´óÏó´«Ã½

Harris fails at the first hurdle. Any of his blogs I've read seem to answer the question 'how can we maximise human well-being?' and assume that by doing so, he has derived morality from science. However I haven't seen him explain how human well-being is a moral goal, purely through science; he just assumes it. All he's doing is using science to work out human well-being, which ethicists have been doing for a long time. His assumption is the bit he'd really need to prove, but which he conveniently skips over. Or at least, that's what he's done in anything I've read to date.

Take for instance his recent blog about The Moral Landscape in the Huffington Post.
'1. Are there right and wrong answers to moral questions?

Morality must relate, at some level, to the well-being of conscious creatures. If there are more and less effective ways for us to seek happiness and to avoid misery in this world -- and there clearly are -- then there are right and wrong answers to questions of morality.'

He's starting with an ethical assumption, not deriving ethics from science. Nothing new here and certainly nothing revolutionary. He's begging the question really.

'2. Are you saying that science can answer such questions?

Yes, in principle. Human well-being is not a random phenomenon. It depends on many factors -- ranging from genetics and neurobiology to sociology and economics. But, clearly, there are scientific truths to be known about how we can flourish in this world. Wherever we can have an impact on the well-being of others, questions of morality apply.'

Human well-being isn't random, but it isn't predictable either, unless you're able to see all the consequences of your actions. Harris, as far as I'm aware, doesn't have perfect knowledge. Of course, neither do I, so I don't know for sure.

'3. But can't moral claims be in conflict? Aren't there many situations in which one person's happiness means another's suffering?

There are some circumstances like this, and we call these contests "zero-sum." Generally speaking, however, the most important moral occasions are not like this. If we could eliminate war, nuclear proliferation, malaria, chronic hunger, child abuse, etc.'

This is either hopelessly naive or outright deceptive. He honestly doesn't think that there are conflicts of interest pertaining to personal happiness in any of these situations? Really? Besides, moral 'contests' are the most important questions in morality, because they're the hard questions. If science could form a basis for morality, but couldn't address these situations, I would be less than impressed.

'But we don't have to wait for science to do this. We already have very good reasons to believe that mistreating children is bad for everyone. I think it is important for us to admit that this is not a claim about our personal preferences, or merely something our culture has conditioned us to believe. It is a claim about the architecture of our minds and the social architecture of our world. Moral truths of this kind must find their place in any scientific understanding of human experience.'

I'm in the middle of the dessert with a child and a bottle of water. Help is on the way, but there's only enough water for one of us to survive. Do I leave the water for the child, or drink it myself and hide the child's body? I think we'd agree that mistreating the second option would be mistreating the child, but why would that be bad for me, scientifically speaking? And isn't 'mistreat' a morally loaded word?

'4. What if some people simply have different notions about what is truly important in life? How could science tell us that the actions of the Taliban are in fact immoral, when the Taliban think they are behaving morally?

As I discuss in my book, there may be different ways for people to thrive, but there are clearly many more ways for them not to thrive. The Taliban are a perfect example of a group of people who are struggling to build a society that is obviously less good than many of the other societies on offer.'

Ah, the highest standard of logical proof imaginable – 'it's obvious.'

'This may seem like common sense to us -- and it is -- but I am saying that it is also, at bottom, a claim about biology, psychology, sociology, and economics. It is not, therefore, unscientific to say that the Taliban are wrong about morality. In fact, we must say this, the moment we admit that we know anything at all about human well-being.'

Strictly speaking, it is scientific to say that the Taliban have a negative impact on some measures of human well being. Harris has yet to reveal any scientific proof that human well being is a moral good, so this is where moral conflict come in. The Taliban may well agree that they have a negative impact on some measures of human well being. But those measures aren't moral values. Again Harris conflates ability to measure values with derivation of those values in the first place.

'5. But what if the Taliban simply have different goals in life?

Well, the short answer is -- they don't. They are clearly seeking happiness in this life, and, more importantly, they imagine that they are securing it in a life to come. They believe that they will enjoy an eternity of happiness after death by following the strictest interpretation of Islamic law here on earth. This is also a claim about which science should have an opinion -- as it is almost certainly untrue. There is no question, however, that the Taliban are seeking well-being, in some sense -- they just have some very strange beliefs about how to attain it.'

So the Taliban are wrong because they've got the consequences of their actions wrong, whereas the omnipotent scientists knows that the consequences of his actions will always be good. Uh huh.

Surely the phrase 'seeking well-being, in some sense' is rather more important than the way Harris just slips it in there. The 'some sense' is the moral conflict - the entire question he is being asked!

'8. Why is it taboo for a scientist to attempt to answer moral questions?
... As I try to show in my book, it is not a sign of intolerance for us to notice that some cultures and sub-cultures do a terrible job of producing human lives worth living.'

Apparently science can tell you if life is worth living. That's an interesting one. I'm curious about what Harris' views are on the lives of the profoundly disabled. Not accusing him of anything here or trying to smear his name. Just wondering where his philosophy would logically lead.

'10. What do you think the role of religion is in determining human morality?

I think it is generally an unhelpful one. Religious ideas about good and evil tend to focus on how to achieve well-being in the next life, and this makes them terrible guides to securing it in this one. Of course, there are a few gems to be found in every religious tradition, but insofar as these precepts are wise and useful they are not, in principle, religious. You do not need to believe that the Bible was dictated by the Creator of the Universe, or that Jesus Christ was his son, to see the wisdom and utility of following the Golden Rule.

The problem with religious morality is that it often causes people to care about the wrong things,'

Besides a terrible amount of ignorance being displayed, there's a lot of inconsistency here. Science is helpful, even if it can't answer some questions, yet religion is helpful because there are some problems. What about foundational issues, rather than examples? Where's the principle Harris is so fond of?

'When we realize that morality relates to questions of human and animal well-being'

Of course, when we realize the unproven assertion.

'we can see that the Catholic Church is as confused about morality as it is about cosmology.'

Oh, I see what he did there. Several hundred years ago, the church had problems with Galileo, therefore it must still confused about cosmology today! How delightfully insightful and with the times. Not to mention witty.

