Sam Harris' B.A. in philosophy doesn't appear to be sufficient for making him a competent philosopher. The question of whether morality can and does exist objectively without God is entirely a metaphysical question - making his background in neuroscience entirely irrelevant. His arguments, as do all atheists' arguments, derive from fundamental tenets like materialism, naturalism, empiricism, etc. - none of which are coherent. Empiricism is self-refuting; it holds that empirical observation is the only way to know truth, but it can't show that statement to be true. Belief that science is the only way to know truth, is also self-refuting, as there's no way to conduct an experiment to test if that's true. It's also false simply because truth can be obtained via methods like logical deduction, completely independent of science. Naturalism is self-refuting; if our ability to conceive of truth exists only because it has naturally evolved to be as it is, and nature selects only for traits that help us survive, and knowledge of truth isn't necessary for our survival, then there's no reason any of our conceptions of truth would be correct and Sam Harris shouldn't believe anything he says.
Sam Harris is a dumbass
Other urls found in this thread:
Materialism is false; in order for it possibly to be true, one would have to believe ideas and concepts exist physically and objectively. Matter can only produce emergent properties. Emergent properties only exist subjectively. There is no such thing as mind-independent, objective emergent properties, in the same way there is no such thing as mind-independent, objective information. Only the mind gives these things meaning. The mind exists; this is self-evident. Thus the mind isn't an emergent property. Thus the mind can't be produced by matter. Thus the mind is immaterial. Thus materialism is false. As you should infer, when science is conducted by someone who isn't a logician, it allows for logical incoherencies to be overlooked or ignored, and makes evidence susceptible to being interpreted in accordance with bias.
In order for objective morality to exist in a materialistic world, as Sam Harris believes, it would need to be an abstract object or exist in physical objects. I don't know if he dismisses this necessity all together, but at the very least, he presupposes at least one of these to be true. This is because he presupposes God doesn't exist, demonstrably from a number of these logical fallacies: straw man ('God is a magical sky wizard'), appeal to ridicule ('lol they actually believe this'), begging the question (assuming his conclusion, like that morality objectively exists in a materialistic world, and -then- trying to explain how it works), red herring (anything irrelevant like 'What matters is that we have morality'), appeal to need ('We don't need God'), appeal to emotion ('God was bad and atheism is the only true enlightenment'), appeal to what should be ('It would be bad for God to exist'), genetic fallacy ('All religions correlate with certain cultures, therefore they are all false'), argument from ignorance ('I don't recognize evidence for God, therefore He's unlikely to exist'), or - and this is the most popular one, responsible for most atheist's delusions about atheism being synonymous with "reason" - appeal to the stone (dismissing something as obviously ridiculous without giving proof).
Consequently, Sam assumes morality is material and works his way from there. He certainly didn't arrive at that conclusion logically. He explains how our sense of morality has evolved to be as it is for our survival, but this doesn't imply morality objectively exists, only that subjective morality exists. In Sam's world view, unless he's cognitively dissonant or profoundly logically inconsistent, morality is objectively meaningless - nihilism is an inescapable consequence of atheism. He tries to confuse and conflate subjective meaningfulness with objective meaningfulness, but that's just an appeal to emotion. They simply aren't the same thing - nothing objective is contingent on our thoughts. Explaining how something would be plausible does not imply the probability of that thing being true. Sam Harris does nothing to show the existence of God is unlikely or ridiculous.
People who think of the existence of God as a ridiculous notion, presumably by choice, imagine Him as some limited being who's unlikely to exist by definition. God is generally defined as being omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, transcendent, and ultimately incomprehensible. Imposing purposely silly definitions on Him (or any definition), aside from being an appeal to ridicule, does not function as a valid reduction to absurdity because any and all imposed definitions conflict with His actual definition. For example, a "flying spaghetti monster" is either not omnipotent by definition, or its form isn't necessary and therefore arbitrary and non-definitive. If or when the intention is merely to show God is "as ridiculous" as any fantastical thing using false analogies, it is only a redundantly-fallacious appeal to the stone. It's also akin to saying "Look, I can make things up. Therefore your God is made up," and yet these are the kind of unsophisticated arguments atheists use, presumably all because they refuse to conceive of possibility outside our comprehension, lest they have to admit we may be held accountable to something outside ourselves.
