Sam Harris - Science must destroy religion article

[Candide_West]

The previous thread on this article seems to have closed. I’m guessing there is some time limit or post limit on these threads?

In any case there were a few interesting discussions in progress at the time so here’s a new thread to continue them.

Thanks

 

[Candide_West]

If our choices and their physical causes always correspond to each other we cannot be the authors of our choices because we do not cause them.

Incorrect, again we have covered this already. “I” am the author of my choices “I” am also the internal experience of physical interactions occurring within my brain. See, nice and straightforward. Again, you are still assuming dualism - you are looking for another “I” who is somewhere else and being left out, but there is no second “I” there’s just this one.*

It is a physical event deliberately caused by a person - not by natural events.

Right, so it is a physical event and is not amoral. So we are agreed that physical events are not necessarily amoral. Great.*

According to you our status as moral agents has physical causes - which are amoral because they don’t know what they are doing.

Incorrect, we have already agreed that physical events are not necessarily amoral.*

Science is restricted to natural entities, persons are animals and animals are amoral…*

Incorrect on both counts. Science is restricted to what can be observed or inferred from what can be observed. So if there were unnatural entities which interacted with our universe in detectable ways, then those interactions would fall within the purview of science. And secondly animals are not all amoral, indeed*humans are not even the only animals to have forms of morality. Various other social species have morality as well.

Irrelevant. If physical causes determined “our choices” we wouldn’t make those “choices” and they wouldn’t be rational choices.*

Incorrect, if the physical events are our thoughts and decision making process then the choice that results from them are our choices. Again the error you are making here is talking about a non-dualistic explanation for our decision making process AND assuming dualism. You just need to be consistent then your problems here will evaporate.

They would be caused by so many irrational factors it would be a miracle if two individuals happened to make the same “choices”. They wouldn’t be “their choices” at all.

You’re right, it would be miraculous if two people went through their lives making exactly the same choices at the same time. That’s probably why we never see that happen in the real world.*

It has everything to do with my conclusion because in your scheme of things persons have no control over “their choices”. There is only one cause: either you or something else, i.e. physical causes: you are just a cog turned by events.

Incorrect, you are you. Your mind which is the term we use for the totality of the processes of the brain. Your choices are a subset of these, again your error is in seeking to add an extra “you” to the mix which is outside of the “you” which is making the choices. That is again assumption of dualism when we are talking about a system without dualism. Hence it’s an error.

You have put yet another naiI in the coffin of materialism. If our views are determined by our background we don’t choose them: they are chosen for us by our background - and we cannot rationally claim they are “ours”.

Again incorrect and for the same reason. They are “ours” they originate in our minds so who else would you possibly attribute them to? You seem to be trying to separate who you are from your experiences, your past choices etc. As if there is a “you” floating somewhere totally unaware and disconnected from any memories or any thoughts but surely even as a dualist you must appreciate that the decisions you made in the past affects who you are and the choices you make now yes? If so, then again the problem vanishes.

You have given no reason why everyone should be regarded as equal.

And you have given no reason why people shouldn’t be regarded as equal.

In other words you create a universal axiom out of the blue without giving a reason why it applies to everyone.

Apologies, I had assumed you knew what an axiom is. here are definitions (from dictionary.com)

noun

1. a self-evident truth that requires no proof.
2. a universally accepted principle or rule.
3. a proposition that is assumed without proof for the sake of studying the consequences that follow from it.

Now I’m using the first and second meanings above. In this case because we are talking about language. In this case what the word “suffering” means is what the word means. We both know what it means and so do all other english speakers. And since all definitions are by nature ultimately self referential no “proof” or evidence for the meaning of the word is required (or even possible). It simply is what it is.

So no, I haven’t invented an axiom, I have simply identified one.

So suffering should always be prevented?

Not necessarily always, but that is certainly the default position unless there is a good reason to permit it (or cause it).*

So you would never kill a person?

I’ve never yet been in a situation where there was anything like sufficient justification for killing someone. I wouldn’t say never, because obviously there are circumstances I can imagine when killing would be justified.

So all suffering should be prevented regardless of any other considerations?

Nope, but preventing suffering is I guess what you could call a default position.

Not explicitly but the lust for pleasure and the rejection of morality has led to wars and genocide.

Ok, tell me some examples where lust for pleasure has been the justification for genocide.

Relativism is inevitable in a Godless universe because it is relative to human beings.

And yet it is you (a theist) who is engaging in relativism while an atheist disagrees and says we should seek a better way. Interesting.

Religion is as old as mankind.

Nope. Clearly humans have been around for a long time. Sure back in our early history there would have been loads we didn’t know and the early humans would have believed inaccurate things about those gaps in their knowledge. But back then there wouldn’t have even been a way to tell other people about your incorrect impressions (we are talking prior to the development of speech here which is a relatively recent development in our evolutionary history).*

Organised systems of thought like superstitions or spiritualism obviously must have come along long after that (after humans learned to talk). At their very earliest religions could have started at that point although I suspect in truth it would have been millennia later. And even then it would have been nothing like what we would call a religion.*

You have a very myopic view of spiritual reality. You think man is the measure of all things.

