KING DAVE

King Dave "An atheist is something I am, not something I do" ~ Christopher Hitchens

Articles Posted: 77 Links Seeded: 292

Member Since: 2/2010 Last Seen: 5/16/2012

Religion or Not? Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins discuss The Moral Landscape.

Thu Jun 16, 2011 11:10 PM EDT

religion, islam, christianity, atheism, richard-dawkins, sam-harris

By King Dave

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

Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.

Published to:

King Dave's Column, All of Newsvine
Groups: Atheism, Atheism 101, Christopher Hitchens, Free Thinkers, Heated Debate, Psych, Soc, Philos
Regions: none

Public Discussion (21)

King Dave

Clinton Richard Dawkins, FRS, FRSL (born 26 March 1941), known as Richard Dawkins, is a British ethologist, evolutionary biologist and author. He is an emeritus fellow of New College, Oxford,^[1] and was the University of Oxford's Professor for Public Understanding of Science from 1995 until 2008.

Dawkins is an atheist and humanist, a Vice President of the British Humanist Association and supporter of the Brights movement. He is well known for his criticism of creationism and intelligent design.

Sam Harris (born 1967) is an American author, neuroscientist and CEO of Project Reason.^[1] He received a Ph.D. in neuroscience from UCLA, and has a B.A. in philosophy from Stanford University. He is a proponent of scientific skepticism^[2] and is the author of The End of Faith (2004), which won the 2005 PEN/Martha Albrand Award,^[3] Letter to a Christian Nation (2006), a rejoinder to criticism of his first book, and The Moral Landscape (2010).

"The president of the United States has claimed, on more than one occasion, to be in dialogue with God. If he said that he was talking to God through his hairdryer, this would precipitate a national emergency. I fail to see how the addition of a hairdryer makes the claim more ridiculous or offensive." ~ Sam Harris

"In fact, "atheism" is a term that should not even exist. No one ever needs to identify himself as a "non-astrologer" or a "non-alchemist." We do not have words for people who doubt that Elvis is still alive or that aliens have traversed the galaxy only to molest ranchers and their cattle. Atheism is nothing more than the noises reasonable people make in the presence of unjustified religious beliefs." ~ Sam Harris

2 votes

#1 - Thu Jun 16, 2011 11:20 PM EDT

Mateo-660030

"In fact, "atheism" is a term that should not even exist. No one ever needs to identify himself as a "non-astrologer" or a "non-alchemist."

terms are usually defined in relation to the local majority, even when rejecting or opposing the majority. for instance, if you visit India and are deciding where to eat with some locals, they'll ask you if you're non-vegetarian; vegetarianism is so prevelant there that it's the assumed baseline.

2 votes

#1.1 - Fri Jun 17, 2011 10:50 AM EDT

King Dave

The latest video from two of The Four Horsemen. If you are interested, please vote it up, watch it now or later, and please leave me your thoughts. I find it's much more interesting than Bachmann or Weiner or any combination of the two. Thanks....

2 votes

#2 - Thu Jun 16, 2011 11:26 PM EDT

CommisarCain

I respect Dawkins as a brilliant biologist. I wish he would stop speaking on things he knew nothing about, like theology or philosophy. Harris is just worthless.

1 vote

#3 - Fri Jun 17, 2011 12:26 AM EDT

King Dave

I felt the same way questioning God man, when I was five years old. I do agree religion is good for the psychopath, who can not determine right from wrong...Unfortunately this works only just some of the time. The rest of humanity no one has to worry about.

1 vote

#3.1 - Fri Jun 17, 2011 9:03 AM EDT

CommisarCain

How does that at all relate to my post?

#3.2 - Fri Jun 17, 2011 2:46 PM EDT

King Dave

How does that at all relate to my post?

I hate to be rude, but I don't know how to relate to your post? But you strike me as someone who wants to be talked out of your faith. Sorry that's not me. I say "get to your house of worship and pray for forgiveness."

Does that help?

#3.3 - Fri Jun 17, 2011 7:24 PM EDT

CommisarCain

No, not at all. I don't want to be "talked out" of my faith. I simply respect that Mr. Dawkins has forgotten more about molecular biology than I know, while also being aware that I have forgotten more about theology and philosophy than he'll ever know.

