The unofficial video of Glenn Peoples’ talk at Auckland Uni “The New Atheism, Science & Morality” is online.
Hat Tip: E†B
Tags: Atheism · Glenn Peoples · New Atheists · Sam Harris · Thinking Matters62 Comments
September 8th, 2010 by
-
Matthew Flannagan on Amazon
Did God Really Command Genocide? Coming to Terms with the Justice of God
Authors: Paul Copan, Matthew Flannagan
A common objection to belief in the God of the Bible is that a good, kind, and loving deity would never command the wholesale slaughter of nations. In the tradition of his popular Is God a Moral Monster?, Paul Copan teams up with Matthew Flannagan to tackle some of the most confusing and uncomfortable passages of Scripture. Together they help the Christian and nonbeliever alike understand the biblical, theological, philosophical, and ethical implications of Old Testament warfare passages.
Buy the paperback version
Buy the Kindle version
True Reason: Confronting the Irrationality of the New Atheism Eds: Tom Gilson, Carson Weitnauer
Today's New Atheists proclaim themselves our culture's party of reason. It is a claim they cannot sustain. Reason is the New Atheists' weakness, not their strength and in fact, the Christian faith is a far better place to look for True Reason. Making their case accessible to the first-time inquirer as well as the serious student, this top-flight team of writers presents a sound defense and a strong introduction to the true reason uniquely found in Christianity.
Feat. William Lane Craig, Sean McDowell, John DePoe, Chuck Edwards, Peter Grice, Matthew Flannagan, et al.
Buy the paperback version
In Defense of the Bible: A Comprehensive Apologetic for the Authority of Scripture
Eds: Steven B Cowan and Terry L Wilder
The book begins by examining foundational philosophical approaches to the Bible as well as the methodological challenges those philosophies create for interpreting the Bible. It then addresses textual and historical challenges and how to deal with them. Finally it looks at ethical, scientific, and theological challenges demonstrating the Bible's moral integrity in relationship to contemporary moral emphases.
Feat. R Douglas Geivett, William A Dembski, Mary Jo Sharp, Darrell L Bock, Paul Copan, Matthew Flannagan, et al.
Buy the paperback versionBuy the Kindle version
Virtues in Action: New Essays in Applied Virtue Ethics
Ed: Michael W Austin
Many philosophers have considered the strengths and weaknesses of a virtue-centered approach to moral theory. Much less attention has been given to how such an approach bears on issues in applied ethics. The essays in this volume apply a virtue-centered perspective to a variety of contemporary moral issues.
Feat. Michael W Austin, Robert K Garcia, Nathan L King, Gregory Bassham, Nancy E Snow, Matthew Flannagan, et al.
Buy the hardcover version
Holy War in the Bible: Christian Morality and an Old Testament Problem
Eds: Heath A Thomas, Jeremy Evans & Paul Copan
The challenge of a seemingly genocidal God who commands ruthless warfare has bewildered Bible readers for generations. A range of expert contributors engage in a multidisciplinary approach that considers this issue from a variety of perspectives: biblical, ethical, philosophical and theological.
Feat. David Lamb, Paul Copan, Murray Rae, Heath Thomas, Stephen B Chapman, Douglas S Earl, Matthew Flannagan, et al.
Buy the paperback version
Come Let Us Reason: New Essays in Christian Apologetics
Eds: William Lane Craig & Paul Copan
The nineteen essays here raise classical philosophical questions in fresh ways, address contemporary challenges for the church, and will deepen the thinking of the next generation of apologists. Packed with dynamic topical discussions and informed by the latest scholarship.
Feat. J P Moreland, William Lane Craig, Gary R Habermas, Craig Keener, Paul Copan, Matthew Flannagan, et al.
Buy the paperback versionBuy the Kindle version
True Reason: Christian Responses to the Challenge of Atheism Eds: Tom Gilson, Carson Weitnauer
While New Atheists like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and others proclaim loudly their rationality, clear thinking, and incontrovertible scientific arguments, others are beginning to wonder how genuinely rational they are. Have they proved anything? Have they argued convincingly? Have they pinpointed any real challenges to the credibility of Christian faith?
Feat. William Lane Craig, Sean McDowell, John DePoe, Chuck Edwards, Peter Grice, Matthew Flannagan, et al.
Buy the Kindle version
Ha ha ha. I love this:
“A logically valid argument is one where the conclusion logically follows from its premises”
And he says this to show why someone else is using circular reasoning! This guy has a degree in philosophy? Did he ever do a logic paper? Classic!
