Who Says Science has Nothing to Say About Morality?
Vložit
- čas přidán 3. 05. 2011
- Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins discuss
Who Says Science has Nothing to Say About Morality?
Taped at
The Sheldonian Theatre
University of Oxford
April 12th 2011
by
ClearStory Ltd.
Registered in England and Wales: Number 7467 151
Registered Office: 3/4 Great Marlborough St, London W1V 2AR
Includes Spanish closed captions. - Věda a technologie
Isn't the internet just fucking amazing!? I can sit back in my living room in Kabul and watch these brilliant minds explain whether free will exists. Amazing. There really is no excuse now to remain in the darkness. Knowledge has become incredibly accessible.
+Afghan The dawning of a wondrous new age.
+Afghan...That's funny, Europe is receiving many "refugees" from Kabul claiming they are fleeing a warzone...perhaps they are not telling the full truth...
caezar55
Unlike those people, I am very fortunate to live a normal and human-worthy life. And unfortunately, people like me are a small minority. Those people who are coming to Europe are not coming because they are leaving palaces here. So don't high-jack my comment to demonise refugees.
+Afghan ...But they are not leaving a WARZONE are they? Thats the point, just because they live in poverty does not mean Europe should take them in. There are about 4 billion poor people who would move to rich countries if they could.
caezar55
A couple weeks ago the Taliban regained control over one of the major cities in the country; Kunduz. When they entered the city, the pillaged and did whatever the hell they wanted. Is that not a warzone?
"Arrogance is asking a god who wouldn't stop the holocaust to find your car keys." ~Ricky Gervais
That's a primitive way of looking at the world, a human being has the inner capacity for both good and evil, the choice is up to them, and you blame god when they make the wrong one?
@@primeminister1040 : I don't see how that applies to the joke. To your point though; an omniscient god AND free will are mutually exclusive. To know your actions at the moment of creation is to create your actions because they are determined before you are consciously aware of them. You're just playing a predetermined role. You can claim you still have free will all day but it makes no logical sense.
@@primeminister1040 : No rational and moral court would ever hold any person responsible for their actions if faced with such an extreme form of bribery or threat as heaven or hell. (infinite punishment for finite faults) As someone wrote: God puts a gun to your head and says "Obey, and while you're at it, thank me for giving you the choice."
Arrogance is thinking that "religion/belief in God" was revealed upon human being so they can live a perfect life.
The chicken Sam Harris has been chickening out from debating experienced Muslim & Christian apologists for years now. 😆
Sam Harris is so good at making clear and interesting arguments. Plus he was great in Meet the Parents.
@TermsofService He's mentioned the resemblance himself.
TermsofService having the slightest bit of sense of humor in this incident isn’t an offense imho, although I respect the seriousness that you are projecting on it.
TermsofService why do u talk like that
TermsofService indeed sir
@TermsofService stop with the pretentiousness. It's cringy.
Anyone else want "Every third shall walk in darkness" on a tshirt?
I want it next to a picture of that woman's face and her title as ethical advisor in the Obama administration along with the quote "You can never say they are wrong!" God what an incredibly untenable thing to say. Under what "morality" does that fall under? She was a "prestigious" university alumni? What bullshit do they teach in those ethics courses? Sounds like people who leave hold beliefs far more corrosive to human well-being than people who enter. How is that better morality?
Seems to be something that could have been said in Game of Thrones, which from a brutality level should tell you it's not a good idea to measure it as moral because some people believe it to be right or useful.
You sir ..are on to something
I laughed until I almost choked when he said it and almost as hard at this comment.... It's hilarious!!!
😂
I think accrediting our wonderful skills of empathy and compassion to religion takes away from the excitement and truth of where we really got it from.
ashlee conder beautifully put
WRONG !!!!!!!!!!
ashlee conder empathy and compassion as a moral guidance isn’t suitable for any complex society.
@@trevorscott2503 WELL IF NOT EMPATHY AND COMPASSION AS MORAL GUIDANCE WHAT WOULD YOU SAY IS BETTER FINANCIAL GUIDANCE ??? LOL..
@@flatearth9140 reasoning perspective would probably be the best moral guidance for a complex society. Reasoning to understand intricacies, and perspective to broaden understanding
"We are so deeply social, our happiness is so obviously predicated on the flourishing of others. The only way to be wisely selfish in this world is to care about others."
I would argue that some people, the truly selfish, are happy or at the very least apathetic about the suffering of others.
@@bme7491
Right, but that wouldn't be someone who is wisely selfish. Just "truly selfish", as you just defined it.
Those who cannot move from minimal survival selfishness (taking care of one's own well-being) to caring (selfishly!) for others, is a sociopath; in other words, an Objectivist. Ayn Rand could never understand concepts like this. Sociopathy is like an invisible lobotomy.
But it wouldnt be actualy caring about someone it would be pretending to care
Privileged people living in countries in UK and US have no idea how empowering is CZcams. Thanks to CZcams and the kind uploader, a person like me living in a so called third world country is able to access debates such as this for free. This would've been unthinkable for my grandfather's generation.
Dirk Knight my grandfather was a labourer in the railways, he had little to no education. There is little chance that he went to a library :-)
Dirk Knight go fuck your self troll. Because it’s unlikely that a girl would even look at you.
Dirk Knight you’re a prick. Mocking someone for a lack of opportunity of education is immoral.
