tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post7233693966829635945..comments2023-09-24T07:53:50.826-05:00Comments on The Atheist Experience™: More Secular Morality videos: the follow-up panelUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger59125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-72958232424969658182010-12-13T04:56:04.421-06:002010-12-13T04:56:04.421-06:00Life is a journey
What you have gone through can h...Life is a journey<br />What you have gone through can help others<br />Please share<br /><br />http://wikijourney.orgUnknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08254563008415114623noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-37748984054486653822010-12-10T12:59:29.192-06:002010-12-10T12:59:29.192-06:00The muslim girl was pretty brave and probably not ...The muslim girl was pretty brave and probably not used to be on the spot like this. So kudos. But On the moral questions she tipe-toed around and didn't know quite what to say. Ultimatly she does the same thing, most Christians do: "I cannot judge my god. Maybe there's a plan." And so on.sans_Dieuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11437040905394792018noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-87890570241509441932010-12-09T20:05:56.590-06:002010-12-09T20:05:56.590-06:00shook didn't do so well in his debate against ...shook didn't do so well in his debate against craig. watch the whole thing on youtube. here's a fun excerpt. <br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcnZRctcleMSungyakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04066518133582818210noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-37848822063316292442010-12-02T05:14:41.174-06:002010-12-02T05:14:41.174-06:00Damn, that muslim girl was annoying as fuck.
I hat...Damn, that muslim girl was annoying as fuck.<br />I hate it when people are so vague to the point that nothing they say has a real meaing.<br />"i believe we are all americans in this room"<br />bla bla balJohnboyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01428622628537697916noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-29351531117496603192010-11-30T15:31:47.034-06:002010-11-30T15:31:47.034-06:00Her bravery (not that it was vastly heroic) was in...Her bravery (not that it was vastly heroic) was in turning up in the first place, asking honest questions and sticking around to have dialogue with people. <br />I think its complicated enough to be a self identified muslim female in the West these days as it is, even among well meaning whites. There most discussion of religion is politely avoided at best. To go in knowing that it's <i>the</i> subject du jour, become the centre of attention and still at least engage; It's a good show of character is the thing, I think. Plus being from a group that perhaps isn't engaged with enough.<br /><br />Compare with the others who spoke up, basically ranted for a bit and stormed out (did the guy near the camera storm out? I can't remember). That's the context for her praise, I think.Muzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13623963325540060813noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-63039007967497040382010-11-30T13:45:34.853-06:002010-11-30T13:45:34.853-06:00The porn guy didn't seem to have a problem tel...The porn guy didn't seem to have a problem telling his point of view. <br /><br />I agree that, for some people, it can be difficult to speak your mind in such a gathering. Some people actually <i>enjoy</i> it, though. I don't want to make too much of it. I'm happy she was there. I wish more dissenting groups were represented. It's just that the applause for being "brave and smart" seemed a bit much and kind of pandering.rrpostalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03336728549010108830noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-64832750533375589142010-11-30T12:41:57.835-06:002010-11-30T12:41:57.835-06:00@rrpostal - That was my problem with it. However, ...@rrpostal - That was my problem with it. However, from my own standpoint, I will say that it is brave to sit in a room full of people that you know have a drastically different opinion than you, and attempt to speak your point of view. I don't know if I could speak my mind in a room full of theists.<br /><br />The problem is, of course, that she rarely spoke her mind. And I was glad that Matt pointed that out. It is a common problem in discussions with theists - they either don't wish to go against their dogma, or they already realize that some of the things they personally do or believe don't mesh with their god's behavior or their religion's dogma. And so they stammer and beat around the question and ultimately never answer. It's extremely frustrating.BatDaddyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01097082523094150258noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-50035601324959918472010-11-30T05:45:09.083-06:002010-11-30T05:45:09.083-06:00I feel like a heel here, but I didn't find the...I feel like a heel here, but I didn't find the "brave, educated muslim woman" to be particularly brave or educated. Nor did I see any sign that she likes to "think outside of the box". I thought she sounded self congratulatory and smug. Well "in <i>my religion</i> we see the inner beauty", "in <i>my religion</i> we think that...yada yada". I may have read too much into that, but I got the feeling she says that a lot. She was literally and overtly afraid to speak her own opinions for fear that it would be outside of the dogma. I didn't even think she listened very well. When presented with a rebuttal she said "I agree" even if it directly contradicted what she had already