.jpg)
Yesterday (March 25) CNN released a video they taped of Sam Harris talking about why we should ditch religion. Harris, a neuroscientist and author of such books as The End of Faith and Letter to a Christian Nation. He points out that there are real problems facing the world today that religion distracts us from. Religion, he says, causes people to fixate on issues of less moral importance."We talk about morality in ways that are uncoupled from real questions of human and animal suffering," says Harris. "And this is the influence of religion."
"Religion has convinced us that there's something else entirely other than concerns about suffering. There's concerns about what God wants, there's concerns about what's going to happen in the afterlife... and, therefore, we talk about things like gay marriage as if it's the greatest problem of the 21st century. We even have a liberal president who ostensibly is against gay marriage because his faith tells him it's an abomination."
"It's completely insane."
The interview with Sam Harris is below:
The interview took place at this year's TED Conference (Feb. 9-13) in Long Beach, California, just south of Los Angeles. TED stands for Technology, Entertainment and Design. TED is a private, non-profit foundation dedicated to "ideas worth spreading." Each conference features a variety of speakers on a whole range of subjects covering all aspects of science and culture. Each talk is limited to 18 minutes and the winner gets a prize of $100,000 and help for it's winner in realizing a chosen "wish to change the world." Past "TED Talk" speakers include former President Bill Clinton, evangelist Billy Graham, Microsoft founder Bill Gates, entertainer Bono, biologist Richard Dawkins and many Nobel Prize winners.
You can view videos of all the released TED Talks here. Sam Harris's 2010 talk, "Science Can Answer Moral Questions" is viewable here. Sam Harris is also the founder of Project Reason.
Photo Credit:
1) Sam Harris
If you enjoy my articles, you can click on "subscribe" at the top of the page and you'll receive notice when new ones are published.
Comments
If that's Sam Harris in the video link, he's not old enough to have much wisdom. Tell him to come back again when he gets a little wiser.
He's older than Jesus was when he died, Angela. Perhaps you're judging wisdom with the wrong qualifier.
Boom!
:-D
Just once I'd like for people like Terry and Angela to actually attempt to discuss the merits of their opinions. For some, drive bys are better.
I have to agree with this person. I feel one's religion should be their own private belief. There are so many religions and each one of them think they are the only "right" one. There is no compromise.. what ever religion one belongs to.. they have to align themselves with...
Today's world is different... Gay people are going to love one another and be together, and there shouldn't be such hate among Christians to condemn them to hell with their open opinions about it.
There are so many beliefs among Christians... that one might not even recognize some people as Christians because some go from jumping pews to handling snakes to laying on of hands casting out devils from folks who have mental illnesses.. and so forth.
I've taken a step back from "religion" and keep my faith between me and God... and I am tolerant of everyone's right to believe what they will.
It should also be pointed our that Sam Harris will be releasing a new book later this year called, "The Moral Landscape." His TED talk has a lot to do with the subject of his upcoming book.
There is also the concern about what God is going to do, and sooner than you think, to bring history as men know it to a close.
Mr. Harris what is morality? What is suffering? These questions may seem silly but if you are to be consistent with your atheistic worldview then you must know that "morality" and "suffering" have no universal application. That is, there is no standard for right or wrong only the individual's opinion. Knowing this I ask what value do your words have? Even if the religious have decided to focus on questions disconnected from reality why is that wrong? Is not "human and animal suffering" the very mechanism that culminated in our evolution? You Mr. Harris are being inconsistent, atheism and evolution show that life's history is built on the death and suffering of others, in the end the survivors are better for it. Concern for the well being of others is such a theistic way to think after all if there is a God then it makes sense for universal standards and morals to exist which in turn makes sense for us to act to help others. If there is not one as you believe then your words are empty.
Those are great points Adrian and Terry. If you don't have anything of value to add, regurgitate/quote something vacuous or passive-aggressively say something ominous and spooky!
Did you catch that Sam Harris' TED talk video is now available, and that Richard Dawkins changed his mind to be in harmony with Harris' forthcoming book (alluded to in the TED talk)? I wrote a couple articles about it...one of them has the TED talk video at the bottom.
I think it's fair to say that there are those in the field of "religion" who fit the mold that Mr. Harris is referring to. But I know of others who are a part of the "religion" field who are entirely focused on the problems of the world, not concerning themselves with what God said, did, or will do.
That there are some in religion who are good does not validate it. On the whole, it is futility, and good people will do good things without it, and bad people will be able to do far less....