Love listening to Ben Stiller!
no shit, oi veh?
lol
Lol fuck yeah bro
i laughed too hard at this
😆
I love these guys. In a world that STILL lives in darkness, they share so much light.
Nah, we still live in the darkness, we just tend to close our eyes to it and remain in our own dark space.
@@1aundulxaldin he literally just said the world is still in darkness (meaning religion). These scientists are the light
@@kennypowers1945 Sam Harris is utterly clueless about this topic tho
Eaggą
@@kennypowers1945no they aren't.
Scientists are just that, scientists. Science cannot determine morality. Science tells you how to split atoms. It cannot tell you whether you should build world rending bombs with your split atoms, or generate nearly free electricity.
It can't even tell you if generating the electricity is actually a good thing.
Science is observation. What is it doing?
Morality and ethics is prescription, should we be doing something?
Scientists can't tell you the should. They can have their opinions, but they can't scientifically prove the good or bad, since these are prescriptions not observations.
I have waited my WHOLE LIFE to hear someone say this so eloquently and my mind is completely blown in an amazing way....THANK YOU SAM HARRIS and Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason & Science #subscribed !!!!!!!!!
Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins discuss Who Says Science has Nothing to Say About Morality?
What do you think?
#samharris #richarddawkins #morality #science #atheism
Science has lots to say about morality. It's called empathy.
*****
Which "unpopular views". Not many of the things he stated are particularly controversial - at least not in the atheist non-community "community".
If he is right in his argument, so we need be not only fight against religion but we need be anti-capitalist too. Nothing creates more suffering around the world today than the capitalism. The capitalism and science creates together the objective means to destroy or decimate the life in the world.
Carlos Henrique "but we need be anti-capitalist too. "
The economics of Star Trek
Atheists believe that matter creates consciousness, and life's nothing but an unintended byproduct of chance. Atheists believe their daily consumption/defecation of nature is merely a survival instinct imbedded in the matter which they are. If Atheists were moral, they'd give nature a break from their parasitic existence, selfishly despoiling nature, using up resources simply waiting around to shrivel up and become nothing.
This is one of those videos worth watching, worth watching again … and worth taking notes!
Thank you for the insights! :-)
Harris: The facts are separate from values. Klein: You should think through the history and politics of race discourse. It might change your view of that supposed fact-value dichotomy. Harris: No, I shouldn't. Because the facts are separate from the values. Harris's thinking here is painfully obtuse and pathetically shallow.
At the end of the podcast Harris advertised the ‘Waking Up’ course coming soon. So you can pay money to think like Sam Harris. These grifters always have a scam to bilk the vulnerable out of money.
What do you think is better value for money a degree from Trump University or a Waking Up certificate from Sam Harris
Personally, I wouldn't sign up for either one. Michael ain't selling a spiritual belief system disguised as "science". Harris is the L Ron Hubbard of New Atheism.
The Eugenicists movement in America started in late 1800's to Keep Mental Ill and Mentally Retarded people from screwing and having children, which would overcome America with Very Stupid People, like Republicans.
As a Jew, I am shocked that Sam Harris actually supports T4 Program, also called T4 Euthanasia Program, Nazi German effort-framed as a euthanasia
program-to kill incurably ill, physically or mentally disabled,
emotionally distraught, and elderly people. Adolf Hitler initiated this
program in 1939, and, while it was officially discontinued in 1941,
killings continued covertly
And of course, The American Eugenics Program targeted Coloured People openly, in the Same Way Hitler Target Jews. Sam Harris and Chas Murray and William Schockley who invent Transistor, TARGET Coloured People.
NOTED: I WILL.
@@greedyfirstalgorithmlast26 Waking up cost about 2 Starbucks coffees per month to use. That's quite a bit less than Ron Hubbard was asking people to give when they signed up for Scientology. To say that is a false equivalence is an understatement.
And what source do you have that says Harris supports the T4 program?
Forgot to mention he offers waking up for free to anyone that claims they cannot afford it. No questions asked. He does this cuz he believes meditation is too important to miss out on due to finances. Puts a hole in your grifter theory.
My note: Moral Philosophy is the application of scientific logical reasoning to moral problems.
Richard Dawkins
I've seen a documentary (two different ones) that was videoed by a norwegian marine biologist about killer whales in one fjord. In the group of killer whales there was one badly injured female that had broken back and one could see that it bended clearly wrong way. Now this injury made it impossible for that creature to participate the hunt or hunt by itself. But the group always left it something to eat as it clearly was one member of that group.
Now if compassion is a moral that can only rise from religion then one must argue that these killer whales have a religion. How ludicrious is that claim.
P.S. Killer whales = orcas.
i see that what you mentioned is the proof that the one who create these animales is the same who create us and tought us relegion 💓
Interesting... I have read about a similar quality among bats. Although they do it even to bats who are not hurt or injured. It is common to share food in some colonies of bats (depending on the species and other things) it is a reciprocal act. A type of bonding they say. But does that say anything about morality? I am not so sure. It is more like group behaviour, a culture that is handed down, because they have found that things work better that way. It doesn't make them moral.
Mariam Muhammad And yet they know nothing of this 'god' that you claim exists.
Christian Leegaard If they act in a moral fashion, how is that different from being moral?
If i hate your guts and want you dead, yet i am always polite, respectful and considerate of you, and never raise a hand against you, am i moral or not?
Antediluvian Atheist no, according to the bible you have committed a thought crime!