'It is not offering an alternative moral framework; it is offering a false one.'

Because Harris has scientifically proven that the consequences of the Catholic moral framework are worse for human well being than the scientific framework (whatever that might be).

'11. So people don't need religion to live an ethical life?'

No. And a glance at the lives of most atheists, and at the most atheistic societies on earth -- Denmark, Sweden, etc. -- proves that this is so. '

How so? Harris doesn't explain. Maybe you have to buy the book.

'Even the faithful can't really get their deepest moral principles from religion -- because books like the Bible and the Qur'an are full of barbaric injunctions that all decent and sane people must now reinterpret or ignore.'

A universal claim made from a handful of specific examples. Astonishing use of (il)logic.

'How is it that most Jews, Christians, and Muslims are opposed to slavery? You don't get this moral insight from scripture, because the God of Abraham expects us to keep slaves. Consequently, even religious fundamentalists draw many of their moral positions from a wider conversation about human values that is not, in principle, religious.'

Well that's just plain ignorant. There are plenty of hermeneutics which lead to people reading the Bible as opposed to slavery. But that's beside the point - he's again committing the fallacy of trying to prove a universal from a few specific examples.

Even setting that aside, there exists (within Christianity at least), the idea that non-religious people can behave in moral ways. In fact there are times when it very clearly expects that non-religious people will behave in moral ways. The question 'do you need religion to be moral' is therefore something of a red herring. Does a religion have to be true in order for anyone to be moral is another question.

'12. How will admitting that there are right and wrong answers to issues of human and animal flourishing transform the way we think and talk about morality?

What I've tried to do in my book is give a framework in which we can think about human values in universal terms. Currently, the most important questions in human life -- questions about what constitutes a good life, which wars we should fight or not fight, which diseases should be cured first, etc. -- are thought to lie outside the purview of science, in principle.'

Clearly there's no need to prove that these are the most important things. We just believ- I mean, scientifically assume that they are. Just as people are clearly indecent or insane if they disagree with Harris about the Bible (or any other religious text, presumably).

'Therefore, we have divorced the most important questions in human life from the context in which our most rigorous and intellectually honest thinking gets done.'

You heard it folks. No one is as rigorous or intellectually honest as a scientist. And you can believe Harris when he says it, because he is one. So the issue has clearly been rigorously and honestly addressed. As should be obvious to sane and decent people.

'Moral truth entirely depends on actual and potential changes in the well-being of conscious creatures. As such, there are things to be discovered about it through careful observation and honest reasoning. It seems to me that the only way we are going to build a global civilization based on shared values -- allowing us to converge on the same political, economic, and environmental goals -- is to admit that questions about right and wrong and good and evil have answers, in the same way the questions about human health do.'

Maybe I'm insane (or indecent), but haven't people been saying that there are objective moral truths for quite some time? Wouldn't honest reasoning involve Harris admitting that his opening line about moral truth is itself an unscientific moral value and that science merely has utility in measuring the value, rather than deriving it?

For all the hype and bluster, there's nothing new here that I can see and, like Dawkins, a tremendous amount of ignorance regarding anything outside of science. For all the talk of rigour, many of his arguments seem to boil down to 'it's obvious' or 'you have to be mad to disagree.'

Really, it's a combination of confusing a thermometer with a theory of thermodynamics, claiming to have invented the wheel, and asserting that because penguins can't fly, birds never will (is that a sufficiently scientific description of the issue?).

re Does morality stem from science or religion? ( And relgion v science can the divide between God nad rationality be reconciled?)

At first glance I say neither - it (morality) stems from one's heart (inner heart to be precise). To flesh that out - it is innate within everyone but through the process of growing up and living for many that source of wisdom/morality becomes hidden/buried/cut-off/separated etc hence we can make choices that could be considered immoral.

So it is possible to know nothing of science or religious doctrines and to be guided by the wisdom of one's inner heart. It is why many people leave religion (but not God) as they come to see /feel the fallacy of many of the religious teachings that are at odds with the wisdom in their own heart/soul.

I could offer an alternative view that would have morality coming from religion - but here religion meaning relationship with self, God and other. It is necessary to know one's self to know God/other - and in that knowing one would come to know the wisdom of the heart. So again it really comes back to that. Therefore, it is possible to have an atheist scientist who is heart connected and could act in a more moral way than many traditional religious people who may be bigoted etc.

Whilst it may be a long way off - I feel one day science and religion will agree. I have no problem marrying them as I understand them - albeit I appreciate there are huge differences as they are currently portrayed/understood. A small example is a recent paper showing that lifestyle factors can affect risk of breast cancer even in those with a genetic predisposition. The lifestyle factors all being in the direction of leading a more self-caring life. This is entirely consistent with what I have been saying on here re the true nature of the human person being love and how we need to make self-loving, self-caring choices to heal etc.

On a lighter note - Even for something like weight loss - I hear Stephen Nolan going on about his weight from time to time - and yo-yo dieting - but again that comes back to living a self-caring life and dealing with the deep emotional issues that result in over-eating of which there are many - as anyone who has been overweight knows (incl self). As the lovelessness is addressed and emotional issues dealt with then the weight comes off....naturally ...as the need to comfort eat diminishes. There is more to it of course and it's easier to write than live at times!! ;-) I have wandered off track.

However, the question -'can the divide between God and rationality be reconciled?' is a bit of misnomer as it infers God is not rational or intelligent. Or that human rationality supercedes God's rationality/intelligence! Very funny.
Laughter aside there is a serious point - comes back to the differnce between the intelligence of the mind and the wisdom of the heart - humans deal with/prefer the former and God deals with/works with the latter. (and the rationality of God that I refer to above is really the wisdom of love rather than mind based intelligence).

So to answer the question perhaps when we humans get off our arrogant mind driven intellects and sit with humility in the wisdom of our own hearts we will realise just how false this self-created 'divide' is and perhaps weep twice - once for the harm we have caused ourselves and others through our disregard in thought word and deed, and secondly weep with joy at coming home to love! :-))

"Top stories of the week"???

The one on 'Can religion and science be reconciled?' is an article about Michael Reiss from 2008!

