Sam Harris Talks about the Defence of Religion

[_antishock8]

Who gets to define morality? Calling someone "morally sketchy" is about as productive as calling someone *pious. One man's cow is another man's hamburger. <- !

* Saudi Arabian morality police along with its judiciary, under the system of Sharia, is going to whip a 75 year-old woman 40 times for taking a delivery of bread from non-relative males. They consider themselves to be very moral, very pious, and under the direction of God.

[_Some Schmo]

Just as I expected.

You can't defend your claim.

You can't even present a single innovative idea this guy came up with, because you don't know of any.

Trying to defer to something Dawkins might have said favorably about him (gee, like that's surprising?) is pretty darn funny, if not outright clear intellectal cowardice.

Do you think you'll change my mind?

Of course not. Your mind might be small, but at least its made up.

Stop acting like you're having fun at my expense, when you know damn well it is the other way around. You made an idiotic comment, and nobody thinks this is about trying to change your mind. Hell even EA, one of your own atheist cohorts, can't seem to put a dent in the block head of yours.

Just as I expected. You can't refute my claim. I knew it. You didn't even try to answer my questions, so obviously, you have no defence. Quit pretending you have the intellectual high ground here because we all know you don't. You couldn't answer my questions. What intellectual cowardice. We know this because I said it. You are a moron and you can't defend yourself against this proven fact. So as it stands, we have established you're a moron.

LOL... He doesn't even get that I am having fun at his expense. I've been parroting the kind of ridiculous things he's been saying for months now, and he thinks I'm an idiot (because I've been talking like an idiot - him), and yet he acts like he doesn't understand why others think he's as idiot. It's one of the funniest things I think I've ever encountered on a message board. I suppose he needs to tell himself all kinds of rationalizing rubbish so he can continue to believe in the fantasy he has about his own intellect.

Whatever helps the dimwit sleep at night, I guess.

Too freakin' funny.

[_Calculus Crusader]

LOL... "dimbulb" eh? (Silly me... I always though those were two words).

Whatever helps the dimwit sleep at night, I guess.

Too freakin' funny.

[_EAllusion]

Who gets to define morality? Calling someone "morally sketchy" is about as productive as calling someone *pious. One man's cow is another man's hamburger. <- !

That's like asking, "who gets to decide what the shape of the earth is?" The truth or lack thereof of moral statements isn't determined by personal authority. It's determined by how they fit some sort of rational criteria for assessing its truth-value. If you don't regard moral statements as factual things, then that's a separate debate. But baldy asking "Who decides this, you?" is as naïve here as it is when attacking any assertion of truth.

Telling here, though, is how this could've been used in defense of anyone. I called Sam Harris morally sketchy, and you objected in a manner that would attack me calling anyone morally sketchy. Hitler. The LDS Church. Anyone. Yet this tack gets busted out in defense of Sam Harris.

[_antishock8]

1) You're telling me that Sam Harris is "morally sketchy" without defining what "moral" is to you. Of course I posit the question, "Who gets to define what morality is?" The Saudis think whipping an old woman 75 times for associating with non-relative males is moral. I think it's immoral.

2) You equate defining a philosophical question with a scientific measurement. Apples and oranges, my friend. That's a leap in logic to say the least.

[_EAllusion]

1) You're telling me that Sam Harris is "morally sketchy" without defining what "moral" is to you. Of course I posit the question, "Who gets to define what morality is?" The Saudis think whipping an old woman 75 times for associating with non-relative males is moral. I think it's immoral.

I think you are right and the Saudis who support this are wrong. And it's not because I or anyone else said so.

2) You equate defining a philosophical question with a scientific measurement. Apples and oranges, my friend. That's a leap in logic to say the least.

I'm perfectly willing to defend my moral realism. You seem to take it for granted that moral realism is wrong. I'm not the one being presumptuous here. If you want to deny moral realism - that idea that some moral statements are true - go for it. Right now, I'm just pointing out that your "who gets to decide?" argument against my views is misplaced regardless of whether moral realism is true or not. Thinking moral statements are true does not entail thinking that someone needs to determine what is and isn't true anymore than any other assertion of truth. If my view is wrong, it isn't because I can't come up with "who decides." Personal authority need not determine rightness or wrongness.

I also think you picking this fight to defend Sam Harris rather than to going after someone critical of the LDS Church calling their dealings with gays immoral is a reflection of improper bias. It seems that you're willing to go after an assertion of something being morally sketchy only when you like the target of criticism.

[_antishock8]

1) You, my friend, made a positive assertion. You're the one that called Sam Harris "morally sketchy". You're the one arguing for "moral realism". Not me.

2) Please define what "morality" is to you. I don't understand your statement that Sam Harris is "morally sketchy" because it IS relative.

[_EAllusion]

1) You, my friend, made a positive assertion. You're the one that called Sam Harris "morally sketchy". You're the one arguing for "moral realism". Not me.

You attacked my positive assertion with a particular argument I in turn responded to. I'm not sure this is the place to turn this into a broader defense of moral realism anymore than my assertion of anything being true would require me right then and there to provide a compelling epistemological account of truth. If you don't believe that anyone can reasonably be called morally sketchy, whether that person is Sam Harris or Joseph Stalin, then you've voiced your disagreement and I'll respond at my leisure.

2) Please define what "morality" is to you. I don't understand your statement that Sam Harris is "morally sketchy" because it IS relative.

As a technical matter, moral relativists are realists by definition. I think you really want to assert something like moral thoughts being a matter of personal preference, which isn't how "relative" is usually used in this context when it comes to academic discussion on the topic. I think I understand what you are asserting, though. Needless to say, I don't agree. However, if this is the case, then your "who gets to decide" argument is still off. After all, in this case no one decides what is morally sketchy and any expression of moral condemnation is reducible to an expression of moral preference. So you are still in a pickle here.

[_marg]

EA, How about explaining why you think S. Harris is morally sketchy. by the way I've lost my book, End of Faith, so if you could quote what he said or link to a talk on video he gave, that would help. I seem to remember he said something which some of his critics took out of context and that he addressed and elaborated further on this, on his web site, but the details of it I don't remember.

And while you are at it, since you are quite critical it seems of Harris, anything else you can quote or link to on video which supports criticisms you've made would be appreciated.

[_antishock8]

You attacked my positive assertion with a particular argument I in turn responded to.

By stating that openly questioning who gets to decide morality is, in of itself, "moral realism"...

Once again, you positively asserted that so-and-so is "morally sketchy". I just want to know what it is, exactly, you mean by that because whether or not you and I are definers of morality is beside the point: I want to know what you mean by your statement because I have no context through which to make sense of your statement.

As a technical matter, moral relativists are realists by definition... So you are still in a pickle here.

I'm sure I am in your mind. In other words, my relativism is realism and your realism is realism, and dang it, you meant what you said even though at least two people who have responded to you have no idea what you're talking about.