Wish I had an inkling of the brain power of these men. However, I am very happy to be privileged to absorb a small portion.
We are fortunate to have this
@Mr. King Kong You must be eating out at a quantum physics asian restaurant.
@Mr. King Kong Do you eat fortune cookies in a restaurant run by physicists? If not,that fortune cookie seller is an intellectual
@Mr. King Kong what's with people like you saying shit about smart people.IDIOT
i listen to them very slowly, that way i can take in half at the first sitting, and eight next time, a quarter the time after that and so on, thus avoiding the end of the universe :)
Such brilliance makes me feel lucky to be alive to hear it!
The chicken Sam Harris has been chickening out from debating experienced Muslim & Christian apologists for years now. 😆
@@danielanderson2716 why debate a religious when still can't show facts for their extra ordinary claims for thousand yrs.. hahaha
@@danielanderson2716 experienced apologists ?😂 they all make the same points, ignore facts and are just straight up ignorant to any other perspective, it’s a waste of time
@@danielanderson2716 Cut and Paste is fun!
Sam Harris is like a mountain sized diamond for humanity. What a brilliant idea to bring to science and to the world. Applying logic and science to the prevention of suffering and the promotion of pleasure to all people and animals. Also determining the values that define what morality is objectively.
No, he isn't. czcams.com/video/wxalrwPNkNI/video.html
Absurd contention. Apart from anything else, science is as directly responsible for causing suffering as anything else.... pollution... nuclear weapons... assault weapons... poisonous pesticides etc etc etc etc etc etc etc
Thank you Sam.
@@alfreddoucette2975 Victim
then why isnt he a vegan? lol
thank you SO MUCH for posting this! Watching this video has truly enlightened me and motivated me to learn more. Mr. Harris is brilliant and I was previously unaware of him. As a result, I will seek out more of his commentary. I believe that some of the ideas presented here can be used to get us closer to some sort of "peace" between religion and science.
My favorite part, over an hour of uninterrupted viewing... no annoying commercial breaks at inappropriate mid-sentence moments.... let the ending ad play thorough to the end in appreciation.
I could listen to Hitchens or Harris talk about the context of the phone book and be engaged lol. Both men are viciously smart, and have so much great information and perspective that is beyond valuable. Especially in the times we find ourselves in. I try to find every lecture or conversation they have with other academics and absorb as much as I can. Thank you is not enough. I'm in debt to both men.
Ask them about this. I encountered this question when I was in high school. Our physics teacher was explaining Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity to us. He told us that a moving clock would be slower than a clock that was not moving. So for the moving clock, I imagined a clock in a flying airplane and for the clock that was not moving, a clock on the ground. It was obvious to me that if the clock in the airplane was slower, the pilot of the airplane would get a faster speed for the airplane than an observer on the ground would get using the clock on the ground to time the speed of the airplane. Then I read Einstein's book on the subject. Einstein and all scientists since his time are using equations that show that the pilot of the airplane and the observer on the ground would get the same speed for the airplane. Scientists get very upset when I ask them about this. I used to spend a lot of time in sci.physics.relativity discussing the theory of relativity with them. I have yet to encounter a scientist who can explain this.
Super great, thank you for uploading!
I have been arguing the point of Christianity celebrating human sacrifice for years and been called many bad names but when you break it down it is the truth!!!!! Thank you!
Not only Jesus but also Abraham and Jefte. Kierkegaard praised Abraham for obeying gawd
I got Cut up with politics, and I became, depressed, then I went to Sam Harris, I feel cleansed, and excited , thank you!🐶💕
This discussion is simply amazing. Thank you
I speak for myself of course when say this, during my childhood years and into adulthood relative, friends and strangers always push the idea of morality coming from religion. Now, I have the ability to and the freedom to say it doesn't. Let me tell you, I feel relieved! Sam does a magnificent job in putting everything into perspective! Bravo Sam!
Mind control is a fascinating phenomenon, isn't it? Unfortunately, our fellow humans are very good at it, and have been for a very long time.
You don't have freedom. Sam himself says that
why didn't it work for the Soviet Union, Mao's Chyna, Pol Pots Cambodia etc etc etc Why did Friedrich N.
warn of genocide as a end result of "God Being Dead". If Friedrich N was correct then if caring about people should be paramount wouldn't you also then HAVE to be religious. If Friedrich N was right (oh and apparently history teaches us that he was).
@@Arthagnou you can't decide spontaneously to be religious or to believe in God
@@Arthagnou Not to mention there are several countries that have majority atheist populations and have never had anything close to a genocide. Japan, Norway, Denmark, Finland, ect.
@20:00 Sam's brilliant water analogy used to address the "is/ought" problem. :)
+Jake Witmer Where?
@@squatch545 20:16
Anyone who thinks that’s a good analogy either does not understand the epistemological grounding for science, or does not understand the is-ought problem. I suspect Harris understands neither.
@@randomblueguy brutal
@@randomblueguy Elaborate on that. Are there not values you must respect in order to take the statement "Water is two parts hydrogen one part oxygen" seriously? You're just unaware of these values, because they're so fundamental and ever-present that you don't even think they exist.
The epistemological grounding for science is what makes you understand that statement, it's what makes it coherent: You know what atoms are, you know what molecules are, you grant that the methods by which that information is derived and defined is valid, and let's not forget the 'defined' part; science is a frame. It's a frame through which to view the world. Anyone who makes a comment like yours surely doesn't see that, and is ignorant of philosophy. By accepting even that simple statement that Sam makes, you adopt an empiricism-based (at minimum) position philosophically, you just don't know it. That's the value Sam is talking about.
