Problem with Sam Harris

[samsonite2100]

Although Harris usually intellectually overwhelms his religious opponents, I think he falls flat when he's challenged with the old "well where do you atheists get your morality from" question. He tends to fall back into wishy-washy spiritual/humanist catchphrases and avoids the intellectually honest answer, which is "nowhere." I assume he does so mostly out of a desire to give atheism a better PR image, but really, if you're atheist (as I am), you can't honestly subscribe to any kind of objective morality, can you? It's the one place he loses me, and I wish he'd be honest about it, as his position strikes me as the worst kind of wanting to have it both ways.

[Sephus]

[ QUOTE ]
intellectually honest answer, which is "nowhere."

[/ QUOTE ]

from other people, ultimately from evolution.

[Ben K]

I have absolutely no problem with morality evolving.

Morality is just a set of rules about interaction with other humans just like grammar is a set of rules about communication.

It came out of nowhere is a sense then but only in the same sense as legs came out of nowhere.

[Ben K]

Of course, the evolution of morality may explain why christianity became so popular, the set of morals it proposed were close to the perfect match for the society in which they were drafted so there was a big social advantage from following these rules instead of others. Speculation tho...

[samsonite2100]

[ QUOTE ]
I have absolutely no problem with morality evolving.

Morality is just a set of rules about interaction with other humans just like grammar is a set of rules about communication.

It came out of nowhere is a sense then but only in the same sense as legs came out of nowhere.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, right--agree 100% with this. I meant "nowhere" in the sense that morality for an atheist can't be an objective, extant "thing," the way religious people view it.

[Ben K]

oh I see. Yeah, I agree.

Another thing to add to the list of things religious types need to be educated about. It's getting quite long...

[Subfallen]

[ QUOTE ]
I think he falls flat when he's challenged with the old "well where do you atheists get your morality from" question....the intellectually honest answer...is "nowhere."

[/ QUOTE ]

I strongly disagree. The intellectually honest answer is: atheists get their moral conscience from exactly the same processes as theists.

Differences arise sometimes because atheistic ethics emphasize avoiding unnecessary suffering, while theistic ethics emphasize adherence to a religiously derived code.

[Ben K]

There isn't a dogma for atheists. How can you have atheistic ethics??

I agree that moral conscience comes from the same process for us all but theists mis-identify the process and add in a middleman called god. Their insistance on bringing the middleman in could well be why Harris seems to stumble at this point. He wants to say - say place as you - but realises the theist will jump on that statement the wrong way and ascribe it to god.

[Jernau]

[ QUOTE ]
I strongly disagree. The intellectually honest answer is: atheists get their moral conscience from exactly the same processes as theists.

[/ QUOTE ]

New research points to the fact that both Theists and Atheists get their morals from the same place: their genes.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I have absolutely no problem with morality evolving.

Morality is just a set of rules about interaction with other humans just like grammar is a set of rules about communication.

It came out of nowhere is a sense then but only in the same sense as legs came out of nowhere.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, right--agree 100% with this. I meant "nowhere" in the sense that morality for an atheist can't be an objective, extant "thing," the way religious people view it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep, yep. The problem is that a lot of atheists are hesitant to make this 'concession' because it seems to be taken for granted that objective morality >>>>> anything else, and I'll lay 30:1 that the next words out of the theists mouth, after "Who needs objective morality?" is going to be "So what Hitler did was not absolutely wrong!?!?! OMG!" Some people have a lot invested in the meaningless ideal of being able to denounce someone or some acts as absolutely immoral.