Er, no. That’s what you were doing, you were effectively saying “if something has been quite common for one species for the last few millennia then that’s good enough to call it universal”. That is myopic because it’s looking through a tiny, tiny anthropocentric window and claiming to see everything.*

“Love thy neighbour as thyself” is a typical example of the Golden Rule confined to a small group of people but not extended to everyone in the world- and certainly not to one’s enemies*

Indeed, its also from Christianity I believe. That does not change the fact that the golden rule was in circulation a long time BCE. So Jesus clearly wasn’t the origin of it.

Based on what? Their own ideas, nothing more…

Nope, we have a plethora of sources to build from.

On what rational basis do you select your moral values and principles from that medley of sources?

Again as I said, I compare propositions against axioms.

Comparison presupposes the existence of criteria by which you test…

Indeed, and I have given you those criteria.*

Test for what? Convenience? What exactly do you mean by “moral status”?*

I test whether the actions are moral or not. That is what I mean by their moral status.

How do you distinguish moral from amoral?

Things are amoral if they lack any moral status. In other words if they are outside of morality.

Why not admit you’re trying to establish good and evil, right and wrong, just and unjust in a system which is totally devoid of any concern for what occurs on this planet?*

I am not, indeed my moral code is measured directly against the axioms of what is good or bad for living things. As the only living things we have ever encountered are on this planet it is concerned directly and exclusively with this planet.*

Morality is a just a fairy tale. The problem is that - unlike Camus and Sartre - you fail to take your scepticism to its logical conclusion: everything is absurd…

Well I’m sorry you feel that way Tony, however I must disagree. I find life awe inspiringly beautiful and wonderful. To have a life and to be aware that you are you is to be astonishing.*

*If only matter exists nothing matters - and that is all there is to be said.

In that case I’m glad that you have your faith and wish you all the best in your future.

 

[tonyrey]

Phew! You must have broken the record number of detached statements in one post.

Incorrect, again we have covered this already. “I” am the author of my choices “I” am also the internal experience of physical interactions occurring within my brain. See, nice and straightforward. Again, you are still assuming dualism - you are looking for another “I” who is somewhere else and being left out, but there is no second “I” there’s just this one.*

 

[Gods_Peace]

This isn’t an athiest website for fools to discuss their opinions on whether or not God exists. This is a website for the Strong creation, rather then the weak creatures who rely on their flesh that dies!

 

[Sair]

Incorrect, again we have covered this already. “I” am the author of my choices “I” am also the internal experience of physical interactions occurring within my brain. See, nice and straightforward. Again, you are still assuming dualism - you are looking for another “I” who is somewhere else and being left out, but there is no second “I” there’s just this one.*
<>
In that case I’m glad that you have your faith and wish you all the best in your future.

Great post, Candide West.

I shan’t spend too much time speculating about the reasons for the previous thread’s closure, but I guess it must have something to do with the ongoing “temporary” ban on discussion of evolution and/or atheism - maybe it strayed too far into forbidden territory.

Be that as it may, there are a couple of observations I had meant to get around to making, pertinent to the topic of whether science must, should or even can destroy religion. Thinking back to Harris’s article, his real concern seemed to be for cutting through the irrationality and superstition bequeathed to modernity by ancient and medieval religious traditions. The kind of religion he appeared to wish destroyed is the kind that is “informed” by pre-scientific dogmas about the true nature of the world, where the desires and whims of supernatural beings trump the real and present needs of flesh-and-blood beings like ourselves.

I haven’t dipped into the blogosphere since noticing a recent news article in which a court in Cologne, Germany, implied in its ruling on a case that circumcision of infant boys was an act of abuse - but I rather suspect this is the kind of decision that Harris would be inclined to applaud.

The other observation I wanted to make is that in my experience, it is often the unbelievers who call the loudest for studies of comparative religions in schools - as opposed to “religious education” being merely the polite term for “indoctrination”. I don’t think most atheists would wish to deny that religion is and has been an important element in the shaping of human culture, but the point is to recognise it for what it is: a cultural artifact.

 

[Candide_West]

You = internal experience?

More or less yes. I am that which calls itself “I”.

physical event+human decision.

Right and if the human decision was also a physical event then the same thing is true.

Detectable= materialist assumption. Which sense do you detect your thoughts with?

Well there are two ways to explain this. The first is simply “other thoughts” which is true in a way in that different areas of the brain are sensitive to the activities of the areas which they are connected to. The second explanation is probably the more accurate one but definitely harder to both explain and understand. This is that thoughts are not something which are detected by the senses but rather are perceptions in themselves.*

For example what you experience when you look at something is how the object appears to you. This is your brain interpreting the signals from the nerves connected to your eyes. These interactions (perceptions) are in the broadest sense “thoughts” but we experience them the perception of a “face” or a “car” or whatever. There are no internal eyes or other sense needed to “see” our perception of what is in front of us. Our brain processing the information from the eyes in the visual cortex IS the perception of what we are seeing. In the same way your experience of your thoughts is a subset of your thoughts. There is no need for you to “detect” them, or of you prefer your having those thoughts IS you detecting them.

Apologies for the complex answer to a simple question. So often the way eh?

Why aren’t they held morally responsible?

They are, by members of their own species. Otherwise we’d have never discovered that they have morality at all.*

Your consistency leads to absurdity!Thoughts are not detectable by the senses.

