In a previous blog entry, I embedded the TED talk given by Sam Harris -- I'll embed the video again for reference:

He apparently got both a lot of flak and a lot of praise that he thought came from misunderstandings. Moral Confusion in the name of "Science" | Project Reason. He wrote quite a long essay, but I'll quote from just a part near the beginning.

Sam writes:

My intent was to begin a conversation about how we can understand morality in universal, scientific terms. Many people who loved my talk, misunderstood what I was saying, and loved it for the wrong reasons; and many of my critics were right to think that I had said something extremely controversial. I was not suggesting that science can give us an evolutionary or neurobiological account of what people do in the name of “morality.” Nor was I merely saying that science can help us get what we want out of life. Both of these would have been quite banal claims to make (unless one happens to doubt the truth of evolution or the mind’s dependency on the brain). Rather I was suggesting that science can, in principle, help us understand what we should do and should want—and, perforce, what other people should do and want in order to live the best lives possible. My claim is that there are right and wrong answers to moral questions, just as there are right and wrong answers to questions of physics, and such answers may one day fall within reach of the maturing sciences of mind.

I've been trying to think of where I can distinguish my thoughts from Sam's -- and the only real question where I think we could have divergent opinions would be in trying to pin down what exactly he means by promoting the well-being of conscious creatures. But, since he isn't trying to parse things at a level that would be controversial to me (nor does he seem to have the inclination), I doubt there's much disagreement. I will admit that he mentioned the possibility of brain scans as a way of discovering well-being in the future, and that sounded weird to me. I can follow the implicit logic easily enough: if the concern is the well-being of conscious beings, and if the mind depends on the brain, and if the brain is scannable in some meaningful way regarding overall well-being and happiness, then in the future being able to scan the brains of people in a particular society or belief system will be possible and instructive. It's not obviously wrong to me, but I'm not convinced I've thought about it enough to come down clearly on the issue just yet.

Sam also mentions that he is frequently met with hostility to these ideas by people in academia -- which I have found the case to be with me, as well. The largest source of disagreement between my fellow atheists and I come on the issue of moral relativism. I have long defended the notion that there exist such a thing as moral facts -- in that sense I'm a moral realist. I have also found it an odd point of agreement between many of the theists that I argue with that moral relativism is incorrect. Although, since I think that Yahweh's ordering his followers to commit genocide is morally wrong -- it's interesting to see a Biblical literalist start to argue that genocide is only sometimes wrong.

Anyway, I'm still forming my thoughts on these issues -- let me know what you think!

Sam Harris writes so damn well...

He just posted a debate between Himself and Philip Ball. Here's an awesome short excerpt from it:

What should science do?  Sam Harris v. Philip Ball

Harris: In its most generic and well-subscribed form, Christianity amounts to the following claims: Jesus Christ, a carpenter by trade, was born of a virgin, ritually murdered as a scapegoat for the collective sins of his species, and then resurrected from death after an interval of three days. He promptly ascended, bodily, to “heaven”—where, for two millennia, he has eavesdropped upon (and, on occasion, even answered) the simultaneous prayers of billions of beleaguered human beings. Not content to maintain this numinous arrangement indefinitely, this invisible carpenter will one day return to earth to judge humanity for its sexual indiscretions and sceptical doubts, at which time he will grant immortality to anyone who has had the good fortune to be convinced, on Mother’s knee, that this baffling litany of miracles is the most important series of truth-claims ever revealed about the cosmos. Every other member of our species, past and present, from Cleopatra to Einstein, no matter what his or her terrestrial accomplishments, will (probably) be consigned to a fiery hell for all eternity.

Go, read the debate... it's awesome. One last quote later in the page: "If the basic claims of religion are false, most people are living in a state of abject confusion, beset by absurd hopes and fears, and tending to waste their time and attention—often with tragic results." - Sam Harris

I recently finished a book called 50 Reasons People Give for Believing in a God by Guy P. Harrison.

The book is focused: it systematically goes through the top 50 reasons people give for believing in a god, and it carefully explains why a skeptic finds these reasons severely lacking. It also argues that the believer himself should find these reasons lacking, as well.

The author has gone through great pains to keep the book respectful yet direct.

I could tell that the author had spent a bit of time actually interacting with believers in an attempt to figure what they believe and why. There are a number of tactics that you hit upon from the number of interactions. He happened to use or recommend an approach similar to a few of the tactics that I have written about, and a few that I have plans to write about.

One of my favorite tactics is to ask for the best example of whatever claim a theist is making. He mentioned this as a response when you get a claim like, "Hundreds of prophecies were fulfilled by Jesus..." Ask, "what is the most impressive prophecy that Jesus fulfilled?" You interact with the best case that the theist can give, you aren't trying to defend from a shotgun blast of verses and prophecies, and often the person has not seriously thought about any of the prophecies.

On a side note, I heard a street preacher use the same tactic to devastating effect when a skeptic listening was talking about how much the words of the Bible had changed and how the message has been distorted over the years. The preacher said, "That's a fair enough objection. What message specifically has been changed? Or what is the most blatant verse change that you are thinking about?"

It stopped the skeptic cold because he only had some nebulous idea about how the Bible was changed, and no idea about any of the specifics.

To finish my book review, I'd say that the book was worth the time spent reading it. It feels a bit repetitive in that he continues to make the point that there is no good reason to think that X is true; or to rely on faulty reasoning Y. I also really appreciate the effort he makes to emphasize the reasons people give to believe in all kinds of gods (not just the Big God). It's all true, and he explains very carefully exactly what mistakes are being made.

In the end, I recommend the book, especially if you intend on engaging religious people. It gives you a good feel for what you will encounter, and demonstrates a tactful way of critically engaging them.

Sam Harris has written a response to the responses to an essay about the conflict between science and religion posted on Edge.org.  By the way, the title of this post comes from the concluding paragraph and Sam is writing satire (and is damn good at it).

It is awesome.

His essay can be enjoyed without reading any of the things that he refers to...although reading through the post and the responses first will give added enjoyment.

Feast on just one small sample from:

It's All True (link loads the page at Sam's response on the page that includes the original article and other responses)

For instance: it is now becoming a common practice in Afghanistan and Pakistan to blind and disfigure little girls with acid for the crime of going to school. When I was a neo-fundamentalist rational neo-atheist I used to criticize such behavior as an especially shameful sign of religious stupidity. I now realize—belatedly and to my great chagrin—that I knew nothing of the pain that a pious Muslim man might feel at the sight of young women learning to read. Who am I to criticize the public expression of his faith? Bateson is right. Clearly a belief in the inerrancy of the holy Qur'an is indispensable for these beleaguered people.

Ok, I just couldn't keep it down to 1 quote. One last bit from the same article:

Is there a conflict between scientific rationality and a belief in magic spells? Specifically, is there a conflict between believing that epilepsy is a result of abnormal neural activity and believing that it is a sign of demonic possession? Dogmatists like Coyne and Dennett clearly think so. They don't realize, as Dyson must, that the more one understands neurology, the more one will understand—and honor—demonology.

Read and enjoy!