Sam Harris On Good and Evil

Sam Harris On Good and Evil | Big Think

Рет қаралды 214,610

Күн бұрын

Sam Harris On Good and Evil
New videos DAILY: bigth.ink/youtube
Join Big Think Edge for exclusive videos: bigth.ink/Edge
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morality is one of the greatest challenges for modernity.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SAM HARRIS:
Sam Harris is the author of the New York Times bestsellers, The End of Faith and Letter to a Christian Nation. The End of Faith won the 2005 PEN Award for Nonfiction.
Mr. Harris' writing has been published in over ten languages. He and his work have been discussed in Newsweek, TIME, The New York Times, Scientific American, Rolling Stone, and many other journals. His writing has appeared in Newsweek, The Los Angeles Times, The Times (London), The Boston Globe, The Atlantic, Nature, The Annals of Neurology, and elsewhere.
Mr. Harris is a graduate in philosophy from Stanford University and holds a PhD in neuroscience from UCLA, where he studied the neural basis of belief with functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). He is also a Co-Founder and CEO of Project Reason.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TRANSCRIPT:
Question: How do you define good and evil?
Harris: I think that there’s this myth that unless you think one of your books was dictated by the creator of the universe, and there he told you what good and evil are, you’ll just have no basis for morality. You need religion in some sense to have a generalizable morality. Without religion, there’s no way to say the Nazis were really wrong to do what they did, or believe what they believed. I think that’s clearly untrue. I think we have some very serviceable intuitions about . . . about what good and evil are, and what is . . . what constitutes an ethical life. And we converge on those intuitions. I mean every culture agrees that cruelty is wrong; that taking pleasure in the suffering of others is wrong within the context of your “in group”. I mean many cultures think it’s good to take pleasure in the suffering of people who are not part of your tribe. But in terms of, you know, who you’re going to admit into your moral sphere, we have some very serviceable intuitions about how we treat the people we accept in our sphere. And the challenge for modernity . . . the challenge for civilization is to extend the sphere of our moral community to include the entire species, and even other species so that we really don’t have these “us and them” boundaries that we have. And our “us and them” boundaries are really propped up by dogmatism. I mean they’re propped up by nationalism. They’re propped up by racism. And there are many ways to divide your world dogmatically; but the most insidious “us and them” boundary, as far as I’m concerned, is religion. It really is . . . Religion causes a transcendental object between you and this other person. I mean not only are you different because of your skin color or your political persuasion, or because you speak a different language. You are different for all time for what you believe about God and what he believes about God are so opposed that it’s gonna require eternity to, you know . . . an eternity of punishment, in his case, to work out that difference. So I think it’s a very . . . I think our moral . . . This question of morality is an important one to focus on, because many people are attached to religion not because they’re convinced that the metaphysics make sense, but because they just see no other alternative to teaching kids, you know, right and wrong. I think there’s a few obvious things to point out. One is that we clearly don’t get our morality out of our holy books. Because when you go into the holy books, they are bursting with cruelty. The Old Testament, the New Testament, the Koran - these are profoundly cruel and morally ambiguous books at best. I mean you know, the Ten Commandments . . . the first four have nothing to do with morality. They have to do with theological offenses. You know, “Don’t take any other gods before me. Don’t take God’s name in vain. No graven images,” etc. “Don’t work on the Sabbath.” What are you supposed to do when people break those commandments? You’re supposed to kill them. I mean this is unbelievably immoral. And yet we’re not doing that now not because the book itself is so wise. I mean, to take a more relevant example, slavery. I mean slavery is clearly...
Read the full transcript at bigthink.com/v...

Пікірлер: 1 100

@bigthink 4 жыл бұрын

Want to get Smarter, Faster? Subscribe for DAILY videos: bigth.ink/GetSmarter

@feorgenotgloyd7624 3 жыл бұрын

@Owen Lian 😂

@lotusniamhmisa 10 жыл бұрын

He doesn't have to. He was talking about how many religous people seem to think that morality comes from religion/holy book. He gave reasons and examples as evidence that the claim of morality only coming from religion, is false.

@imalamboman12 4 жыл бұрын

It's inherent, from God. Not from religious books.

@jolness1 2 жыл бұрын

@@imalamboman12 this god guy should do a better job standardizing his books

@comforth3898 2 жыл бұрын

@@jolness1 Maybe produce modern editions

@comforth3898 2 жыл бұрын

@@imalamboman12 Our knowledge of God(s) comes from religious books

@nelsona9381 8 жыл бұрын

My dog just gave birth this week and she is extremely very caring for her pups. She cherishes and love her pups like nothing else And she never read any Rule book or I didn't even command her to treat the pups the way she do it.

@artloverivy 7 жыл бұрын

The religious folk would argue that the dog is programmed with gods moral code. I honestly disagree, but that's definitely what they'd say.

@nelsona9381 7 жыл бұрын

the sad part is most of the christian sect. believe that all animals will not go to heaven. which will devalue your love and memory from your pet which the church contradict each other.

@FindingsOfAnArmouredMind 7 жыл бұрын

Animals have ''buddha's nature'', look for that concept, it'll open your mind.

@punisher00109 7 жыл бұрын

nelson a instinct. She evolved that way. If she killed her puppies or didnt protect them. They would die. Thus ending the species. Species with the mutation of coveting children survive. Its simple

@marcoselosegui9792 7 жыл бұрын

Well if you spell dog backwards.....checkmate.

@CegeRoles 8 жыл бұрын

"There is no good or evil, but thinking makes it so." -William Shakespeare.

@AB-eq9mm 6 жыл бұрын

CegeRoles that was said by hamlet while he was having a mental breakdown. It does not support your point.

@beliefisnotachoice 6 жыл бұрын

We can Define good and we can Define evil. Then we can objectively evaluate if a thing is one or the other or neither.

@Kube_Dog 6 жыл бұрын

Shakespeare didn't say that. It's a line he wrote for his character, Hamlet. Hamlet is troubled, unsure of himself, bouncing back and forth, debating endlessly. This quote is not a statement that Shakespeare presents as fact. It's an idea Hamlet is playing with and ultimately rejects when he does see a difference between good and bad. Shakespeare himself recognizes the difference between good and bad throughout his plays and explores how fools and evil people reject that and what horrors follow.

@snuzebuster 6 жыл бұрын

Morality has been defined for us by social evolutionary imperative. But aside from that I totally agree with your statement.

@beliefisnotachoice 4 жыл бұрын

@Rakscha you speak a lot of truth but it doesnt change that fact that I can define what good and evil are then make judgements. Where we agree, presumably, is that neither an individual or a society can objectivity define these things. All attempts to define good and evil will necessarily be subjective.

@epiphany55 8 жыл бұрын

The Bible is like a buffet of moral and intellectual guidance - people choose what they like the taste of. Except it's a 2000 year old buffet so pretty much everything tastes of irrelevant shit.

@jaystann6681 8 жыл бұрын

Amen

@epiphany55 8 жыл бұрын

vernonclassic Listening to Matt Dillahunty was sound advice.

@epiphany55 8 жыл бұрын

Wouldn't that be playing god's advocate?

@jaystann6681 8 жыл бұрын

+vernonclassic I've def left my share of cringe worthy comments looking back.

@timhallas4275 8 жыл бұрын

That's the best response i have heard all year,....so far. I never knew that there were different varieties of shit, or different levels of irrelevance, but you have cleared that up keenly. 55 is my favorite number by the way.