The existence of God isn't ridiculous, anymore than the existence of minds, multiple dimensions, fundamental forces, ideas, concepts, thoughts, good, evil, purpose, meaning, physical constants, logical constants, existence in general, etc. are ridiculous. You might be tempted to contest something like "But we observe these things." No, you don't. You only observe their effects.
Arguments against Sam Harris' belief of the existence of objective morality in a Godless world:
Subjective relativism is self-refuting. If subjective relativism were true, the proposition "subjective relativism is false" would be paradoxical and couldn't exist. The proposition can exist, as I've demonstrated. Therefore subjective relativism is false. Therefore subjective morality isn't necessarily objectively correct.
1. There is only the conscious and the nonconscious. (p ^ p' = everything)
2. We know inductively that the inanimate (nonconscious) is not moral.
3. In some possible world, there is only the nonconscious.
4. In some possible world, there is no morality. (from 2 and 3)
5. Morality is contingent.
6. Morality is not contingent on the nonconscious. (from 2)
7. Morality is contingent on the conscious. (from 1, 5, and 6)
8. The objective is by definition independent of human or limited consciousness.
9. Morality can be objective if and only if God exists. (from 7 and 8)
10. Everything is objective or subjective.
11. If God doesn't exist, morality is only subjective. (from 9 and 10)
1. If God exists, morality exists as a Godly idea.
2. Godly ideas exist objectively.
3. If God exists, morality exists objectively.
4. If God doesn't exist, materialism is true.
5. The only thing that exists outside of minds is matter and possibly abstract objects.
6. Morality cannot be composed of matter.
7. Abstract objects are only concepts.
8. Concepts cannot exist objectively.
9. Abstract objects do not exist objectively.
10. If morality is an abstract object, it does not exist objectively.
11. Morality cannot exist outside of minds.
12. If God doesn't exist, morality only exists as a human idea. (from 6 and 10)
13. Human ideas don't exist objectively.
14. If God doesn't exist, morality doesn't exist objectively.
15. Therefore, if God doesn't exist, morality is only subjective, and it's objective only if God exists.
In conclusion, Sam Harris is demonstrably a dumbass.
Tl:dr
I still like him.
ok
Finally someone who knows his shit, well done man
We should ban all cuckstain larping. It's literally JIDF trying to slide
He's not a philosopher. lol whare in god's name did you ever get that? Also, he's a neuroscientist or something.
Just like that Unabomber guy.
T. jordan
I think he thinks himself as a philosopher, and he certainly talks about such matters
Wishful thinking: the thread.
Everything we've learned about the nature of reality has revealed us humans to be less significant than previously thought. The idea that some deity designed the universe with us in mind, similar to the current trendy concept that consciousness is fundamental to nature, would go against that trend and everything we can observe in the universe.
Those who think we somehow have a privileged position in the universe need to explain away all of science.
>ree ban anything I dislike
hi antifa
Not at all. Try and follow this, because I'm going to try and spell it out as simply as possible so you can see what we mean when we say you cannot have morality without God.
One of the problems atheists have is the unbelievers' assertion that it is possible to determine what is right and what is wrong without God. They have a fundamental inability to concede that to be effectively absolute a moral code needs to be beyond human power to alter.
On this misunderstanding is based a supposed conundrum about whether there is any good deed that could be done only by a religious person, and not done by a Godless one. Like all such questions, this contains another question: what is good, and who is to decide what is good?
Left to himself, Man can in a matter of minutes justify the incineration of populated cities; the deportation, slaughter, disease and starvation of inconvenient people and the mass murder of the unborn.
