First…watch Sam Harris’ TED Talk from earlier this year:
I’ve been ruminating on it ever since he gave it. I went through all sorts of emotions when I watched it. Some anger and dismissal, but also some a-ha moments. His argument is, basically, there is a right and wrong morality (and some grey areas) and that science, not religion, can help us determine. And the determination is to maximize the human condition. His talk is worth watching and discussing and Chris Anderson asks some compelling questions at the end.
Ironically, it is the recent debates in the US over healthcare and the subsequent BP Oil Spill (both failures of science) that has got me thinking about this talk again. I’ve gotten to the point where I don’t think it’s healthy for us to be tolerant of values that infringe on the lives of others for personal gain. And I don’t know if science is the answer, but I’m willing to support the pursuit of finding out what maximizing the human condition means and how we can get there.
One thing that I began to think about as Harris compared rocks to ants to primates in terms of the range of suffering and pleasure that can be experienced: I believe the unspoken assumption was that we are prime. We are the benchmark in terms of consciousness and wellbeing. The corollary to that would be that all other organisms have some fraction of our consciousness and capacity for pleasure / suffering. Wouldn’t it be interesting if we were to acknowledge or believe that another species was prime? That our ability to be conscious and to experience pain or pleasure was less than another’s?
Have you read “How We Decide”? It’s all about decisions and it’s interesting how logic and emotions intertwine to help us do the right thing. I think that religion is necessary (even though I’m not religious, I have a deep respect for those who are) and I think society is better off with a strong morality. Using logic and cutting ourselves from listening to our emotions will end up doing more harm in the long run.
@shira
What Harris is saying is that emotions are very real and important, but shouldn’t belong to the realm of religion. It should belong in the realm of science…that science itself can, should and does respect emotions as real and measurable (how happy, how sad, how much awe, how in love, etc.).
I’m kind of with him on the whole secularism thing. Religion doesn’t give me satisfactory answers to my emotional questions.
Very interesting topic. Thanks for posting something that requires real thought to digest. But I think the speaker is presenting a false dichotomy. The choice is not between Science and Religion. “Science” has a long history of promoting the wrong “Answer”. Anyone remember the Flat Earth? Or the Earth as the Center of the Universe? In fact, Science can be shown to be just as profoundly wrong historically as some of the Religious beliefs that he referenced.
I was trained as a scientist, at the Masters level, and have a great deal of respect for the scientific method. But it has a domain of use that is constrained, and does not encompass all of human existence.
I believe in a Universal concept of right & wrong. It exists outside of us. It is there for us to discover – not create. Organized religion may not be the best path to this discovery – but neither is science.