@mouwersor 3 жыл бұрын

reminder that Sam never fixed the is-ought gap

@musicmann1967 9 жыл бұрын

This declaration of the "us vs them" of religion is why I became an atheist. Period. There are plenty of other reasons that supported my eventual decision, but that concept was at the core. Exclusive rather than inclusive.

@savvysavages6931 8 жыл бұрын

+Larry Lachmann Atheists don't have an "us vs them" attitude? Really?

@musicmann1967 8 жыл бұрын

+Savvy Savages Yes, some do. The more miltant type. I don't feel the need to do that. but I understand those who do. It's an understandable defensive posture.

@cosmicwaderer1247 8 жыл бұрын

Many hindus , buddhists , followers of the tao don't see reality in such a dualistic manner. All people are part of the "one". Sam harris is such a nice guy, Dawkins should take a lession from him.

@firecrow7973 8 жыл бұрын

+Larry Lachmann thank you for putting into words what i was thinking

@firecrow7973 8 жыл бұрын

+Larry Lachmann thank you for putting into words what i was thinking

@bitofwizdomb7266 11 ай бұрын

We all are here ultimately driven to thrive and survive . Do as you will and harm none

@straizys 10 жыл бұрын

There is no such thing like good and evil. There is fear and suffering - in a form that we usually used to call it evil.

@Murri16 9 жыл бұрын

Vytautas Straižys there is a quote, cant remember it word for word, but it says that the only people who deny the existence of evil are the ones who have never been face to face with true evil. With your statement, you just said that the brutal rape and murder of an infant is not evil.

@straizys 9 жыл бұрын

it is not. it's made by a person who suffers from psychological trauma and mental dysfunction

@Murri16 9 жыл бұрын

Vytautas Straižys I forget the name, but there was this man who who denied the existence of evil... but that was until he was faced with true evil and his worldview changed radically. The thing is though, you say one thing.. but living it out is another. I don't think you would be able to witness a loved one be raped and murdered and then go and preach to everyone that evil doesnt exist.

@straizys 9 жыл бұрын

I did experienced my most beloved one being raped. And this wasn't the thing which made me to change my mind. The person who did it is poor man with serious metal injuries made by us, the society.

@Murri16 9 жыл бұрын

Vytautas Straižys so the action in itself was not an evil act? not the man, but the act in itself.

@nikkiguevarra2116 4 жыл бұрын

Where do standards come from? And how can we trust one's own judgment of morality if we are just accidents of nature?

@neocyte85 4 жыл бұрын

Standards come from the agreed upon values of a society.

@keithhunt5328 3 жыл бұрын

@Joshua Creasey Like slavery was okay few centuries ago.

@teamatfort444 3 жыл бұрын

We made it up.

@562mjohnson Жыл бұрын

@@neocyte85 do those standards change over time?

@RichardsGaySon 4 ай бұрын

Morality is human invented. Just like religion

@peterholdaas9248 6 жыл бұрын

He says 2X that we have some "serviceable intuitions" about what constitutes right and wrong. Morality is based on intuition? What if my intuition about what is right and wrong is different from yours? I am not arguing for religion but asking a sincere question. Suppose I am married and at the same time I'm screwing the neighbor woman? Some would say that is wrong. But why? Maybe for me is is right. Who's to say? This seems like Harris's weakest argument. Usually he tries to argue on empirical or scientific grounds. But right/wrong and good/evil are abstract concepts which do not exist in the material world. We really have no scientific basis on which to ascribe rightness or wrongness to any behavior. After all, what color is evil? What does it taste, smell, sound, look, or feel like? All we can really say scientifically is that we live in a world where sh--t happens. It is neither good nor evil: it just is. Again, I am not arguing for religion. I would simply have hoped Sam would have offered something a little more definitive.

@OmarExplains 6 жыл бұрын

who else is watching this in 2021?

@toddwolford2021 4 жыл бұрын

in 2021? Are we there? Did I miss a whole year?

@amandanky685 3 жыл бұрын

@@toddwolford2021 lol yee

@seanrocero2918 3 жыл бұрын

hell yes

@JamieMelhuish 3 жыл бұрын

2020 was cruel and basically evil. Hope 2021 is better.

@ZoggFromBetelgeuse 10 жыл бұрын

When you compare mankind to a computer, it seems clear to me - as an outside observer of your planet - that in the modern, post-enlightenment world, ethics don't need religion as "operating system". But maybe it had it's utility as "installing program" for ethics? Would ancient earthlings have been enlightened enough to embrace ethics without the idea of a metaphysical ethics-enforcement authority?

@Zerepzerreitug 10 жыл бұрын

From my Earthling perspective, the current model of Enlightment, secular morals, and other religion-less structures for ethics and morality, work thanks to the "diversity understanding" which has come from relatively recent Earthling discoveries. Things like how small our place is in the Bureaucracy-driven cosmos is; how convoluted and diverse Earthling history is; how many contradicting worldviews exist among societies; how the brain is so easy to fool; how little differences exist between Earthlings; and how useful/amazing the remaining few differences are. I think that these widespread concepts make it hard (if not impossible) to draw the usual "us vs them" lines. In finding the countless similarities between Earthlings, you encompass in an ever-wider circle _that_ which belongs to your group, to your family, and to yourself, applying decisions and considerations that you would normally dedicate only to your closest ones to an ever-increasing crowd of strangers. In this context, I think that the religious booting-disk served the purpose of encompassing wider and wider circles during the beginning of Earthling history, when more concise knowledge about the universe was limited and thus regular Earthlings were unable to state with confidence that people were really equal, that everyone who is "like me" should be free, or that the people on that other town are not savage beasts who have to be killed. I think that Earthlings need to _feel_ that they understand how the world works before taking decisions of ethical nature. And historically, the religion software has provided such confidence without the need for agreeable facts or narratives. It still does now. However, it is hard to say if the still-primitive Earthling science, or even if the Galactic Bureaucracy Encyclopedia; will fully satisfy our species need for confidence in what greater consequences our actions have, or on who and what are to be included or excluded of our group. Perhaps there will forever keep existing "software patches" to fully complete our moral narratives.

@rossmetacraft 10 жыл бұрын

Zogg, I would say the answer to your question depends on how far back in our history you mean when you say "ancient earthlings." Our sense of morality evolved over time, so if you go back far enough, no, we would not have been enlightened enough to embrace ethics. However, if you only go back a few thousand years to the alleged time of Jesus, we most certainly had a well-developed sense of morality by then. (Welcome to Earth, by the way.)

@carfreelori 10 жыл бұрын

Ross Carlson if you go back 1.8 million years early pre-humans, ie hominids, were already learning about the value of social interaction and that they depended upon each other for survival; it was about that time they started to care about what others thought of them, and so they began developing group values. It's interesting that all hominids weren't considered of the same species and that only one hominid type, homo sapiens, remained to become us humans, though they descended from earlier ancestors such as homo habilis.

@rossmetacraft 10 жыл бұрын

carfreelori Very interesting stuff. How do we know that pre-humans living 1.8 million years ago were developing group values? (I'm not doubting you, just curious how we know that.)

@carfreelori 10 жыл бұрын

Ross Carlson i admit I didn't research it; I picked it up from an anthropology documentary on the evolution of humans from homo habilis through the current day. They interviewed the actual archaeologists who went on the excavations and who did the experiments, so it seemed credible. I don't remember which documentary; there are a bunch on youtube.