I have heard people who believe themselves to be good, defend all these things, and convince themselves as well as others. Quite often the same people will condemn similar actions committed by different countries, often with great vigour.
For a moral code to be effective, it must be attributed to, and vested in, a non-human source. It must be beyond the power of humanity to change it to suit itself.
Its most powerful expression is summed up in the words 'Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends'.
He thinks he's the next Richar Dawkins / Christopher Hitchens. He's not. The atheist meme died in 2008.
Meant for
>I think he thinks
Well, there you go. Thinking too much.
what do you think about the euthypro dilemma?
I simply appeal to the argument of Christopher Hitchens, that I never saw a theologian successfully argue against. Morality is an emergent property of evolution, without it we wouldn't be here today to have this discussion. Species that destroy themselves would not survive.
this
You can test whether or not the mind exists independently of nature by shooting yourself in the head.
The only logical explanation as to why people don't function after they've had their head blown off is because the mind ceases to exist without the external brain.
You evidence provided for the mind existing must be expressed via the objective world. Otherwise you can only convince yourself that your mind is real.
If you're unwilling to accept this reality then there is no point in discussing any matters related to this world.
Go be a fuckin zen Buddhist in some 3rd world country and leave the western world alone.
We have no time for your complacency of knowledge.
>Empiricism is self-refuting; it holds that empirical observation is the only way to know truth, but it can't show that statement to be true.
No. It holds that all knowledge is derived from sense experience, and unless you're schizophrenic, you don't have any sense experiences of mystical revelations about the true nature of reality, so the only thing you can do to learn about reality is to figure out the patterns behind your observations.
>Belief that science is the only way to know truth, is also self-refuting, as there's no way to conduct an experiment to test if that's true.
Science is the only way to figure out how physical reality works. Nobody said you have to conduct experiments to test things from the realm of abstract logical reasoning (like the justification for the scientific method itself).
Syntax ERROR
God is prerequisite for excistence.
'proof'' is a notion that opperates within excistence, while God encompases existence. Therefore one cannot prove God.
But! With cogito ergo sum, existence itself has been proven, yet is left fundamentally unexplained. It is fundamentally unexplainable, ergo, we refer to that section as God.
Now stfu, and gtfo, you don't understand SHIT.
I can mathmaticly prove God for you: X^0=1 and X^infinity=1, ergo: 0=infinity -> Everything is Nothing. There you go, the fundamental paradox of existence and logic for you.
Mathmaticiens don't deal with it 0(nothing) and inf(everything), they work on top of it. Same goes for Physicists. Physics does not deal with the question WHAT energy is, they only work on top op that notion observing different forms of energy (kinetic, electrical w/e)
God=existence=0=infinity=energy.
Now go back into your corner and fuck yourself
>Naturalism is self-refuting; if our ability to conceive of truth exists only because it has naturally evolved to be as it is, and nature selects only for traits that help us survive, and knowledge of truth isn't necessary for our survival, then there's no reason any of our conceptions of truth would be correct and Sam Harris shouldn't believe anything he says.
It's not about the knowledge of truth per se, nor is it about survival. It's about the ability to reason effectively about reality and the advantages it gives one over other animals or just stupid people. I think I'll stop here because all of your arguments are absolutely shit-tier superficial strawmen.
So basically, "god" is just a noise you make with your mouth that doesn't actually mean anything, because it's a thing that is unprovable, unexplainable and nothing can be learned about its nature. Your god is by definition a non-concept.
I hate to agree with a kike, but he's right.
Science is a measure and study of the physical, based on observation and experience. By it's very nature it cannot proffer answer on anything metaphysical. You cannot materially quantify the immaterial. All science can show us is HOW God chooses something to happen, not WHY.
Science vs religion is really the basest of fedorable arguments.
Consider that what is scientifically proven isn't known for certain to be true, but that it is most rational to take them to be so for the time being, a la Popper.
>Also, he's a neuroscientist or something.