Oh, you meant top stories from a week in 2008!

Prebysterian Mutual Society

By how much will taxpayers be fleeced by this bail-out?

On another thread it was pointed out that the Presbyterian Church has recently spent millions of pounds renovating its headquarters, yet it seems unable to do the right thing by its savers! A supporter of the bail-out argued that the Church and its savers are two separate entities therefore savings couldn't be made on one area to help savers in another. Perhaps this is true, but what about taxpayers - does the "separate" argument not apply here!

Chilean miners - Various sects claim credit for the "miracle".

What about the thousands who die every year in mines around the world - has God just not got the time to lend these unfortunates a hand with their collapsed shafts?

In this case it has been reported that something resembling a "white butterfly" led a trapped miner to the refuge. Well, what possible travel options did he have?

The sooner superstitious nonsense like this is treated with the contempt it deserves the better. Unfortunately, however, I think we will here more fiction like this when the books, ghost-written, are published!

The "trolly problem"- an ethical test in Prospect was an interesting read. For me , the reasoning behind why 90% would flick the switch to change the point on the tracks to save 5 lives with one fatality, as opposed to why 90% wouldn't push the fat man off the bridge onto the tracks with the same outcome is :- the responsability of the accident in the first situation is laid squarley at the trolley - for being out of control.By flicking the switch you're controlling the trolley to the best of your ability. Pushing the fat man involves the participant taking responsabilty for a death instead of the trolley. Maybe it's the differentiation between being the cause or the catalyst in the outcome.

newlach (@ 6) -

Oooh, it must be so hard for you, newlach, to have to coexist on the same planet as people who hold views with which you disagree. Poor poor little you! You really must be suffering soooo much. And to think of all those nasty, naughty ghost-written books that are about to be published, that have the nerve, the audacity, the cheek to affirm this 'orrible thing called Christianity! Oh what a terrible nuisance. Oh dear, I almost feel myself welling up in pity for you. [/satire and contempt]

Actually, newlach, like anyone else reading your bit of ignorant diatribe, I have a choice: do I believe the views of the cozy, comfortable, armchair atheist cynic from the west, or do I accept the testimony of brave men who lived through the most harrowing of experiences, and faced death in the face? Which of these two opinions has more plausibility? Has more reality? Has more guts and courage?

I'll leave other readers to work it out.

For me, it's a no brainer really.

(As for 'superstitious nonsense', well, I've heard of a certain theory that fits that bill. But I think I've written enough about that fantasy already...)

LSV,

I think Newlach must've hit a sore point with you then.

I find it amazing, nay, stupendous that people are quite happy to give god the credit for an extremely challanging and technical operation, totally ignoring the vast amounts of effort put in by a lot of hard working people and yet, and yet! refuse to acknowledge that if god is to blame for the rescue, he's equally culpable for the whole disaster in the first place!

It's that kind of blind, ignorant superstitious nonsense that makes religious codswhallop so easy to pick holes in.

Please, if anyone can point out where my thinking here is flawed, and somehow god can look good in all of this, then let me know.

I will use e-volves and kalvers logic

the only sensible position is to take no position

now please prove otherwise

CTT

Natman -

Hmmm.

I didn't know that the irresponsible owner of the San Jose mine was called 'god'.

Like they say... you learn something new every day!

Talking about the miners praising God - I don't suppose it has occurred to you in your quite obvious infinite wisdom ('cos we know, don't we, that atheists know everything) that there was a lot more to the rescue than simply the technological side (vital though that was). But in your reductionist world you seem to forget that reality is a bit bigger than matter and machines (and, of course, the technological side of it was not in any way dependent on atheism! Just as science in general doesn't need atheism). But, I guess that people like you - being the super duper higher beings that you think you are - might simply regard the miners as a load of thicko peasants, who need to be liberated by the 'light' (ha ha) of total meaninglessness and the emptiness of materialistic reductionism. After all, I seem to remember your view of Chinese Christians, in one of your particularly 'profound' pieces of analysis!

Personally I think these 'thicko peasants' know a lot more about reality than you do, judging by your comments. Still I suppose people like you will probably explain away their theistic views by speculating that it was a bout of mental illness down the mine (perhaps that is why our sagely British media keep going on about "the psychological effects" all the time). Of course, they can't prove this, but I suppose the theory fits nicely into that preconceived worldview, which must never be ruffled by the light of reality!

There's nothing quite like a closed mind: hermetically sealed and harder than the rock of the San Jose mine, from which nothing can be rescued.

I think Newlach must've hit a sore point with you then.

Quite right. I feel very sore for him, and pained that someone can be so blind.

...totally ignoring the vast amounts of effort put in by a lot of hard working people...

Oh, so the 92% of the hardworking Chilean population who believe in God have to give up their faith, because an anonymous atheist blogger tells them to: "Oy, you up there working the winch, stop whistling that praise song, it's upsetting the sensitive and delicate atheists of the western world!"

I don't suppose it's occurred to you that most people in the world recognise the real reason why they are able to work hard and have any intelligence at all? I'll leave you to work that one out, if you're up to it.

LSV,

You're missing the point, completely.

If the rescuing of the miners, done entirely by the stint of human effort (I didn't see any miraculous events taking place, did you?), can be attributed to god, then why can't the mine collapse?

Why do religous people always give god the credit for the good stuff, but never blame him for the bad?

It's like the story of the plane crash. It's a divine miracle that that little girl survived! Oh the other 180 people? And the girls 3rd degree burns? Nah, that's an accident, look a miracle!

"Religion vs science: can the divide between God and rationality be reconciled?"

The question should actually be: Can the divide between materialism and rationality be reconciled?

We need to possess intelligence to think rationally. Thus rationality is dependent on the existence of intelligent minds. But woe betide any poor soul who dares to suggest that rationality might actually be dependent, not only on the existence of human intelligence, but on an ultimate intelligence, on which our rational and intelligible universe depends!

Quite how we have got to the position where we even need to ask the question as to how rationality can be reconciled with an ultimate intelligence, is quite astounding. How rationality can sit more easily with an ultimate non-intelligence than with an ultimate intelligence is beyond me.

