as you're able--and no more. Fold the cape, put it back in the drawer--they get caught in jet engines anyway.

No, my final paragraph supports my point, not yours.

Ok, nanananapoopoo.

Nope, I believe in the real, detectable, testable world. You believe in some not real, not detectable, not testable supernatural world. You you worship at the altar of religion with a fervor that screams faith, and that is exactly all you can possibly rely on.

You don't know what the real, detectable, testable world is. You have a few pieces built on the backs of a few books by people who do such work. AND, this is a way the intellect devolves...

That morality is a good thing is self-evident. I stand behind empiricism and real world data. You stand behind never detectable or testable metaphysics.

Actually, you attempt to borrow ethos that's not yours. You hide your guesses behind this thing you're trying to call truth and knowledge. All you have is your perception of truth--that's not the same thing unless you're suggesting you're divine. Are you Jesus, Daryl? You're not Jesus, are you? If you're Jesus, I withdraw my entire argument.

We disagree on just about everything, if not everything.

Agreed. Wait--doh!

@Daryl, before you say anything else. You have to say something funny. Do it. We'll both feel better.

@Julien974 With all due respect, you need to read it all. I know. There's a lot of stuff there, but you're missing a lot of the context. Daryl says I'm being religious, but I generalize a case for 'continuance' outside of religion. I made that very clear. Also, I made the assertion that continuance is necessary to justify morality. There has to be some purpose to morality, or it simply reduces to individual choice. You may choose to be moral. I may choose to eat your cat. I can't criticize you for choosing morality, but you can't defend a position that I'm immoral because I ate your cat. Somebody has to make a case for morality. You want me to be moral? Why? On what do you base this request of me? You'd better have a pretty good argument, because your cat's looking tasty. What are you feeding that cat?

@Daryl, Haaaaaah! That did help. Admit it, you feel a little better too. Come on now, Daryl. Own that stuff!

@chuckpo I made a bad use of the formatting, sorry for that.

I did read it all both of it, but you left me with some questions and I wanted to inquire.
You said
"Continuance is simply another stage of life, and whatever form that continuance comes in may or may not be religious."
Another stage of life sounds like the after-life and yet you say that it may or may not be religious.

Maybe if I understood this "continuance" you talk of, I would be able to understand your whole idea.

Your decision to eat my cat would sure be weird, and because it's my cat there could be legal consequences. If you were talking with a member of PETA they would probably call you immoral.
Maybe the real reason behind why you ate my cat could define if your action was moral or not... at that point continuance does not seem needed.

PS: don't eat my cat he is cute and I kind of like him.

@Daryl

***That wasn't clear to me, because you said this about it: "Continuance is simply another stage of life, and whatever form that continuance comes in may or may not be religious." That sounds like continuance might or might not be religious.

Exactly what do you mean by continuance? What empirical evidence is continuance based on, psi phenomena? Why is continuance necessary to justify morality? What are you talking about?***

That's true. It may or may not be religious. We don't know the answer. There is this truth out there that we don't know. We're ignorant. We can make guesses about that truth or ignore the question altogether. Guessing seems better, and that IS SCIENCE. Science guesses all of the time. Those guesses are called assumptions, and they're extremely useful. Ignoring something doesn't really move the ball. We just punt the ball on first down every time. That's not very good.

Continuance--it's US continuing in some form. It's purpose, meaning. Our 'knowledge (or the closest we can get) is meaningless if we just die into nothingness. Who cares about the long-term survival of our species if we're just animals that die? Does it really matter if the Lions die off now or in 3,000 years? Without meaning, not really. Empirical evidence is a good concept--useful. It has zero religious value. And, we've made a lot of advancement without it. Science is a better system than other forms of knowing--IN MY OPINION. Religious people would absolutely disagree, because they conflate faith with knowing--IN MY OPINION. Again, not good.

Do we have empirical evidence there's not a snickers bar in the center of the sun?. Has the hypothesis been tested? Would you argue there's not a snickers bar at the center of the sun? How?