He's not that either. His 'neuroscience' degree is just him doing a bunch of experiments to try to justify his objective conception of morality, because he believe that if he can show certain experiences occur in a certain part of the brain, it will show that these things can be reduced to scientific inquiry. It's complete nonsense.
>Science vs religion is really the basest of fedorable arguments
Sure, if your god doesn't interact with physical reality in any observable way, resides completely outside of it and isn't invoked as an explanation for any observable phenomena within the system, your god is not in conflict with science. But at that point you have to admit that any properties to assign to this concept of god are entirely an arbitrary product of your imagination.
AMEN
>Consider that what is scientifically proven isn't known for certain to be true
That doesn't really contradict anything I said. Scientific models don't have to be perfectly accurate in every respect to successfully capture or at least approximate some properties of reality.
>Left to himself, Man can in a matter of minutes justify the incineration of populated cities; the deportation, slaughter, disease and starvation of inconvenient people and the mass murder of the unborn.
Yeah, which is exactly why I'm more than a little hesitant to accept something like the Bible as an authoritative source of morality.
You're not really achieving any philosophical understanding of "good" by defining it as "whatever the bible said god wants us to do". Even if we assume that god is real and the bible is accurate, why should I care what god wants me to do? Because he will dish out horrific punishments otherwise? By this logic, if we established a supercomputer to govern the entire world, monitor the actions of everyone and never fail to punish people who violate its random rules of what is "good", we will have established "absolute" morality.
he looks like a jew BTW
Any argument about the existence of god and/or attributes or properties caused by the existence of god are entirely unwinnable because they are based on the assumption by the religious that God exists because he just does and therefore they need not any further arguments because "God just exists that's it lmao :^)"
So why don't we all stop pretending that these arguments have any point and go about doing more productive things like working or being racist on the internet for fun
No shit. He blocks everyone on twitter and gets his shit pushed in by tj Kirk on the daily.
>I don't know how to formulate an argument but I still feel like throwing my garbage opinion out as if it was a fact, the post
Where did you copy and paste this from?
I wrote it whilst hungover. Btw everyone by "the mind exist; this is self-evident," I mean it objectively exists, in case that caused confusion.
There is nothing that morality objectively states. If we humans would feel no pain and suffering, burning humans would be entirely different as it is now. Morality is an evaluation of the results of certain actions on certain objects, therefore contingent on a mind that is able to evaluate outcomes and change behaviour accordingly. It is very well possible that if two sentient beings who are able to suffer exist, they must always come to the conclusion to not harm each other if there are no incentives for them to do so. If they don't exist, this rule would still apply to the theoretical state of them having existed in the particular state that they did. So...the application of morality is very well contingent on a mind evaluating it's actions, however it does not mean that there must always be and always have been a mind.
Analogous to this is our awareness of the improbability of an object existing and not existing at the same time (at least applied to objects we can detect with our senses). A mind must exist to understand that improbability (mostly in the form of interpreting it to be impssible, because in our perception it actually is) but the improbability was the same, even if no mind yet understood it.
So...the formulation of morals can reasonably be stated to be contingent on an existing mind (a very specific one at that too), however it is entirely plausible that certain moral principles would be certainly viewed as right even if the minds just evolved very recently and noone botered with morality before them.
To elaborate on the suffering part.
In principle, there are no objectively right things in the universe, because there is no standard, there is nothing evaluating actions. We have started to evaluate things that happen through pain, discomfort, happiness, longing, etc.
Capturing someone in a concrete room might be an act of compassion if it is done to a species that likes solitute and to shelter them from...whatever, giant mutant dogs. But if it is done to a human, who generally don't like prolonged absolute solitude and without a good reason, it is cruel.
So...whether an action is moral depends on the entire situation - however, if that same situation would come to exist a second time, the same action would be moral as before. Without anyone necessarily having survived from one to the next.
So...if we find a species, whatever it is, there will be a right way to treat it. And this way would also be the same if another species would have found it, which shared our characteristics.