@WilliamSnellIAM 10 жыл бұрын

As humans we're a bit lazy in thinking, and this isn't always a bad thing. If you consider how taxing driving was when you first started, and how easy it became after a few months behind the wheel, you'll get the picture. There's a lot going on, but you no longer have to think about it actively. You've already worked out the basics, and are only watching for changing conditions. The concepts of "good" and "evil" are much like this. There's really no such thing as "good" or "evil". Those are labels we place on a fairly complicated concept. If you want to make a case for something being "good/evil", what criteria do you use? Unless referring to religion, in which case anything from murder (good example of 'evil') to eating shellfish can fit the bill, you're almost certainly going to describe the event in terms of harm or benefit. At its core, "good" is nothing more than our partially subjective view of beneficial actions/conditions. I say partially subjective, because while some things are objectively beneficial or harmful (don't drink toxic chemicals), some are a matter of opinion. So we can put together a solid base of what nearly everyone will consider "good" by addressing actions and conditions that are beneficial to humans and/or others we feel empathy for. The same is true for "evil". The reason we have a lot of difference of opinion in morality plays more into the subjective areas, and the fact that we just don't agree. To sum up, I consider the terms "good" and "evil" to be placeholders for a much more complicated topic.

@carfreelori 10 жыл бұрын

yes but I think if we can put together a solid base of what nearly everyone considers good, doing so would work better if people checked their religions at the door!!! Without religions TELLING us what to believe, and people thinking from their very own brain power, experiences, and intuition, I'd bet there'd be way more agreement than if these same people came in determined to represent their various, sometimes opposing, religions!

@MattieCooper10000 9 жыл бұрын

AMEN Brother!

@comforth3898 2 жыл бұрын

@@carfreelori True Humanity has to come solid definitions of right and wrong.

@YY4Me133 10 жыл бұрын

In order for the claim that morality requires an "external source" to be taken seriously, it must be demonstrated that an "external source" exists, and that it is necessary for morality.

@NoApologiesTeam 4 жыл бұрын

Basic logic can do that for you. IF you follow it through.

@Viktor-ej9ss 4 жыл бұрын

Maybe.

@yourfutureself3392 3 жыл бұрын

The only thing you have to prove is that an external source is neccesary for morality and that morality exists. From there, you can prove an external source: P1: if morality exists, then an external source for morality exists. P2: Morality exists. C: therefore, an external source for morality exists.

@YY4Me133 3 жыл бұрын

@@yourfutureself3392 You need evidence for P1. Since you've presented none, P1 can be ignored, as can the rest.

@yourfutureself3392 3 жыл бұрын

@@YY4Me133 yeah, I know. I wasn't trying to prove the conclusion. I was just trying to show how with proving that morality exists and that it needs an external source, you already proved the external source exists due to basic laws of logic.

@eugenekoshanof7328 12 жыл бұрын

I did. here is what it says " Always be humble and gentle. Patiently put up with each other and love each other. " " Be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ forgave you." " Let no corrupting talk come out of your mouths, but only such as is good for building up, as fits the occasion, that it may give grace to those who hear" (from Ephesians 4) Jesus always taught love, mercy , humbleness and forgiveness

@TucoBenedicto 13 жыл бұрын

@aahandm "with out God defining what is good and what is evil, wouldn't every man do what he believes is right in his own eyes? even if it is slavery!" Yeah, well, funnily enough that's exactly what's happened so far.

@chilipepper711 12 жыл бұрын

Beautifully put man! Excellent stuff!

@Dogitude 9 жыл бұрын

Sam Harris for president

@charmainejames2106 8 жыл бұрын

+Ebkallday not with that atheism haha

@rr7firefly 7 жыл бұрын

The philosopher prince... what a concept. I'm afraid that today many people prefer a ruthless S.O.B. who talks tough and believes his opinion is the only one that matters.

@Dogitude 7 жыл бұрын

times change, don't be narrow minded, trump has a maximum of 8 years in office. You always gotta keep the big picture in mind . Society is improving gradually but surely and often its our impatience with progress that fuels that growth .But balance that impatience, don't let it distort your intelligence and turn you into a pessimist lol.

@edreynolds2819 5 жыл бұрын

Yeah, he'd be right along the lines of what we have. THINK.

@keithhunt5328 3 жыл бұрын

@@Dogitude What's the evidence that society is gradually improving?

@virajdobriyal6321 3 жыл бұрын

If he would have been bullied at school and had a bunch of mental issues, he would have claimed otherwise.

@IamGarySimpson 10 жыл бұрын

Example: It has always been wrong to kill other humans. This is true about every society known to man to have ever existed. The only difference is this moral notion varies to different degrees. Some societies deem in acceptable from a social basis to kill certain people based on certain conditions such as the person's race, gender, religion or sexuality; but there has never been a society where it was acceptable to kill any and everyone you like. Morality is much more universal than you suggest.

@UnluckyFatGuy 9 жыл бұрын

IMO all morality is subjective. When you judge something as "good" or "bad" you are filtering the event through your own personal experiences/understanding. The thing itself is not good or bad it simply IS. So the only real question is, "Who do you want to be in relation to that thing?" You have that choice, and all choices have consequences. I could choose to rob a liqueur store on my way home, but I'm not going to. Along with the legal problems it would cause I know that all actions ripple out into the world. Because of that I choose to 'try' to make as many positive ripples as possible. Not because it is "good" but because it makes me happy and I believe it helps people (which I enjoy doing). So I guess you could say, I choose to act "good" for purely selfish reasons.

@CourtneyHaynes 9 жыл бұрын

Unlucky Fat Guy i agree, and i dont think he really answered the question.

@UnluckyFatGuy 9 жыл бұрын

Yeah. IMO Atheism has a difficult time explaining morality, not to mention altruism.

@DaUzzi1 9 жыл бұрын

+Kevin Cobb I don't think by nature we are born naturally looking at the world through a materialistic paradigm. Historically (i.e cave men days), people have always sought out supernatural answers to life.

@UnluckyFatGuy 9 жыл бұрын

Agreed. There is no culture (that I know of) on Earth that doesn't believe in some "other" that is beyond our understanding. Not to mention that these beliefs evolved independently of each other. A mystical intuition appears to be part of the human condition and most (if not all) feel this is where their morality stems from.

@joegame4576 8 жыл бұрын

+Unlucky Fat Guy very honest opinion. good job.

@MattieCooper10000 9 жыл бұрын

Just finished "The Stranger" by Albert Camus (Great Book!!!) and finally getting to "Beyond Good and Evil".

@OMAR-vq3yb 3 жыл бұрын

Wasted your time with that whiny junk

@keithhunt5328 3 жыл бұрын

Nietzsche eats Sam Harris for breakfast.

@csabas.6342 2 жыл бұрын

@@keithhunt5328 Its really not even a comparison... Nietzsche is a real intellectual heavyweight, and Harris is a showman at best and a conman at worst.

@keithhunt5328 2 жыл бұрын

@@csabas.6342 Yup, this new atheism business is best understood as a type of entertainment.

@tacosteve2071 10 жыл бұрын

The perception of good and evil depends on social norms. IF we lived in a society where murder, genocide and cruelty were accepted or praised, Compassion would then be an act of evil.

