Ben Shapiro vs Sam Harris

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
Is this it? I haven't had a chance to listen to it yet, but I'll probably Podcast it at some point...

YouTube video

I'm in the process of listening to this live event Podcast with Sam Harris, Ben Shapiro and Eric Weinstein. It's a fun listen, I have to admit.

I didn't know much about Ben Shapiro before this and I have to admit that he's charismatic and has an infectious laugh, haha. But he's obviously very confused on religion, being an orthodox Jew. He even admits that he believes that God revealed himself. But I will give him credit in that he tries to keep that nonsense out of his politics. So he at least gets some respect from me.

I love how Sam Harris dismantled the often used is/ought distinction in one fell swoop (starting at 44:25 on the video). So I'll paraphrase his dismantling. So the claim is that science can only tell you what is, and not the way things ought to be, so morality for example. But what else is there to use to determine what should be other than knowing as much as you can about the way the real world and reality in general is?

And I'll add on to that my own elaboration: Take a child. You tell children not to hit someone or take someone else's toys. They may not understand why yet. So that's why children need an adult to tell them what's right. This is sort of authoritarian morality, like what people think of the Bible. God is needed to be that authority laying down morals. But as that child grows up they learn that you don't hit people because they have feelings too, and you consequently don't kill people, not because "God Said So," but because they have loved ones who will miss them. The Bible and Koran lay down morals in sort of an authoritarian way and people don't question it, but as humanity in general grows up the why becomes important. So abortion for example: If a zygote is just a collection of cells without a nervous system yet, then there is obviously no harm in aborting it because no suffering will occur. Science gives us that information, so it obviously can have a hand in moral matters. Holy books with their primitive morals like obeying the Sabbath or something silly like that don't really have any logical basis in reality. So it's telling an ought without an is and that's just nonsensical.

But yeah, anyway it's a good listen. I'm not quite done with it yet, though.

*at 44:25"

Damn. How long does this "Debate" go on for?

Over 2 FIKA-ING HOURS!!!!! Ugh.....

Shapiro's arguments about religion being needed for morality are just hilariously bad, even if the rest of his case is pretty well thought out (if not something I'd agree with).

Originally posted by The Ellimist
Shapiro's arguments about religion being needed for morality are just hilariously bad, even if the rest of his case is pretty well thought out (if not something I'd agree with).

The thing with religion, is if you're rationalizing, everyone knows you re rationalizing.

Frankly, I don't believe a moral code is exclusive to religion, but I do think it helps with enforcing a moral code.

Religion or no, I believe a moral code is superior to moral relavism, because you can rationalize ANYTHING (As many people do.)

Right and wrong gets reduced to "what is good for me/my group", which obviously lead to logic like "This regieme is bad for a lot of people, but really good for us. So lets support it.

Until it's not, then we'll join the people it hurt that we ignored."

I think there are legitimate cases to be made for religion being pragmatically good, it's just Shapiro didn't make any, he just went to weird pseudo-philosophy and didn't grasp the rebuttals.

Originally posted by cdtm
[B]The thing with religion, is if you're rationalizing, everyone knows you re rationalizing.

Frankly, I don't believe a moral code is exclusive to religion, but I do think it helps with enforcing a moral code.

Religion or no, I believe a moral code is superior to moral relavism, because you can rationalize ANYTHING (As many people do.)

Right and wrong gets reduced to "what is good for me/my group", which obviously lead to logic like "This regieme is bad for a lot of people, but really good for us. So lets support it.

Religion's moral code is based on the blind acceptance of authority.

Originally posted by cdtm
[B]The thing with religion, is if you're rationalizing, everyone knows you re rationalizing.

Frankly, I don't believe a moral code is exclusive to religion, but I do think it helps with enforcing a moral code.

Religion or no, I believe a moral code is superior to moral relavism, because you can rationalize ANYTHING (As many people do.)

Right and wrong gets reduced to "what is good for me/my group", which obviously lead to logic like "This regieme is bad for a lot of people, but really good for us. So lets support it.

Religion's moral code is based on the blind acceptance of authority. Society has progressed socially as it's become less reliant on religion, not more.