>.if we find a species, whatever it is, there will be a right way to treat it
I wouldn't even concede that much. While some actions may objective decrease or increase a given creature's well-being, it doesn't logically follow that increasing someone's well-being is objectively "the right thing" to do.
>Species that destroy themselves would not survive.
preying mantis
New Atheism is cancer.
>preying mantis
They destroy themselves by what exactly? Even if the female eats the male (which happens quite rarely) it's after copulation.
He's a secular rabbi pushing pro-Israel propaganda, making certain that nonbelievers remain philosemitic and Zionist.
Any genuine, capable and intellectually honest atheism-- i.e., not Marxism, which is just more Jewish Utopian poison-- ends up anti-Semitic, since 'religion' and religious evil in the West leads right to the doorstep of the Jews.
Harris is, in fact, working to block potentially dangerous nobelieving goyim from an understanding of Christian and Islamic religious origins.
I don't understand why Harris has such a cult following. He's an eloquent guy, but no Dawkins or Hitchens, and his ideas aren't particularly original.
>a honest lack of belief in deities leads you to irrationally hate individuals you don't even know
>irrationally
The opposite. Sorry, David.
>my irrational hate is rational
Oh, okay. So why do you hate me? I don't remember doing anything bad to you.
What do you think about the euthypro dilemma?
Fortunately, Sam Harris can be completely ignored as irrelevant as he doesn't understand the need for ethno nationalism.
Any (((philosopher))) ignoring the glaring need for ethno nationalism has no place in the philosophical forums of society. We've all known Sam is just a smooth talking news anchor instead of a real philosopher, he's completely useless for any cutting edge thought.
>The neocon kike Sam "arm the moderate rebels" Harris is a retard
No shit are you sure?
>Sam Harris
I thought it were Ben Stiller
He's a zionist Jew who literally suggested every retarded strategy that created our situation in the Middle East. If you like Sam Harris, it is objective evidence of your stupidity and lack of information.
>huu huu islam is evil so we should arm the "moderate rebels" also expand gr8er israel guys
Go slit your own throat you disgusting atheist. You're a deficit. I'd hang Harris's kike kids right next to him on the streetlamp but fortunately, I think he's sterile like most atheist pigs.
Didn't read lol
>trying to use meta-statements to argue against anything
Godel already proved that no consistent and powerful system can assert itself. If you think it's problematic that things like logical positivsm can't asset themselves then you're fucking retarded. The instant you recurse you already run into trouble.
>Godel already proved
No, he didn't... why do brainlets love to abuse this theorem so much?
You can enumerate any philosophical or logical system into a mathetmatical system to which you can apply incompleteness. The incompleteness criteria is almost always proven by attempting to assert the system using itself. The inherent problem is that case is recursion.
Next you'll say incompleteness doesn't apply to first order logic, only arthmetic, like some cliff note reading pleb.
ironically, the prAying mantis eats the male so that she has a better chance of rearing his kids.
Amen.
Don't believe in morality, god doesnt matter!
(Checks flag)
Of course....
>Don't believe in morality
Who said I "don't believe in morality"? I just don't believe in your retarded justification for morality ("this book is an accurate description of the will of muh imaginary deity, and you should follow it because otherwise you'd burn in hell").
>he doesn't understand the need for ethno nationalism.
Oh, he understands it perfectly and is a champion of ethno-nationalism. It's why he does what he does.
Just not ethno-nationalism for you.
>>Matter can only produce emergent properties
- this statement is false.
Matter can be objectively examined using humans senses. If you measure properties of matter using electronic devices you get readings. This means those devices were examining those properties we have defined. You can do this a million times and will get the same rusult.
Therefore Emergent properties don't exist only subjectively, your entire deduction is therefore null and void.
but lets go on.
No mind-independent info
THis is ludicrous: info "exists" in our minds after we discover it and comprehend it.
Before we found out about Dark Matter, Dark Matter still existed. The idea of Dark Matter exists and other species in the universe are aware of the concept of Dark Matter.
