Christopher Hitchens and Stephen Fry talks with the horrible Catholic Ann Widdecombe
February 7, 2010 on Channel 4 from the documentary series "The Bible: A History"
My Blog List
-
The hills to die on7 years ago
-
The Existential Files9 years ago
-
-
Buddhist Healing Practice10 years ago
-
All About Tig Welders for Sale15 years ago
Web Counter
Showing posts with label morality. Show all posts
Showing posts with label morality. Show all posts
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Scientific Thinking And Moral Philosophy
Richard Dawkins @ Big Think: While science is indelibly distinct from the field of ethics, Richard Dawkins believes that there are a number of ways in which its facts and reasoning could greatly benefit our ability to understand and repair the worlds suffering.
Question: Can Science shed light on any moral issues?
Richard Dawkins: Science is not in the business of shedding light on moral debates, but I think it can do sometimes -- the whole subject of moral philosophy, of examining moral questions in a logical way to expose inconsistencies, for example.
When you're looking at moral questions, so-called moral questions, like abortion or euthanasia, you can show that people who take a very strong absolutist line may be being inconsistent with themselves because they are taking a strong line on one thing while at the same time inconsistently not taking a similarly strong line on another.
So that would be a scientific way of thinking; it's not science per se. It's moral philosophy, but it's a kind of scientific way of thinking. But also I think scientific facts can illuminate moral debate. In the case of abortion again, for example, a scientist might contribute to the debate information about at what point during the development of an embryo the nervous system comes into being.
And presumably, before the nervous system comes into existence there is no ability to feel pain or to suffer. And so maybe something important happens at the moment when the nervous system comes into being.
On the other hand, you might say, well, even when a human embryo develops a nervous system and develops the capacity to perhaps suffer, it's still a much smaller nervous system than the nervous system of an adult cow. And so what about balancing the suffering of a human embryo against the suffering of an adult cow when it's being slaughtered for meat.
An absolutist moralist would say, well, humans are just plain special, and cows are not humans, so they don't deserve the same moral consideration. But a scientist might come along and say, well, what do you mean by that? I mean we are, after all, all evolved; we're all cousins.
At what point in the evolution -- since we know evolution is a fact -- at what point in the evolution of humans would you suddenly draw the line and say, all right, from now on they're all human and before that they're not?
In the evolutionary progression from the common ancestors with chimpanzees, who lived about six or seven million years ago, to modern humans, going through creatures which might have looked a bit like Lucy, might have looked a bit like the newly discovered fossil Ardi, would you have given special human moral ethical consideration to Lucy? Or would you count Lucy as though she was a chimpanzee?
Does this perhaps suggest to you that we shouldn't be in the business of drawing lines between species in this kind of way, and maybe these lines should be regarded as more fuzzy and less clear cut. Our absolutist moralities that do draw hard and fast lines between humans and all other species -- even taking a human fetus and calling that human, whereas an adult chimpanzee is not and doesn't deserve the same moral consideration -- is that consistent with science? These are ways that science can at least inform moral discussions.
Question: Is there ever a point where scientific reasoning can harm society?
Richard Dawkins: You can, I suppose, make a utilitarian justification for obnoxious practices. You could make a utilitarian justification for torture. Moral philosophers sometimes pose the hypothetical case where the world is about to be blown up.
Only one person knows the secret password to stop the doomsday bomb going off. This one person is a suicide bomber who refuses to give up the password. Are you right to torture him? And most people, I think, say you are. I mean, it's a horrible thing to torture somebody, but under those extreme conditions, to save the world you would torture somebody. And that would be a utilitarian justification for an otherwise obnoxious practice such as torture.
http://bigthink.com/
Question: Can Science shed light on any moral issues?
Richard Dawkins: Science is not in the business of shedding light on moral debates, but I think it can do sometimes -- the whole subject of moral philosophy, of examining moral questions in a logical way to expose inconsistencies, for example.
When you're looking at moral questions, so-called moral questions, like abortion or euthanasia, you can show that people who take a very strong absolutist line may be being inconsistent with themselves because they are taking a strong line on one thing while at the same time inconsistently not taking a similarly strong line on another.
So that would be a scientific way of thinking; it's not science per se. It's moral philosophy, but it's a kind of scientific way of thinking. But also I think scientific facts can illuminate moral debate. In the case of abortion again, for example, a scientist might contribute to the debate information about at what point during the development of an embryo the nervous system comes into being.
And presumably, before the nervous system comes into existence there is no ability to feel pain or to suffer. And so maybe something important happens at the moment when the nervous system comes into being.
On the other hand, you might say, well, even when a human embryo develops a nervous system and develops the capacity to perhaps suffer, it's still a much smaller nervous system than the nervous system of an adult cow. And so what about balancing the suffering of a human embryo against the suffering of an adult cow when it's being slaughtered for meat.