Although he presents a case for ditching religion and no longer basing
ethics upon religious convictions, he fails to then present any viable
basis to form a standard of ethics upon. If secularism contains a
logical standard for morality that can improve humanity in any way,
then I would very much like to hear about it.
I've been studying philosophy for quite some time and I would like to
point out to everyone that secularism in its purest form is expressed
in a worldview commonly titled Nihilism. Nihilism is just the natural
logical conclusion that all secularists should come to if they were
consistent to their beliefs as secularists. Nihilism in essence is
that there is no meaning to the universe. Life has no purpose, it
negates any basis for knowledge, beauty, ethics, and reality. Most
secularists however are not consistent with their secular beliefs and
refuse to accept the logical conclusion of their thinking (i.e.
Nihilism).
If you take seriously the tenets upo
Hello Alex. You're making a reductio ad absurdum case for secular nihilism. It's not atheists that are demanding purity and absolutes; it's you. Most of us are satisfied with what works to make us humans happy rather than eternal verities to satisfy the universe, gods or what-have-you. If you listen a little more closely to Sam's interview, you'll realize that's what he's talking about. If it still seems unclear to you, try the link to his TED Talk, where he goes into it in greater detail.
"Life has no purpose..."
To the contrary, Life has a definite purpose, one that forms one of the most important principles of Evolution: Life's purpose is to create more Life.
And since individuals do not evolve, populations do, anything that increases the chances for creating more Life is a positive evolutionary pressure - such as altruistic behavior that improves the overall survival/viability of a given population.
That gives you a basis for ethical/moral behavior in social animals: behavior that improves the overall welfare of the society.
You can see it in even simple 'rules' such as "Women and children first."
Not only is religion not necessary to ethics/morals - it often is warped and twisted into justifying behavior that is antithetical to the welfare of society, such as suicide bombers.
As opposed to following the whims of some mythical deity, truly ethical behavior is based on "What provides the best conditions for society to create Life?"
Has anyone heard of Humanism? Even secular Humanism? You're not a nihilist when you realize basic ideas such as love, compassion, and meaning are generated by our own minds. Humans generate these things, not gods or religions.
Lo, and Sam Harris the Prophet came upon them and proclaimed "I have found God!"
After journeying alone into the farthest reaches of university research departments, our Prophet began a mighty vision-quest in which he beheld the deepest truths of the universe in iridescent brain-scan images and the low flickering of blue computer screens.
TheProphet gathered the journals-of-science and reports-of-medicine and descended from his lofty towers to proclaim: “Objective Morality! Behold my teachings and obey!”
And the masses of Atheista called out to him “We hear you! And we obey!” Duly, they shuffled down the dingy corridors of academia to proclaim this to the waiting herds of sheep-students.
And none did ever realize that the Prophet’s “objective” truths followed no rational law, no fundamental basis, that no ultra-human force compelled obedience to them and that morality still remained, as it always has, an invention of the human mind.
@Pastafarian
I agree with you, yet at the same time, you are totally wrong. Yes, life is about creating more life and it's good to create "evolutionary pressure." But you also need to understand that evolution is the survival of the fittest (ie. the Strong). And that the point of all organisms is to compete; the Weak die and the Strong procreate and pass on their genes to create a more fit population. Evolution isn't driven by simply "creating more Life" - but also by weeding out the weak via natural selection.
So, if you are basing your morality on evolution and "Natural Principle" then you must accept Nature's way - not some hippy nonsense about the "sanctity of life." Nature does not pretend life is sacred, She rewards only the Strong. In evolution, there is a time for altrusim, but there is also a time for war, violence, genocide and culling the weak. If you're not prepared to admit that violence and death are also Nature's way, then your ethics are just as phony as Sam Harris'.
A marvelously 19th Century interpretation of evolution, Hamburger - which completely ignores more than a century of new knowledge.
For instance, 'survival of the fittest' is only ONE of SEVERAL evolutionary pressures - and more often than not, NOT the strongest one. Sexual (reproductive) competition certainly trumps it in many cases - peacock tail displays hardly enhance survival in the wild, but do enhance the likelihood of reproducing.
But even more significant, and still only partially understood, is the importance of symbiosis. Certain insects need flowering plants; flowering plants require those insects to reproduce - and the limited fossil records (bugs don't fossilize easily) indicate they eveloved together.
Or more fundamentally - most animals have cells that have incorporated an early bacteria that allows them to use oxygen. How's THAT for symbiosis?