I was the hippy in the front row with the striped shirt. Sam thanks for changing my life I got my hair cut soon after.
Always a pleasure to hear intellects (ie: those with a grip on the reality of the world and how it works!) such as Dawkins and Harris speak; their discussions are never boring.
A brilliant discussion among two of my favorite contemporary minds. Cheers boys!
Both of these super smart and wonderful people are teaching us how the world should be. This kind of talks and discussions must be giving to children in High School and Universities, not only to grown up people; mostly because the young people will be our future generation. They should be listening to these wonderful people NOW. (instead of watching their I-phones all the time),
Very insightful, informative and inspiring. Thanks very much indeed 💐❤️🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸
Sam: "Think of a famous person"
Me: Thinks of Angelina Jolie, Immediately realises, I thought of her because I watched a talk by Sam where he mentions her
You win this one Sam, you win this one
holy shit
same thing happened to me
Q: Why didn't you think of Phoebe Cates?
A: Because I have free will.
@Pepe The Great I just did. I thought of Phoebe Cates.
I wish I could see these people in reality and listen to their conversations. It would also be incredibly interesting to ask some questions and hear their answers. Maybe one day I am able to travel to these conventions.
I can not imagine the thrill of being at Oxford and sitting on stage with Dr. Dawkins. It must have been exhilarating for Sam Harris. Well done
Especially appropriate to watch on a Sunday morning :)
“The truth has to float free from these provincial values “. SH.
Thank you so much for this! I really learned a lot.
This is great! Thank you! I love Sam Harris.
People like Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Michael Shermer and others along with James Randi are valuable voices of reason and should be respected for their efforts to awaken the delusional naive and put away the snide who promote superstitions and the charlatans like the psychics, the faith healers and the necromancers.
Alas, humanity is wayy too complex to eliminate..anybody.Even atheists.
But, of course, there is no place fin science for those who dont operate by the scientific method.Fortunately, there is a lot more to the story.
sure they are reasonable and intelligent people but close minded and can’t see the weaknesses in their views and arguments. Reason and rationality can get to you to good as well as evil actions and behavior and science can only tell you what is happening not what should happen.
@@jw-rx8gn Close minded is one who refuses to change his convictions even when they are contradicted by evidence.
All the above are supporters of Evidentialism on Empirical Standards, so we know that "close mindedness" is not the case for them.
Now I can only talk about this video and say that there aren't many weaknesses in Harris talk(except the fact that science is the best way to do philosophy). His arguments are well supported by sound premises, clear and accurate concepts and real life examples.
Science tells as what we should do in so many other aspects of our lives, so you will need to support your declaration on why analytic and critical thinking is not the right way to evaluate behavior on objective criteria.
Wow. I hope you have grown since you made this comment five years ago. Since then, Sam Harris has propagated "race realism", basically making the claim that black people are intellectually inferior - on average. Michael Shermer is nothing more than a libertarian idiot who never left his college dorm. Hitchens, unfortunately, left the sane lane and supported the Iraqi War. Oh, but that was more than five years ago. That's kinda shitty for you, eh? I'm sorry.
Freewill Vs God On the subject of morality, Sartre boldly declares _"if God exists I am not free. Since I am free therefore God does not exist."_
One could rightly criticise a paranormal, UFO or Sci fi club for their beliefs, but that in no way disproves the existence of some super intelligent being somwhere in the universe. I might even show that a" star" reading or UFO sighting or signal was false which proves what? The only reasons for devoting my life to the rejection of a superior intelligence would be for book sales to satisfy my greed, ego and self gratification. To that I would add the thought that my *free will* choices and selfish hedonistic, apparently meaningless, egocentric existence doesn't have ultimate consequences.
The fact that we find our *finite,* awe-inspiring, abstract law abiding universe, rationally intelligible, demands a super rationally intelligent mind behind it. Only a fool in his heart would say "mindless matter is the only game in town."
19:48 - MORALITY = PSYCHOLOGICAL HEALTH = HEALTH OF SOCIETY
20:04 - scientific values
24:54 - Why religion cannot be the answer to the question of moral truth.
1:04:50 Why the previous hour was a total waste of time.
@@MrBeen992 LOL, nice find. I love how the comment section is full of fanboys going all "wow he sounds so smart, so eloquent" then one audience questioner completely exposes the charade.
@@SimpleReally Fr, people are so easily impressed. I have heard some good arguments from him; however, this is not one.
12:40 was so beautifully worded. Good Job Mr.Harris
"If we ought do to anything, if we should do anything, if we have a moral duty to do anything in this universe, it's to avoid the worst possible missery for everyone."
7:53 That’s exactly correct. It can tells what we should do, once we’ve agreed upon values.
@37:20 This is a more correct form of viewing the trolley problem. A few thoughts:
1) The hierarchical level at which the trolley problem is addressed _really_ matters. This is the level of "cost/benefit." A great deal of money should be spent making sure that all trolleys have multiply-redundant braking systems, that workers are never on all sections of the track at the same time; that any used track is never occupied by workers; that all tracks that have workers on them are cordoned off; that the cordons have electronic sensors on them to alert workers to incoming trolleys, etc. Now, here's a real-life version of the trolley problem: the company doesn't want to pay for all of the prior. In fact, if the company paid for all of the prior, then a severely negative outcome happens: The CEO who made the company successful quits; the CEO outsources to China where there are far fewer safety procedures, or the company attempts to comply with crippling regulation and fails with everyone losing their jobs.