#3.4 - Mon Jun 20, 2011 11:42 AM EDT

Grisham

I liked it, Dave. I think the title is sort of misleading, because he never really explains how science can provide morality. He basically says that facts can give us the data we can use to judge for ourselves what is valid and what is not, but personally I think it a stretch to think that science has a say in what is moral.

I would have loved to ask him a question. The question that ran through my mind was that if he thinks scientifically, religion is bad for us, wouldn't it be morally right for us to outlaw religion?

Anyhow, that was a very interesting video.

2 votes

#4 - Fri Jun 17, 2011 1:30 AM EDT

clatz

I think that question is a little too simplistic. He said in his talk that not all of religion is bad and that it does provide benefits to some people.

If you were to rephrase the questions to say ban a specific religious practice (for example forcing women to wear Burqua's) then I think he would say that we can justify that action based on Scientific reasoning.

I don't think it's a stretch at all to say that Science can have a say in what is moral because it already does, and it already has, at least it has indirectly. Through Scientific discoveries we have learnt more as to what it is to be human, and what our relationship is with the world around us, with other creatures and the environment. We know every human being is related. We know animals suffer. We know women are just as smart and capable as men. We know we can have a drastic effect on the environment and that ecosystems can be very sensitive to our influence. All of this knowledge has shaped modern morality (at least in the West).

I think Sam Harris is trying to say that we can go further, in that we can start to use the language and reasoning of Science to answer moral questions directly, and I completely agree with that.

#4.1 - Fri Jun 17, 2011 6:16 AM EDT

Grisham

I think that question is a little too simplistic. He said in his talk that not all of religion is bad and that it does provide benefits to some people.

I wouldn't say so. He also argues that those laws are based on a 2000 year old carpenter with no world view whatsoever. The thing about science is it gives us fact but it's still up to us to decide what we do with those facts. For example, scientifically smoking and drinking alcohol are bad for us, but we still do it lawfully. Scientists can't even come up with what foods are good and bad for us. They change constantly. So, like religion we could take science too far and end up with the same thing we have with religion - fundamentalist scientist people. People who want to outlaw everything science tells us is bad for us scientifically. That (to me) is just as scary as fundematalist Christians or Muslims gaining power.

Ugh. I'm running out of time. Have to drive the wife into work. I'll be back later, but hope that explains what I meant a bit better.

3 votes

#4.2 - Fri Jun 17, 2011 6:51 AM EDT

Vested Veteran

When I was a callow youth I used to be impressed by men of letters, by the very fact they could hook a chain of alphabet on the end of their surnames like a sort of academic jewelry designed to hypnotize audiences into raptures of enlightened thought. I read voraciously, I studied ( forgive the term ) religiously...and soon found these men of letters were in sharp disagreement one with another...on many, many issues, and on the underlying facts. Who to believe?

I began to look at academic hierarchy, the way tenure works, what philosophical positioning helps these distinnguished academics achieve status. I discovered extremely political environments, colored in hues a bit to the left of the rainbow and as a seeming membership requirement, disdain for anyone and everything else not part of the " community ".

I respect the work and dedication which goes into true scientific effort. The product of these gentlemen, however, is so interwoven with anti religious bias one has to carefully sort verbiage to see basic arguments..like going through public dumps to find edible scraps. They leave me wondering how much personal prestige accumulates from mouthing sentiments formed by atheists of prior eras...mantras that in themselves seem iconic...religious in terms of being the old dogma of the new Humanist Articles of Faith.

1 vote

#5 - Fri Jun 17, 2011 3:21 AM EDT

King Dave

They leave me wondering how much personal prestige accumulates from mouthing sentiments formed by atheists of prior eras...mantras that in themselves seem iconic...religious in terms of being the old dogma of the new Humanist Articles of Faith.

Here is the difference. My science teacher never threatened me with eternal punishment if I failed a test or had questions. How many people died because of just belief in the wrong God or no God at all?

Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned

1 vote

#6 - Fri Jun 17, 2011 9:28 AM EDT

Vested Veteran

Religionists question and test deity all their lives...sometimes they sense the answers...I have been a believer in a higher power as long as I can remember...and have never, ever been threatened, cajoled, pushed or prodded into my religion. I do not prosyletize, nor do I interfere with anyone elses beliefs, except in debate, when someone chooses to miscast, threaten or challenge the right to believe. I also believe...equally, in the rights of non believers.. I have recently, seen strong vitriol on the vine, directed against Christians. intimating they are responsible for every evil in the world...and coming just short of suggesting the world would be a better place if Christians were retroactively aborted. Very strange diatribe from those who profess to be all about peace and a better world.