I'm asserting morality must be justified--otherwise you can stuff your morality. Why should I follow YOUR morality? I don't have to. I may not want to. It may require sacrifices of me I don't want to give up. So, seriously--why should I follow your version of morality? Convince me.

When you have grappled with that task and its implications, I think you'll better understand the entire point. Harris has to make a case for morality, because I'm a free-thinking human being with my own code. It makes a ton more sense to me to follow my code than yours. You haven't even said what morality is or justified why I should listen to you.

I went crazy with that one point. I"m going to start the next on a separate response.

@Daryl

***you can't defend a position that I'm immoral because I ate your cat.
That is a deflection.


That's not a deflection at all. That IS the point. I know you're a positivist and this kind of idea is hard for you to consider because it's not black or white--exactly. But, if you can't come up with a good reason I should follow YOUR morality, I'm NOT going to follow it. That's why this stuff has been centered in religion for 1000's of years. Religion gives you A REASON to follow their morality.

I base a request for morality on all humans based on the human capacity for joy, happiness, compassion, freedom, misery, hate. bigotry and coercion (lack of freedom). Some of those tend to foster human well-being and the others don't. That is empirical reality. Do you disagree?

Do NOT say empirical reality. That's YOUR wish-state, and that's cool. But, that is a bounded social judgment derived by YOU--NOT by science. Science is insentient, right? Everyone won't even agree that your values are important. I've been reading tons lately about people who say stop trying to be happy. It's a fool's pursuit.

I am an atheist. I reject the 'divine' if that means supernatural.Your argument that by me simply asking for morality as a guide to help better human well-being I am equating myself is false and indefensible. You apparently see morals through a purely religious lens. That's your choice and your opinion. My opinion is that morals can be and have been informed by science, and the situation will get better in the future

Rejecting the divine when the divine may, in fact, be true is science? The only defensible knowledge position for 'science' or atheists is, I DON'T KNOW. Because nobody does know. The religious people don't know, and the atheists don't know and science certainly doesn't know. Anything outside of 'not knowing' is FAITH. Fair enough, just know it's not science. It's a faith statement. You're willing to assume something doesn't exist when you don't know it doesn't exist, and you're really not going to waste time trying to see if it exists. You're burying your head because it's too scary to consider all of the possibilities.

@chuckpo Thanks for clarifying what you meant by "continuance".
So according to you, science can't inform morality because this continuance... How does it help if we assume that it exists ? If it is the truth, then beside god there is no being that could convince you if your actions were moral or not with a clear awnser.

Is it wrong to try and use science to get closer to that awnser ?

@Daryl how do you do bullet points ?

@Julien974, some of your responses are inline, and that's really making it confusing, because my responses to you appear at the end. It sort of has me discombobulated, haha. I'm not intending to bypass any of your points.

***"Continuance is simply another stage of life, and whatever form that continuance comes in may or may not be religious."
Another stage of life sounds like the after-life and yet you say that it may or may not be religious.

Maybe if I understood this "continuance" you talk of, I would be able to understand your whole idea.***

Continuance could be some type of transcendence as collective sentient energy--I don't see why that's necessarily bound to religion. So, I have a question. What happens to us when we die? Bring science to bear and tell me what is the reality of death.

Your decision to eat my cat would sure be weird, and because it's my cat there could be legal consequences. If you were talking with a member of PETA they would probably call you immoral.
Maybe the real reason behind why you ate my cat could define if your action was moral or not... at that point continuance does not seem needed.

Your legal consequences are nothing more than thuggery with an underlying threat of violence, and PETA is certainly irrelevant. Why should I adhere to PETA's values? Animals are food, and your silly domestication of them is the real immorality (in real life, I love my cats--it's why I used them in my example. Cats are one of my greatest joys in life). You haven't told me yet why I should follow your morality. Why should I think the way you're living life is better than the way I'm living life? I certainly don't care if you brand me immoral by some stupid set of rules you just made up yourself. You have not in any way justified to me why I should follow them. Do you see the problem? Do you see the issue with morality?

PS: don't eat my cat he is cute and I kind of like him.

Your cat is safe pending the outcome of our conversation...