Bottom line: Individuals do not evolve; populations do.
And when cooperation and altruistic behavior benefit the population, the evolutionary trend is toward more cooperation and altruistic behavior.
That's true of herd animals, pack predators - and hominids.
And while it leaves room for things like self-defense and defensive wars, you can easily derive a formal ethical code based on the principle of 'What's best for the continued existence and improvement of the society in which I live?'
Absolutely right, Pastafarian. Still, I do admire Eugene's descriptive prose. That "vision quest" image is pretty good considering that Harris does have a thing for eastern-style meditation, heh heh!
Hugh:
Have fun with THIS one:
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8593748.stm
Interesting study, Pastafarian... and another nail in the coffin of mind-body dualism.
@Pastafarian
"What's best for the continued existence and improvement of the society in which I live?"
And what if the answer is "The genocide of the other tribe to the east so that we can have their resources?"
Any so-called "moral foundation" - no matter how altruistic in intent - can be twisted to back any agenda; the flaw with "humanistic" morality is that it is not enforced by any ultra-human force: ie. it will always be subjective.
Let us pretend I am chief of tribe A and I decide the best way to "continue the existence and improvement [good word choice]" of our society is to kill weak infants via exposure, raise only warriors and slaughter our way across a continent. If you believe my actions are immoral, what can you do? If I remain inflexible, you must rise up against my tyranny in revolution and instate your version of the "best way for for the continued existence" of our society. In other words: all morality comes from the point of a sword.
@Pastafarian:
Apologies for the lengthy post, but I had to take umbrage with this:
"And when cooperation and altruistic behavior benefit the population, the evolutionary trend is toward more cooperation and altruistic behavior. That's true of herd animals, pack predators - and hominids."
I must be blunt with you: this is utterly erroneous. I don't think you have much experience with animal behavior. Male lions and hippos regularly carry off and devour the cubs of a rival. Grazing animals leave behind the sickly and elderly to die. Baboons have been known to turn against and kill the weak, old members of the troop. Wolves kill eachother once they have grown too old. Gorillas and Bonobos make full-on war against eachother, including the slaughter of females and infants. Does all of the above sound like human-defined altruism? Or are you looking at Nature through rose-colored glasses?
Well, 'burger, I guess you completely missed the "WHEN" in "... when cooperation and altruistic behavior benefit the population..."
As for your assertion that some 'ultra-human force' results in a better outcome....
ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR FRAKIN' MIND???????????
Religions have been used to justify wars, genocides, human sacrifice... they are the ULTIMATE social mechanism for separating "US" from "OTHERS" and thereby justifying whatever is done to "OTHERS."
All in the name of that "ultra-human force" - under whatever guise.
@Pastafarian
I believe you have misunderstood me: I am not making a case for religion or for the existence of an "ultra-human force." You are probably projecting your own biases upon me.
There is no "ultra-human force" compelling adherance to a certain brand of morality - that was exactly my point. Sam Harris is attempting to conjure up such a force, but if it has no teeth, no means of enforcement, then it is only smoke and mirrors; it is not a Law of Nature like gravity. Harris is a fool to pretend he can divine the 10 Commandments from DNA or the code of Hamurabi from brain-scans.
I seek only to point out the foolishness of your claims which imply that altrusim, kindness etc. are somehow the best basis for morality when there is no objective reason to believe any brand of morality is somehow superior than another. All brands of morality exist only when there exist human agents strong enough to enforce them.
The fundamental difference is you focus on "morality" - a slippery term, at best - whereas I find "ethical behavior" to be a more accurate description.
I didn't read Harris the same way as you; my take was that he has problems with religious-based codes of conduct.
@Pastafarian
I don't really think there is a distinction: "moral behavior" or "ethical behavior," either way you are just talking about arbitrary codes of behavior. All of these are created by human beings and only exist so long as someone is willing and able (ie. strong enough) to enforce them.
What has always confused me about atheists (like Mr. Harris) is that they reject God, then attempt to re-create morality with the same arbitrariness. It's dishonest to pretend that some sort of "science" based morality is superior or objective - it's all made by humans, propogated by humans and enforced by humans - ie. utterly subjective.
Ah, but IS it "utterly subjective?"
There's growing evidence, especially in both evolutionary genetics and in the nascent study of symbiosis and evolution, that altruistic cooperation may have a strong genetic component.