(But, of course, it isn't really beyond me. I understand perfectly well why we are in this position. Let me whisper it very quietly, as it's a very sensitive matter: it is because there are personal and moral implications to believing in an ultimate intelligence... Sshhhh. Not too loud now...)

9 Natman

Your thinking is not flawed.

Christopher Hitchins writes that in the debris of Ground Zero two pieces of mangled girder stood in the sign of a cross. This was seen by Christians as a sign of God; not simply as something likely to be found in the remains of a structure assembled using crossbeams. Of course, things would have been very different had it been a huge white butterfly that flapped its wings! Why did these same Christians not question the idea of the existence of God when the planes struck?

Here is a short piece written by the distinguished evolutionary geneticist Jerry A Coyne entitled "Science and religion aren't friends" that you might like to read and which William might consider adding to the main page.

Sorry, but why does nearly every thread become an atheism vs theism argument?! The Universe may just be the equivalent of some preverbial throw of the dice by god- see what lands, see what sticks, see what life comes out of it this time round. We live in an unusually quiet and perfect part of the Universe to sustain life. They even call it the Goldilocks zone. God may not be a human like figure looking down on us. Our ego's & sense of our own importance as a species need to believe a creator is exactly like us- but better and more powerful- But there are so many other life forms on this planet other than us humans, and if you don't think we're descended from apes just look at how much fur some people still have! We were just the most aggressive ape- More aggressive than Orangutans or Mountain Gorillas. We are not more blessed than any other creature, we just enslave practically every other species on the planet to our needs.

The argument seems to be here, the rescue of the Chilean miners represents the hand of God- the counter argument seems to be- that disrespects other people who die in disasters every year around the world. Instead of attributing God directly to the situation - maybe it really was down to hard work of the people who rescued them combined with it not being their time to go.

What is good and godly about the situation are the people outside who made sure the people trapped inside the mine were rescued.

OK, maybe a story for next week's round-up, but in a staggering twist of oddness, I find myself in agreement with our First Minister that we should end state subsidy for the Catholic Maintained Sector, and bring all education into the State Sector. He calls our current system a "benign apartheid" - it is anything but benign. We will not need an integrated sector when the whole thing is integrated. Much as I respect the work that many teachers in the Catholic Maintained sector do, it is intolerable that so much public money goes into maintaining division and supporting an infrastructure that, despite the good work of many teachers, provides a platform and undue privilege to one particular sect. And, by default, that division gives undue privilege to other sects in the state sector; many of us educated in that sector can bear witness to that.
The solution is an entirely secular all-inclusive education system, with religious education restructured to teach children *about* religions and worldviews and ethics, and re-named "Worldview Education" or some such, with the removal of bias towards fanciful notions of belief-based Christianity.

I have just finished reading (actually listening) to 'The Moral Landscape' and was impressed. I believe Sam is essentially right but that he (or others) need to flesh out the arguments a bit more.

Jonathan Boyd gave a very detailed and well thought out reply but I feel he misses the point Sam Harris is making (Jonathan I mean no disrespect). If you are continuing to look for a source of absolute morality then you are never going to agree with Sam's claims.

I think to understand Sam's position you must initially ignore the concept of morality for a moment. He is claiming that the wellbeing of individuals and of society is in our best interests. It represents a better existence as it provides us with purpose and meaning in our lives. This sense of wellbeing has a scientific basis as it represents a conjunction of states of our brains and our environments.
If (big if) we can accept this a basic principle then we can define morality as those actions that increase our wellbeing and that of others. So yes, he is defining morality as essentially an invention by humanity.

Some will find this too arbitrary, but I think if you're going to look for a definition of morality that somehow exists as an absolute outside of time and space you will be searching forever. Obviously some believe that God fulfils this role but of course all of the many religions cannot agree with each other as to what this absolute source of morality is. This does not suggest that there is much basis for believing in this ultimate absolute source.

So while Sam is suggesting that morality is what we make it, he is trying to point out that there are very good scientific reasons for believing that 'wellbeing' represents the logical goal for this morality. And yes, in the book he goes into a lot more detail about this 'wellbeing.

Heliopolitan

I too am in agreement with the First Minister and I have no memory of having been in agreement with him before. You make a good point about his inappropriate use of the word "benign". All children should continue to learn about different religions and world views.

Selena Hall (@ 17) -

"He is claiming that the wellbeing of individuals and of society is in our best interests. It represents a better existence as it provides us with purpose and meaning in our lives."

Pardon me for 'gatecrashing' on your conversation with Jonathan, but as this is a public discussion, I will make a few points about what you have written.

I don't see how the empirical scientific method (in other words 'science') can provide a basis for morality. What about people who argue that it is in their best interests, for example, to stone adulterous women to death? Or to murder members of a certain race, because that race is deemed to be contaminating the purity of the master race? Or to send to the Gulag people who hold to a world view with which they disagree? Surely they think that these actions give their lives purpose and meaning and enhance their wellbeing.

Science cannot answer these questions. It can inform us about the composition of the rocks used to hurl at the condemned woman. It can calculate the trajectory of the rocks (or rather mathematics can). It can explain why the impact of the rocks has a particular effect on the skull. It can elucidate the chemical composition of the gas used in the gas chambers, or explain the biological processes that take place when someone dies a certain death. It can predict how long a human being may survive in the severe cold of Siberia. It may be able to do all these things, but it cannot tell us whether these actions are 'right' or 'wrong'. (Note that I have included the example of stoning, which is associated not only with Islam but also with the Old Testament, so I am not running away from acknowledging that there are controversial aspects to moral judgments associated with religion - and I admit, as a Christian, that I find some aspects of biblical morality difficult. I've never pretended otherwise. However this difficulty does not somehow exonerate scientific materialism by default.)

The argument about the contradictory morality of different religions is no proof (by default) of the moral authority of science. As a Christian I am no apologist for Islam, for example. There is a tendency to lump all 'non-atheistic' views together in one homogeneous category, and all so-called 'religious' people are guilty by association of all crimes committed by any 'religious' person. This is invalid reasoning. And it is worth noting that atheists generally disassociate themselves from the crimes of Stalin, but many are quite willing to judge 'religious' people in a way that they resent being judged (so much for morality!).