@Julien974

So according to you, science can't inform morality because this continuance... How does it help if we assume that it exists ? If it is the truth, then beside god there is no being that could convince you if your actions were moral or not with a clear awnser.

I FIRST am asserting you have not justified morality. It's much bigger than a science question. Why should I care what your pretend science makes up? As I described above, continuance isn't necessarily ONLY related to God, and I wanted to remove religion from the conversation, so we didn't get hung up on that negative cycle between God and atheism. What happened? We got hung up in a negative cycle between God and atheism. Interesting, but why?

Again, justify morality. It must be more than you like it. If you can't justify why I should act in the way you want me to act, then I'll just reject your attempt to control me and do whatever seems right to me. Everything in this conversation hinges on this point. And science at this point doesn't have a place, unless science can determine some kind of purpose and/or meaning for morality. You might say, 'morality helps us all to live better together, and I say, 'why does that matter?' If all we are is dirt that got out of hand, who cares if we get along or don't get along, who cares if we learn or don't learn, who cares if we reproduce and human kind continues on? Personal choice. Maybe you want human kind to exist for some odd reason, but I see no reason why I should care. I have my 100 years, and all that matters to me is I do what I want to do to win and not lose as much as I can. Tell me how science is going to address this problem. It's like trying to use a fork to fly over the Alps--wrong tool. So, it's simple--justify the morality you want me to follow. Neither of you have to this point done that in even the smallest way.

Is it wrong to try and use science to get closer to that awnser ?

To what answer? What is morality? Should we be moral? How do you test that and pretend you're not just making personal judgments and calling it science? As a scientist, it miffs me a bit when people use the term for convenience or try to piggyback on its ethos. Science isn't logical or intellectual thinking. There is a very specific philosophy, and there are very specific rules, and if people contort those in ways that are invalid, it literally harms the ethos we WANT science to have. I think often it's unintentional, but it's still harmful. And, sometimes people cite science due to their short-cut mentality, and it's used for things like financial reward or political power. We should be carefully cradling science and protecting it from dilution because we limit ourselves without it. And, science is taking a beating right now--a backlash from people seeing science being misused for even something as inane as winning an argument on the internet.

What does science know about when we die? What happens? The answer isn't NOTHING because we don't know. I don't even understand where this misguided notion is coming from. Science doesn't reject what it doesn't know. That's literally absurd. Science is a curious child seeking to know. What do I know of you? I know your userid is Julien, 974 may have some meaning, I think your profile lists a town in Canada. If I were to try to find you (assuming there is no more information available), how would I go about that? It would be nearly impossible. So, I'm going to conclude you don't exist? It makes no sense. Science doesn't reject what it doesn't know.

Anyway, I woke up too early.

@chuckpo
You are right when you say I haven't given a concrete way of how I understand morality.

It could be this common ground between peoples subjective perception of the issue at hand. (That was brought up between peterson and harris and I like this representation of morality and I don't see how anything else could be as useful/reliable/clear)

It is true that I brought it back to God and that is because contiuance without god is even more abstract and uncharted territory than God. Beside a being like God, its hard to think of anything that could advocate morality.
On top of that you didn't seem to have the same view of morality than me. I wanted to explore that.

The question originaly was if science could "inform" morality, not necessarily control/dictate it like you make it sound like either.

Lastly, when I asked :

Is it wrong to try and use science to get closer to that awnser ?

If God had an awnser that could describes an action as moral or not. Assuming its not completely arbitrary, then maybe we could get close to that awnser. Philosophy can help it , religious books help it, science could very well help it.

I enjoyed seeing all that you had to say and you got me distracted and thinking about those things and I thank you. Maybe something can change your thoughts about morality, and at that point I don't see you wouldnt believe that science can't have its place to inform morality.
I just can't pull it off and thats ok to me.

ps: 974 is the island where i was born

0

Science says that testing for Down Syndrome for the sole purpose of aborting them is ok.

If science can support genocide we should probably reevaluate it's role in society as a moral source.