said and was unable to grasp the problem each time. <br /><br />I don't harbour any ill will towards her in particular. I just didn't see where she deserved a rousing round of applause for simply showing up and telling us what a great person she was. I'm glad she was (almost) willing to throw her hat into the ring of public discourse. I would not want to discourage her from doing so in any way. But if we must roundly applaud each time we eke out such a sparse dialog, I think we have a long way to go.rrpostalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03336728549010108830noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-37812877153844244462010-11-29T19:16:59.797-06:002010-11-29T19:16:59.797-06:00Regarding the muslim woman: the intelligent are us...Regarding the muslim woman: the intelligent are usually the best at justifying the absurd.magx01https://www.blogger.com/profile/14831638782847911405noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-68765560370314592782010-11-29T05:08:08.799-06:002010-11-29T05:08:08.799-06:00My initial post didn't make it: It was essenti...My initial post didn't make it: It was essentially saying I enjoyed the debate but the actual topic of discussion was 'the source of human morality', and that was not really discussed. Prescriptive aspects were discussed: where we should get our morals from, but descriptive aspects were generally neglected, particularly considering the title and topic. <br /><br />My main point was any debate or discussion asking what the source of our morality is requires, well, a discussion of what the source of our morality is. This undeniable requires discussions of human evolution. I hope if you have any debates like this in the future, you can introduce to the theist that there are very well-researched, solid discussions of the evolution of human morality.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02319824714208902736noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-33769364338346998702010-11-29T05:01:36.205-06:002010-11-29T05:01:36.205-06:00And while you would be able to take any issue and ...And while you would be able to take any issue and scrutinize it's validity, and use a scientific, skeptical eye as part of your individual applications of reason, you cannot, and will not, do this with everything. It is not practical, and not desirable. To go back to the biophilia example of constructing physical societies that see the importance and merit of nature reserves, parks, trees, plants, rivers, lakes, and so on (permeable naturalistic environments) as a part of human psychological wellbeing and hence social flourishing, and of course it's basis in our evolved psychology, consider this: you will internalize this very important social value through simply living in the society and experiencing it. You may decide to test it with computer simulations, scrutinizing psychological research, and so on, but in all likelihood you won't. You will acquire this value from your society, from it's social norms: but this will be a well-informed society using applied science, and will be a better source from which to derive part (not all, but a major part) of what you call your morality.<br /><br />PS) I'm sorry for putting down so many posts, didn't realize how long the rant was.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02319824714208902736noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-57259738619022250452010-11-29T05:00:54.203-06:002010-11-29T05:00:54.203-06:00We cannot learn everything by individual trial-and...We cannot learn everything by individual trial-and-error: it is simply not possible. There are many things we have to learn from others. What we ultimately want, and I don't think this is something Matt disagrees with, is applying scientific principles and scrutinizing assumptions and normative claims with a skeptical methodology. <br /><br />Imagine such a world. Even under these conditions, humans would still use their evolved, efficient heuristic of exploiting easily acquired information from social learning to construct a worldview and morality. This would not occur in a vacuum, not remotely. If you have a population of well-informed, scientifically literate people who use reason to develop an emerging and fluid morality, you have a pretty decent self-correcting mechanism with regard to values and norms, their functional relevance, environmental sustainability, social impact, and so on. You can, and will, still garner a consider part of your internalized norms, worldview, and notions of fairness and unfairness, from your society--it's just that your society will be a more reliable, informed, and ultimately reasonable pool of information and practices from which to draw such views and outlooks.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02319824714208902736noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-87532134462080843522010-11-29T04:59:41.766-06:002010-11-29T04:59:41.766-06:00Knowledge is serial, culture, technology, practice...Knowledge is serial, culture, technology, practices, social norms, practices, and so on are cumulative, building off of previous forms and/or with reference to others. We cannot learn everything by individual trial-and-error: it is simply not possible. There are many things we have to learn from others. What we ultimately want, and I don't think this is something Matt disagrees with, is applying scientific principles and scrutinizing assumptions and normative claims with a skeptical methodology. <br /><br />Imagine such a world. Even under these conditions, humans would still use their evolved, efficient heuristic of exploiting easily acquired information from social learning to construct