The notion that religion makes society more moral is nonsense.

Shapiro's an idiot when it comes to religion. Free Will isn't remotely relevant to morality which is a natural result of human selection: People who work together are more likely to survive than those who don't.

Furthermore, "society stands on judeo-christian values" is nonsense. If such a claim was true, then society wouldn't continually progress as a direct result of us becoming less and less reliant on religion.

Ironically, Shapiro's "respressive goverments" follow authority coz authority wields power, which happens to be the fundamental premise of the judeo-christian belief he champions.

Shapiro's judeo-christian morality point is a genetic fallacy anyway.

Originally posted by The Ellimist
Shapiro's judeo-christian morality point is a genetic fallacy anyway.

Geez Fally... RACIST MUCH!?

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Religion's moral code is based on the blind acceptance of authority. Society has progressed socially as it's become less reliant on religion, not more.

The notion that religion makes society more moral is nonsense.

👆

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
👆

So better to adhere to the notion that the ABSENSE of religion makes society better as well?

Sounds like Hypocrisy to me.

Originally posted by Flyattractor
[b]So better to adhere to the notion that the ABSENSE of religion makes society better as well?
. [/B]

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Yes, because society has become better as it's gotten less religious.

now THAT is a HIGHLY Debatable Subject.

Originally posted by Flyattractor
[b]So better to adhere to the notion that the ABSENSE of religion makes society better as well? [/B]

Not necessarily. It depends on how you define religion and of course it depends on which religion and the degree of dogmatic belief held by the majority of people. That being said...

Originally posted by Flyattractor
[b]now THAT is a HIGHLY Debatable Subject. [/B]

Not really. Go spend some time in Saudi Arabia and see what you think (better yet go watch the short documentary about it, it was on Netflix a while back). And even some of the founders of the United States of America may have been Christians to one degree or another, but they were first and foremost secularists, which means they wanted to keep religion out of public policy. And that is undeniably a move away from religion. No one wants theocracy. It is the enemy of everyone.

(I honestly don't know why I waste my time with you, Fly, because you always insist on not seeing reason. I know you get off on playing devil's advocate, but anyway...)

Sam Harris just posted this on Facebook...

Getting from “Is” to “Ought”

1/ Let’s assume that there are no ought’s or should’s in this universe. There is only what *is*—the totality of actual (and possible) facts.

2/ Among the myriad things that exist are conscious minds, susceptible to a vast range of actual (and possible) experiences.

3/ Unfortunately, many experiences suck. And they don’t just suck as a matter of cultural convention or personal bias—they really and truly suck. (If you doubt this, place your hand on a hot stove and report back.)

4/ Conscious minds are natural phenomena. Consequently, if we were to learn everything there is to know about physics, chemistry, biology, psychology, economics, etc., we would know everything there is to know about making our corner of the universe suck less.

5/ If we *should* do anything in this life, we should avoid what really and truly sucks. (If you consider this question-begging, consult your stove, as above.)

6/ Of course, we can be confused or mistaken about experience. Something can suck for a while, only to reveal new experiences which don’t suck at all. On these occasions we say, “At first that sucked, but it was worth it!”

7/ We can also be selfish and shortsighted. Many solutions to our problems are zero-sum (my gain will be your loss). But *better* solutions aren’t. (By what measure of “better”? Fewer things suck.)

8/ So what is morality? What *ought* sentient beings like ourselves do? Understand how the world works (facts), so that we can avoid what sucks (values).

(Hm.. can't edit for some reason)

^ I would argue that much of religion has actually been a barrier to morality.

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
Not necessarily. It depends on how you define religion and of course it depends on which religion and the degree of dogmatic belief held by the majority of people. That being said...

😮‍💨

Ben is more suited to debating in the political arena.

Sam Harris is great, though he's no Christopher Hitchens.

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
(Hm.. can't edit for some reason)

^ I would argue that much of religion has actually been a barrier to morality.

And there are some would say that is just You Looking at it thru your own very Biased Opinion.

Especially in todays' Secular World where morals are pretty much going out the window.