Sam Harris destroys Catholicism

[Rum]

He may not have the charisma of Hitchens or the reach of Dawkins, but this is as good a job of demolishing (any) religion as I have come across. Impressive!

[amused]

Go get 'em Sam!

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Neat video!

[Ronja]

When was that? He looks so young (and not just due to the wonky picture ratio).

Thanks for posting Rum! Good stuff...

[Rum]

Says 2011 but I was surprised too.

What I like is the simplicity and logic of what he says. There's no arguing really!

[tattuchu]

Says 2011 but I was surprised too.

What I like is the simplicity and logic of what he says. There's no arguing really!

All for naught, unfortunately, since christfags don't care anything about logic.

[hackenslash]

[Tero]

What was craigs rebuttal?

[Tero]

There was 2hrs more, I skipped thru parts of it
http://youtu.be/yqaHXKLRKzg

something about Harris not being qualified to argue moral philosophical issues

[PsychoSerenity]

There was 2hrs more, I skipped thru parts of it
http://youtu.be/yqaHXKLRKzg

something about Harris not being qualified to argue moral philosophical issues

Which is strange because he seems to be able to argue them reasonably well.

I also found this one interesting, talking about the problems of religious moderates.

[hackenslash]

There was 2hrs more, I skipped thru parts of it
http://youtu.be/yqaHXKLRKzg

something about Harris not being qualified to argue moral philosophical issues

Ah, the Courtier's Reply. Well done, Bill, you lying fuckwit.

[Robert_S]

There was 2hrs more, I skipped thru parts of it
http://youtu.be/yqaHXKLRKzg

something about Harris not being qualified to argue moral philosophical issues

Ah, the Courtier's Reply. Well done, Bill, you lying fuckwit.

I haven't run across anyone seriously trying that one since the old RDF days.

[mistermack]

Sam Harris DID do a good job in that clip, but in the bigger film, he was a lot weaker.

And it's because he is pushing a fuzzy claim. That there IS some kind of OBJECTIVE morality.
When there isn't. Craig had an easy job rebutting it, because Craig was right.

There is no such thing as objective morality.
There is a fairly widespread moral consensus, most humans agree on the basics. But that's not an OBJECTIVE morality, it's just loads of humans thinking and feeling the same way.
It's subjective, even if five billion people agree. We all have nearly identical dna, so we mostly have similar morals.

Harris is very good, but he was flogging a dead horse, in the main debate.
This particular clip is good though. It's the best bit. Very clear and obviously right.

[PsychoSerenity]

There is no such thing as objective morality.
There is a fairly widespread moral consensus, most humans agree on the basics. But that's not an OBJECTIVE morality, it's just loads of humans thinking and feeling the same way.
It's subjective, even if five billion people agree. We all have nearly identical dna, so we mostly have similar morals.

I don't agree with that. The moral consensus isn't relevant - in fact, the concept of an objective morality quite specifically means that there doesn't need to be consensus, and that some people/cultures (or more probably all, to different degrees) can be simply incorrect in their moral values.

What is relevant are the quite objective trends in moral consensus, towards non-violence etc. - though that's not to say that following these trends to their ultimate conclusion will necessarily lead to any ultimate morality.

There are also absolute limits on what moralities can survive as the dominant morality in a culture. If the dominant morality leads a society into self destruction, it likely won't be passed on to future generations.

And there is quite simple logic behind that too, along the lines of - given some opportunities with unknown consequences, it is irrational to first take one that you do know will prevent you from exploring the others - e.g self destruction.

I'm not saying that mortality is clear-cut with simple to understand rules that will always apply. What I am saying is I think there is, for any given situation, a "right thing to do" - even though it's beyond humans to calculate what it is. But we can, given practice and understanding of moral philosophy, or even moral science, get a better approximation of the right thing. The concepts of morality exist. They have developed through an objective evolutionary process, and they do have some boundaries in logic. I see no reason to think that there aren't more objective facts to learn about morality.

And any arguments against it that repeatedly force along the line of "But why is that right?" seem to me to be no more use than arguments against scientific philosophical concepts like a materialistic universe that, if you force them, eventually lead to solipsism. Obviously we can't know for certain, but if we can get a model that seems to fit, then that's objective enough for me.

[Jesus_of_Nazareth]

I don't think the Pope needs any help.