a worldview and morality. This would not occur in a vacuum, not remotely. If you have a population of well-informed, scientifically literate people who use reason to develop an emerging and fluid morality, you have a pretty decent self-correcting mechanism with regard to values and norms, their functional relevance, environmental sustainability, social impact, and so on. You can, and will, still garner a consider part of your internalized norms, worldview, and notions of fairness and unfairness, from your society--it's just that your society will be a more reliable, informed, and ultimately reasonable pool of information and practices from which to draw such views and outlooks. <br /><br />And while you would be able to take any issue and scrutinize it's validity, and use a scientific, skeptical eye as part of your individual applications of reason, you cannot, and will not, do this with everything. It is not practical, and not desirable. To go back to the biophilia example of constructing physical societies that see the importance and merit of nature reserves, parks, trees, plants, rivers, lakes, and so on (permeable naturalistic environments) as a part of human psychological wellbeing and hence social flourishing, and of course it's basis in our evolved psychology, consider this: you will internalize this very important social value through simply living in the society and experiencing it. You may decide to test it with computer simulations, scrutinizing psychological research, and so on, but in all likelihood you won't. You will acquire this value from your society, from it's social norms: but this will be a well-informed society using applied science, and will be a better source from which to derive part (not all, but a major part) of what you call your morality.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02319824714208902736noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-73447866829229945672010-11-29T04:59:04.175-06:002010-11-29T04:59:04.175-06:00This is relevant to morality in a couple of ways, ...This is relevant to morality in a couple of ways, not to be confused with an advocation of moral relativism. As Sam Harris discusses, there are many different ways of flourishing and suffering, so to speak, just as there are many different ways to enjoy food without rendering the distinction between actual nutrition and poison superficial. This is not moral relativism, but an acknowledgement of both ecological adaptation, and that the details of social life have a direct relationship, and interface, with the wider environment. To give a basic example, if there is only one plant growing in a community that is needed to sooth the nausea of a cancer sufferer (assume it cannot be regrown fast enough, nor acquired from elsewhere), it is wrong to pluck it to make a fine hat and swagger around the place. In another part of the world, where the plant flourishes in such abundance that it is considered a pest, such behavior would surely not be considered wrong, if not kind of douche-bag worthy.<br /><br />Is this moral relativism? No. What it is, is an acknowledgment of a relationship between social values and their impact on others, and this will not be the same, in it's specific details, with absolutely everything, everywhere. <br /><br />And finally, we have throughout our evolution, continue to do so, and likely always will, derive a variety of our values and notions of fairness from social norms--from society in general. Once again, I need to emphasize that this is not a relativistic prescription, but a description of how social life works. We engage in individual, trial-and-error learning, as well as social learning from others and the wider social environment. There will never, and can never be an elimination of the latter.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02319824714208902736noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-33861931817281557672010-11-29T04:58:01.355-06:002010-11-29T04:58:01.355-06:00The main point is really that, without reference t...The main point is really that, without reference to evolution and the nature of human sociality, discussions of the 'source of human morality' are positively unsatisfying. When it comes down to it, it's really very simple. Do we actually want to understand what this thing is? And have we realized yet that prescriptions do in fact require descriptions and more thoroughgoing prognoses? <br /><br />Without ranting for too long on this last point--I noticed Matt is not a moral relativist. I agree with him on this, but it is important in this regard to remember the distinction between description and prescription, since as a species we do, in fact, garner our social norms from cultural and ecological contexts. That is not a recommendation, but an empirical fact. Furthermore, as a species we are highly adaptable to different physical and social environments, with regards to our behaviors and preferences. Evolution in fact selected this plasticity, as a highly adaptive environmentally contingent capability. <br />We have a remarkably strong feedback to our environment with regard to acquiring a language, a kind of moral grammar, social norms, and other cultural aspects of life, as well as individually learned, ecologically relevant behavioral adaptations that are the result of a kind of evolved cognitive heuristic. Environmental plasticity is one of the secrets of our survival, and cultural diversity.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02319824714208902736noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-57088459579912845392010-11-29T04:55:09.760-06:002010-11-29T04:55:09.760-06:00I enjoyed the debate and Matt was composed.