0

Some very interesting comments that represent a wide sprectrum of knowledge and belief. I do have his book in my library but its priority for reading is a bit low for the moment. Understanding any subject in the context of science means that one formulates a hypthosis, designs the appropriat experimental method, and then conducts the testing that will either confirm or deny said hypothosis. (spellcheck does not seem to work, sorry about that) We build our sciences and scientific knowledge on logic, reason, and reproducible testing methods. The speed of light, the existence of gravity, all those laws we hold so dear and never seem to fail have been the result of such efforts.

But now you want to claim that human behaviors can be subject to the same process, well, I think that a bridge too far. Will scientific methods tease moral precepts so that these laws can be applied as formulas? Is this how pragmatic realism works? We can reduce all human behavior into logic and reason while emotion need not apply its irrational head. Maybe I shold sell my copy of Sam Harris' book to the used book store.

@Daryl One, you are appealing to authority, ie, Sam Harris is a neuroscientist, never a good argument. I know a little of Dr Harris' background and his persepectives and what appear to be some of the bias he drags into his arguments. Given that, the whole thrust of science can inform, direct, guide morality, both individualy and severally is more a statement in sciencism, that science has all the answers.

I have been living in this world 72 years and have spent the last sixty of them engaged in educating myself, either through formal methods (BA in psychology, MS in Telecommunications Network Design, and over 300 university level courses in many diverse areas) while reading a few thousand books on the various subjects I find interesting. I may not have the PhD level of knpwledge in neuroscience but I am hardly a stranger to the literature.

When we look at consciousness, there are two seprate schools, the first is the philosophy of mind and the second is the psychology of mind, the former takes the top down approach and the second a bottom up perspective. Dr Harris appears to take the top down approach that builds his arguments accordingly. I am more of the behavorist view in that we, as humans, deal with the mind or concsiousness from both an innate basis upon which we build a learn framework of experience. We have an innate sense of fairness as has been demonstrated by experiments in child devolopement prograns. We have emotional capacity which expands over time both it the range of emotional expression and depth. What you call intuition, a very imprecise term for any behavior, is more a function of pattern recognition. But pattern recognition is a problem since it represents IQ and we know that the distribution of IQ is a normal distribution.

Then there is the problem of what should be considered moral behavior. Every culture, even ours until recently, have their moral codes. Why should we use the term code? Ever give that any thought? Go read any number of books by philosophers and religious experts and the debate begins. But it all comes down to codifying a set of rules or precepts or specific meaning or even general meanings about what is and is not moral behavior. For human beings there are only two "iron laws", survival of the individual and procreation. We often refer to this as survivial of the species (and yes, I have read widely and deeply on this suject). But there are other "laws" that go along with this implementation, the most important is that of cooperation within the group of individuals. And to go Mr Harris one better to his scientific apporach, our cultures are built on previous cultures that stretch back a few million years. Things such as competence hierarchies we inherited from crustrians. Does Dr Harris deny these things? No, but he denies the idea of the existance of a god. I've listed to many of the debates and the very arguments he uses to tear down religious belief he uses to advance his own belief in science, more psecitic, logic and reason. Hey, that's a good parlor trick.

To be fair to Dr Harris, who went on his sojourn to India and returned a bit confused, I am no longer a beliver in a Christian god nor any god per se. But I see what the Greeks saw in their sense of the Forms. I have read Carl Jung and I see that sense of worldly spirit, that evolution of the spiritualness we carry around to the degree that we are willing to recognize it. It is evolutionary and will exist as long as we remain, as a species, on this earth. You take a couple of paragraphs out of Dr Harri's book to set up and bolster your own comment and question, click bait as some would call it, and then pontificate your point of view.

I think I will stick with my mistaken beliefs as you so deride them. By the way, it would take you at least 4000 words to make your case since you lack the clarify of writing.

0

This is all very interesting to me. I am a non believer. I am never looking for someone to latch onto. I don’t feel the need. I don’t understand all the disagreement. It’s obvious to me the answer is still unknown or their would only be one religion. I believe the answer lies within all of our ability to rationalize what works best in our own minds. If we get the wrong answer we go to jail or are killed or punished. if we are right all is well or we are rewarded.