The argument against Sam Harris' view is one of falsification. This falsification does not prove the validity of the moral position of any religion. But what it does show is that science cannot explain morality. So we deduce that if we are to accept that morality has validity (and can you imagine a nightmare world without morality?) then this acceptance of its validity constitutes evidence that there are sources of knowledge outside the scope of the empirical scientific method. In other words, religious (non-naturalistic) voices have a legitimate place in our society, since the moral voice of scientific materialism is clearly inadequate.

If morality is merely relative, then we are back to square one. Anything goes.

And there are those who say that morality is just an illusion in our (apparently) mindless universe. Yet these same people (as I have read on this blog) are quite happy to use the words 'justice' and 'mercy' as if they have real meaning. Not a lot of logic there, I'm afraid!

LSV....I agree with your comments. Harris and his cronies are coming up with enumerous amounts of rambling theories in order to try and explain away the existence of God....strange as it may seem, I think it helps even more into proving that he does exist.

logiga_sine_vanitate

I love the latin!

You are totally pardoned. As you say it is public discussion. You obviously have not read Sam's book going by the fact that you argue with my poor reasoning rather than Sam's. I would rather you read the book for yourself than take exception to my weak and feeble attempts to defend it.

"What about people who argue that it is in their best interests, for example, to stone adulterous women to death? Or to murder members of a certain race, because that race is deemed to be contaminating the purity of the master race?"


Ok, good point. But you see, Sam deals with this in the book. Stoning adulterous women to death is detrimental to society and the idea of a 'pure' master race has no basis in science (no the Nazi's did not adopt Darwinian evolution. In fact they banned it).
You are assuming that Sam is arguing for the wellbeing of the individual only. He definitely is not!

Sam Harris is a neuroscientist as well as a philosopher. He is arguing from empirical evidence that wellbeing is represented in processes in the human brain.
And here is the crux. If you do not accept that the human experience is the result of the processes of the brain then our conversation is at an end. if you do then Sam's arguments make a lot of sense.

Clearly the initial hurdle is the definition of the human mind. I do not accept the idea of a soul therefore I believe Sam's reasoning is sound. If you believe in a soul then you do not.

Oh and by the way, of course morality is relative. Show me a society where this isn't true. The point is that there actually is a scientifically based, logical reason for favouring morality that increases the wellbeing of society.

Anyway please read the book with an open mind. It does have some new ideas and brings new arguments to the table.

Deari me, LSV, are you still flogging this dead horse? Of course science does not provide a basis for moral decisions. No-one is claiming that it does. People do what people do; morality is simply a set of heuristics which are hard/firm/soft-coded in our brains to enable us to make better decisions. And if we have a set of ideas in our heads as to what constitutes "better", science gives us a means by which to analyse those decisions and act accordingly.

The Massive Problem for you is that religion or belief in magic space pixies does not provide a basis for morality either, despite your bluster. Morality is something we work out among ourselves; fantasy gods or their alleged "revelations" have *nothing* constructive to add to that process. You are simply deluding yourself. Sorry, but that's the way it is. My moral principles do not allow me to let you persist in your ignorance without me at least alerting you to this fact. Now, fatty, are you going to jump off the bridge, or do I have to push you? ;-)

Helio # 16
I agree. It is an educational aparteid that perpetuates many of the problems in Northern Ireland. Everyone should have a secular education from the same syllabus, and as you say -instead of R.E, there should be a sort of *worldview class* looking at all belief systems.

Im sure many kids here don't realise Muslims are divided into Sunni,Kharijite and Shia. Maybe some kids in the middle east don't fully understand how Christians are divided up either. It's funny the greater you zoom in on things- you realise how even the various sects are divided inside.

Maybe when you don't have an emotional attachment to something it's easier to see religion as a human construct with everyone offering the authentic path to God & that alot of it has nothing to with spiritual wellbeing but power, control and tribalism. Maybe kids will realise adults make a mockery of spirituality with religion

Helio (@ 22) -

Ha ha ha! I can always rely on Helio to cheer me up.

"The Massive Problem for you is that religion or belief in magic space pixies does not provide a basis for morality either, despite your bluster."

I entirely agree that belief in magic space pixies does not provide a basis for morality. Since I don't believe in 'magic space pixies' (whatever they might be) then I can't really see the point of that argument. However, the recognition that there is a need for morality (which has to have objective validity, if you think about it) constitutes evidence for the existence of a reality which cannot be explained purely materialistically. That is my point and it has always been my point. We are at the level of falsification, I'm afraid. Which, by the way, is the process you chappies and chapesses use to assume that the super improbable (probably impossible) naturalistic explanation for life is true. So don't knock falsification. The moral sense falsifies naturalistic claims. It does not necessarily prove the claims of any one religion. That is as far as I can go with you 'one way sceptics' (I use that phrase, since you refuse to test the toxicity of your own 'cup of tea', but gulp it down with a startling degree of gullibility).

"You are simply deluding yourself. Sorry, but that's the way it is."

Oh, please don't apologise. I am very happy not believing your particular version of desperate auto-suggestion lavishly fertilised by unproven and unproveable assumptions. I have a pretty good idea of how to approach the concept of truth: a skill that is singularly lacking in those who still haven't quite grasped the limitations of the scientific method (based as it is on empiricism, which has a severely limited scope - need I spell it out for you again?).

Still, I have to say that I feel truly warmed by your deep concern for me to come into the 'truth' of total despair and meaninglessness. I mean the idea of an ultimate intelligence as the basis for understanding this intelligible universe, not to mention the validity of our own reason - I mean it really is silly, isn't it? Why can't people like me just face what is so glaringly obvious: that (despite all empirical appearances) complexity derives from non-intelligence (and the greater the complexity the greater the unintelligence of its cause), and that despite the fact that your epistemology cannot obey even its own golden rule, we are to believe that all knowledge derives from sense perception. [sarcasm over]. Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear, Helio. I really thought better of you.