“Did he ever do a logic paper?”
I doubt it. Peoples’ bio shows only theology papers from a bible college until he switched to philosophy for his PhD which was probably only a dissertation. I doubt kiwi bible colleges teach logic papers.
Come on, the snark in these posts is completely unwarranted.
Peoples invoked the logically valid/invalid distinction to illustrate the essence of an is/ought fallacy. Facts about “oughts” simply do not follow from premises consisting solely of descriptions of physical fact. He introduces these, obviously, to show how Harris has his work cut out in claiming morality as some kind of empirical, scientific fact.
When pointing out the circularity, Peoples introduces the fallacy very well and applies the principle to Harris’ argument, which, as Peoples presents it, does indeed commit the fallacy. You fellows need to learn to listen more charitably, or you’ll never hear anything except what you want to hear.
Anonymous the first wrote:
““A logically valid argument is one where the conclusion logically follows from its premises”
And he says this to show why someone else is using circular reasoning! This guy has a degree in philosophy? Did he ever do a logic paper? Classic!”
Actually this is not circular reasoning. Firstly it is not reasoning it is a definition. Secondly it is not circular. While the word “logically” occurs twice it modifies different objects and therefore in each use has a slightly different meaning. In the first instance Glenn is talking about a logically valid argument, in the second instance he is talking about accepted, basic rules of logic. Not all valid arguments are accepted basic rules of logic. Glenn’s point is that a valid argument has a conclusion which follows from the premises by such basic rules. This definition, by the way, is fairly standard. (If you had a degree in philosophy you would know that.)
In any event your criticism does not really address any substantive point in Glenn’s talk. Even if you used a tighter definition of validity such as an argument where it is impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false the point Glenn made still stands.
“Actually this is not circular reasoning. Firstly it is not reasoning it is a definition.”
I did not say it was reasoning. I said it was circular. You need to learn to read what is there. And it is a circular definition – in fact a meaningless definition. This would get a big fat 0 if it was offered as a definition of validity in a first year logic paper.
“This definition, by the way, is fairly standard. (If you had a degree in philosophy you would know that.)”
No – it isn’t. A standard definition would be something like “the conclusion cannot be false if all of the premises are true.” Note that this actually provides you with a criteria to see whether the argument is valid… simply saying “logically follows” does not. Go back and revise your logic a little. You seem to have forgotten the basics..,. ok I read the rest of your comment and it seems you agree with me after all.
“In any event your criticism does not really address any substantive point in Glenn’s talk.”
No – it doesn’t. It was just something that made me laugh… because he was using a meaningless definition that assumed you already knew what “logically flows” meant in order to explain logical validity… and he used this meaningless definition in the process of trying to explain why someone else s definition was circular.
In reality I think he was just nervous and did not explain himself well.. but that does not stop it being funny.
People who are bold in rhetoric but don’t use their name (or at least a consistent pseudonym) shouldn’t be allowed to post. It’s way too confusing differentiating between the posts.
Um, anonymous, you’ve made yourself look a wee bit silly with this line of criticism.
“A logically valid argument is one where the conclusion logically follows from its premises”
The key words here are “valid” and “follows.” The fact that the word “logically” appears in both the term and the definition does not make it circular. To say that an argument is logically valid is to say that following the ordinary canons of logic, the conclusion follows from the premises.
If you consider that to be circular, then it is very clearly you, and not I, who has trouble with logic.
Let’s see if we can’t help you with another example: “A trap door is a door that’s in the floor.” Even though the word “door” appear in the term and the description, that doesn’t make it circular. Similarly “A logically valid argument is one where the conclusion logically follows from the premises” is not circular either.
Seriously Anonynmous, you’ve made yourself look not only confused, but belligerent and ignorant for not accepting your error when it was pointed out to you.
anon 1, Actually as I pointed out the definition is not circular. As I understand him. He is defining logical validity in terms of a conclusion following by the basic rules of logic. There is nothing circular in this.
Moreover, even if his definition is circular it does not follow as you repeatedly say that it is meaningless. The assertion green grass is green, is a perfectly meaningful and true sentence in English for example.
Finally, your own definition, a standard one, could by your reasoning be impunged as circular and everyone could mock you. You state “the conclusion cannot be false if all of the premises are true.” What is meant by cannot here. Obviously not epistemic impossibility, nor is it nomological impossibility, the word cannot in this definition designates logical impossibility. Hence, your definition actually states an argument is logically valid when its logically impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false. Does the fact that you use logic in both the term being defined and the definition mean your statement is meaningless and stupid.