My cr...I enjoyed the debate and Matt was composed. <br />My criticism is that, considering the title and topic "The Source of Human Morality," and being a grad student studying the evolution of cooperation and altruism in humans, I was rubbing my hands hoping for a good discussing of the rich wealth of empirical and theoretical work we have to explain morality, it's components, and of course, it's evolutionary origins.<br /><br />This was what should have been discussed, considering the title--the source of what we call human morality. I still very much enjoyed the debate, but check this out Matt and co.: not only is a rigorous scientific descriptive basis important when debating a theist (they're position is inherently non-naturalistic with regards to morality in most cases), but it is actually very important to have a rich understanding and acknowledgment of its evolutionary source and related understandings from neuroscience to theories of social norms, etc, as part of our prescriptive basis.<br /><br />To understand the evolutionary relevance, and physiological workings, of nutrition is part and parcel of the wider discussion and emergence of what we might consider a healthy diet. This is precisely the case with moral values, particular if we draw an analogy of society as a form of social organism and consider issues such as social pathology, and unsustainable as well as maladaptive norms and codes. In other words, to take an approach similar to Sam Harris as you discussed, we absolutely need as part of the groundwork, a thorough-going understanding of the evolution of morality: 'the source of human morality'.<br /><br />Rationalization, to paraphrase A. C. Grayling, is about a ratio between data and evidence and the credibility of the arguments employed on its behalf. You cannot simply invoke reason in and of itself: you require a signifiant reference. Yes, female genital mutilation is a no-brainer. It's not okay. But we must understand the social working of morality (which requires evolutionary understanding, social and cultural theory, evolutionary psychology, behavioralism in general, etc), to understand the underlying root cause of something we may consider wrong, and hence more effectively deal with it. <br /><br />This is especially true with regard to psychological and social pathologies, on an individual level and with regard to dysfunctional norms and practices that lead to more suffering. Even deceptively unnoticed issues such as the lack of available natural habitats has a negative psychological, and eventually social, effect. The research has been done, and it's no surprise: interaction with nature so to speak has a profoundly beneficial influence on individual physical and psychological well-being, even in recovery research in hospitals (the wider evolutionary implications are described in the biophilia hypothesis).<br /><br />Negative, dysfunctional, 'immoral' behavior has a direct environmental relevance, and much of it has evolutionary connotations. the understanding not only allows us a glimpse into human sociality, but would provide us with more effective tools to deal with it, and a scientific reference to secular morality, making it pretty damn robust.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02319824714208902736noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-62816910622824297232010-11-29T00:15:58.216-06:002010-11-29T00:15:58.216-06:00I apologize if I double post, my posted comment di...I apologize if I double post, my posted comment disappeared, so I will try to shorten what I typed.<br /><br />@Blahface: If you are talking about the man at the end of part 3 he did mention the gulags in The Soviet Union, but I think Gregory Paul's response was justified. The man stated that historical evidence contradicts everything Mr. paul had said, and Mr. Paul replied with about 6 different historic facts that supported his claims, only mentioning Hitler at the end. What bothered me was when the man said that he knows people that have personally suffered at the hands of atheists, and they were forcing them to become atheists, he was not questioned about this. To say that someone can be forced to have a belief is ludicrous.<br /><br />@The man to the left of the camera: I don't know if you will see this, but let us start with a simple thought experiment.<br /><br />Think of your favorite color ... got it? ... good.<br />Now think of any other color ...<br />OK, now make that other color your favorite for now on.<br /><br />If someone can't change their own mind about something as trivial as a favorite color, how could you force someone to believe something else?<br /><br />Maybe this panel discussion wasn't the proper place to call him out on this, but I still wish something was said about his comment.MAtheisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12489281535410681576noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-17321566939097030872010-11-28T23:33:54.387-06:002010-11-28T23:33:54.387-06:00@Blahface, if you are talking about Gregory Paul&#...