2) The prior is why "good enough for reality" and "with the best of intentions" matters. This is why the criminal and civil courts were initially separate. The Criminal Courts deal only with harmful consequences that a prosecutor profiles that a jury will perceive bad INTENT. In order for a crime to exist under the common law, there must be INJURY and INTENT to injure a specific identified individual or specific identified set of individuals. (False law that criminalizes "mala prohibita" has united the criminal and civil courts, and the result is the mass-incarceration of the drug war, mass theft in the form of speeding tickets, and illegitimate taxation.)
3) Dawkins' doctor's office problem is a far better example of the problem, since it clearly reveals that sociopathy profiles the willingness to comply with a system that randomly murders people waiting in doctors' offices, but sociopathy doesn't object to it. Hence, we have the ongoing drug war: this seems legitimate to the people who don't understand the malevolent consequences(voters) and the sociopaths who maintain it _don't_ _care_ _about_ _the_ _malevolent_ _consequences_. (And they are paid by higher-level sociopaths not to mind the damage they cause, and to pursue it anyway, even though it produces nothing of value. This means it is both a corruption problem and a sociopathy problem.) The sociopathic prison and military industrial complexes don't _intend_ to maximize harm. They just don''t mind if they cause harm to undefended and unrelated individuals, because they lack empathy. The sociopath is paid concentrated benefits from theft costs that are dispersed among the taxpayers(via the income tax) and "producers"(via deficit-spending). The answer is obvious: decentralize empathy and don't let power-seeking sociopaths make moral decisions. This was once accomplished by the jury system, but now the jury system is under statistical control by the sociopaths (via the process of "voir dire"). The answer is to "organize the empaths such that they regain statistical control of the jury."
4) Technology enables systematic control that the British monarchs could only dream of. Even without such technology, they, being sociopaths, sought and obtained systemic control for long periods of time. Only John Lilburne, William Penn, and Thomas Paine were smart enough to advance the liberal (in the USA, "libertarian") agenda. It is this agenda we must seek to restore.
5) The solutions to the trolley problem are to politically-enable the pattern recognition of morality, based on mirror neurons. Mirror neurons model the specific plight of the sufferer. In any situation in which they are activated, empaths should make the decisions. This produces a hard limit to the amount of suffering possible in society. The alternative allows for "maximum suffering for everyone" (Soviet Russia; Nazi Germany; Taliban; Hutu Power; Mao's China; etc.)
Jake Witmer why will CZcams not let me copy and paste this. I guess I’m just gonna have to screenshot it
Edit: I’m on mobile but meh I’m not gonna go in the other room and find this on desktop because meh
What a pleasure to listen to him speak. How lucky I am to have English as my second language to be able to understand him and follow his logic 😊😊
That's actually impressive. Luckily, I'm a native English speaker.
Brilliant arguments.
I so loved watching this intriguing video. Sam Harris is an intellectual tour de force and a great speaker. I strive to be like him!
You are so creative I'm speechless
(Thank god) I was born with a natural immunity to religion.
do you believe there are basic actions that a good person should do? If so, you are religious and not a relativist. also Do you believe in Free Will, if you don't how can a Justice system ever work? Without being able to assign guilt and punishment, then you cannot be "Just" and imprison/punish someone, because its not that person fault he/she did some negative action.
To stupid??
If anything did objectively matter, why would it just so happen to be us? We matter to us, because, we are us.
I am 53 and came out as a atheist 5 years ago. I am so glad I do not believe anymore. My life is good and simple and I am free from the chains of superstition and fear.
ASMR and critical thinking with Sam Harris
Shout out to the homie in the front twirling his hair in the beginning.
he comes up with the most bizzare analogies.
I agree, the worst possible miseries should be avoided, (along with many of the lesser miseries). The arc of human civilization has been to improve the human condition. Calling out injustices is our moral imperative.
Sam, you are a torch for me, your ideas are enlightening and your tone so relaxing. And I really appreciate this development in IT, I can get the genuine information from top masters while being at home in a small town in Iran. And I teach this facts to my students. It's wonderful.
He isn't a torch, he is bad at reasoning and logic.
@@Nat88123 care to elaborate??
@@poozer1986 he can't, he is dumb as a rock
@@poozer1986 They never can. Hurt in the feels.
Live long and Prosper... that's some deep shit right there
21:22 Now, that is an objectively useful value for anyone who is trying to do anything.
It seems to me morality is the accumulated wisdom of society that getting along results in better outcomes overall. It stems from our instinct to protect offspring and grows outwards through family then group etc. We learn we do better when cooperating with others rather than mindless conflict which tends to lead to even more conflict and pain. Since people have differing needs, what is best is often very subjective and messy but there is an underlying understanding basically summarized by the golden rule and "what goes around, comes around".
Lucid and insightful, I've always felt that morality was in essence a field which is well within the purview of science, but which we simply didn't have sufficient data and understanding of neuroscience and related fields to make fully subjectable to scientific inquiry. Now it seems, however, that time is dawning on us. What an exciting time for lovers of science and philosophy, who wanted to see morality dealt with responsibly without having to submit themselves to religious or spiritualistic propositions or having to wade through the needless philosophical muck of subjective judgment.