>>The mind is immaterial
TOP KEK XD
The mind is a collection of areas in your brain with different functions.
Your rejection of this is simply an inability to cope with your own mortality and insignificance.
I wanted to go on and refute some other arguments because you have some good ones down there, but it's literally not worth my time.
I don't even like Harris that much, but this is something a Bible Thumper """""scientist""""" could post on his wall.
You implied that even if god existed morality would still be subjective.
What could be a more amoral position?
What are you on about, brainlet? What does Gödel's incompleteness theorem have to do with this guy's perceived inconsistency?
>You implied that even if god existed morality would still be subjective.
Yes, according to your own retarded logic. The problem is with your beliefs. This observation says nothing about mine.
His problem isn't only having a BA.
Are you talking about physics which recognize the role of consciousness in shaping results?
What the fuck man. That is so painful to even read.
You seem to be conflating objects with objectivism.
Is democracy an object???????? ... ?
Is freedom an object??
Is jihad as an internal struggle an object?
Is salvation an object?
There are all concepts. Concepts exists, like software, in our heads where they direct neurons to guide us in our thoughts and actions.
Morality is a concept.
You are a faggot.
He's a cryptoneocon, the fuck did you think?
>Your rejection of this is simply an inability to cope with your own mortality and insignificance.
Your rejection of God is simply an inability to cope with the fact you're a sinner and degenerate on the path to Hell. See? We can both play this game.
...
I read that post in an Aussie accent.
It was awsome.
wtf I love zizek now
Zizek is pretty based in general and i'm not even a fan of marxism
youtube.com
see but this is exactly the kind of mental gymnastics this guy is making.
He issued that statement and right afterwards he says The End of Faith is band because it advocates torture.
But it advocates torture for exactly the same reason Zizek advocates the death penalty.
Also, Zizek is a Marxist. That means he inevitably needs to argue that certain topics are out of bounds for negotiation.
Harris argues the opposite - in the intelectuall arena, ANY topic can and should be up for scrutiny.
you circumsized dick is cancer
fair game, I'm a sinner and a degenerate.
According to whom? God?
So God made me this way.
He put me in a family with no religious values.
He created me without his divine will allready in my mind.
This (he knew) will result in me being an atheist and for a limited time (80 or so years) I will be an atheist and live in sin of rejecting him and following that short and in the scope of eternity insignificant time, he will put me in hell (which he made for specifically this person) for an unlimited time.
A limited sin - for unlimited punishment.
This particular god is abhorrent.
>i hate god, therefore he can't punish me for violating his laws
Sure thing, goyim.
>I-I can't help it! God made me this way.
Sure thing.
IsGod all-knowing?
But you are larping that you live in a Country that God has supposedly given you.
Also Red Pill - the Atheist Movement is jewish and was pushed to let Christians lose their faith in God and turn them into a bin-cohesive matter. As Religion usually connects People.
Jesus Christ, my fucking sides!
Your posts are gold and you use your brain - you're doin God's work, son.
>you are larping that you live in a Country that God has supposedly given you
Oh, I am? Please show me where I was doing this, you lying piece of trash.
> If you measure properties of matter using electronic devices you get readings. This means those devices were examining those properties we have defined.
Wave function collapse?
Define objective.
I don't like Sam Harris either. He's a Zionist.
Serious question: why do you guys send out these weird kikes that LARP as atheists, but are actually like Buddhists?
Yes but not in the way most people think about it.
Serious answer: I have no idea what you're referring to.
>not in the way most people think about it
Can he predict the future of the system he created perfectly?
Nice bait and let the Sam Harris circle jerk continue where we all regurgitate his arguments without questioning it or having our own critical thoughts on the subject.
Baby's first quantum mechanics. Cute ᶘ ᵒᴥᵒᶅ
Dear Jew and Slovene,
You cannot win this argument. It can't happen.
Just don't bother, for your own sanity. Let the faithful be deluded and live your life.
t. just got done trying to argue and got reminded its futile