18 May 11
BBC Start The Week - Mon, 18 Apr 11
Andrew Marr's guests include neuroscientist and philosopher Sam Harris who argues that science ought to influence human morality rather than religion. Revd Lucy Winkett, of St James's Piccadilly, disagrees.
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=NR4RJQNB
MP3. 11MB. About 20 minutes long.
18 May 11
2 edits
Originally posted by FMFHow can science determine what is moral? Can you put morality under the microscope? Science is the stuy of the material world. Therefore, to try and use it to determine morality would be akin to using, say the Bible, to teach science.
BBC Start The Week - Mon, 18 Apr 11
Andrew Marr's guests include neuroscientist and philosopher Sam Harris who argues that science ought to influence human morality rather than religion. Revd Lucy Winkett, of St James's Piccadilly, disagrees.
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=NR4RJQNB
MP3. 11MB. About 20 minutes long.
Of course, I do realize that this makes sense to those who live their entire lives around science, but science will never be able to make any moral judgements.
18 May 11
Originally posted by whodeyQuite clearly, this thread is for people who have listened to the audio file and who want to discuss the arguments made in it.
How can science determine what is moral? Can you put morality under the microscope? Science is the stuy of the material world. Therefore, to try and use it to determine morality would be akin to using, say the Bible, to teach science.
Of course, I do realize that this makes sense to those who live their entire lives around science, but science will never be able to make any moral judgements.
18 May 11
Originally posted by FMFI will try to listen to it but will probably not get there for a while. I have a long queue of podcasts etc.
Quite clearly, this thread is for people who have listened to the audio file and who want to discuss the arguments made in it.
Prior to doing so I will just mention that I suspect that neither actually have much influence on morality but both are / have been used to justify it.
--- Penguin.
18 May 11
Originally posted by FMFWhodey answered your question. He can be excused for ignoring the flavor of the spin you want to put on it via the clip.
Quite clearly, this thread is for people who have listened to the audio file and who want to discuss the arguments made in it.
Quite clearly, he's right. Science should have zero influence on morality.
18 May 11
2 edits
Originally posted by SuzianneThe link doesn't work on my computer; I just get error messages. So I am unable to hear the arguments presented on it. But:
Whodey answered your question. He can be excused for ignoring the flavor of the spin you want to put on it via the clip.
Quite clearly, he's right. Science should have zero influence on morality.
“...Quite clearly, he's right. Science should have zero influence on morality. ...”
I think I agree with “ Science should have zero influence on morality” (depending on exactly what is meant by "influence" in the above) because you cannot logically go from an 'IS' to an 'OUGHT'. For example, if science shows it IS the case that we evolved to eat meat, that does not logically mean we morally OUGHT to eat meat. Science can only tell us what IS so and our options but cannot tell us what we morally OUGHT or morally SHOULD do nor what is morally right or wrong.
I do not know if you are using the same premise here.
18 May 11
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonTry this link, its the last one at the bottom -
The link doesn't work on my computer; I just get error messages. So I am unable to hear the arguments presented on it. But:
“...Quite clearly, he's right. Science should have zero influence on morality. ...”
I think I agree with “ Science should have zero influence on morality” (depending on exactly what is meant by "influence" in the above) be ...[text shortened]... r what is morally right or wrong.
I do not know if you are using the same premise here.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006r9xr
He's not suggesting what you describe though.
18 May 11
Originally posted by Proper KnobThanks -at last I have heard it. I think he confuses “Well-being” with “morally good”. That link he makes between the two cannot be logically nor scientifically demonstrated. So he makes the very common error of thinking you can get an “OUGHT” from an “IS” which makes me groan. I think most of what he says is logically flawed but I agree with his implicit suggestion that religion is not required to be 'moral' .
Try this link, its the last one at the bottom -
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006r9xr
He's not suggesting what you describe though.
19 May 11
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonIt's kind of interesting how you didn't listen to it but expressed your preconceived idea of what he might have said - which was, as Proper Knob commented, wide the mark on your part. You then listened to it, found he'd said something else, but stuck with your preconceived idea anyway.
Thanks -at last I have heard it. I think he confuses “Well-being” with “morally good”. That link he makes between the two cannot be logically nor scientifically demonstrated. So he makes the very common error of thinking you can get an “OUGHT” from an “IS” which makes me groan. I think most of what he says is logically flawed but I agree with his implicit suggestion that religion is not required to be 'moral' .
Science, according to Harris, could reshape morality. The split between facts and values is a myth. He argues that questions of right and wrong and good and evil have to relate to questions of human and animal well being. And to talk about human "well being" is to talk about genetics, neurobiology, psychology, sociology, economics and so on. These are facts that science can analyze; this is a domain of right and wrong answers. Harris specifically points out that he is not making the simplistic argument that we are genetically programmed therefore what our genes tell us to do is good.
For you to claim he "confuses 'Well-being' with 'morally good'" is intriguing. He is absolutely clear about what he sees as the link between them. What confusion in his mind do you see? You say that the link he makes between the two "cannot be logically nor scientifically demonstrated". He discussed how they can. Are you simply going to contradict him and leave it at that?
19 May 11
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonWhat is required if not science or religion?
Thanks -at last I have heard it. I think he confuses “Well-being” with “morally good”. That link he makes between the two cannot be logically nor scientifically demonstrated. So he makes the very common error of thinking you can get an “OUGHT” from an “IS” which makes me groan. I think most of what he says is logically flawed but I agree with his implicit suggestion that religion is not required to be 'moral' .
Kelly