@Blahface, if you are talking about Gregory Paul's response to the man at the end of part 3, I think his reply was justified. The man said that "the historical evidence contradicts everything that you (Gregory Paul) just said." Mr. Paul replied with historical evidence in his defense; that Catholics ghettoized Jews, the U.S. reservations - The Trail of Tears, German concentration camps for Africans, and the idea for eugenics before even mentioning Hitler.<br /><br />What bothered me was when this man said he knew people that had personally suffered at the hands of atheists, and they were forcing them to become atheists, there was no response from the panel about this. I wish he had been questioned about this, because this seems ludicrous.<br /><br />To the man at the left of the camera: How can you be forced to believe something? Could you even make yourself believe something else if you so desired? Try this simple thought experiment for starters-<br /><br />Think of your favorite color ... got it? ... good.<br />Now think of any other color .... <br />OK, now make that other color your favorite from now on.<br /><br />If you can't even achieve this with something as trivial as a favorite color, how would someone be forced to change a belief some consider to be the most important thing in their lives?<br /><br />Maybe this panel discussion was not the place to call him out on this, but I do wish that someone had replied to this comment of his as well.MAtheisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12489281535410681576noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-3436273613876572872010-11-28T21:56:17.563-06:002010-11-28T21:56:17.563-06:00The thing that really bothered me about this panel...The thing that really bothered me about this panel was that there was way too much crosstalk. I also didn't like how they answered some of the questions. When that guy said that he saw an atheist regime kill people and that ruined the panels credibility, that guy went into a spiel about how Hitler was a catholic. That guy in the audience could have been talking about the Soviet Union. The response should have been to point out that his assertion was a straw man.Blahfacehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11095872133663458486noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-61194357381523751122010-11-28T18:20:17.705-06:002010-11-28T18:20:17.705-06:00@Ross
Also the brave Muslim girl.
It doesn't...@Ross<br /><br /><i>Also the brave Muslim girl.</i><br /><br />It doesn't surprise me, really. When you're surrounded by xenophobic people who can aggressively (if not violently) disagree with you, you tend to develop a thick skin.JThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08881036419280903737noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-20015855637704213122010-11-28T17:42:56.204-06:002010-11-28T17:42:56.204-06:00The Muslim girl didn't say much about what her...The Muslim girl didn't say much about what her faith helped her through, but she did say it was the death of someone close to her. What religion offered her was probably a lie. That lie is the idea that she will someday see that person again. All skepticism can offer her is cold harsh reality. I don't know what we can do to help people who really want a comforting lie.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16648934682572258191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-50772748386118607182010-11-28T16:41:34.954-06:002010-11-28T16:41:34.954-06:00SSA, that's no problem. This was more than any...SSA, that's no problem. This was more than any of use asked for or expected, I think. I appreciated the amount that was available to watch.<br /><br />Also the brave Muslim girl.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06417592704425743207noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-39265959426356110842010-11-28T14:59:27.804-06:002010-11-28T14:59:27.804-06:00JT, good catch and I realized it after I posted it...JT, good catch and I realized it after I posted it. We live in such a heavily indoctrinated christianized society it's hard not to fall into their druken way of thinking at times. I tend to agree that 'purpose implies intention' and most christian's probably know it.<br /><br />Now I'm trying to think what other word I can substitute for purpose without implying any creator.Gods_misled_children87110https://www.blogger.com/profile/11653377626574661051noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-74619931459069759432010-11-28T14:34:51.421-06:002010-11-28T14:34:51.421-06:00This comment has been removed by the author.Gods_misled_children87110https://www.blogger.com/profile/11653377626574661051noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-21237889846740298882010-11-28T14:13:40.065-06:002010-11-28T14:13:40.065-06:00This comment has been removed by the author.Gods_misled_children87110https://www.blogger.com/profile/11653377626574661051noreply@blogger.com