@carfreelori 10 жыл бұрын

I'm not sure if there are universal taboos; the way our morals, as humans are shaped, may be a result of cultural or human pressure. Most people believe murder is a universal taboo, but it's not..I think it's cultural or even human pressure that teaches us that murder is wrong, which it is! I don't think we need organized religion, however, to find values that are nearly universal. But I do think there is something to the role of genetics passing along our values from generation to generation.

@Pomme843 12 жыл бұрын

For cultural reasons, yes. According to Wikipedia, "31% of Danish citizens responded that "they believe there is a god"... 49% answered that "they believe there is some sort of spirit or life force" and 19% that "they do not believe there is any sort of spirit, god, or life force"." [Religion in Denmark] My (Norwegian) brother is a good example of a cultural Christian. He despises religious zeal, and doesn't believe in any Christian tenets, yet is still a member in the Protestant state church.

@lucianolatouche6776 7 жыл бұрын

There's no standard for morality without God.

@JerettOlson 8 жыл бұрын

The question be do believe morality is objective? Because if is object then there clear right and wrongs that we judge people by. If there is not objective morality but instead only subjective morality, then person get decides for themselves what they think is right or wrong. Sure you might like slavery or murder but that is just you opinion. Some else might have different opinion what is right and wrong, so that slavery and murder is okay. If morality is subjective then who are you say that it is wrong, it's just your opinion.

@Sanoj1234567 12 жыл бұрын

@mattinuk So basically what we disagree on is that if the abortion debate is black and white or not. There are about 7 billion people on this planet. There are approximately 50 million abortions every year(maybe 40 million, dont quote me on that). Most of the abortions take place in developing countries. About 20 000 children die every day due to hunger. If abortion was illegal, this number would have been dramatically higher. What about rape and incest? You`re right, its black and white.

@shinnok5337 2 жыл бұрын

The way I see it, people who have no sense of good or evil have never listened to their conscience a day in their lives because if they did, they would know that there is an objective good and evil because if I killed someone, my conscience would affect me based on whether I did so in self-defense in which I wouldn't feel guilty(good) or murder in which I would feel guilty(evil).

@Ajnjn-x3d Ай бұрын

You are missing all the complexity of real life though. For example, how do you know the killing of someone in self-defence was actually legit self-defence? You may think well of course I know, but it's actually not that simple. How do we objectively define permitted self-defence? Who defines it? There will be some cases where it's easier and others where it's grey or not all parties agree that it was justified. People have been imprisoned for killing a person in what they believed was self-defence and historically people have manufactured self-defence scenarios (see WW2) to justify killings etc. The question you have to think about is whether could you live according to this black-and-white standard you have? I think hardly anyone can because if you killed someone in self-defence and it turned out it wasn't a legit case of self-defence, you would have to see yourself as evil-you would be on the wrong side of your own standard.

@ErnestAdewoyin 8 жыл бұрын

Here are the fallacies of Sam Harris (1) Appeal to Population: Saying "every culture" is false. (2) Appeal to emotions/ empathy/ feeling/ pain/ suffering: I guess the girl who cuts herself when she's depressed should use that same empathy to treat other depressed people. (3) Moral Equivalence Fallacy: Religion has done bad things. I guess Joseph Stalin isnt in the picture of Atheism. Nonsense. God bless you

@DominickDecocko 8 жыл бұрын

you think you are so smart

@ErnestAdewoyin 8 жыл бұрын

+Eddie Ed appealing to the credulity of my smartness is a strawman and red-herring. If you have an intelligent Argument to make that is independent of my personality, please state it. God bless you

@DominickDecocko 8 жыл бұрын

Ernest Adewoyin Wow you stated even more smartass things. Im not here to argue im here to judge you. Deal with it.

@ErnestAdewoyin 8 жыл бұрын

+Eddie Ed OK... Thanks for your personal assessment of my incredulity my fellow sincere seeker of truth. I invite you to engage with the argument when you have finished judging me.?that way, progress can be made in achieving knowledge. God bless you

@DominickDecocko 8 жыл бұрын

Ernest Adewoyin Smartass. Your choice of word looks like wannabe smart person. But deep down you know you are not.

@dmustakasjr 8 жыл бұрын

"Clearly not true" Ok then what is the Atheistic position on good and evil? "We have some serviceable intuitions" Do you mean by intuition that developed humans have an advanced instinct regarding good and evil? Or that the human capability of reason allows for the objective observation of good and evil (that they are somehow logical)? "every culture agrees that cruelty is wrong that taking pleasure in the suffering of others is wrong in the context of your in group" At first I was lead to believe that this was a limited view of ethics, that only within a "people group" does a mutually recognized ethic stand (by consensus it appears, or else we all just "know"). But then he continues "The challenge of civilization is to extend the sphere or our moral community to include the entire species and even other species so that we don’t have these us and them boundaries." He then goes on to morally define religion, broadly, as insidious. There appears to be several underlying assumptions silently in play that these statements are truly based on, that there is another layer of foundational beliefs he is positing. Otherwise someone could just ask “what justifies your belief that all people intuitively know good and evil, culture to culture?” One of the criticisms of religion that atheists espouse is that if we all know there is a God how come there are so many different religions? However this is a problem for the atheist, in that if all humans have intuition about good and evil, why is it limited to the context of the ‘in group’ or only culturally relevant in many cases? Why would it not be the case that the atheist view of ethics is itself, imposed artificially on an already naturally operating human existence? That is to say, how come we do not observe that humans are already acting as they ‘ought to’ when they oppress other people groups, one culture to another. Why is it, apparently, arbitrarily selected that we should all ‘get along’ and by what rational basis does this apply other than in a utilitarian sort of way? Why are not opposing ethical systems equally recognized, but instead for some reason supposed to submit to this utilitarian idea of spreading what is good and evil in sphere to the entire species? If it gives pleasure to someone to be cruel to someone else, why is that morally wrong, because the target of cruelty does not get pleasure? Why does that matter to the inflictor of cruelty? Shouldn’t the strong dominate the weak and if not, then why not? Why bother with minority or special interest groups, when by the atheistic ethic they should adopt what is more widely accepted by a greater number in the populous of a culture? This conflates and does not answer the ethical dilemma that SH brought up about the Nazi’s. If the German political group of its time convinces the German people broadly that Jews were to be treated as non-persons (additionally not allowing them a vote as an ‘in group’) then by what right did other nations have in interceding on their behalf? Did other nations observe that Jews were people and attempting to correct the German nation? If Germany and Nazi though had won the day, would their ethic be “good” since no other nation could impose a different ethic on them (this type of thing also reduces down to the ‘strong rule the weak’ philosophy of thinking). Does might make right? If so then Germany was ethically right, if not then by what right did the Allies have in “forcing” Germany to change using their might….. from an atheistic ethical point of view? I think that it is probably true that people believe death is unacceptable, that people might even want to restrain cruelty, but the problem is that these kinds of things just do not comport with an atheistic worldview. In an atheistic worldview, there is only biology and the observational world, limited in scope to the examination, testing and evaluation of finite mankind. Does it make sense that such a worldview can deal with concepts like good or evil.

@truthteller1914 8 жыл бұрын

+Demetrios Mustakas Jr. Our attitude towards inflicting suffering on others shows a great moral weakness on your art. I am not surprised.

@dmustakasjr 8 жыл бұрын

+Truth teller It shows the empty self contradiction in it. The Atheistic view has no more need to show moral substance than any other evolved biological animal given to the pressures of physics. The Atheist is just as consistent being a torturer as they are benevolent. Sadly considering that the measure of such morality is completely subjective at its foundation, its is a wonder that an follower of that system can rightly tell the difference.

