1. SubscriberFMF
    Main Poster
    This Thread
    Joined
    28 Oct '05
    Moves
    29835
    18 May '11 12:57
    BBC Start The Week - Mon, 18 Apr 11

    Andrew Marr's guests include neuroscientist and philosopher Sam Harris who argues that science ought to influence human morality rather than religion. Revd Lucy Winkett, of St James's Piccadilly, disagrees.

    http://www.megaupload.com/?d=NR4RJQNB

    MP3. 11MB. About 20 minutes long.
  2. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    18 May '11 13:012 edits
    Originally posted by FMF
    BBC Start The Week - Mon, 18 Apr 11

    Andrew Marr's guests include neuroscientist and philosopher Sam Harris who argues that science ought to influence human morality rather than religion. Revd Lucy Winkett, of St James's Piccadilly, disagrees.

    http://www.megaupload.com/?d=NR4RJQNB

    MP3. 11MB. About 20 minutes long.
    How can science determine what is moral? Can you put morality under the microscope? Science is the stuy of the material world. Therefore, to try and use it to determine morality would be akin to using, say the Bible, to teach science.

    Of course, I do realize that this makes sense to those who live their entire lives around science, but science will never be able to make any moral judgements.
  3. SubscriberFMF
    Main Poster
    This Thread
    Joined
    28 Oct '05
    Moves
    29835
    18 May '11 13:06
    Originally posted by whodey
    How can science determine what is moral? Can you put morality under the microscope? Science is the stuy of the material world. Therefore, to try and use it to determine morality would be akin to using, say the Bible, to teach science.

    Of course, I do realize that this makes sense to those who live their entire lives around science, but science will never be able to make any moral judgements.
    Quite clearly, this thread is for people who have listened to the audio file and who want to discuss the arguments made in it.
  4. Joined
    01 Jun '06
    Moves
    274
    18 May '11 13:41
    Originally posted by FMF
    Quite clearly, this thread is for people who have listened to the audio file and who want to discuss the arguments made in it.
    I will try to listen to it but will probably not get there for a while. I have a long queue of podcasts etc.

    Prior to doing so I will just mention that I suspect that neither actually have much influence on morality but both are / have been used to justify it.

    --- Penguin.
  5. Standard memberSeitse
    Doug Stanhope
    That's Why I Drink
    Joined
    01 Jan '06
    Moves
    33672
    18 May '11 13:50
    Just picture it... Gary Glitter speaking of morality.
  6. SubscriberFMF
    Main Poster
    This Thread
    Joined
    28 Oct '05
    Moves
    29835
    18 May '11 14:27
    Originally posted by Seitse
    Just picture it... Gary Glitter speaking of morality.
    The audio clip doesn't feature Gary Glitter. It's got Andrew Marr in conversation with neuroscientist and philosopher Sam Harris and Revd Lucy Winkett.
  7. SubscriberSuzianne
    Misfit Queen
    Isle of Misfit Toys
    Joined
    08 Aug '03
    Moves
    35531
    18 May '11 14:43
    Originally posted by FMF
    Quite clearly, this thread is for people who have listened to the audio file and who want to discuss the arguments made in it.
    Whodey answered your question. He can be excused for ignoring the flavor of the spin you want to put on it via the clip.

    Quite clearly, he's right. Science should have zero influence on morality.
  8. SubscriberFMF
    Main Poster
    This Thread
    Joined
    28 Oct '05
    Moves
    29835
    18 May '11 14:45
    Originally posted by Suzianne
    Whodey answered your question. He can be excused for ignoring the flavor of the spin you want to put on it via the clip.

    Quite clearly, he's right. Science should have zero influence on morality.
    Why not have a listen to the clip?
  9. Joined
    26 May '08
    Moves
    2120
    18 May '11 18:032 edits
    Originally posted by Suzianne
    Whodey answered your question. He can be excused for ignoring the flavor of the spin you want to put on it via the clip.

    Quite clearly, he's right. Science should have zero influence on morality.
    The link doesn't work on my computer; I just get error messages. So I am unable to hear the arguments presented on it. But:

    “...Quite clearly, he's right. Science should have zero influence on morality. ...”

