David Hume vs. Sam Harris

[angrysoba]

…seriously ?!?!?!? You actually want me to hunt around JREF for examples of posts describing religion as nasty, hypocritical, contradictory, and / or psychotic!!!

You’re kidding right?

Or is it the ‘kindergarten drivel’ bit that sticks in your craw. Skeptics endlessly stew religion in every variety of illiterate nonsense. I call it what it is....kindergarten drivel.

I think he meant a specific thing that Harris said in the debate that can be called "kindergarten drivel" of the same calibre as that up with which you put.

 

[westprog]

I really don't care to watch that debate again, but I echo what others have said. Harris gave a sorta fulfilling opening, but in his second and third he pretty much regurgitated "Isn't Islam bad?", "Can you imagine?", "Imagine for a moment", "God is evil", "Old Testament God killed a lot of people", "Biblical God God God talking points", when even after skewering Harris' first entries Craig purported to not be making any claims about Biblical God. (Though of course, and damningly, he did describe God Biblically as All-Good; too bad Harris isn't smart enough to have pointed to that).

Truly, Harris' side of the debate was pathetic. He went totally sideline and off-topic. I haven't seen a more pathetic intellectual display since I was on my high school quiz show and got zero questions right and cost my team the win. It's even more pathetic since Craig left a ton of openings.

I don't think that Harris addressed a single point that Craig made. He doesn't seem to be interested in philosophy, per se, at all. That's fine - there's no rule that says everyone has to be - but if you are going to engage in philosophical debate, then you need to be reasonably familiar with the terms of engagement.

Btw, I also don't care to watch his TED talk again, or read his refutation essays on objections to his Moral Landscape again. If someone who's seen/read all of these isn't aware he's an idiot, there are no actual specific quotes anyone can give to convince them otherwise [obviously if I'm wrong, there's no quotes that can in turn make idiots like me see the Scientific Moral Light].

This seems to be a clear reality in dozens of pages on Harris thus far in these forums, where actual specific, unambiguous quotes have been given many times. Defenders of Harris seem to fashion superior ideas to those Harris has had in order to retroactivally claim he had these ideas in the first place. If we could collect defenders of Harris ideas into a book, it would be far superior to the actual book Harris put out.

Annnnoid and Wowbagger--agree with your responses and observations. Sorry if I was too piquant.

The test of the usefulness of Harris' ideas is - "How would I live my life differently after listening to him". I can't imagine anyone changing the way they live because of anything he's said.

I agree that Craig didn't say or do anything very special, but he didn't have to. His "technical argument" was simply left untouched.

 

[westprog]

It matters to reality.

Or, if we consign reality and logical proofs to the quaint dustbin of history, it still matters to current pragmatic political theory. As has been said, Harris' "Scientific answering of moral questions" seems wholly Western-based (except for his Buddhism fetish). He'll continue to shoehorn his distaste of other cultures (particularly Islam) into his supposedly scientific, objective moral landscape.

Even more dangerous, he IS actually seeking or becoming a title of new Prophet, with Science in the place of God. The analogy is apt imo because neither religion, nor Harris' ridiculous claims are grounded in logic or science, yet both seek to be a transcendant and wholly truthful idea.

I'm reminded of a baffling objection to some philosophical positions: "Then what does it offer?" As in science, philosophy isn't intended to provide a comfortable blanket. Their purpose isn't to offer anyone any easy position to lie in. If a particular science or philosophy can't "offer" any easy comfort, that doesn't mean it's wrong. And if idiots who exploit them can, that doesn't mean they're right just because/if this makes adherants think they have an answer. Some things don't have an answer, and never will.

For example, he's justified state torture. It's fortunate that he remains a very minor influence, but his kind of "whatever works" morality has led to some very bad things.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

But, I suspect both the Hume Camp and the Harris Camp actually agree on almost everything, fundamentally.

If my hypothesis is true, then I should be able to demonstrate this by "translating" Harris Language (Harrisese?) into Hume Language (Humese?) and vice versa.

But, the demo will have to wait until after SkeptiCamp NYC.

I don't think you have to translate much of anything. I don't really think of this in terms of camps, but Harris and Hume had the same basic concept of morality -- Hume was an early utilitarian before Bentham. And if you read Mill and Bentham you see that they did not speak in the same terms that utilitarianism is placed in most debates. Mill, for instance, had a fairly nuanced view of things and did think in terms of character and fairness as well.

This debate really only concerned a very narrow issue that isn't all that important; it's more a debate issue than something that will change anyone's life.