@truthteller1914 8 жыл бұрын

Prove even a single sentence you posted is not true. All of it is BS you WANT to believe and for you no proof is needed. FYI, atheism is not a system or religion. That's just another example of your deliberate ignorance.

@dmustakasjr 8 жыл бұрын

+Truth teller Guess I invested too much explanation and rational argumentation to turn cynic like you .... guess you will suffer that position alone.

@coolgamerman 5 жыл бұрын

Demetrios Mustakas Jr. an atheist dealing with a worldview can most certainly deal with such a topic. With your logic, you are saying that is not okay for a christian to deal and study biology because their book which they follow says that adam lived 600 years. An atheist, if any, is more capable to dealing with this topic because their definition simply states: lack of belief in a god or deity. This means that an atheist can still study science, and how moral compasses were created through evolution, etc.

@MuttonChopYaz 11 жыл бұрын

Slavery is a man-made construct that is thousands of years old. The Bible supported slavery because slavery was THE way of life. When one tribe conquered another, it's captors were killed or enslaved to ensure total suppression of that tribe. Using this fact out of context does not refute the existence of a divine being, i.e. God.

@chrislecky710 2 жыл бұрын

Good and evil are human concepts we use to explain or describe an intention, they only exist as part of language and in our minds and thoughts. Abstractly evil and good actually describe a process of development from once stage to another, Evil to good, ignorance to knowledge, chaos to tranquillity, destruction to creation. low frequency to higher frequency. They also suggest that you can either stagnate and refused to grow or elevate and refuse to remain the same. There is a big difference between trying to appear or sound clever and actually being clever, one is ego driven the other is intelligence driven. Which are you?

@counterculture10 2 жыл бұрын

Yep, assessments made in the mind at an early stage in perception. Nothing more.

@SuttonSantiniPaulo 10 жыл бұрын

Just watch Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back. It answers every question about life. Especially good vs evil.

@MrBlue-km8qv 4 жыл бұрын

The Force is science fiction. imagine if Luke had joined his father and over threw the emperor and ruled the galaxy as father and son instead of Luke jumping down the Cloud City ventilation shaft. i think Luke would have been a fair and just emporer.

@joshjewell1960 4 жыл бұрын

The force isn’t science fiction. The force is just true faith in its purest form. We just don’t know how to use it. Jesus walked on water, calmed a storm with his words, and performed all of his miracles because he had a true understanding of “the force”. And he said that we all have the ability as well. Peter walked on the water also with Jesus. And when he lost faith he sank into the water. Jesus made it pretty clear that if you have true faith the size of mustard seed that you could command a mountain to bow down.

@hagop3620 3 жыл бұрын

@@joshjewell1960 my friend that is taken completely out of context. Jesus is the object of faith and the creator of the universe. Everything is under His rule. The Bible constantly shifts between the literal and metaphorical and when talking about moving a mountain with a mustard seed, He’s talking about having faith in God to do God’s will, not yours. There is no force in the universe that we can all control, there is God who is running the entire show. Jesus died in order to purify your darkness and my darkness, our sin, so that we may have a relationship with God starting in this life and lasting all of eternity.

@lnewsome 12 жыл бұрын

"We all know it is immoral?" How do we know?

@user-td3ut4tg3v 4 жыл бұрын

Intuition

@shawarmageddonit 4 жыл бұрын

Maybe because we wouldn't like it if it happened to ourselves?

@tariqcolakovic4556 4 жыл бұрын

You dont, the intuition is subjective, every point he made is clearly subjective

@milesandrews6711 3 жыл бұрын

@@shawarmageddonit what about someone is suicidal, is it okay for him to kill because he'd like it if it happens to him?

@shawarmageddonit 3 жыл бұрын

@@milesandrews6711 You mean legally? Not sure what kind of answer you're expecting here. There's rarely a clear-cut answer to hypothetical examples and extreme examples, and this is both. So I dunno, man; you tell me.

@chillinbigtime 10 жыл бұрын

I believe religion set the standards for good and evil throughout history and as we evolved we became more morally independent.

@God8010 11 жыл бұрын

Empathy teaches morality. Narcissism is the death of empathy.

@callan69101 9 жыл бұрын

legendary character.

@megarudyray1 10 жыл бұрын

This may be the silliest point to religion. The fact that it's needed to know right from wrong. I know its wrong to kill people randomly, I don't need a book of rules to tell me why that's not a good thing. Now granted some ppl may need to be told certain things are wrong, But dont try to sell me that it's been passed down from the great creator of the universe. I get it, I wish more ppl got it as well

@jakkeday1 6 жыл бұрын

megarudyray1 What about non-random killing?!? Is that ok???

@keithhunt5328 3 жыл бұрын

@@jakkeday1 lol

@gawd9068 8 ай бұрын

Good and evil is chaos and evil is uncontrolled chaos while good is controlled chaos

@ogeo.8966 4 ай бұрын

I'm one of those people that doesn't believe killing or stealing or hurting others is good or bad. It's usually unhelpful to the perpetrator and the victim though.

@onzku 10 жыл бұрын

omg this guy is so right

@tariqcolakovic4556 4 жыл бұрын

How, when he said that morality comes from intuition, that is completely subjective. He literally said how cultures vary in morality.

@onzku 4 жыл бұрын

@@tariqcolakovic4556 yeah, they do...? TF you going on about

@tariqcolakovic4556 4 жыл бұрын

@@onzku I'm saying that, it literally means morality is subjective without God and religion provides a sound moral foundation, but he tries to derive morality from nature when he disproved himself

@onzku 4 жыл бұрын

@@tariqcolakovic4556 except that it obviously doesn't like was stated in the video

@zachfoor 10 жыл бұрын

I wish I could question him personally on some of these points. I think at this point, I need more of a Christian vs. Atheism/Agnostic debate, as I am Christian, and because throwing the Bible and the Koran together as the same thing is not, for me at least, a starting point. So, I guess my first question would be how are the Koran and the Bible the same thing?

@SuperDraupnir 9 жыл бұрын

Both are about a god and both are made up books who some believe is true.

@shattynatty27 9 жыл бұрын

Harris does acknowledges differences between the Koran and the Judaeo-Christian bible. In this context he's grouping them together on the basis of being "holy" books written by God, which make truth claims about the nature of reality and morality.

@iamboybeats 4 жыл бұрын

Isaiah 55:6-9 6 “Seek the Lord while he may be found; call upon him while he is near; 7 let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts; let him return to the Lord, that he may have compassion on him, and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon. 8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, declares the Lord. 9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.

@capefeather 11 жыл бұрын

My favourite counter to the argument that there's no morality without a god comes from Eliezer Yudkowsky. Suppose "God" forbade you to go to the bathroom in the morning. By the argument, if there were no god to forbid you to go to the bathroom in the morning, there'd be nothing stopping you from doing so. Yet replace going to the bathroom with murder or slavery or torture... The very fact that you'd apply this argument inconsistently shows you have a moral compass outside of your holy book.

