Sam Harris on "Free Will"

Just thought I'd share this for those interested. I've already discussed this quite a bit on here, but for those who want more details, Sam Harris does a good presentation on the subject.

-vrec

i just posted something about sam haris on my facebook u stalking me?

I just wonder wtf Harris means about universal morality without god. Brb watching the Harris vs Craig debate

^Saw the debate and I have to say Sam Harris didn't impress me at all. The god believing dude was much more to the point O_o
(he obv gave the cheap&low blows that one would expect a christian debater to give but still)

^Strange, I felt the total opposite. I felt Sam Harris went straight to the point which was that Craig was not proposing a universal morality it was that he was presenting an idea that propagated itself through forceful ways. Craig defends his points with rigorous logic but ultimately , he's defending something that is an absurd position to begin with. Craig's guilty of 'special pleading' in that he grants "god" special privileges and does not scrutinize the same way he would all other things.

i thought that sam harris did a good job in that debate. However, because there is no total position of objectivity such as a pillar like god to take the responsibility off us being objective. it proved somewhat pointless debate essentially just turning it into 'god doesn't exist, we're on our own' to be as objective as possible. meaning we cant be 100% totally objective thus pointless debate imo.

On October 08 2012 13:14 Syntax wrote: ^Strange, I felt the total opposite. I felt Sam Harris went straight to the point which was that Craig was not proposing a universal morality it was that he was presenting an idea that propagated itself through forceful ways. Craig defends his points with rigorous logic but ultimately , he's defending something that is an absurd position to begin with. Craig's guilty of 'special pleading' in that he grants "god" special privileges and does not scrutinize the same way he would all other things.

I don't see why you consider the idea that without god there can be no objective morality an absurd position. What is absurd is that he believes in god, but that's not what he was arguing about. I think Craig won the debate by far, he had done his homework and stayed on topic, whereas Harris from his second speech and on seemed lost and started attacking the absurdity of religion instead of defending his own position and answering the questions that he had to.
Tbh I don't even see how he could have done a better job, because there's nothing there to even hint that he's right. One man's good will unavoidably be another man's evil, they may both agree in a set of rules of behavior but that is only a social contract between them; to suggest that science can objectively "solve" what is good or wrong for all people seems to me somewhat scary. Not to mention that Harris doesn't believe in "free will", which makes his approach on objectively moral behavior even weirder.
Craig says "you baptize this as objectively good,on what basis?" and Harris answers "if you don't call this good/bad what kind of person are you??" giving melodramatic examples of violence or terror, or even worse he says " you do the same with your absurd god when you call him the ultimate good"
Granted, christians do exactly that but that's not the topic of the debate.Also, at least they admit that they rely on faith.

In before Baal comes in and declares that killing for pleasure is universally evil lol.

Yea I haven't seen that debate myself, but it's the one thing pretty much I disagree with him. It's like he didn't read Hume/Nietzsche.

edit: lol, I thought I posted this in my blog before I went to bed. Oh well, I guess it's not a bad time to post something that isn't UFC or some other kind of entertainment thread in the general forums.

I've seen William Craig defend this position once more and he even quoted atheist philosophers to make his point. At some point I wondered how someone who understands what he does can be so absurd about what he believes. Probably it's a side effect of his effort to be better in the egoistic sword fighting debates he has on a daily basis.

i definitely think that craig is the only mind that stands out to me from these debates that i respect quite a bit though obviously disagree with him. I find him very intellegent.

+ Show Spoiler +

yee, i see what you sayin

Checking youtube just now, i realize that i've only seen clips of the debate which all came from pro-sam harris sources im guessing lol Definitely gonna watch it when i get home

Yeah, I watched that debate just now and I agree with your conclusions lebowski. While Harris has good arguments against Christianity, Craig has him on the topic of morality. It seems evident in the debate that Harris went into his comfort zone of attacking Christianity instead of staying on the topic of objective morality. Harris' big mistake is that he chose to redefine what 'good' means (the flourishing of human beings), and to keep making appeals to emotion rather than explain how morals can be objectively grounded [in science]. We can have inter-subjective agreements as to what good and evil are, but we can't make them objective without a supernatural authority. Harris' performs a leap-of-faith to bridge Hume's Law and then for his defense simply says that we have to rely on something (axioms) for every knowledge claim in life and that it is silly not to do so.

Also, Harris doesn't properly answer the question at 1:47:20 here:



Which is basically my view (that this is the worst possible world). His response is quite silly. A universe where the lights are on is better than a universe where the lights are off because of what... because we "intuitively feel the sanctity of life?" lol. That's a religious answer you'd expect from Craig.

why is this the worst possible world? we have no comparison

On October 08 2012 16:46 DooMeR wrote: why is this the worst possible world? we have no comparison

Possible doesn't mean we have to have observed a different one (or can imagine one), but what can actually exist and last. Now this world is arranged as it has to be so that it can last, and if it were to be just a little different, just a little worse, it would cease to exist, consequently making this world the worst possible world. We know that some very small changes, like the ones in the orbits of the planets could de-stabilize our solar system, or forces beneath the earth's crust could erupt and destroy it, or the atmospheric conditions change so as to make life impossible, etc. This life we have inherited through evolution--a blind force that leads to the creating of pain and misery--being possible and lasting is enough for me to judge this world to be the worst possible.

yea but by that logic this is also the best world possible. in essence the only world possible for us.

it could be no other way than the way it is. not the worst possible not the best possible the only possible. if we were talking however about realities. And potential realities or universes that could exist. then perhaps we have a case for some discussion of best or worst. however talking about the world we have. its the only one that could exist for us. or else we wouldn't be us we would be others. so there are no worse or better possible.

Well, that's what Harris ends up saying too, and I don't really know what to say to that. The thing is, we know this world could be better if we aren't being fatalistic. There are so many things going on that don't need to be going on and that keep going on only because of ignorance, and arguably will always keep going on. And all these things lead to people (and animals) suffering. On the other hand, there's no real other way for it to be worse, its always been a gladiator war, a gory spectacle of organisms stealing each others energy to survive and reproduce and for no other real purpose. What can we say to: "wouldn't it be moral to destroy it all?" I really don't know, but Harris didn't answer it well if you ask me. Of course he was limited on time, that might be partly it.

oh i think it could be way worse. it could be post nuclear apocalyptic.this isnt as bad as it could be imo no matter how bad something is it can always get worse ^^

Yeah, we can imagine that, but considering the technology we have now, there won't be much of a world left if and when it comes to that. The Einstein quote about sticks and stones comes to mind.