Bravo Sam!
*****
***** This video was great too!
That first passage that Dawkins read from Sam's book was just devastatingly and hilariously satirical, without even intending to be so.
It's literally what the stories have told us, but written in such a plain, non-fantasmagoric way, that it just sounds like the kind of story your neighbour would tell you while tripping on acid.
Well said, though i am not sure that Sam did not intend or at least recognize the satirical factor.
8:35 "the product of a fish impulses" Thank you, closed captioning-Thank you.
Awesome vid thanks, although that thumbnail makes me think "I swear they were THIS big"
"We aren't capable of valuing our experiences. We are capable of valuing the memory of an experience."
That's not true. Your 'experiencing self' is valuing all the time, you just don't realize you are doing it. Only those experiences valued form your memories. An experience not valued is not experienced. Value creates all the world you know.
Pirsig calls the twin aspects Dynamic and Static Quality. That which moves you forward and that which preserves what is learned.
The chicken Sam Harris has been chickening out from debating experienced Muslim & Christian apologists for years now. 😆
I think freewill is still a factor in the universe because the universe has a probabilistic component.
*****
Well I was using the already excepted ideas of probabilities in regards to quantum mechanics but I've since changed my views on free will. I don't think anything is random or has any probability other than 100% as long as you know every single variable there is to know
doodelay The burden of proof is still on you.
***** I was wrong and have since changed my view.
doodelay That's a beautiful thing man, it takes some balls to openly change your mind and few people have them.
***** thanks lol but of course this new view of the universe flies in the face of classical quantum mechanics which states that the movements of subatomic particles truly is random and uncertain. So I was basing my passed argument off that
It strikes me that one of the most important ideas in this video and his book "The moral landscape" is that morality is needed to even begin studying science as this requires intellectual honesty of the highest kind. Most religions are void of this as they are unable to face and accept the things that are most obviously, clearly and logically truth, using the tools we have.
The pill against grief at 43:19
As a parent who has experienced the loss of a child, I would take that pill in a second. No question.
Sorry for your lost. This comment was 2 years ago but the pain of losing a child is forever.
Richard Dawkins is calculating the accent before the concept of question here 1:14:30
I cant believe we have to convince people to think that u can have morality even without religion, religion did not created morality, it was based on it.
You should believe that. It takes more then two fools who agree with each other to agree with each to prove the existence of morality in the first place. Without the religious foundation, this type of discussion would never be allowed. You would be under the bootjack of something worse then the religion that destroys evil.
+ John Henrey
That is a very interesting claim. What is your evidence for it?
LucivarDiablo Post-Modern disciples are spreading the words of Marx(Atheism), I fear, with-out the knowledge that they are spreading the hateful, deceitful and superficial face of the Communist/Socialist/Nazi Dictators of the past. Maybe they do know, but they change the meaning...as if to say, "I can make Communism work."
Without the foundation that is "good", and the fear of what is "bad"...you end up in Hell. Hell is servitude, Hell is slavery. The point is, when you are in Hell, you are not free.
Prove what is in the heart of every-man/woman/child...Look with-in and think deeply on what is truly good/evil.
+ John Henrey
1. Hitler was a Christian. He professed his belief both in public and in private, made a compact with the church who celebrated his birthday and used religious creeds on uniforms.
2. Finland, Norway, Denmark, Netherlands, and Canada are some of the most socialist countries on the planet and are not hateful or deceitful. So where is your evidence that socialism leads to either of these traits?
3. Provide demonstrable evidence that Marxism is inexorably linked to the root cause of atheism.
4. None of what you have said provides any evidence as requested on the initial topic. All you have done is make more assertions / claims and attempt to deflect. Please provide evidence without deflecting.
LucivarDiablo Post-Modernism adopted Marxism as it's core doctrine.
1)Hitler redefined his religious doctrine to better fit in alignment with his plans. The Fascist Pope of the day confirmed the alterations. This lead to great misery and suffering.
Russian Communists destroyed evidence of religion(Russia's Christian Orthodox). Chinese Communist erased all prospects of self and being(Taoism). This is actionable Atheism.
2)Canada was built on Marxist ideals. Systemic racism still exists and people are oppressed to this day. I don't know enough about the history of the other countries mentioned to have a definitive opinion on how Marxist Ideals were propagated.
"Just as we don't have christian physics, though the christians invented physics, and we don't have muslim algebra, though the muslims invented algebra, we at some point will not have christian and muslim morality, okay the truth has to flow freely of these provincial ideas. What remains for us to discover are all of the facts that relate, to genuine questions of human well being. And the goal clearly is to build a global civilization based on shared values. Now it seems to me the only tool we need to do that is honest and open inquiry. And if faith is ever right about anything in this space, it's just right by accident. Thank you very much."
*Brilliance at it's finest right here. Thank YOU, Mr. Sam Harris.*
A very laconic, delivery of wonderful philosophy.
There is a basic disconnect between this level of intellectual talk being edifying and being indigestible depending on individual circumstance.
I’ve been in both places myself. And I can’t expect a person who’s entire life orbits around faith to immediately recognize the value of Sam’s position here.
It does, however, seem to be a worthwhile starting point.
I can't watch any movie in which Ben Stiller is present.
