I watched this with interest, expecting Sam Harris to give a good argument for Science to answer moral questions. For me it didn't, but it pose some really interesting questions, and I found myself agreeing with him during most of what he said. I'd like to pick up some of the themes about morality in subsequent posts.
13 comments:
Didn't do it for me either (perhaps no surprise there). There were some interesting questions from the MC at the end that got overy unconvincing answers, just the views of a fairly typical early 21st century Western liberal secularist. For example, at the being he talked (very briefly) about the well-being of the entire natural world, but quickly (and with little or no explanation, narrowed it to "human well-being," and a rather individualistic one at that.
I look forward to your posts that will follow this up.
* looks totally shocked *
What do you agree with Sam Harris about? Looking forward to your promised posts.
Revsimmy,
I just thought he made no effort to justify his opening premise and then waffled on... but there were some interesting questions.
Gurdur,
Quite a lot really.. his values are similar to mine, I feel. Do you disagree with him?
Is this really the best the New Atheists can do when it comes to tackling the question of whether science can or cannot answer (or at least help answer) moral questions?
I also agree that the opening premise is interesting but then he spends most of his lecture having a swipe at religion's attempts to answer moral questions. What's that go to do with the title of his talk?
If he thinks religion is useless for answering moral questions - as he clearly does - why bother spending so much time obsessing about its uselessness?
What is surely more interesting is what is he going to put in its place? Some gut feeling that voluntary is better than compulsory when it comes to choosing the type of clothes you wear! Where on earth is the science behind that? Some sort of brain testing to see if women are really happier wearing burkas than not! What is this obsession with how the brain works? As if that is going to explain anything much.
I do think that science can help answer moral questions. E.g. in helping to define what is meant by human flourishing. I was hoping for more. I too look forward to your future blogs on this subject :)
And he doesn't seem to have heard of nutrient profiling either!!
Hi Mike
Yeah - it is a guttingly shallow and trivial in some ways - surely the New Atheists have something better than this..
I've written the posts - I'll post them tomorrow and the day after. I am sure you lot could write something more interesting but it is a discussion starter..
Mike R said...
"Is this really the best the New Atheists can do ..."
Lesley said...
"Yeah - it is a guttingly shallow and trivial in some ways - surely the New Atheists have something better than this.. "
Depends on whom you mean by "New Atheists". If you mean the original 5 actual New Atheists, then Daniel Dennett can do much better, but he fudges. A.C. Grayling could do far, far better, but he probably would then go all Anglican on you and tell you that these are questions with no real answers possible.
If you mean the broader so-called New Atheist movement, then many others would be much more sensible than Harris -- for example, Sean Carroll, unimpeachably part of the broader NA movement. He in fact ripped a small part of Harris' tentative theory to bits.
But on the whole, many (broader) NA'ers, while actually doing very well on some implemented ethics, don't have much of a clue when it comes to ethics overall.
You won't understand many of the broader NA's till you look at Christianity and Islam. Many of the NA's are the iconoclasts -- and the very original meaning of "iconoclast" was those who destroyed the false idols.
And these are many of the NA's too. They are moved to destroy idolatry. They are like cataphatic Christians, insisting on that God must be a personal relationship (as well as being non-existant), insisting on the importance of the original sacred texts (that they are against those original sacred texts does not mean they see them as unimportant -- quite the opposite).
This is why caféteria Christians horrify, disgust and perplex NA'ers often.
Then there is the Holy War. 9/11 --- without 9/11, it's difficult to believe that the NA movement would have been so successful. This is an existential war, and by the way, Sam Harris is one of the original NA'ers most hot on the Holy War against the murderous infidel. He again stresses it in his talk there. Al Qaida declared war on the USA, and Britain, and the rest of us infidels; and war has been declared back.
Problems for you are, you are part of the infidel. You see, you're religious. And to Sam Harris etc., it is religion full-stop that is the problem.
Now, if it was me (I am an atheist, but not a New one), I could give you a run for your money. In fact, I would love a heavy theological argument (you may pick sides of the debate) just as a means of passing the time. But I am also very serious about ethics, and their ontology, and about humanism. Ron Murphy could also give you a run for your money, and he would answer pretty well, I reckon.
But many NA'ers, it's something else. You're looking at prophetic voices from the wilderness crying out to clear away the false idols. You are looking at zealots whipping the moneylenders out of the temple - or at least wishing to be able to do so.
As for Sam Harris, I'm glaring at anyone who didn't read the links I gave to Ron Murphy in a previous discussion on Lesley's blog. I'm glaring! Glaring, I tell you!
I've ripped Sam Harris apart so much (elsewhere) I feel like Hannibal Lector. But then, I guess I can do some more blog posts on this all.