It's certainly true that parental sacrifice for the sake of offspring is found in many species, including dinosaurs and some reptiles. It's not much of a leap for that to extend to troop/tribe/clan - and from there to larger societal groups.
And if that is part of the genetic code, it helps explain why contrary behavior often is rooted first in defining some group as 'Others' who therefore are not entitled to the altruistic behavior.
@Pastafarian
That's my main thrust: Even if we have genes for altrusim, there's no reason to believe obeying them makes us "moral."
Remember: THERE IS NO EXTERNAL FORCE COMPELLING YOU TO ACT MORALLY. Because of this, there is no way to argue an action is objectively "morally wrong" because it will always be humans inventing the rules of morality and it will always be humans enforcing the rules of morality.
You can say only "This action is wrong in my opinion." And unless you are powerful enough to force your will upon others, your opinion does not count.
Again, though, you fixate on morality and 'right and wrong.'
IF it's genetically coded, it's not subjective - it requires 'reprogramming' to alter normal behavior.
@Pastafarian
You are begging the question: if people are "coded" to act a certain way, how can they be "reprogrammed" to act differently? Who came up with the "reprogramming?"
It doesn't matter if it's "coded" or not - in fact, the whole point is moot - even if you could prove genetic behavior existed, you could not prove that obeying it was "right" or "better" or "more natural" or "more moral" or whatever.
Nature is the only ajudicator of human behavior. "She" alone determines Right and Wrong action. Her judgement upon the guilty is always swift, unavoidable and - best of all - objectively verifiable. And her verdict is always the same - death.
In other words, the only objective way to judge behavior is to judge whether or not it destroys the organism and/or its offspring.
Nope, you still miss the fundamental fact of evolution: Individuals do not evolve - populations do.
Whether a specific behavior is positive or negative for a particular individual is only part of the equation - you also need to consider the effect on the population group.
And genetic predispostion is not fully determinate - other factors affect it.
Look at it from a simple disease aspect: You may carry a genetic predisposition to develop lung cancer from cigarette smoke - but if you never smoke, you're unlikley to get that cancer.
@Pastafarian
Just how do you think populations evolve? They evolve through the Darwinistic method of "survival of the fittest" - in other words, the successful (Strong) individuals survive and reproduce, the weak individuals die. In this manner, the genes of the strong are passed on.
Ergo, it is beneficial for the GROUP if the Strong (or, more "fit") individuals succeed and the Weak (or, less "fit") individuals die. Do you get what I am saying now?
I really think you need to help yourself to a few books on the natural world and evolution. Altruism exists in the natural world in only 2 forms: (1) genetic altruism, the protection of one's offspring and those possessing one's own genes; (2) reciprocal altruism in which mutual survival is a consideration, or payback is expected later.
I am not really interested in genetic predisposition: whatever influences an organism's behavior is irrelevant. All that matters is whether the organism can be judged successful, or not.
And you really need to read some evolutionary theory more recent than the 19th Century, Hamburger.
Darwin's "Descent through Modification" holds up incredibly well - but "Survival of the Fittest" is no considered to be only one of several factors in evolution, and generall one of the least significant factors.
It also is misunderstood and misused about as often as "entropy" in debates about evolution.
And apparently it is what keeps you still fixated on the "organism" instead of the "population."
@Pastafarian
Exactly what is your point? Populations still evolve because certain individual organisms reproduce and certain ones die; Populations will not evolve when all members are given equal chances of survival and reproduction.
Your previous posts imply that "preserving life" should be the basis for ethics because it is the basis for evolution; I am pointing out to you the flaw in your logic: evolution cannot be used to justify a "feel-good" altruistic philosophy where all lives are preserved equally at all times, no matter what. If you believe that, that's fine and good, but the argument "all life is precious" is based in faith and emotion, not science and fact.
All of this is irrelevant. Whatever "science" and religion can conjure up as the "foundation" of ethical behavior is just an illusion with no teeth. I can always choose to act against it - the only way ethical behavior can be enforced is by the will of Stronger humans (those in positions of power) not Nature.
Ah, I see the problem - you're a thug who believes force defines everything; might makes right, period.
By your standard, it's perfectly alright to rob someone at gunpoint - or even kill them if the mood strikes you.
Whether you call it religious-based morality or an inherent pattern of ethical behavior, it's about PERSONAL CONDUCT as a member of a population or society.
It's something you do because you believe/think/feel it's RIGHT - regardless of consequences.
And my point all along has been that there is no need for an external deity to derive a rational, ethical behavior system.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!