An absolutist moralist would say, well, humans are just plain special, and cows are not humans, so they don't deserve the same moral consideration. But a scientist might come along and say, well, what do you mean by that? I mean we are, after all, all evolved; we're all cousins.
At what point in the evolution -- since we know evolution is a fact -- at what point in the evolution of humans would you suddenly draw the line and say, all right, from now on they're all human and before that they're not?
In the evolutionary progression from the common ancestors with chimpanzees, who lived about six or seven million years ago, to modern humans, going through creatures which might have looked a bit like Lucy, might have looked a bit like the newly discovered fossil Ardi, would you have given special human moral ethical consideration to Lucy? Or would you count Lucy as though she was a chimpanzee?
Does this perhaps suggest to you that we shouldn't be in the business of drawing lines between species in this kind of way, and maybe these lines should be regarded as more fuzzy and less clear cut. Our absolutist moralities that do draw hard and fast lines between humans and all other species -- even taking a human fetus and calling that human, whereas an adult chimpanzee is not and doesn't deserve the same moral consideration -- is that consistent with science? These are ways that science can at least inform moral discussions.
Question: Is there ever a point where scientific reasoning can harm society?
Richard Dawkins: You can, I suppose, make a utilitarian justification for obnoxious practices. You could make a utilitarian justification for torture. Moral philosophers sometimes pose the hypothetical case where the world is about to be blown up.
Only one person knows the secret password to stop the doomsday bomb going off. This one person is a suicide bomber who refuses to give up the password. Are you right to torture him? And most people, I think, say you are. I mean, it's a horrible thing to torture somebody, but under those extreme conditions, to save the world you would torture somebody. And that would be a utilitarian justification for an otherwise obnoxious practice such as torture.
http://bigthink.com/
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
Hitchens vs. Hitchens on religion debate
Brothers Christopher and Peter Hitchens debate the Iraq War and religion at an event organized by the Hauenstein Center for Presidential Studies with the support of the Center for Inquiry and the Interfaith Dialogue Association.
Go to their official page for the full debate.
Go to their official page for the full debate.
Saturday, December 26, 2009
Friday, December 25, 2009
Atheists are morally superior
People often wonder about the morality of atheists. As it turns out, atheists are morally superior.
Thursday, December 24, 2009
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
Sam Harris - the Bible's fallacies
Sam Harris easily dissects the fallacies of the bible and its myriad moral hypocrisies and childish superstitions.
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Monday, December 14, 2009
Hitchens Demolishes Sharpton in Debate on Morality
Hitchens completely destroys Sharpton in a debate.
Christopher Hitchens vs Frank Turek - VCU -
One of the many problems with the religious, and indeed of the religious, has been its image and self-image as something rather solemn, manly, polychrome, and righteous. How many times have we heard the descriptions of our current situation wrought with end of days language as though the dominant deserve salvation and the weak things of the earth deserve the least of these?
Sunday, December 13, 2009
Richard Dawkins: The Good Book And The Changing Moral Zeitgeist
Richard Dawkins: The Good Book And The Changing Moral Zeitgeist. An extract from chapter VII of "The God Delusion" - Richard Dawkins @ Randolph-Macon Woman's College in Lynchburg, Virginia; October 23, 2006.
Thursday, December 10, 2009
Moral Superiority Of Atheism - Christopher Hitchens' Ethics Challenge
Moral Superiority Of Atheism - Christopher Hitchens' Ethics Challenge.
Why does god matter? Christopher Hitchens explains why atheists are more moral than religious fundamentalists.
Many Christians will maintain they have a superior foundation for knowing and for choosing to do what is good. They claim to have objective ethical standards for being good, based in a morally good creator god, and that the atheist has no ultimate justification for being moral.
Why does god matter? Christopher Hitchens explains why atheists are more moral than religious fundamentalists.
Many Christians will maintain they have a superior foundation for knowing and for choosing to do what is good. They claim to have objective ethical standards for being good, based in a morally good creator god, and that the atheist has no ultimate justification for being moral.
Friday, December 4, 2009
Atheism vs. Christianity - Why I Don't Believe in God
A look at some Christian teachings and beliefs and therefore, why I do not believe in God.
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
Why atheists are morally superior
Religious people, and specifically Christians are notorious for suggesting that morality is (often exclusively) associated with their religious beliefs and scriptural dictates.
Let's examine this notion by outlining the Top 10 reasons why atheists are morally superior.
1. No god tells us to hate gay people, so we have no reason to hate them. In fact if gay people love each other and want to get married, more power to them. Why should we stop love and caring based on gender? We encourage loving and caring any way it manifests itself.