“Note that this actually provides you with a criteria to see whether the argument is valid… simply saying “logically follows” does not.”
Wrong again, Glenn’s definition does provide criteria. One determines whether one can deduce the conclusion from the premises via basic inference rules. This is exactly what undergraduate logic students are taught to do. They test the validity of arguments by utilizing for example Copi’s 19 rules of inference and seeing if the conclusions follow from the premises using these rules.
@Kyle
I got told off last time i said that, admittedly my language was somewhat more intemperate.
However it is a valid point especially in a multi party discussion.
I know, I’m anal about making sure that people get the point, but let me make sure this is clear: The definition was not circular even though the word “logically” appeared somewhere in the term and also in the definition, because the word “logically” is not what was being defined. The word valid is what was being defined.
Yes.
Off track sorry, but is it blogger drinks tonight? thanks, R.
No, Anonymous, you are simply mistaken. My definition was just fine. In terms of logic, a valid argument is one where the conclusion logically follows from the premises.
Maybe you’re never personally expressed the definition that way yourself, but to go on and on about a point that you were mistaken about from the very start is rather pointless. The fact that you called it “classic” and laughed about it only made it worse. Nobody would “fail” this definition, since it is the normal definition.
Hey Anonymous, please allow me to suggest some learning resources for you. There are plenty of basic logic primers in print of course, but here are some online resources.
http://environmentalet.org/psy111/argument.htm
“Strictly speaking, we say that an argument is valid if the conclusion logically follows from the premises.”
http://www.jimpryor.net/teaching/vocab/validity.html
“We call an argument deductively valid (or, for short, just “valid”) when the conclusion is entailed by, or logically follows from, the premises.”
http://www.nonags.org/members/fduniho/sillysyllogisms.html
“A valid syllogism is one whose conclusion logically follows from its premises.”
http://www-course.cs.york.ac.uk/lpa/slides2008/PROP-slides.pdf
“If the argument with premises P and conclusion C is valid, then one says that P entails C, or synonymously, C logically follows from P, or C is a consequence of P.”
And so on. Google will provide more examples.
It was a minor side point that I found amusing. Not a big deal – but your definition would get you a fail in a first year logic paper. Quibble all you like, but that is the fact of the matter.
Flannigan : Yes. Copis rules can be used to provean argument is valid. This is not the same thing as a definition, Casio.
Hey Glenno! Ever thought about getting a haircut?
“In terms of logic, a valid argument is one where the conclusion logically follows from the premises.”
Classic!
Classic indeed, anonymous. So classic that it has become the standard definition. I offered you some learning tools on the internet earlier today, but since that comment contains a number of links, it is in moderation. Thank me when you see it. Cheers.
Ha ha, Anonymous got pimp slapped big time. Classic!
I am glad to hear you have been doing some learning!
Anonymous thinks repeating himself constitutes a logical argument. That is classic.
FWIW
The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy defines Validity in the way that Anonymous does:
http://www.iep.utm.edu/val-snd/
The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy talks about ‘following from’, ‘validity’, and ‘logical consequence’ as if they are synonyms. It treats the ‘following from’ relation as something that needs explanation rather than as something that is offered as an explanation.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logical-consequence/
To my ear “A logically valid argument is one where the conclusion logically follows from its premises” sounds circular. Or, if not circular, it at least sounds uninformative.
As Glenn rightly pointed out, people sometimes define validity the way he does. So he is in good company. But I think Anonymous’s definition is better.
Of course, Glenn still gave an excellent talk. So this small point isn’t really a big deal.
Hi Matt
I thought that this might interest you.
Props to him for being a consistent atheist.
If morality implies God, then no-God implies no-morality.
@ Jason,
What an interesting link.
I’ll be following his subsequent articles with interest.
“It treats the ‘following from’ relation as something that needs explanation rather than as something that is offered as an explanation.”
THANK YOU!
But funnily enough I agree that it was a good talk… and this small slip up was so minor probably only I noticed it.
Again, it was not a slip up. Check the learning resources I gave.
That validity can be described with different sentences does not change anything. But again, you clearly don’t believe me, anon, so just checkt he resources I have offered you, and come to understand that there’s more than one way of expressing the same idea. If I have slipped up, then most philosophers in the world slip up in exactly the same way, if my experience is anything to go by. FWIW, none of them actually slip up, and neither did I. I do not understand why this is such an issue for you – to the point where you’ve persuaded yourself that what I did was literally hilarious, and a “classic.”