Though really, first I want to see where you all agree with Sam Harris -- since I have a small theory riding on this.
" ... Where on earth is the science behind that? ...
I am far harsher on Sam Harris than you are -- and that from a scientific viewpoint. :-)
".... As if that is going to explain anything much. ..."
Many of the NA'ers share one fault in common with many evangelical Christians -- that being that they think if only they point out the errors of their opponents' ways, then their opponents will repent and come to believe whoops I mean disbelieve.
There is also another bad habit at work here -- Sam Harris like a fair few others gives every appearence of believing that the only thing standing in the way of enlightenment for the heathen is the heathens' unwillingness to only accept and believe, whoops, I mean accept and ... hmmm.
He then, like many others, gives the appearence of believing that the answers will then be found once all heathen are converted to the illumination. He's laid down the path to be taken, up to others to go down it and discover the Promised Truths.
When it comes to selling real, concrete, coherent and congruent alternatives, and to understanding why the opposition think the way they do, well goodness, lots of people of all camps don't do too well.
I try my own best, but no doubt I share many of the faults.
And if you think you've got it bad, being religious and under attack by the NA'ers, well, gosh, I can assure you that attacks on atheists like me by many of the broader NA'ers have been much more vicious. Dissenters, especially such cynical ones as me, are always such objects of suspicion - to everyone.
Hi Gurdur, thanks for these interesting insights. I had to google "cafeteria Christian" to find out whether I was one.. guilty as charged, I guess, although you could just say I employ my brain before believing stuff..
Enjoy your blog.. put it on the Blog Roll.
I don't really mind the NA'ers - like you the worst attacks are from my own 'side'
A huge many thanks, Lesley!
I am in the process of modifying the code on my site, and as soon as that's done, I will add your blog to the blogroll there too.
In the meantime, let's form a club: The Really-O Truly-O Nonconformists' Club, Those That Dare To Be Openly Critical Of Their Own Tribe.
Motto: Getting flamed just means one stays warm.
:-)
Hi Lesley,
Aren't all Christians 'Cafeteria Christian'. Even the most ravenously triple shot full caffeinated espresso biblical literalist doesn't go round licking up the dregs of used coffee grains that is the most heinous of Biblical passages. To be a non-Cafeteria-Christian you'd need the capacity to look on the disposed grains drawer with relish, instead of pretending that's nothing to do with making of your creamy smooth latte.
"it is a guttingly shallow and trivial in some ways" - Most TED talks that tackle complex human issues in 20 minutes are going to be shallow. What do you want?
Hi Gurder,
Sean Carroll has some good points to make, but the critique using Hume on is/ought has its own problems. See here.
9/11 plus the Bush/Blair religiously favoured response. It was the latter that got most of the post-modernist relativists up in arms protesting about the war. All together it 9/11 and the war and the war protests (the latter for Hitchins) was a wake-up call for atheist humanists, many of which may not have labelled themselves as such until that point. Sam Harris focuses on religion, but his shots are aimed pretty squarely at moral relativists too. So, the NA's blundered onto the scene with well aimed blunderbusses and mowed down everything in range.
"Those That Dare To Be Openly Critical Of Their Own Tribe." - I thought that was the natural stance of sceptical atheists. Yes, they need correcting when wrong - that's ok, because that's what free-thought and reason is all about.
But at least Christians are forgiving of their own when they stray (even when they stray pretty far into the pants of children in their care).
We atheist are more inclined to damn our own to hell if their logic isn't spot on; and if they should get a fact wrong we like to toss a handful of chili powder in their eyes as we send them on their way - how dare they not check their facts, how dare they ignore the most holy of our moral codes. We are not religious evangelists, so a quick, "Harris! This bit's wrong, and here's why" should do the trick.
[Clarification for theists: The last paragraph used religion as an analogy, likening the nature of atheist condemnation to extreme religious responses. I know some of you are apt to mistake what analogies are describing. Atheism is not a religion. I sense poised pious fingers eager to point out my gaff.]
Hi Ron
Nice to see your thoughts and read your blog on the subject. In fairness I am interested in Harris's project, mostly because I think my ethics can be based on Christian values, but not everyone is going to be Christian, and so I think a strong Humanist ethic is a positive thing in society, and discussion between atheists and believers about ethical matters is useful (however not if the believers simply point to a text to explain their ethics).
I like the latte riff. I would spend my life in a coffee shop if I could, certainly spent the whole of my student days in Peel Cafe in the middle of Salford Uni. I think it is perverse to say any group has to carry forward the whole baggage of their history and not be more selective about whether we have to drink hideous coffee or not...
Coffee addict myself. Some days the only exercise I get is down stairs to play with my Gaggia.
With a bit of tweaking and clarification I think Harris's project is worthwhile.
Post a Comment