Indeed not, as explained above, they do not need to be.*

Many people make the same **moral **choices because they choose to accept the same moral values.

Exactly. And those choices are their own choices. The fact that those choices occur in their brain does not change that fact. Well done.

If you=brain processes then the brain processes respond to stimuli and no choice occurs.

Incorrect, because some of those brain processes are the act of choice. Others respond to (name removed by moderator)ut from sensory organs, others keep your heart beating and your lungs breathing. Again you are still assuming dualism - looking for the extra “you” somewhere else who is getting left out. There is no extra you, just you.

If “you”=brain processes “you” don’t even come into the picture! “you” is superfluous because it is merely a synonym.

Er, you seem to be quibbling over terminology, you is the name I use to talk about the person called (on this forum) TonyRey. You no doubt call yourself “I” in your experience of yourself. Is it wrong to refer to you as “you” because it is just a synonym of TonyRey?*

To ask a person to prove a negative is absurd!*

Indeed, but I have done no such thing.

The onus is on you to explain why people should be regarded as equal when there is so much inequality in every aspect of life…

I disagree, you are a human, I am a human, why should I consider you to be inferior to me? I have no answer to that question so I have no justification to consider you to be inferior.

The principle of equality is neither self-evident nor is it universally accepted.*

Unfortunately true, but that isn’t what I was referring to as axiomatic. Remember the axioms I presented to you were “suffering is bad” and “happiness is good”. And those are indeed self evident, as I said those statements derive from the definition of the terms.

Then it is not a universal principle.

No, “suffering is bad” is an axiom. “Suffering should always be prevented” is not. That is why it isn’t one of my axioms.

That is a hedonist view which implies that suffering is never beneficial.

Nope, in fact it specifically takes that into account. What it doesn’t permit is gratuitous suffering which is by definition never beneficial.

The lust for pleasure entails removing impediments - like Hitler’s elimination of Jews who spoilt his dream of Aryan race supremacy.

Are you really suggesting that Hitler’s justification for killing the Jews was “lust for pleasure”??? If so I fear I must utterly disagree with you, and in truth I doubt many people would agree with you there.

I don’t believe in a Godless universe!

I know. That is why I raised the point. You were engaging in moral relativism and I objecting to it. Then you said “Relativism is inevitable in a Godless universe”. As I said it seems ironic that you (a theist) engage in moral relativism while I (an atheist) disagree with you. Then you in your next post tell me that moral relativism is required in my position but not in yours. Funny eh?

Cave drawings and paintings seem to have predated syntactic language.

Possible, but again they’re a recent invention too. We don’t have any evidence of them going back more than 40,000 years *or so (last I read) which is nothing on an evolutionary timescale.

Animist beliefs were not organised but they weren’t materialistic.

Indeed, and animist beliefs are also relatively recent.*

“ratiocentric” is a more accurate description.

If you say so. In any case your statement about religion being universal was clearly incorrect unless you do great violence to the term “universal”.

The Golden Rule was not applied to the whole human race including men, women, **children and enemies **before the teaching of Jesus that we all have a loving Father in heaven. Almost all societies were patriarchal and were opposed to equality.

And measured against the above criteria not that much has changed, certainly not for a great many people. None of this changes the fact that the Golden rule was in circulation s long time before the events of the new testament.

But you alone select the sources. You are a law unto yourself!

If you mean I am responsible for my own morality then yes certainly. Of course so is everyone else, although some pretend otherwise to themselves. As we discussed previously many Catholics pick and choose from church morality while pretending to themselves that that their morality comes from the church. Clearly it does not or they would have no standard against which to make their decisions.*

They are not rational criteria by which you decide the overriding principle.

The overriding principles are axioms. They are not decided by anyone as such.

What determines moral status?

Whether the action will result in suffering or happiness and the balance of the two.*

Are viruses and parasites included? If not why not?

Viruses etc lack a nervous system and are therefore unable to experience suffering or happiness. Thus they are excluded by their very nature.

Thank you, Candide, for your best wishes - which I reciprocate

Thankyou.

• but “the rest is silence” wasn’t intended to end our entretien! It is a logical consequence of “If only matter exists nothing matters”. * * * * * * * * * * *

And in that I must disagree. “What matters” is another way of saying “what is cared about”. Effectively your statement above equates to “If the physical universe is all that exists then nobody cares about anything”. Which is clearly incorrect. People demonstrably DO care about many things because it’s built into our very nature to care about things, and that won’t suddenly change if we (hypothetically) suddenly proved that the physical universe is the totality of existence.

Perhaps what you meant was to refer to some form of “objective mattering” or “ultimate mattering”. If so then you may be right, perhaps from a universal perspective nothing matters. But we humans do not have a universal perspective so we still matter to each other and our planet matters to us and many other things besides.*

 

[Gaber]

Great post, Candide West.

I shan’t spend too much time speculating about the reasons for the previous thread’s closure, but I guess it must have something to do with the ongoing “temporary” ban on discussion of evolution and/or atheism - maybe it strayed too far into forbidden territory.