Is it just that you came on so strong with your first post that you can’t possible back down now, in light of the examples I’ve given you? It’s a lesson in humility – go for it.
Edward says:
This contains two claims. The first is definitely true, and the second is definitely false.
It’s true that divine command ethics do not set out to prove that there are moral facts. It is an account of moral facts. I think that’s uncontroversial.
The second claim is so strange and left field that I just don’t know how to respond to it. “Divine Command believers also assume they know exactly how to interpret which commands in which holy books are “eternal” and which are merely sociological norms for their time.” Really? How on earth was this conclusion reached?
I can falsify this claim right now, because I am a ‘divine command believer,’ and yet I do not assume that I know “exactly how to interpret which commands in which holy books are “eternal” and which are merely sociological norms for their time.” Since one exception falsifies a universal claim, we can now say that this claim is definitely false.
The Divine Command theory does not prove morality. It merely assumes it, and Divine Command believers also assume they know exactly how to interpret which commands in which holy books are “eternal” and which are merely sociological norms for their time. In each case it is humans doing the interpreting. But it is also humans who wrote such “holy books” in the first place.
That being said, I do have suspicions on the topic of ethics (not absolute beliefs, but suspicions based on what we can and do know, not based on Divine Command Theory).
I suspect there’s a scale of ethical sensitivity. And it matters (as it does in all other cases) what a young person learns and/or is taught. I suspect that if you teach a young person that others experience similar pains and have similar feelings, and train them starting at a very young age that if they do something that another person does not like (and a teacher in the room has the other person do that same thing back to the first child) that a learning process will take place. Of course this presumes there are teachers. But it can be done in nursery school and kindergarten, as I know via anecdotes. As a child ages, I suggest teaching them the wisdom of practical moral teachers from all the world’s cultures.
I also suspect that ethics “without the Bible” are not “completely relative.” People with no Bible to guide them still feel similar pains when stolen from, slapped, or called a stinging name. People with no Bible to guide them also feel similar pleasures when hugged, given a gift, or verbally petted. In other words, in so far as “ethical authority,” exists, it appears to reside in our bodies and brains, and in the multitude of lessons learned during lives of interaction with our fellow human beings. Neither is it easy for a person to turn to anti-social behavior if they have been taught from childhood to view other people’s feelings and needs through the inner lens of their own.
People also recognize (regardless of their religious beliefs or lack thereof) that “joys shared are doubled, while sorrows shared are halved.” Such recognitions even form the basis for wanting to “double” society’s joys, and “halve” society’s sorrows.
Of course not everyone learns morality in the manner described above. Some are raised to “fear hell” and memorize lists of “holy commandments.” Such people are liable to “fear what they (and others) might become” once such “external” holy threats and commands are called into question. Ironically, in nearly all cases, such a “hell” does not exist to promote universal ethical behavior, but to promote belief in the truth of that person’s particular theology/denomination as opposed to rival theologies/denominations. So if you do not share their particular theology nor belong to their particular denomination, then they are convinced you are going to hell regardless of whatever kindnesses you share with them or society at large. Naturally such people understand the idea of a “moral” nation as one that consists solely of “fellow believers.” Of course any morality that tries to base itself upon purely “external” religious threats and commands will break down once the religion supporting it is called into question.
To avoid such “breakdowns” it makes more sense for a nation, culture, or family to emphasize “internal” rather than “external” morality/ethics, just as it makes more sense to raise children to think and act in terms of how “they would feel if what they did was done back to them,” rather than depending on rote memorization of lists to promote ethical understanding in all circumstances and among all people.
All the world’s religions enshrine the principle, “Do not do to others what you would not want done to yourself,” and, “Do to others what you would want done to yourself,” which assume in both cases that “you” already possess an “internal” recognition of what you should and shouldn’t do. So, there need not be any overt conflict between “internal” and “external” morality and ethics. However, stressing the “internal” variety seems to have a far greater chance of drawing society together, rather than tearing it apart.
“Internal” ethical recognitions preceded the composition of humanity’s earliest law codes such as those of King Hammurabi, or the moral injunctions found in the Egyptian Book of the Dead, or the later but more famous, “Ten Commandments.” Such “internal” recognitions inspired the creation of laws, and still do, and remind us that laws are but dust when people neglect to seek out what is best within themselves and each other.