0

Firstly, I have not read the book in question... but I do believe we are moral creatures, and it is a product of our society...l. which is sometimes governed by beliefs in "god/gods"... for science to detach for the issue of morals is odd at best... all humans are moral creatures in that we are governed by the norms deemed acceptable within our culture... therefore the study of morals becomes the study of the human reaction to those around him/her...

@Daryl just the basics, I am an RN... and deal with hospice... so I see a lot of this stuff at end of life... you would be surprised what people and their loved ones put themselves through in the name of doing what is "right"...but mine is not to judge, so I only observe and support as best I know how... Image for a moment a person in horrible pain not wanting to take anything stronger than Tylenol because they don't want to become a druggie... and I don't mean a drug addict, but rather the image that pops to many minds of a person using drugs on the street... it is rather sad...

1

GOD put our soul into a shell. The soul is believed to be beheld in the area of the pineal gland, i will admit i don't fullly understand this but am learning as i go. It's documented though out history in many cultures in many ways as the eye, the third eye, i like the eye of the ra. It is the best illustration of this area of the brain.
Children have been sacurficed for many reasons and still are today, Satanist who sold their soul to satan must sacurfice to try and gain back the powers lost in the sale. We have abilities we are no longer aware of forgotten over time

@Daryl anyone can say or believe it debunked or not. Adeline high is real. As well as as this is produced in the pineal gland, and adrenochrome is being made from aborted babies, who passed under intense fear so not to think this is likely is stopping yourself from the possibility of further education. I would think

@Daryl alway's make up your own mind and remember studies and finding's chang often and conspiracies are solved as well.

[youqueen.com]

@Daryl if the soul can be any place then we are not sure it is not in the pineal gland but one we should be sure of it is within the individual shell of each of us. Or there would be only one soul for all of us.

@Daryl we are useing what to hold what? Can science find the answers for that? If not then the answers only are within the word's of God. I am in no way a studied on either but in local thinking there are only to options

1

Sorry.. Sam Harris or anyone else loses credibility when they refer to secular views as APISH URGES.

4

THe argument only works if we are nothing more than determined machines.

I do not believe that we are determined, therefore the dynamics of 7 billion wills with 7 billion desires and the capacity of 7 billion people to act on those desires creates a problem that cannot be solved by a simply mathematic equation. There are too many variables. It is not neat. It is not clean. If one believes in Free Will, you must accept that the Utopia of billions of people coexisting peacefully cannot happen.

0

Morals that foster well being? Who's well being? If you have something that I need my well being morals would dictate that is permissiable for me to take from you...is that morality? And as an aside.....humans have never been noe will they ever be constrained by facts. Harris is wrong.

@Daryl Well, at least you're an optimist!! But I find that with humans Perception is reality and I think history bares that out. If I perceive you to be evil it is my perceived moral duty to oppose you. Regardless of “facts” that may lead to a different conclusion. Or at least this has been the case for the past 8000-10,000 years

@Daryl I find it puzzling how you can make truth claims and at the same time rejecting objective morals which mostly come from theist point of view. As an atheist, i don't know how you ground these beliefs because they contradict each other. If there is no moral law giver into which we measure our actions then everything is relative. There is nothing in between despite what someone wants to think. You can't extract morality from science nor societies, sorry, thats not what science does. Science can't even explain science because these topics do not belong in the field of science. It is a philosophical question. Atheist have hijacked science and are making claims that science does not and cannot explain. Theyve been looking for gold at the wrong place. Science can tell how something works not why and for what purpose. It is astonishing that even some high profile atheists skip basics when dealing with this topic because they are more focused on how to "own" their opposition rather than seek for the truth. The same goes for fundamental Christians and other theists. If there js no "God" then good and evil are relative and I can chose either options and i would never be wrong because wrong doesnt exist. As to someone taking something from someone else to better themselves, they are justified to to exactly that. How you feel or if i hurt you are irrelevant. Each time you cry bloody murder, you are appealing to a higher law as if someone violated that "non existing law". Good and evil are your own personal taste, apples or oranges? Who cares. You're a product of evolution and you can't be wrong. Matter and energy is just that, anything added to it is your own personal opinion and bias.

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:25389
Slug does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.