The chicken Sam Harris has been chickening out from debating experienced Muslim & Christian apologists for years now. 😆
@@danielanderson2716
"experienced Muslim & Christian apologists" as in "deluded bat shit crazy idiots", right?
Because of our instincts, one need not think that anything should happen, in order to have ambitions. And, since nothing should happen, there’s no reason why we should try to not listen to our instincts.
No one gives a shit man.
The idea always precedes the test. This is what makes science beautiful.
Dr: I have terrifying news: all of your organs are in perfect condition ( and your blood type matches the patients’)
"by jove let it be for science"
Observation, testing, and repetition is precisely how we all learn what is and isn't moral. There's no space left for magical logic to reap humanity like a revenue stream.
Michael Martin you wish to get rid of religion by replacing it with another religion ( set or moral values ) do you see the irony in what you are saying ? how can you test morality when it is culturally relative? Do you see the irony in what you are saying it’s just fucking pointless and will cause more harm if anything.
@@trevorscott2503 If you think the principles of science is just another belief system then we can argue that the belief system of science has produced more results in a century than millenia of religion...
Stefan Hendriks one can also argue that religious rituals have also been practiced through the use of scientific methods which have also lead to the emancipation of human understanding of the world.
@@trevorscott2503 please clarify what you mean with 'religious rituals practiced through the use of scientific methods'. Scientific methods are devoid of religion. There is nothing religious about it. You don't need to believe in anything. You could say the 'rituals' are practices. Then again, they are founded upon measurements, observation, hypotheses and conclusions. Religion does not do any of that.
In fact, it is because of Religion we can (scientifically) measure that people die of Aids because the pope does not recommend to use condoms...
Great audience questions!
Thank you very much indeed!
amazing! brilliant arguments and insights.
i'm curious who is that horrifying woman Harris mentioned at the beginning at 4 min or so...i suspect it can be dangerous to have her taking charge of ethic stuffs
38:17 what follows "just imagine" is the funniest thing I've heard in my entire life up to this point!!!
8:24 CORRECT. We are. But, there is nothing “wrong” with doing that, when your reality is, in fact, value free.
Sam is an intellectual machine, i had to re-listen to his answers to absorb the points he made. Fantastic debate, even to my limited ability of understanding.
The chicken Sam Harris has been chickening out from debating experienced Muslim & Christian apologists for years now. 😆
Daniel Anderson rightly so, is there any point debating fools? It would even be an insult to give attention.
@@what1111 The only insult here is the mentality of people like you.Your comment doesn't seek to raise any intellectual view, only denigrate.It's the perfect example of everything that's wrong with social media.
Sam is the only human who ever lived to argue in favor of determinism and defend morality at the same time. It's genius.
Even if there can't be any soul nor rewards in heaven and punishment in hell, we should be moral in any case
our minds builds up how famous you will be !
A most excellent discussion, not to mention great pointed question, although this occurred 12y ago, this is as relevant, perhaps even more, today as it was then, thank you for posting this, I strongly agree with Sam Harrison points, unfortunately those who need to hear his arguments, either ignore or just don’t care about the logic and reasoning in favor of religion dogma for economic, social and political nonsense-able reasons, you can’t reach those who only privately care about power and wealth, pass the collection plate please…
I've noticed people have to split hairs, and or disingenuously quote Sam, to make his argument on morality seem problematic.
I agree with him most of the time but I don't need to split hairs to assert that his assertion is fundamentally ethnocentric and thus inherently problematic.
Fu Manchu In your view when Germany was going through the holocaust, who were we to say, "That's enough."
I hope you see my point.
It seems that he is just stating the obvious: objective facts can inform societal rules/standards. In the case of "misery" this doesnt always work. You cant always objectively compare "misery" to establish a comparison to minimize it. Is killing instantly a family-less bum considered imparting misery? His brain is instantly dead how can he experience any. And if so,
This bum rapes a women. The women's husband kills him. Now objectively compare: the misery of bad brain chemicals of rape victim and husband vs the misery of a dead family-less bum.
TheWeekendWar conflating this issue by comparing it to ethnic cleansing on an industrial scale doesnt necassarily add to the discussion unfortunately.
If the analogy isn't squaring with reality I fail to see how.
"What if you meet someone who wants to vomit?"
You mean anorexics? lol
You mean bulimics.... winks.
The chicken Sam Harris has been chickening out from debating experienced Muslim & Christian apologists for years now. 😆
"Morality should come from man to the man, we don't need higher beings to tell us what to do" - Really good analogy (at least for me) is the health. We can say (science) whats wrong for your health and therefore, if you want to be healthy, you should or shouldnt do this or that.
Its same with morality. We are, in theory, able to tell whats moral and whats not (based on well-being) and therefore tell what to do or not to do to be moral.
Because this question should be asked, from those who makes them separated
As an ex theist, one of the major reasons I left religion was the subject of morality. I see religious figures like Jordan Peterson (whom I like) and others go on about how we need religion because science doesn't offer any grounds or basis for morality and how to be a moral person, and this always bothers me. I left Islam because I find it to be an immoral religion or way of life. For example, I don't believe an immoral god has any place to tell me how to live morally. I'll elaborate even more. A god who is said to have drowned an entire planet's population due to disobedience, a god who orders the hand of a thief to be cut off, a god who will burn any human who chooses not to worship him, this is not a good, moral god, therefore I can not take moral guidance from said god. Christianity, albeit to a lesser degree, is very similar. How can I follow morality lessons from a god who will only let a few hundred thousand humans in to heaven because they believed in his son and everyone else is doomed? This is not morality, this is ego and arrogance. I can not take moral advice from such invisible gods. Just because science doesn't teach me morality, it doesn't mean there is no other source of morality except for religion, that is extremely simplistic thinking.
