Yeah, at the start he seems to assert a few claims about what things are good or bad, like we all just know what counts as good or bad. I wanted him to slow down and spell out what the objective reason is that Ted Bundy was wrong to murder. I'd be curious to hear what he'd say about these ideas I mentioned to scattered, is it objectively good for the species to continue, is it objectively good for me to avoid pain or just subjective? How can science say that those things are objectively good? It can tell us how to preserve the species if we want to, but can it tell us why we should or shouldn't?
On May 11, 4:47 pm, Brock Organ <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 2:15 PM, Deidzoeb <[email protected]> wrote: > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hj9oB4zpHww > > > Sam Harris talking at TED (Technology Entertainment Design > > conference). > > > Here's the boilerplate introduction from the video description: > > "Questions of good and evil, right and wrong are commonly thought > > unanswerable by science. But Sam Harris argues that science can -- and > > should -- be an authority on moral issues, shaping human values and > > setting out what constitutes a good life." > > > I need to watch this once or twice more to digest it. I don't agree on > > every point (on any points?), but I'm trying to reconsider my static > > position and see whether his makes sense. On the one hand, I don't see > > the objective basis for morality in science or anywhere else. On the > > other hand, doesn't it point to something when so many people even in > > different cultures seem to agree on some aspects of morality, or is it > > a coincidence of subjective morality? > > > He talks against absolutism, as if there can be an objective morality > > but it's still not absolute. That sounds contradictory. > > > And then he starts talking "brain scans" which reminds me of some > > trans-humanists with faith in technology that we'll be able to achieve > > X, Y and Z as soon as we can download our minds and personalities into > > superfast computers, which they expect in around N years. (Reminds me > > of people relying on faith, their excitement and wishful thinking > > causing them to make statements or predictions divorced from reason.) > > > What I mean is, it sounds like he's saying technology is going to make > > this and this happen, and then we'll all be able to see and agree on a > > basic objective morality. I don't see how one could reasonably predict > > that until after these discoveries or technologies are under our belts. > > It certainly sounds like a discussion of his "faith" to me. :) > > Regards, > > Brock > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "A > Civil Religious Debate" group. > To post to this group, send email to > [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]. > For more options, visit this group > athttp://groups.google.com/group/a-civil-religious-debate?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "A Civil Religious Debate" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/a-civil-religious-debate?hl=en.