____________
Forgiveness is not, as some people seem to believe, a mysterious and sublime idea that we owe to a few millennia of Judeo-Christianity. It did not originate in the minds of people and cannot therefore be appropriated by an ideology or a religion. The fact that monkeys, apes, and humans all engage in reconciliation behavior (stretching out a hand, smiling, kissing, embracing, and so on) means that it is probably over thirty million years old, preceding the evolutionary divergence of these primates…Reconciliation behavior [is] a shared heritage of the primate order . . . When social animals are involved…antagonists do more than estimate their chances of winning before they engage in a fight; they also take into account how much they need their opponent. The contested resource often is simply not worth putting a valuable relationship at risk. And if aggression does occur, both parties may hurry to repair the damage. Victory is rarely absolute among interdependent competitors, whether animal or human. — Frans De Waal, Peacemaking Among Primates
______________
Darwin proposed that creatures like us who, by their nature, are riven by strong emotional conflicts, and who have also the intelligence to be aware of those conflicts, absolutely need to develop a morality because they need a priority system by which to resolve them. The need for morality is a corollary of conflicts plus intellect:
“Man, from the activity of his mental faculties, cannot avoid reflection… Any animal whatever, endowed with well-marked social instincts, would inevitably acquire a moral sense or conscience as soon as its intellectual powers had become as well-developed, or anything like as well-developed as in man.”(Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man)
That, Darwin said, is why we have within us the rudiments of such a priority system and why we have also an intense need to develop those rudiments. We try to shape our moralities in accordance with our deepest wishes so that we can in some degree harmonize our muddled and conflict-ridden emotional constitution, thus finding ourselves a way of life that suits it so far as is possible.
These systems are, therefore, something far deeper than mere social contracts made for convenience. They are not optional. They are a profound attempt–though of course usually an unsuccessful one–to shape our conflict-ridden life in a way that gives priority to the things that we care about most.
If this is right, then we are creatures whose evolved nature absolutely requires that we develop a morality. We need it in order to find our way in the world. The idea that we could live without any distinction between right and wrong is as strange as the idea that we–being creatures subject to gravitation–could live without any idea of up and down. That at least is Darwin’s idea and it seems to me to be one that deserves attention.
— Mary Midgley, “Wickedness: An Open Debate,” The Philosopher’s Magazine, No. 14, Spring 2001
Different anon:
In fact I did offer an explanation of things “following from” others when I discussed the conservative nature of logic. Maybe you think my explanation was too brief. As I listen back to it I would agree that it was very brief, but that’s only because I think the idea is very easy to understand. The example that I used regarding fish, I think, illustrates the concept well. You might not agree with this assessment, but the other anon is clearly being unfair to imply that I defined one thing in terms of something else which was itself left totally undefined.
Listen from 4:25 – 5:52 to see what I mean.
EDIT: This being said, the other anon’s comments – wrong though I think they are – have prompted me to write a short instructional blog onthe concepts of validity and soundness. Perhaps I can reduce the occurrences of such hasty objections in future.
And we get almost an admission that he was wrong…
All I can say is – huh? If reiterating that I was right is close to an admission that I was wrong, then you’re a cheese sandwich and you just agreed that your complaint was mistaken.
Edward
I agree with you that the divine command theory does not “prove” morality. I am inclined to think the existence of moral properties such as right and wrong cannot be proven from non moral premises. What DCT does is offer an explanation of the nature of moral obligation, it assumes that moral properties exist and our intuitive sense that they do is accurate and attempts to explain the nature of these properties. A bit like the way, scientists assume that we accurately perceive something called water and then offer an explanation of the nature of water in terms of H20.
Like Glenn however I disagree with the rest of your analysis. It seems to rest on the common mistake that a DCT is a theory of moral epistemology and either makes or entails positions on how we know what is right and wrong the origins of moral concepts and so on. I don’t know any defender of the theory who asserts this.
@ Edward
Cut and paste for the win.
Come back when you actually know what you’re talking about.
Almost as in the closest we can ever expect. But good for you for going and reading up on the issue.
WOW…just…WOW!!! the definition of a logically valid argument that “anonymous” moronically labels as “circular” is the definition I was taught in my Phil105 class.
His advice to Matt was to learn about what makes for a logical argument. But I think he needs to take some of his own advice. I mean REALLY!!!
“Come on, the snark in these posts is completely unwarranted”
Oh really now? I think it’s fully warranted! you’re the one who rather snarkily (and moronically might I add) scoffed at Glenn’s use of logic.