Please describe to me the type of god you would like to have? I'm just curious
@@primeminister1040 I don't want any god. But if there has to be one, a moral one would be a good start.
@Dirk Knight it's not about whether there is one or isn't one, in that regard I'm sure there isn't. It's about people using the excuse that there cannot be morality without religion. It's an extremely weak argument
@Dirk Knight sure, laws of the land helps to a huge degree to keep a distinct line between right and wrong, but it doesn't cover everything. For example, it's not illegal to lie when going out about your average day, but it is immoral to lie. According to some like Jordan Peterson and many theists, without religion and the fear of god constantly on our minds, we wouldn't have the mental capacity to deduce that lying is wrong and immoral on our own merits and using our own cognition. Being guided on morality by immoral gods just seems very strange.
The 18th Fret
The Quran mentions the liars. But Why is lying Immoral to you?
"Bureaucratic efficiency" -- oxymoron.
Thank God for Richard Dawkins!!! 😇
I've watched Sam in so many debates/talks and never seen him talk with his hands so much. I'm guessing he was really relaxed during this one.
I completely agree that the worst possible misery for everyone is bad. But I wonder where he draws this conclusion from? I think his conclusion is accurate, and you really would have to not know what you are talking about to think otherwise, but the question still stands, where does our idea that suffering is "bad" come from? We can prove the Pythagorean Theorem, but how do we prove that suffering is "bad" other than the fact that we all agree on it? Majority never equals proof. We see suffering and we think "bad." But why are our minds drawn to that conclusion? And to respond by saying that suffering is obviously bad because our minds instinctively come to that conclusion would be circular reasoning.
our brains are wired to avoid pain/suffering or to get to pleasure/comfort. We can point to where in the brain it happens and it is the reason why we survive (to an extend). Suffering=bad because Suffering=getting killed/hurt/sick etc.
Great talk. Sam misunderstood most questions. Even still, very interesting revolutionary idea, that morality is based on objective truths of well-being. 👍
Fully agree, maximising overall happiness and minimising suffering is a much more morally sound philosophy than any religion, especially the Middle Eastern ones. Actually the essence of Buddhism.
Surely it’s just a sort of repackaged utilitarianism though.
It also still requires that certain values be set in store, because only against those values can one be judged happy/miserable.
A quick example of this might be the human sacrifice they talked of in the chat, the child who is overjoyed to be sacrificed because that is what they have been conditioned to value.
You or I would surely agree that human sacrifice is objectively bad however.
So we return to philosophy, to determine what our values must be, to put a stake in the ground and decide. Because science cannot do that, it can provide a weapon with which to judge the impact/ certain parts of the philosophy (ie can quantify happiness) but it cannot quantify the morality against which it is judged
Fwiw I found Harris response to a similar question as mine very unsatisfactory
" It has often been remarked that in spite of its material progress, mankind has not achieved any comparable degree of moral progress. "
-Nathaniel Branden-
Oh I don't know , 🤔 We no longer think it acceptable to *"Buy your slaves from the heathen nations that surround you"*
Nor that
*"if you beat your male or female slave with a rod and they do not die for a day or two"*
*"There shall be NO PUNISHMENT for they are your PROPERTY and your money"*
I would say that is a step in the right direction wouldn't you ? 😜
Modern societies think that the gathering of sticks on a sabath is not nor ever was immoral and worthy of stoning to death. The same applies also to our unruly rebellious children who disobey their parents ( sounds like most teenagers to me ) .
Thankfully a judge today recognizes a girl who has been raped and did not scream is actually a VICTIM and not deserving of death as the bible dictates.
Again I would discribe humanity as "better off in a meaningful way" by disregarding these filthy hurtful religious dictates, do you disagree?? 🙄🤔
I have one question guys!
The statistics says that people who believe in God live happier life than those who don't.
As an atheist, do you think one should go out there and tell to the people that there is no god and your religion is a lie?
I'm speaking about the people who believe in God and do not harm others.
What are your opinions?
Mind your business. Create your own source of happiness.
That may very well be true, but those statistics don't tell you anything about why. I'm just spitballing here, but I would expect for people, who conform to cultural norms, to be happier on average. If atheism were the norm, those numbers might shrink dramatically. Also, just because a delusion makes someone happier, does not make it automatically ethical to support their delusion, especially if it is a dangerous one. I'm sure that pedophiles would be happier if we permitted them to abuse children, but I don't care if they are happier.
Exactly. Religious people are happier and "flourishing" more. So if you really care about the flourishing of conscious creatures, then you should be encouraging people to become more involved in their religion, if they have one.
“The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one.”
~ George Bernard Shaw
David Tingley
Religious contentment and joy is in no way analogous to being drunk. Drunk feelings are temporary while religious feelings are not. It's like comparing someone that has energy by eating right and exercising regularly to someone that has energy because they took drugs.
Wait but why is well-being the object of our value system and not something else? Isn't it an assumption that we should value well being?
@Strawchild you also have the id, which has no good and no evil and is only chaos, sexual pleasure and instant gratification. You are not only the parts you control but the hidden terrors of your unconscious as well