Be that as it may, there are a couple of observations I had meant to get around to making, pertinent to the topic of whether science must, should or even can destroy religion. Thinking back to Harris’s article, his real concern seemed to be for cutting through the irrationality and superstition bequeathed to modernity by ancient and medieval religious traditions. The kind of religion he appeared to wish destroyed is the kind that is “informed” by pre-scientific dogmas about the true nature of the world, where the desires and whims of supernatural beings trump the real and present needs of flesh-and-blood beings like ourselves.

I haven’t dipped into the blogosphere since noticing a recent news article in which a court in Cologne, Germany, implied in its ruling on a case that circumcision of infant boys was an act of abuse - but I rather suspect this is the kind of decision that Harris would be inclined to applaud.

The other observation I wanted to make is that in my experience, it is often the unbelievers who call the loudest for studies of comparative religions in schools - as opposed to “religious education” being merely the polite term for “indoctrination”. I don’t think most atheists would wish to deny that religion is and has been an important element in the shaping of human culture, but the point is to recognise it for what it is: a cultural artifact.

Well stated . Thanks.

 

[tonyrey]

You = internal experience?

Then internal experience calls itself internal experience!

physical event+human decision.

Right and if the human decision was also a physical event then the same thing is true.

physical event+physical event= moral decision. Therefore one physical event is superfluous!

Detectable= materialist assumption. Which sense do you detect your thoughts with?

…The second explanation is probably the more accurate one but definitely harder to both explain and understand. This is that thoughts are not something which are detected by the senses but rather are perceptions in themselves.

Perceptions of perceptions? Are there also perceptions of perceptions of perceptions?

For example what you experience when you look at something is how the object appears to you. This is your brain interpreting the signals from the nerves connected to your eyes. These interactions (perceptions) are in the broadest sense “thoughts” but we experience them the perception of a “face” or a “car” or whatever… There is no need for you to “detect” them, or of you prefer your having those thoughts IS you detecting them.

Are there thoughts of thoughts?

Apologies for the complex answer to a simple question. So often the way eh?
So complex it is unintelligible!

Why aren’t they held morally responsible?

They are, by members of their own species. Otherwise we’d have never discovered that they have morality at all.

Evidence?

Your consistency leads to absurdity!Thoughts are not detectable by the senses.

Indeed not, as explained above, they do not need to be.

Are thoughts of perceptions the same as perceptions of perceptions?

Many people make the same moral choices because they choose to accept the same moral values.

Exactly. And those choices are their own choices. The fact that those choices occur in their brain does not change that fact. Well done.

Since all choices in the brain have physical causes they are not caused by the brain and cannot be ours…

If you=brain processes then the brain processes respond to stimuli and no choice occurs.

Incorrect, because some of those brain processes are the act of choice. Others respond to (name removed by moderator)ut from sensory organs, others keep your heart beating and your lungs breathing. Again you are still assuming dualism - looking for the extra “you” somewhere else who is getting left out. There is no extra you, just you.

Since all choices in the brain have physical causes they are not caused by the brain and cannot be ours…

If “you”=brain processes “you” don’t even come into the picture! “you” is superfluous because it is merely a synonym.

Er, you seem to be quibbling over terminology, you is the name I use to talk about the person called (on this forum) TonyRey. You no doubt call yourself “I” in your experience of yourself. Is it wrong to refer to you as “you” because it is just a synonym of TonyRey?

So TonyRey and Candide West are brain processes as well as internal experiences, i.e. brain processes=internal experiences?

To ask a person to prove a negative is absurd!

Indeed, but I have done no such thing.

“And you have given no reason why people shouldn’t be regarded as equal” implies that I should give a reason why people are not equal.

The onus is on you to explain why people should be regarded as equal when there is so much inequality in every aspect of life…

I disagree, you are a human, I am a human, why should I consider you to be inferior to me? I have no answer to that question so I have no justification to consider you to be inferior.

The fact that many people disagree and the fact there is so much inequality in every aspect of life are reasons that you need to justify belief in equality.

The principle of equality is neither self-evident nor is it universally accepted.

Unfortunately true, but that isn’t what I was referring to as axiomatic.

If it isn’t axiomatic it isn’t self-evident.

Remember the axioms I presented to you were “suffering is bad” and “happiness is good”. And those are indeed self evident, as I said those statements derive from the definition of the terms.

It doesn’t follow from the act of defining that the definition is necessarily true.

Then it is not a universal principle.

No, “suffering is bad” is an axiom. “Suffering should always be prevented” is not. That is why it isn’t one of my axioms.

It doesn’t follow from accepting an axiom that the axiom is necessarily true.

That is a hedonist view which implies that suffering is never beneficial.

Nope, in fact it specifically takes that into account. What it doesn’t permit is gratuitous suffering which is by definition never beneficial.

It doesn’t follow from the act of defining that the definition is necessarily true.

The lust for pleasure entails removing impediments - like Hitler’s elimination of Jews who spoilt his dream of Aryan race supremacy.

Are you really suggesting that Hitler’s justification for killing the Jews was “lust for pleasure”??? If so I fear I must utterly disagree with you, and in truth I doubt many people would agree with you there.

Hitler took pleasure in killing the Jews because he believed they are subhumans who destroy civilization.

I don’t believe in a Godless universe!