Please carry on telling me that I am simply deluding myself. It will exercise your fingers on the keyboard. I think I will practise it myself: y-o-u a-r-e s-i-m-p-l-y d-e-l-u-d-i-n-g y-o-u-r-s-e-l-f. Wow, that feels better already! I can write all sorts of other stuff as well: the quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. How about that?! Anybody can write anything on a keyboard, but, of course, if you actually want to write something meaningful how about providing some coherent arguments? And once I have seen those coherent and irrefutable arguments that prove that materialism is true and can explain everything while falsifying all other conceivable positions, and if I still insist on believing in that which so offends you, then, by all means, lament my tragic self-delusion.

Although, of course, if I am deluded, and your highly tenuous world view is correct, then obviously that is how good old nature made me. So there is no 'right' or 'wrong', 'true' or 'false' about it.

"Now, fatty, are you going to jump off the bridge, or do I have to push you? ;-)"

Don't quite know why Aunty allowed that comment through (or perhaps 'obesism' isn't yet in the same taboo category as all those other absurd '-isms' and '-phobias' that populate the new secular morality). Push push push as hard as you like. I have yet to feel even the slightest pressure from atheists that will cause me to wobble. You should have worked out by now that the only thing that can ever trouble me is a coherent and irrefutable argument. I stand here (slim as I am, though admittedly I could be slimmer) leaning on the railing of the bridge, gazing contentedly into the distance, and a few oblivionistas walk past blowing raspberries at me (hissing oh so clever phrases like 'thtraw man' and 'thircular argumenth') and I feel positively giddy (not!).

Try again, me old china. Make me wobble. I wait with bated breath. :-)

LSV,

Your argument from incredulity that you cannot conceive of a universe of some complexity without an intelligent cause has been questioned on other threads and you've totally ignored the comments to refute it. Trying to raise it on another thread won't make it go away.

...the recognition that there is a need for morality...constitutes evidence for the existence of a reality which cannot be explained purely materialistically

How, exactly? Humans need morals as we're complicated social creatures with developed langauge skills and an ability to over-rule our instictive behaviour. If morals were so hard coded into the universe, then why don't animals show any? If morals are so intertwined into the fabric of 'creation', then why do bad things happen to good people?

Evade this onto another thread all you like, but you cannot, and have not, provided one scrap of anything resembling evidence, justification or 'proof' so show that universe has some form of moral code built in.

How hard can it be?

Morals exist
Morals come from God
Therefore God exists

Take that atheists!

@LSV

The moral sense falsifies naturalistic claims.

Really? Would you like to expand a bit on that? There is a great deal of info out there which you might want to check out between bible studies before you pursue such a claim. Because at the moment your argument is not that much more sophisticated than how Paul paradies it. It seems to me to be:

1)The moral sense exists.
2)I can't understand how it could have arisen naturally.
3)Therefore it didn't.
4)Therefore naturalism is false.
4a)(And by the way, empiricism is self refuting.)

As has been pointed out to you before, 2) needs a bit of work.

@Selena Hall (17)

Sorry for a slow reply Selena. When there was no response in the first couple of days, I stopped checking the discussion.

I'm afraid that I can’t agree with you when you suggest that I've missed the point. Admittedly, I haven’t read the book, so what I'm saying is based on Harris' rather detailed blog post in the same subject, but if his arguments has any coherence, that shouldn’t be a major issue unless we're getting into finer details. The main thrust of his argument should be the same in both.

Getting back to the blog, therefore, the very first question Harris was asked is 'Are there right and wrong answers to moral questions.' His answer is that 'Morality must relate, at some level, to the well-being of conscious creatures.' That is the first important building block of his argument.

The second question he was asked is whether 'science can answer such questions,' to which he replied that 'clearly, there are scientific truths to be known about how we can flourish in this world.'

Together, these two assertions form the basis of his argument:

Morality must relate to well-being.
Clearly science shows us how to attain well-being.
Therefore science tells us what is moral.

He later goes on to say that 'The problem with religious morality is that it often causes people to care about the wrong things.' This is in contrast to scientific morality, which causes people to care about the right things. Moral truth can be discovered by [admitting] that questions about right and wrong and good and evil have answers, in the same way the questions about human health do,' i.e. morality is reduced to science.

The trouble is that all of this begins with two flawed assumptions:
1) morality is about well-being,
2) the way to well-being is knowable by science.

Harris' aim seems to be to reduce morality to a matter of pure science, but science says nothing about these two crucial assumptions. Science doesn't explain to you that morality is about well-being. In fact Harris doesn't explain why it is; he simply says 'clearly' and 'obviously' a lot of times and hope that no-one will ask him to show his working. Neither does he engage substantively with the issue of how you can know well-being. He doesn't deal with consequentialism or deontological vs. teleological ethics, etc. He doesn't deal with the complex issues of whose well-being matters or what happens when you have different definitions of well-being. The closest he comes to this is by observing that 'some cultures and sub-cultures do a terrible job of producing human lives worth living,' but since when has science been in the business of measuring the worth of life?

If Harris' main point was that science can be used to gather data for some measures of well-being, then he would be saying nothing new and proposing nothing that people with many different views of morality, from religious to atheistic, don't already agree on.

But that's not what he's doing. He's trying to reduce morality to a question of pure science, but not even getting past the first step, because he has to begin with an unscientific assumption about what constitutes morality. He's inconsistent in his argument because of this. What he's doing is defining morality as all about well-being, establishing some measures of well-being that can be measured by science and then claiming that science must be able to tell us what is right or wrong. Sure, that may be true of his version of morality, but if you can rig the game from the beginning, then it's no surprise that you're going to come to that sort of conclusion.

The truth is that science is adequate for morality if you define morality in a particular way. But there is no compelling argument to do so and certainly no scientific one.

His argument is roughly equivalent to saying 'Morality is all about style, therefore a sense of fashion is all we need in order to know what is right and wrong, because fashion tells us what is stylish.' Such a claim rests on two unproven presuppositions:
1) morality is about style,
2) fashion reliably tells you all you need to know about style.

Getting back to your own post for a moment, these kinds of flaws exist in your own writing.

'I think to understand Sam's position you must initially ignore the concept of morality for a moment. He is claiming that the wellbeing of individuals and of society is in our best interests. It represents a better existence as it provides us with purpose and meaning in our lives.'

