.
I'm glad that I decided to review my podcast subscriptions; already I've found
quite a few interesting ones. Just today I listened to my first FORA.tv Audio of the
Week podcast (which was a lengthy one in 1h 20 minutes, which was OK for me,
since that's the time it takes for me to finish my walk). I was totally absorbed
with the talk by Sam Harris, at Berkeley Art and Letters, in November 2010,
which was the subject of the podcast. Here's the talk description, and some
blurbs for the book:
Sam Harris |
Atheist author and cultural critic Sam Harris discusses his book, The Moral
Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values. This program was
recorded in collaboration with Berkeley Arts and Letters, on November 13, 2010.
In this highly anticipated, explosive new book, the author of The End of Faith and
Letter to a Christian Nation calls for an end to religion's monopoly on morality
and human values. In The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human
Values, Sam Harris tears down the wall between scientific facts and human
values to dismantle the most common justification for religious faith -- that a
moral system cannot be based on science.
The End of Faith ignited a worldwide debate about the validity of religion. In its
aftermath, Harris discovered that most people, from secular scientists to religious
fundamentalists, agree on one point: Science has nothing to say on the subject of
human values. Even among religious fundamentalists, the defence one most
often hears for belief in God is not that there is compelling evidence that God
exists, but that faith in Him provides the only guidance for living a good life.
Controversies about human values are controversies about which science has
officially had no opinion. Until now.
Bringing a fresh, secular perspective to age-old questions of right and wrong, and
good and evil, Harris shows that we know enough about the human brain and its
relationship to events in the world to say that there are right and wrong answers
to the most pressing questions of human life. Because such answers exist,
cultural relativism is simply false [sic] -- and comes at increasing cost to
humanity. And just as there is no such thing as Christian physics or Muslim
Algebra, there can be no Christian or Muslim morality. Using his expertise in
philosophy and neuroscience, along with his experience on the front lines of our
"culture wars," Sam Harris delivers a game-changing argument about the future
of science and about the real basis of human cooperation. - Berkeley Arts and
Letters
Sam Harris is an American non-fiction author, and CEO of Project Reason. He
received a Ph.D. in neuroscience from UCLA, and is a graduate in philosophy
from Stanford University. He has studied both Eastern and Western religious
traditions, along with a variety of contemplative disciplines, for twenty years. He
is a proponent of scientific skepticism and is the author of The End of Faith
(2004), which won the 2005 PEN/Martha Albrand Award, Letter to a Christian
Nation (2006), a rejoinder to criticism of his bits book, and The Moral Landscape
(2010).
Sam Harris breathes intellectual fire into an ancient debate. Reading this thrilling,
audacious book, you feel the ground shifting beneath your feet. Reason has
never had a more passionate advocate.
— Ian McEwan, author of Atonement, winner of the Man Booker Prize for
Amsterdam.
A lively, provocative, and timely new look at one of the deepest problems in the
world of ideas. Harris makes a powerful case for a morality that is based on
human flourishing and thoroughly enmeshed with science and rationality. It is a
tremendously appealing vision, and one that no thinking person can afford to
ignore.
— Steven Pinker, Professor of Psychology at Harvard University, author of How
the Mind Works and The Blank Slate.
I was one of those who had unthinkingly bought into the hectoring myth that
science can say nothing about morals. The Moral Landscape has changed all that
for me. Moral philosophers, too, will find their world exhilaratingly turned upside
down, as they discover a need to learn some neuroscience. As for religion, and
the preposterous idea that we need God to be good, nobody wields a sharper
bayonet than Sam Harris.
— Richard Dawkins, author of The Selfish Gene, The God Delusion, and The
Greatest Show On Earth
Reading Sam Harris is like drinking water from a cool stream on a hot day. He
has the rare ability to frame arguments that are not only stimulating, they are
downright nourishing, even if you don’t always agree with him! In this new book
he argues from a philosophical and a neurobiological perspective that science can
and should determine morality. As was the case with Harris’ previous books,
readers are bound to come away with previously firm convictions about the world
challenged, and a vital new awareness about the nature and value of science and
reason in our lives.
— Lawrence M. Krauss, theoretical physicist, Director of the Origins Project at
Arizona State University, author of The Physics of Star Trek and Quantum Man:
Richard Feynman’s Life in Science.
The is-ought fallacy (Hume) is a real fallacy, and is why knowledge is justified, true belief (Plato). In order to be knowledge, a belief must both be justified by the evidence, and true by correspondence. If we consider justified a belief that only corresponds, we commit the is-ought fallacy. If we consider a belief true merely due to evidence in favor of it, we commit the ought-is fallacy.
ReplyDeleteRelated to moral truth--if a justified (answering the question of Ethics--"How and why should we be or behave with the Other and self?") moral standard doesn't describe anything in reality, to consider it "true" commits the ought-is fallacy. If we take something from reality and call it moral truth, neglecting to consider whether it is justified (answering the question of Ethics), we commit the is-ought fallacy. In order for there to be moral truth, it must both correspond to (a) real being, and it must be justified (answering the question of Ethics). Its correspondence is not its justification (is=/=ought), and its justification is not its correspondence (ought=/=is).
http://www.theswordandthesacrificephilosophy.blogspot.com/