I think the easiest way to sum up my view of it in the terms you were using earlier:

I see a basic distinction that Harris misses in the is-ought issue while discussing brain states. It is the case that all 'oughts' are 'ises' at least in form, but this misses the point I fear. When we speak of an "is" such as 'humans desire fat', there is the form of that desire (a brain state) and the content of that desire (the actual desiring). When we speak of the is-ought distinction what we mean is that we cannot move from the content (humans desire fat) to an ought statement "humans should desire fat" without some other input to determine if that is a good idea or not. While "humans should desire fat" is a brain state -- an "is" in form -- it also has a content that requires another input to determine if it is a good idea for the organism and therefore something that it should do or not do. So, for an "is" to become an "ought" requires two interacting brain states -- the original "is" transformed from a world-to-word direction of fit (description -- humans desire fat) into a word-to-world direction of fit (imperative -- humans should desire fat) along with another framing brain state that determines if that imperative actually is a good idea.

In other words, an 'is' can't directly go to become an 'ought' without there being another brain state to frame it (even though we are speaking of brain states in all instances). That is why we have the distinction in the first place.

 

[Paul2]

I think he meant a specific thing that Harris said in the debate that can be called "kindergarten drivel" of the same calibre as that up with which you put.

This^

 

[annnnoid]

This^

Like I said, I’ve absolutely no interest in watching it again in an effort to locate such details. Facing an opponent with substantial philosophical credentials I was finally hoping that Harris would step up and show his stuff. He didn’t…. and not only did he not, he completely bombed out. The fact that he resorted to the equivalent of religious name-calling says about everything that needs to be said about the caliber of that debate.

 

[Paul2]

Like I said, I’ve absolutely no interest in watching it again in an effort to locate such details.

That's OK, I can accept that. But I, then, have absolutely no interest in accepting what you say. For me, assertion minus evidence equals not much.

 

[AlBell]

That's OK, I can accept that. But I, then, have absolutely no interest in accepting what you say. For me, assertion minus evidence equals not much.

You could watch it yourself.

Or not. As usual, your choice.

 

[Paul2]

You could watch it yourself.

Or not. As usual, your choice.

I have watched it. That still leaves me wondering what he is talking about. I could guess which sections or quotes he is talking about, but I might be wrong.

 

[annnnoid]

I have watched it. That still leaves me wondering what he is talking about. I could guess which sections or quotes he is talking about, but I might be wrong.

This....

I really don't care to watch that debate again, but I echo what others have said. Harris gave a sorta fulfilling opening, but in his second and third he pretty much regurgitated "Isn't Islam bad?", "Can you imagine?", "Imagine for a moment", "God is evil", "Old Testament God killed a lot of people", "Biblical God God God talking points", when even after skewering Harris' first entries Craig purported to not be making any claims about Biblical God. (Though of course, and damningly, he did describe God Biblically as All-Good; too bad Harris isn't smart enough to have pointed to that).

Truly, Harris' side of the debate was pathetic. He went totally sideline and off-topic. I haven't seen a more pathetic intellectual display since I was on my high school quiz show and got zero questions right and cost my team the win. It's even more pathetic since Craig left a ton of openings.

 

[westprog]

This....

It's what he doesn't say in part 2 that's significant rather than what he does say. If he comes near having an argument, it's that since religion is so awful, any alternative is better, regardless of whether it's thought through or not.

 

[Paul2]

All Harris seemed capable of was resorting to the usual.. ‘ oh but religion is nasty and hypocritical and contradictory and psychotic and and and ‘. I mean…c’mon, I put up with that caliber of kindergarten drivel from juvenile JREFers. Is it too much to expect a little more from one of atheism's leading lights…especially a dude with a philosophy degree and a neuroscience degree who’s just written a book insisting that the entire foundation of human morality can now be re-written. Philosophically speaking, he got hit hard and he seemed to realize that he was behind right from the beginning. Rather lame. I guess I was simply hoping for a more substantial defense of his position…given all the objections that have been raised to it…and it not only did not appear, but his opponent provided a much better case for the counter position.

OK, the other shoe can finally drop.

A debate, first of all, is not necessarily the best or only way of judging the worth of claims or arguments. Harris certainly lost the debate, the consensus seems, at least in terms of the process and expectations of a debate.

But that doesn't mean that Harris' claims or statements are kindergarten drivel. His view about scientific morality may be incorrect, but that doesn't mean that statements that religion is (can be) contradictory come from juveniles.

Separate his debating skills from whatever value there might be in his statements in the debate otherwise.