That's an entirely arbitrary meaning and purpose and I fail to see how to improves the quality of life.

'This sense of wellbeing has a scientific basis as it represents a conjunction of states of our brains and our environments.'

But there is nothing scientific about saying that well-being is limited to scientifically-measurably well-being. It is not within the purview of science to say if there is anything that can be known outside of science - it's a metaphysical claim. Even the very idea of scientifically-measurable well-being is of limited value because the well-being of individuals and societies comes into conflict in many ways.

'If (big if) we can accept this a basic principle then we can define morality as those actions that increase our wellbeing and that of others. So yes, he is defining morality as essentially an invention by humanity.'

As you say, that's a big if. Why should anyone go along with Harris' version of morality? He is very keen to say that religious morality isn't simply an alternative, but that it is patently, obviously, clearly wrong. He is setting up a relative, invented morality, then acting as if it is the obvious objective standard by which to criticise other moral systems. That's a massive inconsistency.

'Some will find this too arbitrary, but I think if you're going to look for a definition of morality that somehow exists as an absolute outside of time and space you will be searching forever.'

Is that a scientific statement? Is it one that you can back up with evidence?

'Obviously some believe that God fulfils this role but of course all of the many religions cannot agree with each other as to what this absolute source of morality is. This does not suggest that there is much basis for believing in this ultimate absolute source.'

Isn't that an odd way to evaluate a truth claim? The more competing claims there are, the less likely a claim is to be? By that measure, how likely is Harris' claim about morality to be correct? There are more moral frameworks in existence than religious frameworks and therefore more truth claims, so wouldn't that make his claim all the more laughable?

Of course not. He doesn't believe that, you don't believe that and I don't believe that, because that would be an absurd way to evaluate truth. Truth is determined by evidence for a claim, not the existence of other competing claims.

'he is trying to point out that there are very good scientific reasons for believing that 'wellbeing' represents the logical goal for this morality. And yes, in the book he goes into a lot more detail about this 'wellbeing.'

Would you mind sharing one of the many scientific reasons why morality is about well-being? He didn't provide any in the blog, simply claiming that it's obvious, so it would be helpful for debate if he actually has a reason (or thinks that he does) in the book.

The amount of "faith" you have in the scientific method far exceeds the "evidence" on offer. You fully expect science to explain what it may never be able to explain. On what basis?

Just because gaps in the past where filled in with further naturalistic scientific investigation, it doesn't follow that every gap in the future will be similarly filled in. An argument to the contrary is a relatively weak inductive argument.
To see this consider an analogous argument. If one looks at the history of science, one sees that all scientific theories before the ones that we currently favour have been shown to be false. Does it follow that the scientific theories that we currently favour will be shown to be false too?
The reason that the argument is not that strong is that we could well have good reason to to think that our current theories are true, reasons that didn't exist for the past false theories.
It's also the case that the history of science is full of seemingly insoluble gaps n our understanding that have never been filled in naturalistically-phenomenology, why the universe exists; what the nature of "mass" is; what the universe is made of (ie. what is Dark Matter?The list could go on, but I've said enough to make my point. One can't just say: all gaps in the past have been filled in, so future gaps will be naturalistically filled in as well, because in fact there are some persistent gaps that have never been naturalistically filled in. And there's no sign that they ever will be.
In any case the claim that science can explain everything is not itself a thesis offered by any empirical science.There is no reason to suppose the claim that "science can explain everything" will be included in the hypothetically completed empirical sciences. In fact, the turbulent and sometimes revolutionary history of science would make such speculations dubious.
The claim that "science can explain everything" has a universality of scope (every legitimate method, every real entity) that the empirical sciences avoid. We do not even have any reason to believe that the completed empirical sciences would include any cognitive principles that would justify the claim that "science can explain everything", never mind entail the claim that "science can explain everything". So opposition to the claim that "science can explain everything"logically cannot be identical with opposition to Science in general.

Some might object that the claim that "science can explain everything"is just part of the definition of Science. This is historically inaccurate (see James Hannam's "God's Philosophers"). But it is also an arbitrary move. There is no reason to accept this definition.

Also we have no reason to think that if objective morals exist, objective morals must or even would be available to ordinary scientific investigation. Suppose you explain moral feelings, and why moral feelings are advantageous? SO WHAT? Why should this contingent event, the origin of morality, oblige you and me to perform any act at all? Why can't I just ignore my moral feelings? But if we cannot explain "rational, binding obligations" we have not explained morality at all. We have just explained a set of feelings.
Impressive, but not what LSV is asking for.
So he cites the intentional commands of a rational agent. Now, to my mind, this is a poor definition of the Numinous. But intentions and commands are not mysterious. We use intentions to explain things all the time, and very successful these explanations are too. We know what it is to experience commands. So LSV is arguing from the familiar to the less familar, the experienced to the not experienced. He is not making an argument from ignorance.

My problem is that he is left with personal force. But the numinous seems to be unsayable. I'm not sure that we should argue for it at all. And the less we say the better.

And I can't believe in objective morals in the sense that LSV does (free floating, like primary colours independent of any mythology. We always experience commands within a narrative, not outside it.)

Ho, hum. each to their own.

But it is clear that there is a great deal of religious faith in science on this blog. This may be reduced to a religious faith in human rationality, and this may carry "traces" of the mythology of Stoicism. Perhaps conjoined with the Epicurean creation myth?

If we take the argument - you don't know what human rationality will produce in the future - seriously, and used this to ground our present beliefs about what is or is not true, then we could argue thus

"Maybe the consistency of a formal system containing computable arithmetic really is internally provable after all. Maybe we should just assume that one day some really clever person will prove Godel wrong. After all, before he published everything that he said was considered obviously false."

So you could rationally believe that Godel was wrong! But I don't think any of you would say this.

@DAAR

Who actually makes the argument that science can explain everything?

Science usually restricts itself to the next thing, but if pushed I reckon many scientists would simply maintain that science is the best way to seek an explanation about anything, with the usual caveats about provisional knowledge and such. They might go on to say that if it turns out that science can't explain everything, nothing else will, but that, of course, is not the same claim at all.