@Jason
I’m pretty sure that Ed frequently cuts and pastes. There will be a topic and he will loosely respond before saying something like, “And speaking of Egyptian archaeology, I’ve always wondered why Young Earth Creationists say…” and then he follows with a couple of paragraphs and quotes that have almost no relation to the topic at hand. I’ve seen him do this at so many Christian sites that I’ve gotta assume he’s just cutting and pasting.
I know, I’ve encountered him on sites like Parchment and Pen.
@ Glenn & Anyone else who is interested,
Sam Harris responds to the critics of his TED Talk, 29th March of this year.
You may already be aware of this, but if not, here is the link:
http://www.project-reason.org/newsfeed/item/moral_confusion_in_the_name_of_science3/
@ All,
Who are interested in what Sam Harris has to say in answer to his critics of his TED Talk
Here is a direct quote from his response:
I must say, the vehemence and condescension with which the is/ought objection has been thrown in my face astounds me. And it confirms my sense that this bit of bad philosophy has done tremendous harm to the thinking of smart (and not so smart) people.
The categorical distinction between facts and values helped open a sinkhole beneath liberalism long ago—leading to moral relativism and to masochistic depths of political correctness.
Think of the champions of “tolerance” who reflexively blamed Salman Rushdie for his fatwa, or Ayaan Hirsi Ali for her ongoing security concerns, or the Danish cartoonists for their “controversy,” and you will understand what happens when educated liberals think there is no universal foundation for human values.
Among conservatives in the West, the same skepticism about the power of reason leads, more often than not, directly to the feet of Jesus Christ, Savior of the Universe. Indeed, the most common defense one now hears for religious faith is not that there is compelling evidence for God’s existence, but that a belief in Him is the only basis for a universal conception of human values.
To read more follow the link
http://www.project-reason.org/newsfeed/item/moral_confusion_in_the_name_of_science3/
Enjoy!
Paul: Unfortunately, the confusion that Harris exhibits in his public talks is only perpetuated in his defence (to whihch you link) of those talks.
He does not even seem to understand the nature of the is/ought objections that are raised. For example he says: “And here is where the real controversy begins: for many people strongly objected to my claim that values (and hence morality) relate to facts about the wellbeing of conscious creatures.”
No, that is not even the objection. Moral obligations, moral facts, do in many cases relate to those things. The problem is that Sam harris made a much larger claim than this. He didn’t just say that there is a relationship between moral facts and facts about the wellbeing of conscious creatures. That would have been pretty uncontentious. What he said is that moral facts just are facts about conscious creatures and wellbeing or suffering.
How can he not realise the difference between the two? Unfortunately, his defence certainly isn’t going to make his position look any more cogent to his critics.
@Paul Bennett,
The entirety of Sam Harris’ so called response may be categorized as thus…FALLACIOUS APPEAL TO THE CONSEQUENCES AND STRAW MEN!
Harris seems to think that the rejection of his naturalistic basis of morality leads to relativism. Aside from being a fallacious appeal to the consequences, such a claim is downright false. Theists have always claimed that the door remains open to a Divine Command Theory of ethics which bases moral facts in the personhood of God.
He’s right to claim that the Is-Ought distinction opened a sinkhole beneath liberalism. But that’s only a problem for liberalism. Merely not liking that is insufficient grounds for rejection the Is-Ought logical distinction.
If Harris wants to object to the Is-Ought distinction he better have something A LOT better than simply not liking the consequences!
Conclusion…Harris is a moron.
Sam Harris = Fail
Hello Glenn,
I’m curious about the bonobo analogy? Evo psychos say that morality has basis in nature due to bonobo’s peacable social nature vs the chimp’s violent behavior and that people need to emulate back to the source by going the ‘bonobo’ way of handling things.
is morality inherent in nature? or is it an illusion, having its appearance but not its purpose?
@Alvin
One of the interesting things about Bonobos is their sexual behaviour, sometimes used as an example of why monogamy is not natural for mankind and as pointing to the normalcy of homosexual behaviour.
Bonobos appear to use sex [hetero and homo] to ease social tensions, to diffuse conflict and perhaps to promote group bonding and as a greeting.
So maybe if we all indulged in lots of sex the moment any conflict arose our society would be a lot more peaceful.This would conflict with the the usual sexual morality of most of the human population and might itself be an alternative source of conflict.
Whether Bonobos are aware they are using sex for conflict resolution is another story. We have no idea whether Bonobos know that the social use of “sexual” activity is related physically to reproductive activity. Female Bonobos are seasonally fertile like most animals [ they breed every 5 to 6 years] so the social sexual behaviour has no reproductive consequences [contrast the likely problems for humans].
