http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hj9oB4zpHww
Sam Harris talking at TED (Technology Entertainment Design conference). Here's the boilerplate introduction from the video description: "Questions of good and evil, right and wrong are commonly thought unanswerable by science. But Sam Harris argues that science can -- and should -- be an authority on moral issues, shaping human values and setting out what constitutes a good life." I need to watch this once or twice more to digest it. I don't agree on every point (on any points?), but I'm trying to reconsider my static position and see whether his makes sense. On the one hand, I don't see the objective basis for morality in science or anywhere else. On the other hand, doesn't it point to something when so many people even in different cultures seem to agree on some aspects of morality, or is it a coincidence of subjective morality? He talks against absolutism, as if there can be an objective morality but it's still not absolute. That sounds contradictory. And then he starts talking "brain scans" which reminds me of some trans-humanists with faith in technology that we'll be able to achieve X, Y and Z as soon as we can download our minds and personalities into superfast computers, which they expect in around N years. (Reminds me of people relying on faith, their excitement and wishful thinking causing them to make statements or predictions divorced from reason.) What I mean is, it sounds like he's saying technology is going to make this and this happen, and then we'll all be able to see and agree on a basic objective morality. I don't see how one could reasonably predict that until after these discoveries or technologies are under our belts. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "A Civil Religious Debate" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/a-civil-religious-debate?hl=en.