    I think I agree with “ Science should have zero influence on morality” (depending on exactly what is meant by "influence" in the above) because you cannot logically go from an 'IS' to an 'OUGHT'. For example, if science shows it IS the case that we evolved to eat meat, that does not logically mean we morally OUGHT to eat meat. Science can only tell us what IS so and our options but cannot tell us what we morally OUGHT or morally SHOULD do nor what is morally right or wrong.
    I do not know if you are using the same premise here.
  10. SubscriberProper Knob
    Cornovii
    North of the Tamar
    Joined
    02 Feb '07
    Moves
    51480
    18 May '11 18:39
    Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
    The link doesn't work on my computer; I just get error messages. So I am unable to hear the arguments presented on it. But:

    “...Quite clearly, he's right. Science should have zero influence on morality. ...”

    I think I agree with “ Science should have zero influence on morality” (depending on exactly what is meant by "influence" in the above) be ...[text shortened]... r what is morally right or wrong.
    I do not know if you are using the same premise here.
    Try this link, its the last one at the bottom -

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006r9xr

    He's not suggesting what you describe though.
  11. Joined
    26 May '08
    Moves
    2120
    18 May '11 19:02
    Originally posted by Proper Knob
    Try this link, its the last one at the bottom -

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006r9xr

    He's not suggesting what you describe though.
    Thanks -at last I have heard it. I think he confuses “Well-being” with “morally good”. That link he makes between the two cannot be logically nor scientifically demonstrated. So he makes the very common error of thinking you can get an “OUGHT” from an “IS” which makes me groan. I think most of what he says is logically flawed but I agree with his implicit suggestion that religion is not required to be 'moral' .
  12. SubscriberFMF
    Main Poster
    This Thread
    Joined
    28 Oct '05
    Moves
    29835
    19 May '11 02:03
    Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
    Thanks -at last I have heard it. I think he confuses “Well-being” with “morally good”. That link he makes between the two cannot be logically nor scientifically demonstrated. So he makes the very common error of thinking you can get an “OUGHT” from an “IS” which makes me groan. I think most of what he says is logically flawed but I agree with his implicit suggestion that religion is not required to be 'moral' .
    It's kind of interesting how you didn't listen to it but expressed your preconceived idea of what he might have said - which was, as Proper Knob commented, wide the mark on your part. You then listened to it, found he'd said something else, but stuck with your preconceived idea anyway.

    Science, according to Harris, could reshape morality. The split between facts and values is a myth. He argues that questions of right and wrong and good and evil have to relate to questions of human and animal well being. And to talk about human "well being" is to talk about genetics, neurobiology, psychology, sociology, economics and so on. These are facts that science can analyze; this is a domain of right and wrong answers. Harris specifically points out that he is not making the simplistic argument that we are genetically programmed therefore what our genes tell us to do is good.

    For you to claim he "confuses 'Well-being' with 'morally good'" is intriguing. He is absolutely clear about what he sees as the link between them. What confusion in his mind do you see? You say that the link he makes between the two "cannot be logically nor scientifically demonstrated". He discussed how they can. Are you simply going to contradict him and leave it at that?
  13. Standard memberKellyJay
    Walk your Faith
    USA
    Joined
    24 May '04
    Moves
    148465
    19 May '11 04:43
    Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
    Thanks -at last I have heard it. I think he confuses “Well-being” with “morally good”. That link he makes between the two cannot be logically nor scientifically demonstrated. So he makes the very common error of thinking you can get an “OUGHT” from an “IS” which makes me groan. I think most of what he says is logically flawed but I agree with his implicit suggestion that religion is not required to be 'moral' .
    What is required if not science or religion?
    Kelly
  14. SubscriberFMF
    Main Poster
    This Thread
    Joined
    28 Oct '05
    Moves
    29835
    19 May '11 04:46
    Originally posted by KellyJay
    What is required if not science or religion?
    Kelly
    Hey Kelly, have you listened to the audio file?
  15. Standard memberKellyJay
    Walk your Faith
    USA
    Joined
    24 May '04
    Moves
    148465
    19 May '11 04:53
    Originally posted by FMF
    Hey Kelly, have you listened to the audio file?
    Doing so now
    Kelly
Back to Top