@ShakinJamacian 10 жыл бұрын

Good and evil are nothing more than moral compasses that are at opposing ends, like north and south. In truth, what is just is, and that is whatever is happening. Nothing is good, nothing is evil, everything that happens is just a happening. The problem of evil argument is only a problem by assuming that evil exists and is thus a problem in its existence. Now, I do not mean to say to act out of malice, but one can seldom act that way when they grasp the true interconnected nature of reality; that all life, everything you see, taste, touch, love, hate, whatever, it is all made from the same stuff that the rest of the universe is on a basic, fundamental level. All of it is equal in worth and validity. Getting this often brings one to a state of 'love', a state of compassion and consideration for the state of affairs shown off in whatever existence is. The issue with our thinking, be it of our culture or primarily theology raises the idea that there are certain things inherently terrible about the state of affairs in some areas of existence, like illness. By pointing and becoming a dictator to impose that X is good and Y is bad is dividing elements in the world, and division is always the beginning of conflict. This is why we are so easily prepared to engage in wars, for we already think that one pocket of life in one area is different than another pocket, when in truth the difference is mainly scenery. The first thing we do when we see something or someone new, we instantly look at the differences. Why don't we try looking and see what's similar? Most of our problems in the world are all founded on the differences we see.

@ShakinJamacian 10 жыл бұрын

Luke Jacobs If you say so.

@TheThinkingAnimal 10 жыл бұрын

Amen. :)

@broosevain8282 Жыл бұрын

It's amazing how he can be so right and so wrong at the same time.

@laza6141 Жыл бұрын

how is he wrong ?

@hartistry1957 10 жыл бұрын

This is the beauty of the Internet; we can express how we really feel and come out with real truths that can only expose The cryptic intent of religions.

@mayavenker8562 6 жыл бұрын

Sam Harris is one of those people where no matter when you pause his face, he always looks funny

@paradise745 2 жыл бұрын

@Cadeus22 8 жыл бұрын

He doesn't really answer what he thinks good and evil are. He just vaguely says that morality is a problem of modernity and then rants on how he thinks the Bible, and other texts, are not where we get it. It's a poor video.

@MrMarioSm 8 жыл бұрын

+Cadeus22 maybe its a bad title

@frankanderson5012 5 жыл бұрын

Cadeus22 Its a less than five minute video! Just how much did you expect him to say on such a subject? This has been debated for thousands of years. Stop being lazy and if you’re genuinely interested in what he has to say, watch some of his more in depth videos. And by the way, ‘rant’ would be the last description I would give to his way of speaking and anybody who’s seen his videos would know that which makes me wonder if you had already decided on an opinion of him.

@bretzajac7986 5 жыл бұрын

Harris is his biggest fan.

@koolgool 5 жыл бұрын

Read his book the Moral Landscape, he covers it there. The topic of morality deserves more than 5 minutes to explain. But out of curiosity, what do you consider good and evil?

@bretzajac7986 5 жыл бұрын

@@koolgoolit is easier to say what is sin but the atheist do not like using that term because in some bizarre twist of political correctness they are allowed to make the rules when they debate and believers are not allowed to use God or his outline for our lives in defense of what we believe in. To name a few "sins", lying, stealing, covetousness, murder, fornication (and yes all types except sex between a married man and woman). Just to name a few. And to be clear i am a sinner and have done almost every sin imaginable and do not claim to be sinless but admit i am a sinner and hope God forgives me. Calling something good or evil without the ultimate moral authority GOD makes all so called evil acts subjective and they are only then man made laws and not good or evil. If you truly believe you are only a higher evolved animal then survival of the fittest should still apply unless secretly you really know there is good and evil defined by God, which obviously you do.

@UbrNate 12 жыл бұрын

No, I'm afraid you've misheard what he said. He did not say that slavery is immoral because we decided it's immoral; he said (in so many words) that slavery is acceptable in many books of God, but we all know that it's immoral.

@lnewsome 12 жыл бұрын

Mr. Harris states that slavery is immoral because we all agree that it is immoral. Does that mean that in 1800 slavery was moral? We certainly did not have agreement on the issue. Is this a majority rule sort of thing?

@TruthSpeaks 8 жыл бұрын

This just shows how everybody should read the Bible on their own. Sam Harris either hasn't read the Bible, or has just flipped through it and is purposely distorting it. Let's see if slavery should have survived HAD the southern slave owners followed the Old Testament: *Exodus **21:16* 16 “He who kidnaps a man and sells him, or if he is found in his hand, shall surely be put to death. *Deuteronomy **23:15**-16* 15 “You shall not give back to his master the slave who has escaped from his master to you. 16 He may dwell with you in your midst, in the place which he chooses within one of your gates, where it seems best to him; you shall not oppress him. Based on these two commandments alone, southern slavery should have immediately fallen apart if they had been sticking to the Old Testament writings. The problem, though, is that they should have been sticking to the NEW TESTAMENT writings if they were really Christians, because Jesus reduced all commandments down to just two: *Matthew **22:37**-40* 37 Jesus said to him, “‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.’[a] 38 This is the first and great commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’[b] 40 On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.” Since this is the case, slavery should have never started at all. So, clearly Sam Harris is ignorant of the Bible, or is distorting it for some reason. The Bible is all about taking care of the less fortunate, even in the Old Testament: *Isaiah 58:6-7* (God speaks) 6 Is not this the fast that I have chosen? to loose the bands of wickedness, to undo the heavy burdens, and to let the oppressed go free, and that ye break every yoke? 7 Is it not to deal thy bread to the hungry, and that thou bring the poor that are cast out to thy house? when thou seest the naked, that thou cover him; and that thou hide not thyself from thine own flesh? *Leviticus **19:10* 10 And you shall not glean your vineyard, nor shall you gather every grape of your vineyard; you shall leave them for the poor and the stranger: I am the Lord your God. *Micah 6:8* 8 He has shown you, O man, what is good; And what does the Lord require of you But to do justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God? What's even more interesting is that Sam Harris' argument is actually an argument FOR the existence of God. If I don't have an outside standard to judge from, then I can't make a judgment. If I don't have a standard for an authentic dollar bill, then it's not possible for me to judge a forgery. Likewise, if I don't have a standard for "best" then "better" and "worse" can't possibly exist. So for Harris to say that things like "right", "wrong", "good", "evil", "better", "worse", actually exist is to argue FOR the existence of God. Without God, there is no outside standard for "best". The standard of good MUST be independent of humanity, like the dollar standard would be independent from a human, and this is what the Bible has always said: *1 John 4:8* 8 He who does not love does not know God, for God _is_ love.

@TheMryi 12 жыл бұрын

in Denmark most people belong to the lutheran church, but most people are only in it for the benefits, not the actual religion. most people is in it just to get a place where you can get burried and things like that, they don't actually believe it. Cheers from Denmark

@ekaksana 6 жыл бұрын

Notice how Sam doesn't actually try to disprove good or evil he just talks about badly defined morality

@aaron2709 6 жыл бұрын

It is NOT universally accepted that, "Taking pleasure in the suffering of others is wrong." This is basic anthropology... nothing is 'universal' when it comes to cultures/societies. The sexual practice of sadomasochism is one example. The Spartans brought up their warriors from boyhood by essentially torturing them, brutalizing them. This was a sort of 'special' treatment. The parents knew this and the boys knew this and tacitly agreed on its efficacy. I know Chinese people who say their mother constantly criticized them growing up. This was seen as a form of caring, of loving. This is not typical in the West. They found it alarming if the mother was not criticizing because they were not expressing care.

@plasticity1000 Жыл бұрын

Truth combines both morality and justice. That is who Christ is.