 

[annnnoid]

OK, the other shoe can finally drop.

A debate, first of all, is not necessarily the best or only way of judging the worth of claims or arguments. Harris certainly lost the debate, the consensus seems, at least in terms of the process and expectations of a debate.

But that doesn't mean that Harris' claims or statements are kindergarten drivel. His view about scientific morality may be incorrect, but that doesn't mean that statements that religion is (can be) contradictory come from juveniles.

Separate his debating skills from whatever value there might be in his statements in the debate otherwise.

…the fact that he would bring up statements within a debate that had nothing what-so-ever to do with the statements does nothing to recommend the content of whatever he might bring up. Quite the opposite. It makes him, and his arguments, look foolish. Regardless, I’ve heard him use the exact same positions in just about every debate I’ve listened to. It’s old, it’s tiresome, and it’s boring. For the most part, the positions themselves are simplistic and juvenile and this, quite obviously, is not the place to debate them.

 

[Paul2]

…the fact that he would bring up statements within a debate that had nothing what-so-ever to do with the debate does nothing to recommend the content of whatever he might bring up. Quite the opposite. It makes him, and his arguments, look foolish. Regardless, I’ve heard him use the exact same positions in just about every debate I’ve listened to. It’s old, it’s tiresome, and it’s boring. For the most part, the positions themselves are simplistic and juvenile and this, quite obviously, is not the place to debate them.

Strictly speaking, the event at which someone makes a statement has nothing to do with whether the statement is true, valid, etc. apart from the circumstance of the event. In Harris' case, he might be such a lousy debater that all he can do is to say his best arguments against theism or religion in general. That says nothing about whether those claims are good ones separate from the circumstance of their utterance.

If he looks foolish, that has nothing to do with whether his arguments are foolish, unless you don't accept the ad hominem fallacy.

I agree that this is not the place to debate his arguments, some of which are not simplistic nor juvenile.

 

[westprog]

Strictly speaking, the event at which someone makes a statement has nothing to do with whether the statement is true, valid, etc. apart from the circumstance of the event. In Harris' case, he might be such a lousy debater that all he can do is to say his best arguments against theism or religion in general. That says nothing about whether those claims are good ones separate from the circumstance of their utterance.

If he looks foolish, that has nothing to do with whether his arguments are foolish, unless you don't accept the ad hominem fallacy.

I agree that this is not the place to debate his arguments, some of which are not simplistic nor juvenile.

I don't think you can separate the arguments from their context. Making inappropriate comments in the wrong context is almost a definition of juvenile behaviour, regardless of how accurate the comments themselves might be, as anyone who's had to tell a five year old to be quiet knows.

 

[Paul2]

I don't think you can separate the arguments from their context. Making inappropriate comments in the wrong context is almost a definition of juvenile behaviour, regardless of how accurate the comments themselves might be, as anyone who's had to tell a five year old to be quiet knows.

All inappropriate comments in the wrong context are not juvenile. I think you're equivocating "inappropriate." A juvenile inappropriate comment would be something along the lines of using swear words at the wrong time (not with one's peers, but with adults, say), or bringing up something embarrassing about someone else and not understanding the position you put them in, etc.

Arguing a different but related point in a debate is not juvenile per se. It's just not being a good debater.

 

[Reivax]

 

[Venom]

I actually thought it was kinda an attractive point raised abruptly by Harris near the middle of the debate onward.

He fought fire with fire, a risky move, but if that's what it takes to potentially win the audience over, more power to him.

Clearly, most of the more well-known atheists before him failed in 'winning' the actual debate, so, Harris resorted to Hitchens' emotional and absurdity appeal to even the odds a bit by grabbing at the audience.

I actually read a few informative blogs talking about how to "deal with William Lane Craig" specifically. Pretty funny read.

 

[Wowbagger]

[qimg]http://i.qkme.me/4fc9.jpg[/qimg]

For all of his faults, I still think Sam Harris is smarter than Ben Stiller.

Though, neither of them can make me laugh very much.

 

[westprog]

I actually thought it was kinda an attractive point raised abruptly by Harris near the middle of the debate onward.

He fought fire with fire, a risky move, but if that's what it takes to potentially win the audience over, more power to him.

Clearly, most of the more well-known atheists before him failed in 'winning' the actual debate, so, Harris resorted to Hitchens' emotional and absurdity appeal to even the odds a bit by grabbing at the audience.

I actually read a few informative blogs talking about how to "deal with William Lane Craig" specifically. Pretty funny read.

I wonder how many people had their minds changed, though? That's really the test.