I know. That is why I raised the point. You were engaging in moral relativism and I objecting to it. Then you said “Relativism is inevitable in a Godless universe”. As I said it seems ironic that you (a theist) engage in moral relativism while I (an atheist) disagree with you. Then you in your next post tell me that moral relativism is required in my position but not in yours. Funny eh?

How was I engaging in moral relativism?

Cave drawings and paintings seem to have predated syntactic language.

Possible, but again they’re a recent invention too. We don’t have any evidence of them going back more than 40,000 years or so (last I read) which is nothing on an evolutionary timescale.

The evolutionary timescale is irrelevant…

Animist beliefs were not organised but they weren’t materialistic.

Indeed, and animist beliefs are also relatively recent.

“relatively recent” is a cop out!

“ratiocentric” is a more accurate description.

If you say so.

Unrefuted!

In any case your statement about religion being universal was clearly incorrect unless you do great violence to the term “universal”.

Name some tribes without religion.

The Golden Rule was not applied to the whole human race including men, women, children and enemies before the teaching of Jesus that we all have a loving Father in heaven. Almost all societies were patriarchal and were opposed to equality.

And measured against the above criteria not that much has changed, certainly not for a great many people. None of this changes the fact that the Golden rule was in circulation s long time before the events of the new testament.

The fact that not that much has changed, certainly not for a great many people, is irrelevant to the fact that the teaching of Jesus applied to the whole human race including men, women, children and enemies.

But you alone select the sources. You are a law unto yourself!

If you mean I am responsible for my own morality then yes certainly. Of course so is everyone else, although some pretend otherwise to themselves.

To be morally responsible is not the same as inventing one’s morality.

As we discussed previously many Catholics pick and choose from church morality while pretending to themselves that that their morality comes from the church. Clearly it does not or they would have no standard against which to make their decisions.

Catholics do not pick and choose from the fundamental beliefs and values of the Church.

They are not rational criteria by which you decide the overriding principle.

The overriding principles are axioms. They are not decided by anyone as such.

Then how did they originate?

What determines moral status?

Whether the action will result in suffering or happiness and the balance of the two.

How are they balanced?

Are viruses and parasites included? If not why not?

Viruses etc lack a nervous system and are therefore unable to experience suffering or happiness. Thus they are excluded by their very nature.

So suffering or happiness are the only criteria of good or evil?

“If only matter exists nothing matters”.

And in that I must disagree. “What matters” is another way of saying “what is cared about”. Effectively your statement above equates to “If the physical universe is all that exists then nobody cares about anything”. Which is clearly incorrect. People demonstrably DO care about many things because it’s built into our very nature to care about things, and that won’t suddenly change if we (hypothetically) suddenly proved that the physical universe is the totality of existence.

Perhaps what you meant was to refer to some form of “objective mattering” or “ultimate mattering”. If so then you may be right, perhaps from a universal perspective nothing matters. But we humans do not have a universal perspective so we still matter to each other and our planet matters to us and many other things besides.

To care about things rather than persons is not necessarily moral - and no reason has yet been given why we should care about everyone.

 

[Ben_Quincy]

The last thread was closed because it contained many uncharitable posts.
**
This is a warning to all in this thread**: discuss the topic, not each other. Infractions will be issued without further warnings.

 

[Jehannette]

I have read Harris, Dawkins, and all the others. Does any of them really “think” that they can “convince” us that we are just nothing more than “atoms & molecules”? That my whole experience this evening is just electrons transitioning from one quantum state to another? And yet, if I would claim that, “my neurons made me ‘do it’”, they will tell me that I am talking nonsense and that the conservation laws of physics, while being immutable, really do allow for human free will and choice, hence, moral responsibility. So, in that respect, "I"can really manipulate the neurons in my brain and that “I” really do have control over them even though they are completely responsible for “me”.

Sorry. Atheism only makes sense if God exists.

 

[tonyrey]

I have read Harris, Dawkins, and all the others. Does any of them really “think” that they can “convince” us that we are just nothing more than “atoms & molecules”? That my whole experience this evening is just electrons transitioning from one quantum state to another? And yet, if I would claim that, “my neurons made me ‘do it’”, they will tell me that I am talking nonsense and that the conservation laws of physics, while being immutable, really do allow for human free will and choice, hence, moral responsibility. So, in that respect, "I"can really manipulate the neurons in my brain and that “I” really do have control over them even though they are completely responsible for “me”.

Sorry. Atheism only makes sense if God exists.

A delightful epigram, Jehannette!

 

[DCNBILL]

From previous thread.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DCNBILL View Post
Just as you have stated above there have been numerous accounts of moral behaviors in cultures that we would find reprehensible, so the question is;

Do you think that, using your terms, there have existed some (moral codes) that are better or more acceptable than others?

Candide West Replied:
Of course, by my standards very many moral codes are worse than my own. Those which have caused enormous suffering are definately inferior when measured against by their ability to prevent suffering. The extent to which they are inferior is I guess roughly proportional to the extent of the difference when compared to my own. ie the extent to which they fail when measured against my own moral code.

DCNBILL Replies;

So if one set of moral codes can be described as better than others then there is, logically, some set of codes that they are being judged against. The good, better, best principal.

 

[Candide_West]

Great post, Candide West.

Thanks, kind of you to say so.