@I12Db8U Жыл бұрын

"We have serviceable intuitions" We are not morally obligated to follow our intuitions. "Every culture agrees that cruelty is wrong ... within the context of your in group" Possibly, but the so-called 'morality' here is self-refuting. "The challenge for modernity is to extend the sphere" We are not morally obligated to accept this challenge. You are wrong. Alex O'Connor thinks that you are wrong and that he's right. But Alex *also* a priori assumes that his intuitions are good.

@Minisynapse Жыл бұрын

We judge our own and others' behavior as good or bad, and it is through this act of internal (and sometimes also external) judgement that morality manifests in reality. It manifests (as actions and internal states) in those that subscribe to this social system (or rules for how one should behave), and if that is not objective enough grounds to treat morality (or "good" and "bad") as even quasi-objects, then I believe we'll miss the mark on what the phenomenon is truly about.

@virajdobriyal6321 3 жыл бұрын

He contradicts himself here, first saying we don't need anything to guide us morally, we have those "intuitions" already inside us, then agrees, the problem is - without human made morals, we don't have anything to teach our kids about right and wrong.

@yokeimon 9 жыл бұрын

Scripture agrees with what he pointed out in the beginning: "For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.)"

@IamGarySimpson 10 жыл бұрын

Incorrect. Reality does not allow for an objective standard, Reality IS the objective standard. We assume through perception that what we experience is reflective of that reality. My point, we make the assumption about the existence of a reality, even if our perception isn't reflective of that reality. We do the same with morality. We assume a criteria for moral goodness when we object to the actions of others, even if our convictions are not reflective of the very criteria we assume to be.

@wneubuerger 12 жыл бұрын

I am a Catholic and have been taught in parochial schools for my whole life. The Jesuit education I have received tells us to come up with our own hypotheses in philosophy and theology. These things do not govern our lives as they once did, but religion still provides an understanding that there is something greater than just you. Whether you believe in an omniscient creator that knows all and sees all or we're just intelligent space matter recognizing that there is something more matters.

@Pomme843 12 жыл бұрын

The absence of evidence that there is a weightless, invisible heffalump dancing atop my head is not evidence of absence of a weightless, invisible heffalump dancing atop my head.

@MisterAdamWayne 11 жыл бұрын

3. Second, it is not slavery in the modern sense. In the ancient world, it is much closer to the concept of a servant. People sold themselves into slavery because they were poor. Hence, the rules governing the treatment of slaves in Exodus are far in advance of every neighboring culture, where forced slavery from conquest meant that the slave had no rights at all. Again, the rules ask the master to treat slaves like the modern concept of an employee, fulfilling a social welfare function.

@tomp7939 3 жыл бұрын

Good thoughts, but the key word here is “intuitions”. What does Harris mean by intuitions? Unfortunately the line between facts and intuitions isn’t always easy to discern. We ascribe negative values to things that occur naturally already, like sickness and disease. Why is that?

@Daracon1010 12 жыл бұрын

Sam Harris is wrong. If he believes that morality is relative and not absolute (God-given), then he believes that people decide what right and wrong are. That means that anyone can deem "anything" to be moral or immoral, and by his definition, they would be correct. This means that everything and nothing is moral. What if someone else deems that same action to be contrary to what the first person believes? The action is both moral and immoral simultaneously. Relative morality refutes itself.

@Xentrick 12 жыл бұрын

What's great about Socrates and his teaching is that whether he existed or not isn't relevant to the substance of his ideas. If Jesus wasn't born of a virgin, the son of god, died for our sins, if those tenants are not believed the validity & power of salvation & the entire effect of the human sacrifice falls apart. What is so wrong about seeing Jesus as just a man, with radical ideas who threatened those in power with a message of empowerment for the disenfranchised and was executed for it?

@Flubly 13 жыл бұрын

If morality was merely founded in intuition there wouldn't be any evil. Greedy people don't think that greed is wrong, they just think they're making money! Bullies don't beat up puny kids because they believe in Allah, they do it because they're trying to be dominant. If that's wrong because of intuition we should go punish animals for having similar behavior.

@soul79 12 жыл бұрын

Murder, Incest, Rape, Infanticide, Eugenics, Beasteality, Pedophilia... I'm wary of any man that tells me that evil does not exist and is just................... "Preference".

@MisterAdamWayne 11 жыл бұрын

3. The only way for humans to communicate is through language, and language is contextual. To know what a written work means, you have to at least grasp the historical atmosphere, and figure out what the author was getting at. The Bible can no more be out of date than a poem or a painting could. Man's search for meaning is eternal. It does not change like a natural science. It contextualizes science. The exploration and contemplation of logic, ethics, aesthetics, and metaphysics is life.

@Daracon1010 12 жыл бұрын

@blaisingm That's correct. Cows were made for eating. That doesn't mean we as individuals need to be excessive because The Bible already talks about gluttony.

@Apolloaded 11 жыл бұрын

-There is no evidence for God and morality is the product of "Empathy" found in "Evolution". -If you can't determine right from wrong with empathy, then that's a personal issue, not "us". -We can't say we're "Perfect", we're still trying to perfect ourselves. -How is "every human being alive" unnatural? -"Desire" and "Unnatural" are subjective terms. -I feel Romans 7:15:20 is about confused a man blaming sin for his actions. Because I can tell you, I understand what I do, why and how.

@ExarMerrick 11 жыл бұрын

Has anyone else noticed how little religious people use the words "I think," whereas secularists use them all the time?

@yuptydoo 11 жыл бұрын

Well, since slavery is a human problem and not a natural one, and since most people also understand that the majority of world religions give humans freedom of choice ("free will,") there is no need for God to interfere because we humans were supposed to cure that problem on our own. Additionally, there is a difference between preventing and PUNISHING a crime. Since the majority of religion advocates "just desserts" in the Afterlife, we can see that the trend towards religion favors the latter.

@MisterAdamWayne 11 жыл бұрын

1. Two reasons. First, there are certain presuppositions about Scripture. It is not a legal document in the modern sense. It is designed so that every sentence has more than one meaning. To be revealed by Eternity (synonymous with "God") means that it is prophetic. The reader knows that God knows the reader will break the given rules. For example, all the talk of putting people to death is sandwiched between propositions saying "vengence belongs to God alone"

@Daracon1010 12 жыл бұрын

I wouldn't consider myself a "radical" Christian - merely a Christian who stands upon the authority of the word of God. Atheists cannot account for three important presuppositions. Laws of Logic, Morality, and the Uniformity of Nature. If you cannot account for the first and last, it's literally impossible to prove anything. I can, however, account for those as a Christian, and they make sense in my worldview.

@timobrienwells 11 жыл бұрын

And working 45 hours a week for average pay,getting shafted by government taxation,and having no certainty about your retirement is NOT slavery?Was 'domestic help' in 19th century Europe any different from slavery? In some repects some of these 'slaves' he refers to ended up sharing a portion of their masters inheritance.The bible actually talks about "rights" for slaves.This guy has no clue.

@hempeltempel 11 жыл бұрын

What he's saying is, that we had "very good intuition about what good and evil are" and this was the foundation of our morales - we don't, we learn that (über-ich). Being born with a sense for morale is what catholicism actually says. He says we should "extend our morale sphere" to others, over "Us and them"-boundaries. - The core of Christian charity, oops. He's just trying what enlightenment philosophers tried (with the same arguments btw): filling the dead god's gap.