“Sexuality” may be an entirely human construct ie we are anthropomorhising when we see the use of reproductive organs in conflict resolution as being “sexual”. We dont appear to have any data on whether or not Bonobos find these behaviours “pleasurable” and seek out such behaviours for their own sake as humans do.
The very peaceble nature of Bonobos seems related to a very abundant food supply in their natural habitat and not to the sexual behaviour.
Nett result , i wouldnt read too much into what some scientists find in Bonobo behaviour because other scientists are using the same behaviour to come to opposite conclusions.
Intresting video. Thanks for sharing this with us.
I’d have to echo some of the comments about the mass of anonymous postings, mainly due to it be hard to follow the flow of the conversation. Easy to fix, just adding my voice to that suggestion.
Hi All
Thought this might be of interest to people.
On 1st October 2010 at 1:00 PM (Eastern Time [US & Canada]) Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris will be taking part in a conversation on Ustream setup by The Greatest Show on Earth publishers, Simon and Schuster.
Use the link below for more info and to register for the event
http://richarddawkins.net/articles/518375-a-live-video-conversation-on-science-and-religion-with-richard-dawkins-sam-harris
I can’t imagine M&M acting this way, but it does make for a concerning trend don’t you think
There’s a fascinating (disturbing?) story on NPR.org about religious search engines that aggressively censor their results to protect the faithful from the caustic influence of reason. They seem to be scurrying into the dark corners to hide from the light of reality.
See more here:
http://richarddawkins.net/discussions/518360-hiding-from-the-light-of-reality
Alvin thankyou that is very kind.
Paypal will convert Canadian dollars into NZ dollars either using a Paypal Account or a Credit Card. If you click on the Paypal button in our sidebar it will give you the options.
Just a response to Babinski’s post,
The Golden rule is impractical in the real world, as there are factors in preventing ‘pay back’ consequences from happening. So you murder someone in Canada, will relatives of the murderer then kill you as an action vs reaction? No, because its illegal to do so, since capital punishment is not practiced by the Canadian government.
It does not also provide strong deterrence for people to commit crimes, provided that they have a high sense of efficacy coupled with a knowledge of societal facts, Thieves who swindle foreign tourists for example, have anonymity and experience on their side, they don’t for a moment think that the tourist has the means to steal back what belonged to them, because the people their stealing from usually identify with the genteel class of society who’s skills belong in a 9-5 day job, not those learned from the street like the thieves. Nor do the tourists have attitude and mind-set to go about it the same way thieves have when pilfering somebody’s valuables.
Same problem applies to internalized ethics, people generally do not care for thought experiments on how would they feel, if the bad act that they did were to backfire on them. What IF questions, like these lack visceral experience compared to the exhilirating thrill of the consequences of an evil act against the person, it all depends on cost/benefit analysis based on the facts, Will I get Caught? is the more reasonable question rather than What If it happened to me?
But Babinski is right to point out internals in ANE sumerian codes, it implies that the Golden rule is much more effective in the ANE societies than modern democratic secular regimes of today, he’s also partially correct that hell has been used to scare people to believe in a particular theological definition of god and doctrine, but that’s not the only motivator a religious person has in practicing ethics, for that matter anyone living in society.
The secular version of hell would be material deprivation, rights-abuse, physical violence vs the body, incarceration. So should we then say that the irreligious citizens of a democracy like NZ are being moral because they fear the police, they’re afraid of what the state will do to them, if they don’t follow the law? No, for reasons fundy atheists have already argued (Although some people live this way). But the threat of police action is still there as a deterrent as no government has ever managed a country without jails and the police.
Likewise with religious believers, they practice ethics not because of the fear of hell, its still there; they do so because of the love of God’s nature, they become ethical creatures for the sake of being intimate in devotion and emulation to the Creator.
Having a lack of Hell, makes things worse, it runs the risk of morality losing its enforceability such that you can live life as a dictator and die decently (e.g. General Pinochet) It gives people options to be indifferent, abusive to moralities that have variable enforcement attitudes, so long as they can get away with it by bribing, back-stabbery and beguiling. Like so many corruption crimes in Asia, white-collar scandals in the first world countries that have not been successfully prosecuted. At least with Divine Justice, there is no fallible, corruptible system that can be used by the evildoer to escape it.