2. No god tells us that women are inferior and should subject themselves to men.
3. No god tells us to pray instead of seeking medical attention. We believe in all kinds of scientific research and medicine. We even believe in stem cell research. Most of us also think a woman has a right to choose what to do with her body. This probably goes up under the ‘women are equal’ entry as well, because it’s ridiculous that an old man we will never meet gets to decide what they can and can’t do with their body.
4. No god tells us to hate people who believe in the same god but in a “wrong” way. OK, that’s just stupid.
5. No god tells us to be fruitful and multiply, then says that sex for fun is bad, then tells us that only sex between married people is OK, then denies us any kind of way to turn off the insatiable teenage sex drive except to come up with abstinence and praying as a lame solution.
6. No god tells us to hate people who look different than me, so we are free to see everyone as equal and the same, just with different packaging. No need to be racist.
7. No god tells us to start a war over another land having the wrong god or the wrong types of people (see the one above), so we don’t have to support pointless wars that justify some ridiculous ancient prophecy or for other silly reasons, like god talking directly to the leader of one country.
8. No god makes promises to us about being a martyr, so we have no reason to strap a bomb to ourselves and blow up a train station or whatever kills the most innocent people.
9. No god makes open-ended promises that will never come true about Armageddon and going up to heaven soon, so we are responsible with the environment, and try our best to have a small impact on the planet, and also support research into making things better for everyone through science and smarter living.
10. No god promises eternal life to us or threatens us with eternal torture, then suggests we have some weird sense of "free will" to make an honest choose between good and evil. How can you tell if you're doing something for the right reason if you're threatened with horrible suffering if you don't follow directions?
Let's examine this notion by outlining the Top 10 reasons why atheists are morally superior.
1. No god tells us to hate gay people, so we have no reason to hate them. In fact if gay people love each other and want to get married, more power to them. Why should we stop love and caring based on gender? We encourage loving and caring any way it manifests itself.
2. No god tells us that women are inferior and should subject themselves to men.
3. No god tells us to pray instead of seeking medical attention. We believe in all kinds of scientific research and medicine. We even believe in stem cell research. Most of us also think a woman has a right to choose what to do with her body. This probably goes up under the ‘women are equal’ entry as well, because it’s ridiculous that an old man we will never meet gets to decide what they can and can’t do with their body.
4. No god tells us to hate people who believe in the same god but in a “wrong” way. OK, that’s just stupid.
5. No god tells us to be fruitful and multiply, then says that sex for fun is bad, then tells us that only sex between married people is OK, then denies us any kind of way to turn off the insatiable teenage sex drive except to come up with abstinence and praying as a lame solution.
6. No god tells us to hate people who look different than me, so we are free to see everyone as equal and the same, just with different packaging. No need to be racist.
7. No god tells us to start a war over another land having the wrong god or the wrong types of people (see the one above), so we don’t have to support pointless wars that justify some ridiculous ancient prophecy or for other silly reasons, like god talking directly to the leader of one country.
8. No god makes promises to us about being a martyr, so we have no reason to strap a bomb to ourselves and blow up a train station or whatever kills the most innocent people.
9. No god makes open-ended promises that will never come true about Armageddon and going up to heaven soon, so we are responsible with the environment, and try our best to have a small impact on the planet, and also support research into making things better for everyone through science and smarter living.
10. No god promises eternal life to us or threatens us with eternal torture, then suggests we have some weird sense of "free will" to make an honest choose between good and evil. How can you tell if you're doing something for the right reason if you're threatened with horrible suffering if you don't follow directions?
Saturday, November 28, 2009
Legalizing Prostitution? - The Atheist Experience #617
"Legalizing Prostitution?" is a clip from The Atheist Experience #617, "Bible's Greatest Hits: Killing.", with Matt Dillahunty and Don Baker: http://blip.tv/file/2461487
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
Morality And Moral Judgment In The Bible
Morality And Moral Judgment In The Bible - The Atheist Experience #568
with Matt Dillahunty and Jennifer Peeples.
with Matt Dillahunty and Jennifer Peeples.
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Divine impulses: Christopher Hitchens
Christopher Hitchens discusses his upbringing, being an anti-theist, his contempt for the religious, the value of religion, the trouble with Islam and mortality without God.
Divine impulses: Christopher Hitchens - part 1 of 7
Divine impulses: Hitchens: A Child Atheist - part 2 of 7
Divine impulses: hitchens: being anti-god 3 of 7
Divine impulses: Hitchens: contempt for the religious 4 of 7
Divine impulses: Hitchens: the value of religion 5 of 7
Divine impulses: Hitchens: the trouble with islam 6 of 7
Divine impulses: Hitchens: morality without god part 7 of 7
Saturday, November 21, 2009
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