Be that as it may, there are a couple of observations I had meant to get around to making, pertinent to the topic of whether science must, should or even can destroy religion. Thinking back to Harris’s article, his real concern seemed to be for cutting through the irrationality and superstition bequeathed to modernity by ancient and medieval religious traditions. The kind of religion he appeared to wish destroyed is the kind that is “informed” by pre-scientific dogmas about the true nature of the world, where the desires and whims of supernatural beings trump the real and present needs of flesh-and-blood beings like ourselves.*

Yes, I think there are two points here which are important. The first is the idea that scientists should be actively trying to get rid of religions. On that front I completely disagree as I mentioned in a previous post. Scientists have much more important things to do, and trying to get rid of religion could far too easily turn into repression of people’s freedom.

The other side of it is the idea of combating ignorance, teaching people about the wonders of our universe and the creatures which live within it (including ourselves) and that I think is an important role for scientists. It is upon that basis of awe that the next generation of scientists and engineers will be inspired to move our development further forwards.

It’s quite likely that the process of sharing that knowledge will reduce people’s reliance on superstition and “mystery” based explanations. But that is just an inevitable side effect of scientific advances. Not an objective in itself.*

I haven’t dipped into the blogosphere since noticing a recent news article in which a court in Cologne, Germany, implied in its ruling on a case that circumcision of infant boys was an act of abuse - but I rather suspect this is the kind of decision that Harris would be inclined to applaud.

And I would share that position. If people wish to cut off parts of their body to comply with a religious belief that they hold then that is their prerogative. But doing the same thing to a baby who may or may not grow up to share your belief seems wrong to me.

The other observation I wanted to make is that in my experience, it is often the unbelievers who call the loudest for studies of comparative religions in schools - as opposed to “religious education” being merely the polite term for “indoctrination”.*

Unsurprising. It’s also comparative religion which I would argue to be most valuable as it is a mind opening exercise - teaching children about how different cultures perceive the world. Helping them communicate and be more open minded as they grow up. These things are very important in our increasingly interconnected society.

I don’t think most atheists would wish to deny that religion is and has been an important element in the shaping of human culture, but the point is to recognise it for what it is: a cultural artifact.

Agreed. Although I would say that religion has rather acquired a life of its own and is evolving as a self replicating system of thought in the environment of human minds and media.*

The younger religions in particular actually provide a very good case study in how a non-thinking system can become more complex over time to improve its survival prospects.

 

[tonyrey]

So if one set of moral codes can be described as better than others then there is, logically, some set of codes that they are being judged against.

Irrefutable!

 

[Candide_West]

Then internal experience calls itself internal experience!

And I call myself “I”. Indeed. All makes sense nicely doesn’t it.

physical event+physical event= moral decision. Therefore one physical event is superfluous!

Not necessarily no.

Perceptions of perceptions? Are there also perceptions of perceptions of perceptions?

Are there thoughts of thoughts?

Are thoughts of perceptions the same as perceptions of perceptions?

No, you seem to have got exactly the wrong point of what I wrote. Remember I said “There is no need for you to “detect” them, or of you prefer your having those thoughts IS you detecting them.” In other words having a perception is experiencing that perception. There is no need for you to percieve that you have a perception. That once again is the dualist in you coming out. You are still looking for the “other you” who needs to percieve that you are having a perception. Cast aside the assumption and the problem goes with it.

So complex it is unintelligible!

Apologies, what did you find too complex? If you let me know I’ll try to break it down more simply.

Evidence?

This is far from being a new idea. There has been plenty of evidence around for decades about this. If you have access to “Nature” (the magazine) you can read about morality in bats from way back in March 1984. Here’s a link where you can have a read of the abstract at least.

nature.com/nature/journal/v308/n5955/abs/308181a0.html

Funnily enough there is a good article about monkeys having a sense of “fairness” and possibly even a sense of equality (I mention this because it seems to be a favourite topic of yours) - here:

primates.com/monkeys/fairness.html

Since all choices in the brain have physical causes they are not caused by the brain and cannot be ours…

Incorrect, same dualistic error again Tony. Some of those physical causes in the brain ARE the act of choice. So the choices are ours. Once again your error is imagining an extra “you” who isn’t in on the act of choice because it is happening in the brain. Once you shed that dualist assumption and think in terms of “you” being the processes of the brain it the problem vanishes because some of those processes are the act of choice.

So TonyRey and Candide West are brain processes as well as internal experiences, i.e. brain processes=internal experiences?

Yes, some of those brain processes are your experience of youself. As I said others perform the host of other functions that your body requires to operate successfully. Everything from maintaining your heartbeat to management of your bowels to the blush response of your skin.

“And you have given no reason why people shouldn’t be regarded as equal” implies that I should give a reason why people are not equal.

And that is NOT asking you to prove a negative. If you believe that people should be treated unequally then you can provide a justification for that. I myself have no such justification so I have no reason to treat people unequally.

The fact that many people disagree and the fact there is so much inequality in every aspect of life are reasons that you need to justify belief in equality.

Why? I used to have less than I do now. Was I inferior then? No. The position strikes me as being rather silly. As I said we are both humans, I see no reason to believe that any other humans are inferior to me. If you have such a justification then provide it. Otherwise why do you persist in trying to persuade me that I must hold a position without giving any justification for that position?