Just wondering Paul,
if search engines belonging to humanist internet domains ever produce results for Pro-Atheistic amorality or Difficulties with Evolution or ‘Stalin,Mao was right; web content, What’s wrong with that?, you just stated an obvious and common practice for all organizations.. Religious search engines are justified in censoring out stuff they find offensive, deceptive and false because they do not fit with their life stance. The same way, you wouldn’t find pornographic content websites using a search engine on JSTOR or Forbes.
Why are fundy atheists making a big thing out of a little common thing? Attention deficit disorder perhaps.
Btw,
is there a way to send Canadian dollars to support the fundraiser at MandM? I was thinking of donating to the cause, but since I’m a canuck and not a kiwi. how does one go about doing that?
@ Alvin,
You say:
At least with Divine Justice, there is no fallible, corruptible system that can be used by the evildoer to escape it.
With regard to Babinski. How then, does Catholic final confession work with regard to absolving all their sins?
This would appear to allow people to live evil lives and then, just prior to the end of their mortal existence, they can confess their sins and still enter the kingdom of heaven.
Or have I missed something here?
@ Alvin,
You Say:
If search engines belonging to humanist internet domains ever produce results for Pro-Atheistic amorality or Difficulties with Evolution or ‘Stalin,Mao was right; web content, What’s wrong with that?
Honest answer, I don’t think it is, as when I visit those kind of sites, they do seem to have a large amount of content with regard to a theistic perspective, usually up for appraisal, but certainly theistic in content.
And often have evidence and arguments both for and against the theme that is being discussed, as they tend to be more open minded in this approach, in my opinion.
Matt,
Unfortunately, I don’t have a credit card, is there a way to do money transfer online through paypal?
Paul,
That type of mercernary mind-set tends to distinguish false believers from the true ones. Something JC and his apostles condemn. Its also difficult for someone in a state of grace, to do something bad, since the conviction kicks in (all the guilt, and shame that were typically ignored by a state of irreligion previously, comes back double) They can make mistakes, cause sin unintentionally, but they cannot consistently do wrong; Doing so endangers the trust given by God and their salvation as well.
Dont know about Catholic doctrines on absolution though
Paul,
with the so-called censorship issue in regards to religious search tools, the article is highly overrated and is missing the point that private domains are entitled to filtering out information rather than censoring it. True Censorship becomes apparent if Google or a publicly recognized search engine were to remove content from results deliberately such that the person cannot find anything about the topic using a domain that pretty much everyone uses.
But what the critic does is treating religious search engines that are supposed to be for certain interest groups use and mistakenly assuming them to function like Google. Big Mistake, its like defining an orange by calling it an apple. For someone claiming the light of reason against religion, he certainly is dim in the areas of common sense.
Matt,
I think I found a way to send a donation online using paypal’s International Money Transfer: see link here: https://www.paypal.com/ca/cgi-bin/marketingweb?cmd=xpt/Marketing_CommandDriven/general/International_Money_Transfer-outside&nav=0.2.1
I need your email to send the funds over, pls forward to my email at ac****@gm***.com
Thanks
Paul, I am not entirely up with the play on Catholic views of final confession. But it would seem to me that a person who cynically commited sins their whole life and then at the last minute sort confession would lack sincerity that would be needed for confession to absolve someone of their sins. So the situation you mention would not arise.
Ok, I’d like to comment on anonymous’ nit-picking. For the sake of it, I’ll repeat the definition here:
“A logically valid argument is one where the conclusion logically follows from its premises”
I think think this definition is fine as long as Glenn is willing to clarify what “logically follows” means. However, if Glenn tries to define “logically follows” using the term “logically valid,” then Glenn has a problem with circular reasoning. I haven’t seen the video yet, but I doubt Glenn made such a mistake. Since Glenn has a PhD in philosophy, I think we should give him the benefit of a doubt that he knows what he’s talking about.
Glenn’s definition is just fine and as Glenn pointed out, often used by authoratative sources. I have only a minor qualm with the term “logically follows” since a new student might find that term uninformative.
I prefer this definition:
“A valid argument is such that if it’s premises are true, the conclusion must be true.”
I can imagine a student asking what the logical “must” means in the context of logic, but I would reply that this question is best answered in a philosophy of logic course, with discussions of entailment and logical form. I think this definition is better, since it emphasizes the truth-preserving structure that a valid argument is supposed to have.
Given that Glenn was discussing morality and God, and not an hour long course on logic, I think his definition is just fine.
“The greatest tragedy in mankind’s entire history may be the hijacking of morality by religion.”…
Sam Harris is philosophically out of this depth on this issue. This presentation does a good (and understandable) job of explaining where Harris has gone wrong in his new book….