@BeingAndRhyme744 10 жыл бұрын

I don't think Sam Harris has ever heard of Immanuel Kant- a Christian who believed it is possible to abstract an ethics from reason.

@G14Soccer 11 жыл бұрын

Believes don't believe their morality comes from a book...we believe God gave us a conscious. The Holy Book is a guide.

@case.johnson 12 жыл бұрын

Though the Bible indeed doesn't discredit slavery as far as I know, it does have instructions to treat slaves well, on which terms slavery is almost acceptable in some forms (i.e., there's a difference between buying slaves from Africa and debtors becoming slaves. I don't think the Bible ever discusses slavery that's based on inherent inferiority of the enslaved). Another thing is what he said about the holy books being "profoundly cruel and morally ambiguous". Yet as far as the Bible's concern

@IamGarySimpson 10 жыл бұрын

He didn't provide anything that suggests a basis for moral goodness without an external source; instead, he spent nearly five minutes attacking religious notions of moral goodness. Not only does he do this, but he does it in such a way to suggest that the moral notions within religion are somehow "immoral". Even if this were so, what standard of morality would make that so, objectively?

@3002321542 12 жыл бұрын

@desasterz CHOICE is a major component of morality. Your grandfather dying would have nothing to do with morality because its not his choice to die. Also, do you honestly think all actions can either be moral or immoral? There are actions that are just neutral. A moral act promotes well-being, an immoral act destroys well-being, and a neutral act has no effect on well-being. An immoral act is not something that doesn't promote well-being, its something that DESTROYS well-being.

@Classic_H_Radio 10 жыл бұрын

Just reeeally quick...The Slavery in the Bible is a little bit different than the Civil War Slavery of the South. The Biblical slavery was more of indentured servitude, usually to pay off a debt if no other means were available. Keep in mind Joseph was sold into slavery, The Jews were enslaved (multiple times)...and in the story for each, they were freed. In the New Testament when Paul was telling a Christian slave what to tell his master, the master was not a Jew from my understanding, he was a Roman...which is separate from whatever Christianity supports. I grew up Christian, so I know the context of this stuff (Im Agnostic now)...and I think I would know if it supported slavery because I remember distinctly even my teachers being very adamant that slavery is not supported.

@LutherusPXCs 10 жыл бұрын

Owning another human being is immoral, giving your self up to be placed under ownership is also immoral. The bible states that beating and mutilating your slave is quite ok as long as they are not killed,

@Classic_H_Radio 10 жыл бұрын

Where?

@plzk1LLkyl3 10 жыл бұрын

Reyvan Taunt When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be punished; for the slave is his money. -Exodus 21:20-21

@Classic_H_Radio 10 жыл бұрын

hm curious...I would like to point out that by the time The American Slavery stuff happened, this didnt apply anymore if just for that case. but I am curious now as to the reason for it...

@michelstronguin6974 10 жыл бұрын

Sam only means that the bible supports slavery by not recognizing its evil. Indentured servitude is clearly not the only slavery in the bible. And neither is recognized as evil.

@algebra3vistas 11 жыл бұрын

as far as scripture, slavery is described as a part of the culture of the time as well as prostitution and other sinning. however no where in the bible does it state that "you must endorse slavery and uphold it" but rather in the new testament Jesus himself lays down clear laws which defend the rites of human beings "love thy neighbor as thyself...do unto others as you would have them do unto you"

@IamGarySimpson 10 жыл бұрын

1.Your perception is the subjective 2. The reality is the objective standard that your perceptive appeals to 3. Although perception may appeal to objective standard (reality) it may or may not accurately reflect such standard. We both know this. The SAME principal is true about morality. 1.Your perception of moral conduct is the subjective 2. Your perception of morality appeals to an objective standard of goodness 3. Your perception of morality may or may not accurately reflect such standard.

@musicauthority7828 2 жыл бұрын

I'm an Atheist and I would be willing to bet that I'm more moral than some religious people. I have better ethics and have more. compation, consideration, caring, and empathy, I know the Golden rule and the difference between right and wrong and good and evil. and I'm not a thief, and not a liar, I'm not saying that I'm a perfect angel. I might lie on certain occasions if I knew that it wouldn't harm someone. and if I thought might benefit from it. but the fact is I'm not very good at it. and I don't steal from anyone including businesses. so if religious people think they have a lock on morals. I'm willing to prove them wrong and the reason I can say this is because I have no life.

@MisterAdamWayne 11 жыл бұрын

It's not an advocation. It's a rule governing the culture at the time, which was in relation to other cultures that did condone slavery. So, it sets rules for the release of slaves on the assumption of a man willfully selling his service to a master (quite different from the modern institution of slavery. You have to understand the rationale. Moreover, the text has context: "death is the penalty when a man is shewn to have carried off his fellow-man and sold him."

@intestinomedicino 12 жыл бұрын

What he is talking is similar to terror management theory, in which one of our coping mechanisms to the fact that our life is ephemeral is culture, by providing some sense of belonging (through rituals and to a certain group and making us feel useful and therefore giving some meaning to our existence religion would be then just a byproduct.

@sophonax661 5 жыл бұрын

Great clip, thanks 👍

@MisterAdamWayne 11 жыл бұрын

4. For a rich master to send away a poor slave likely meant certain death for the slave, especially females and children. The section you pasted establishes that a master has to provide for children born and their mothers. Again, this is far in advance of any other contemporary code. Yet, the context of Scripture as a whole is meant to lead man to grasp why slavery is wrong to begin with. In the New Testament, slavery is explicitly rejected, so for a Christian, there is a progressive harmony.

@DudeWhoSaysDeez 7 жыл бұрын

Could you imagine if Donald Trump ever wondered onto the Big Think set? He would sit down and be like "I know everything. People love me. One time this guy walked up to me and said "Don! you're great" I told him " i know", many people love me, believe me."

@IamGarySimpson 10 жыл бұрын

I acknowledge that most (if not all) people include a notion of care and consideration toward others to varies degrees in their moral constructs. My point being, to claim the actions of someone other than yourself as being "immoral" contradicts the claim that there is no objective standard of moral goodness that every person ought to adhere to. If the notions of morality within the Bible are themselves immoral, then what standard of goodness determines this?

@blaisingm 12 жыл бұрын

@Woreyel "And suffering is just a type of chemical reaction...arbitrary and meaningless" If you see NO meaning or value in a chemical reaction, then that's your problem and you're obviously not a chemist. Chemical reactions are FAR from meaningless and have great value in the real world I live in. We have identified people who are pleasured by another's suffering to be a mental disorder and obviously cannot be tolerated in a healthy society. Inflicting suffering is difficult to justify.

@rogueremis 12 жыл бұрын

There are a lot of things in these "Holy Books" that are taken completely out of context and are then used to cause all sorts of havok.

@onlyeyeno 11 жыл бұрын

If the NT is, as You claim, "regulating slavery" it is still endorsing it by "silent consensus". What it should have done, to have morale credibility, is to out right call slavery reprehensible, an unacceptable sin. My belief is that the good people who wrote the scriptures knew that that would not "go down well", so they pressed the issue as far as they felt they could "without alienating their readers". So they basically said "do what You can to minimize the mistreatment of your slaves"

@megag52 10 жыл бұрын

agreed. WLC smashes him on the topic

@mumia030303 12 жыл бұрын

islam is a religion of reflection. anyone who doesnt do that does not affect any of the creed and pillars of islam. its the mistakes of people, not the religion.