If it isn’t axiomatic it isn’t self-evident.

I know, I never argued that it was. That is why it wasn’t one of my axioms.

It doesn’t follow from the act of defining that the definition is necessarily true.
It doesn’t follow from accepting an axiom that the axiom is necessarily true.
It doesn’t follow from the act of defining that the definition is necessarily true.

Incorrect, if we both accept the definition of suffering then that is what suffering means – the term “by definition” springs to mind. You cannot both accept a definition and argue against a definition meaning what you just accepted it means. This is exactly why axioms provide such a useful basis for morality, they aren’t based on someone’s opinion or what some book says, but on our own nature and the terms which we use to describe our experience.

Hitler took pleasure in killing the Jews because he believed they are subhumans who destroy civilization.

Come on Tony, you are trying to defend the indefensible here. “lust for pleasure” quite obviously was NOT the justification for killing the Jews. You know that as well as I do.

How was I engaging in moral relativism?

• I raised the point that religion has a long history of causing harm.
• You replied that other systems of thought also have a long history of causing harm (relativism)
• I replied that just because other systems of thought have caused harm doesn’t mean we should accept religion causing harm (me objecting to your relativism).

You’ll find the entire exchange on the previous thread on this topic.

The evolutionary timescale is irrelevant…

“relatively recent” is a cop out!

Unrefuted!

Name some tribes without religion.

I’ll answer these together for simplicity. The point under discussion here is that you claimed

“Religion has always been a universal phenomenon.”

Now if you wanted to make a defensible statement you could have said “Religion has been a common phenomena in our species over the last 10,000 years or so”. If you’d said that I wouldn’t have debated the point, but claiming religion to be universal is clearly incorrect. I mean even if you only consider in terms of timescale you are talking about much less than 0.1% of our evolutionary history. So clearly humans were humans before they had religions so your original point that any areligious environment must have been a product of a relgious environment “ultimately” is simply getting it backwards. Humans were areligious first, and for the vast majority of the time we have been around.

The fact that not that much has changed, certainly not for a great many people, is irrelevant to the fact that the teaching of Jesus applied to the whole human race including men, women, children and enemies.

And that is irrelevant to the fact that the golden rule was in circulation well before Jesus. Your point here seems to be that before Jesus the principle existed but wasn’t applied often and after Jesus the principle existed but wasn’t applied often. Therefore we should attribute it to Jesus. If so then I hardly need to point out the logical flaws in that position do I?

To be morally responsible is not the same as inventing one’s morality.

No, to be responsible for your own morality is to take responsibility for it. Not palm it off onto someone else.

Catholics do not pick and choose from the fundamental beliefs and values of the Church.

But we’ve already discussed the fact that Catholics DO select their morality for themselves. The pew forum on religion in 2008 survey showed that from those Catholics covered by the survey 48% said that abortion should be legal in all or most cases (45% said it should be illegal in all or most and the remaining 7% did not answer) and that 58% said homosexuality should be accepted (30% said it should be discouraged and 12% did not answer). Now correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that the catholic church has quite specific views on those two topics, and in neither of the above cases are the majority of those surveyed in agreement with it.

Then how did they originate?

From our own nature.

How are they balanced?

Against each other. For example I don’t particularly enjoy certain exercises that I do, sometimes they cause me pain, but I do them anyway because the enjoyment from being fit and healthy is greater than the suffering from the exercise required to get me there.

So suffering or happiness are the only criteria of good or evil?

We are not talking about “good” and “evil” here, those words have all sorts of connotations which are entirely superfluous. We are talking about moral and immoral and for that they seem to be adequate.

To care about things rather than persons is not necessarily moral - and no reason has yet been given why we should care about everyone.

And no reason has been given why we should NOT care about others. Again, if you wish to argue that people should not care about other people then you’ll need to justify your position. Otherwise I’ll keep doing my best to prevent suffering and help people to find happiness as I have done thus far.

 

[Candide_West]

From previous thread.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DCNBILL View Post
Just as you have stated above there have been numerous accounts of moral behaviors in cultures that we would find reprehensible, so the question is;

Do you think that, using your terms, there have existed some (moral codes) that are better or more acceptable than others?

Candide West Replied:
Of course, by my standards very many moral codes are worse than my own. Those which have caused enormous suffering are definately inferior when measured against by their ability to prevent suffering. The extent to which they are inferior is I guess roughly proportional to the extent of the difference when compared to my own. ie the extent to which they fail when measured against my own moral code.

DCNBILL Replies;

So if one set of moral codes can be described as better than others then there is, logically, some set of codes that they are being judged against. The good, better, best principal.

Yes, you asked me to judge them by my terms, so in this case those other moral codes were being judged against my code. As I said, the extent to which they are inferior is the “extent to which they fail when measured against my own moral code”. So in this case the “best” would be my own moral code.

Of course if the people from those societies were asked to judge my moral code I suspect they would classify mine as inferior.

 

[DCNBILL]

Yes, you asked me to judge them by my terms, so in this case those other moral codes were being judged against my code. As I said, the extent to which they are inferior is the “extent to which they fail when measured against my own moral code”. So in this case the “best” would be my own moral code.

Of course if the people from those societies were asked to judge my moral code I suspect they would classify mine as inferior.