Not that it makes any difference to those who like to cry "scientism" at every opportunity.

Grokes

I'll try to have a lucid moment here...what exactly is your case against LSV here? You aren't claiming to have evidence that science will explain the deontological nature of ethics in naturalistic terms.

So you might mean that we can't explain anyting by citing the intentional actions of an agent. But that's absurd. We do this all the time.

Maybe we're wrong, maybe there's no such thing as an intention, and it's all explicable in terms of neurons and such.
But we all know what we mean by "person", and "intention", and such. The concepts seem clear and useful. Maybe like 'phlogiston' and 'aether' we'll end up discovering that they don't have a referent. Maybe like "light" they'll be able to use other, more scientific terms to instead some day. Maybe, maybe not. It's impossible to say at the moment.

But as a matter of fact, without intentional explanations,most of the social sciences, and literary studies, history etc. would all disintegrate. But we don't want to claim that there are NO good explanations in ANY of these domains of discourse, do we?

The fact remains. "Intention", "agent" (and so forth) are useful explanatory concepts. So if LSV wants to use these in an explanation, I can't see the problem. As long as what he's explaining is the sort of thing that agents produce/make/bring about, we've no problem.
And like I said, commands are correlated with agents, and not much else. So he does have an explanation. And like every good explanation, it can be proved wrong - you can replace it with a better one.
And because this agent of LSV's is allegedly GOOD, you can disconfirm his explanation. Is this the sort of thing a GOOD agent would do = suffering, bad design and so forth.

Maybe you're agreeing with all this? Maybe you're saying "Yes, this is a good explanation for morality, or at least a tolerable one. But your solution causes more problems than it solves --- this agent is too strange, or not very coherent, or whatever"

Or maybe you're saying "Yes, this is a good explanation for morality, or at least a tolerable one. But my explanation accounts for more than yours"

Or maybe you're saying "Yes, this is a good explanation for morality, or at least a tolerable one. But my explanation accounts for more than yours AND your solution causes more problems than it solves!"


As it happens I take an apophatic approach to the numinous, and this means that explanations involving the transcendent will have little purchase. So that's where my critique would begin. And I think I'd have a lot more to say.

But we can't just write these explanations off. Give credit where it is due. LSV has offered a better explanation than we can manage in this one area - for the time being. It doesn't mean that his Theism is true. We can offer counter-evidence.

"that if science can't explain everything, nothing else will"

Take out what I originally said, and plug this new proposition in. My point still stands.

The claim that "that if science can't explain everything, nothing else will" has a universality of scope (every legitimate method, every real entity) that the empirical sciences avoid.

In any case the claim that that "if science can't explain everything, nothing else will" is not itself a thesis offered by any empirical science.
There is no reason to suppose the claim that "that if science can't explain everything, nothing else will" will be included in the hypothetically completed empirical sciences.
In fact, the turbulent and sometimes revolutionary history of science would make such speculations dubious.
So
Again
you seem to be operating on faith.Or -
Less kindly, wishful thinking -
But -
I'd rather say faith, as I think that Stoic and Epicurean myths lie behind what has been crudely and cruelly labelled "scientism".

"that if science can't explain everything, nothing else will"

I think a lot of people miss the point completly with regards science and its claims to one day provide all the answers.

If you, or anyone, has a viable alternative to anything, then go out and prove it. Publish your findings for other people to judge and comment on, and if it works, if it can be tested against, is robust and repeatable, then success!

That's how science works, neutrally and openly.

The fact is that religion, in over 200 years of people using the scientific method, has compeletly failed to provide adequate proof for its claims.

Science cannot explain -everything-, but it stands a better chance of explaining things than 'goddit', and to fall back on 'we can't prove it (yet) therefore god must've done it' is ignorant and superstitious.

Religion & Science- How about if you strip away a specific doctrine but keep with the religious component ( for sake of argument)

Is it so hard to believe ,that whatever Energy/*God* created the Universe, everything developing from that- subatomic, atomic, cellular are all part of the same *godly* building blocks melding together , developing under different stresses and environments.

Science is about discovering everything that's already there but not yet discovered -how it came to be. Religion is a personal discovery of why we came to be. However ,No-one Scientific or Religious knows the answers to the deep questions - the why's or how's but Science at least discovers the how's.

Science is practical, it works with what we've got around us, deconstructs our environment to understand external details and processes

Religion is theoretical, it decontructs the human experience to attempt to understand internal details and processes .By dint of that, Religion will always be the more selfish approach to understanding the world.

This selfishness, where the human is at the centre of the relationship of everything,rather than just observing, refuses to accept anything takes place where it is not somehow involved.The world/universe then is only as large as someones capability of seeing both the external and internal

By internal - I guess i mean the soul/living sentient energy

In any case the claim that that "if science can't explain everything, nothing else will" is not itself a thesis offered by any empirical science.


Which is kind of my point. It's not the sort of claim that will be part of any scientific endeavour - as I said before, science only concerns itself with the next thing on the to do list - but might be advanced as an opinion in an unguarded moment. It may well be, no, it obviously is, a philosophically unsound proposition with elements of hope and wishful thinking, but I reckon many scientists would think it worth a punt if they could find a way to stick around long enough to find out. But the thing is, it's not much of a position to fashion a stick called scientism to beat people with.

I'll try to have a lucid moment here...what exactly is your case against LSV here?

I'm simply asking him to justify the statement, "The moral sense falsifies naturalistic claims." We have had discussions in this area before - I've spoken about the theory that morality is the result of evolution in social species coupled with the complicating factor of culture. LSV has responded by pulling god out of the equation and inserting natural selection as if it were an intentional agent and arguing on those terms. That makes no sense to me because it doesn't seem that LSV has an accurate understanding of natural selection and evolution.

"The moral sense falsifies naturalistic claims." Depends on what you mean by moral sense. But I wouldn't agree that moral feelings are a problem for naturalism.

Your first paragraph was as honest as I've read in a long time.

You seem to have-... how to put it? .-.. --- .-..well, insight into what I'm (not)driving at.