2 votes

#6.1 - Fri Jun 17, 2011 9:49 AM EDT

Grisham

Here is the difference. My science teacher never threatened me with eternal punishment if I failed a test or had questions. How many people died because of just belief in the wrong God or no God at all?

I think of this as the law of averages. Religion has been around since man first looked up at the stars (heavens) and asked what our purpose for being here was. There are more religous people on the planet than none religous people. Religion didn't just have a head start but is still running the race which means more people have had time to screw with it. If everyone magically became an atheist tommorrow and decided that science was the only way to determine our morality, you can bet that in another thousand years we'd have horror stories about some prick that interpreted some scientific facts into garnering power for himself and trying to run the world.

3 votes

#6.2 - Fri Jun 17, 2011 10:39 AM EDT

King Dave

and have never, ever been threatened, cajoled, pushed or prodded into my religion.

I assume you are not a Christian living in Afghanistan? Or in the minority Muslim community in Iraq? Religious violence is very real, out of sight out of mind does not apply here.

I have recently, seen strong vitriol on the vine, directed against Christians. intimating they are responsible for every evil in the world...and coming just short of suggesting the world would be a better place if Christians were retroactively aborted.

If true, that would be from a religious troll, and what kind of an argument is that for religion being true?All religion has definitely done is pit Muslims against Jews, and Christians against Muslims, and you know it. You may have not watched the video. Is slavery wrong, or is it moral because Jesus said it is expected? You are the apologist for religion, please don't make me quote the Texts.

....you can bet that in another thousand years we'd have horror stories about some prick that interpreted some scientific facts into garnering power for himself and trying to run the world.

Science can fly us into the cosmos, religion can fly us into buildings.

But thanks for your comments.

1 vote

#6.3 - Fri Jun 17, 2011 2:05 PM EDT

Grisham

Science can fly us into the cosmos, religion can fly us into buildings.

Bro, that's a cheap stock quote. I think we both know that while there are certainly dangers that come with religion (like anything else) religion doesn't always result in planes flying into buildings. In a way, that quote has no intellectual integrity.

1 vote

#6.4 - Fri Jun 17, 2011 2:26 PM EDT

Grisham

Science can fly us into the cosmos, religion can fly us into buildings.

PS: Science also invented the nuclear bomb, the SCUD missile and every other tool of modern warfare that we use to try and kill ourselves with. It's not the knowledge that's bad, but the way that people put it to use. Much like religion.

1 vote

#6.5 - Fri Jun 17, 2011 2:36 PM EDT

CommisarCain

No one has ever died due to belief in the wrong god. People have died due to being beheaded, stabbed, and fed to lions over that belief, but that takes human intervention.

#6.6 - Fri Jun 17, 2011 2:47 PM EDT

King Dave

In a way, that quote has no intellectual integrity.

No one has ever died due to belief in the wrong god.

Perhaps I'm just not as smart as everyone, or as self-righteous, but I would not tell that to the families of the victims of 9/11 or in Northern Ireland or in Iraq.. or Sudan..or Palestine..

As Sam Harris said "It's possible to be so smart and educated and still believe blowing your self up to kill whom ever will get you 72 virgins." We are about to see what happens when a theocracy Iran acquires a nuclear device.

1 vote

#6.7 - Fri Jun 17, 2011 7:41 PM EDT

CommisarCain

The victims of 9/11 were killed because psychopaths flew a plane into their building. The victims of the Troubles in Ireland died by gun, knife, bomb, and many other things. People kill people.

#6.8 - Mon Jun 20, 2011 11:43 AM EDT

FUN STUFF:

COMPANY STUFF:

LEGAL STUFF:

Newsvine® is a registered trademark of Newsvine, Inc. |
Newsvine is a property of

New Users:

Existing Users:

KING DAVE

Religion or Not? Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins discuss The Moral Landscape.

Published to:

FUN STUFF:

COMPANY STUFF:

LEGAL STUFF: