I am currently reading Sam Harris’ “The Moral Landscape”. (2010). In this work Harris claims that “Ought” (Morality) can be derived from “Is” (facts). Specifying eudaemonia as the desired outcome of human endeavors, he believes that this sense of well-being can be explained with reference to states of the human brain. He sees religion, both fundamentalistic and progressive, as an impediment to scientific research in human development.
I’d like your comments on these claims. I’ll continue reading the book. It’s well-written.
good post ier…you are thinkin…he has a problem with impediment…he needs to be right at all costs…
he is in the attack mode…religion is not science…and science is not religion…they actually could help each other instead of fighting…but some humans need to fight each other for top-dog or top-god…it is a given
and I find it essentially boring…
The battleground of science and religion is found in current considerations of bioethics. What will society, especially one as predominantly religious as that in the USA, allow science to do? If the disallowance is merely objection to brain states as providing explanations of human behavior, I’m with Harris.
ier-----lets go to francis Collins , head of nih, evangelical Christian scientist…
how is he impeding science in the usa…
I’m not familiar enough with Collins to know his take on such issues as stem cell research or gene patenting.
Harris claims that what we refer to as subjective can have objective interpretations, that physicality is the bottom line of belief systems and that popular religion, sometimes accepted by experts in science, retards an objective search for characteristics of human well-being. IN the USA problems with abortion and homosexuality among conservative religious leaders thwarts compassionate understanding of the human condition. What is Collins’ take on this?
Harris suggests that if we accept religious perspectivism, we accept the horrors religions cause.
im not that familiar with what harris has done…has he done anything to bring religion and science closer…
he just seems nasty…
On first read when his book came out Collins seemed to be a competent scientist with a pretty conventionally evangelical worldview. If someone asserts how he represents more than that, I’d have to take another look.
He’s anti-religious. While I understand the charges he has brought against religion, I still think that the will to believe has genetic precursors. Why would we have this will if it cannot contribute in some way to human well-being?
What book do you refer to? I’ll read it next. I’m just not sure Collins will address current moral issues.
ier----I agree about strong will being human nature…and it has to do with survival…but we now need to learn how to control our killer instincts in order to cooperate…religion and science can come together…it does not need to be a battle to the end…they both have something to offer…but both sides need to stop being arrogant
Are these “killer instincts” aided and abetted by religion or by science?
both…I have em…it is people that have these instincts not science and religion…it is essentially an alpha male
fight which is not going to help our well-being…
Killer instinct can be encouraged by religion.
Science can provide the means.
Yes. Science has provided the means. But this doesn’t make religion any less culpable.
Karen Armstrong on her ted talk about the golden rule has more to say about well-being than any science or religion book…
Harris refutes Hume’s IS/Ought distinction and Moore’s “naturalistic fallacy” in favor of bioepistemology. Are these philosophical positions outdated? Do brain-state and memes challenge these theories in favor of a physical description of human reality?
Isn’t she a religious writer?
It’s a bit difficult to respond to this statement, if you are not willing to state the arguments that were used against Hume’s is/ought.
The Language of God.
Harris contends that an Ought (morality) can be explained by an Is (Scientific facts). He develops his argument by references to how brain-states determine what we are and do. Hume claims that no ought can be derived from an is. See Harris’ book and tell me where I misconstrue his claims.