So my questions here would be;

1> Do you think that your moral codes are the best moral codes that could ever exist?

and

2> Do you think that you live always and exactly to your moral codes at every moment in your life?

 

[yppop]

Candide, Tony,

Forgive me for imposing on your polite discussion to make a comment about the nature of the mental processes that I assume CW believes are due solely to the material brain, a belief with which TR surely disagrees.

Here is a synopsis of my interpretation of Gerald Edelman’s (a noble prize winning biologist), theory of consciousness: It is called the Theory of Neuronal Group Selection. Skipping over the neurological jargon, his main line of argument goes something like this: neuronal circuits are developed and formed with experience to construct the dynamic reentrant core. The dynamic core, a complex array of neuronal circuits that feeds itself (reentrant processing), converts signals from the world and the brain into a “phenomenal transform” that entails an n-dimensional qualia space. Consciousness as a property of the dynamic core is a reflection of the capacity to make refined discriminations in the multidimensional qualia space. In other words consciousness is defined using the words: property, reflection, capacity, discriminations, and finally qualia space. Most materialists simply explain qualia with the catchall phrase “emergent property”. Even though he is an avowed materialist, Edelman seems to want to explicatively implant qualia as far away from the neuronal circuits of the brain as his theory will allow. Qualia are all those things we experience that are both subjectively real and immaterial such as (1) sensations (color, sweetness, wetness, pain, stench, etc.); (2) feelings (well-being, happiness, pleasure, pride, etc.; (3) emotions (joy, despair, anger, ennui, hope, etc.; (4) transcendentals (beauty, truth, justice, awe, peace, etc.).; and (5) (our will, and the “I” that is “you”).

Candide, I assume that it is this qualia space that you are denying is real and immaterial, that there is no “other” form of reality beyond that which can be experienced materially (or through energy). Certainly we cannot experience qualia without the functioning neuronal circuits of the brain; the brain is necessary. However if the qualia space is not material, what is it? If it is spatial, it must be a special form of space that can “store” redness, sweetness, images of other people, etc.

I would argue that the brain, as Edelman states it, “entails” qualia; i.e., the brain causes the mind to “experience” qualia however because qualia are immaterial, the material brain cannot be their “repository”. The mind, part of which is the brain, necessarily must also be composed of an immaterial substance. Without qualia, without the spiritual substance in which qualia reside, we would be zombies constructed merely from quarks and electrons

Sorry for the interruption,
Yppop

 

[Candide_West]

So my questions here would be;

1> Do you think that your moral codes are the best moral codes that could ever exist?

Well that rather depends what you mean - “best” at what?*

This is actually one of the problems inherent to comparing systems of morality. Let’s say I was debating morality with an Aztec priest (one of those chaps who used to rip the hearts out of people on their temples). I could say that his system was inferior to mine because it resulted in vast and gratuitous suffering. And no doubt he would say that mine was inferior because it would prevent their offerings from restoring the god Huitzilopochtli and could thus lead to the end of the world.

He might share my position that suffering is bad in a general sense but would certainly wish to avoid suffering himself, but I’m sure he’d argue that I wasn’t seeing the big picture because I don’t believe inHuitzilopochtli and thus don’t understand the importance of sacrificing human blood to renew his strength.

This is a key challenge in systems of morality - the basis on which you establish your moral system defines what the system seeks to achieve. And therefore it’s success criteria. If you establish your moral system on what is best for Huitzilopochtli then your moral system will be very good for achieving the requirements ofHuitzilopochtli (or at least the perceived requirements ofHuitzilopochtli, as I’m sure we are both in agreement that he doesn’t actually exist).*

I have based my moral system on the nature of humans. So delivers a moral system which works well for humans (but is terrible for the perceived requirements of Huitzilopochtli).*

This is a very long answer to a very short question but I think the example makes the difficulty in identifying a “best” system of morality clear. You’d have to start with what it needs to be best AT and that would give you the basis for the moral code to achieve that objective.

2> Do you think that you live always and exactly to your moral codes at every moment in your life?

Afraid not. I do my best but often falter.*

 

[Gaber]

The previous thread on this article seems to have closed. I’m guessing there is some time limit or post limit on these threads?

In any case there were a few interesting discussions in progress at the time so here’s a new thread to continue them.

Thanks

You make many good points.

I disagree. however, with

Now I’m using the first and second meanings above. In this case because we are talking about language. In this case what the word “suffering” means is what the word means. We both know what it means and so do all other english speakers. And since all definitions are by nature ultimately self referential no “proof” or evidence for the meaning of the word is required (or even possible). It simply is what it is.

I distinguish between pain which is physical, and suffering, which is the thoughts about pain pertinent to self identification. So while many things are functionally axiomatic, eg, “if you jump up, you will come down,” the word “suffering” is yet subjective, and while having commonality, doesn’t have identity as being exactly the same in everyone’s experience as top content.

So one can say that “Life is suffering” as an approximation of nearly 100% of peoples experience, but it is not an absolute inclusiveness as stated. There are some who experience pain without making up stories about it, which is what constitutes, as far as I can see, suffering.

And Tonyrey stated

… and no reason has yet been given why we should care about everyone.

I’m curious as to what you might say about that, say relative to any iteration of the Golden Rule.