This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

Comment

← Intelligent Design and the cruelty of nature

Sketchy's Avatar Jump to comment 110 by Sketchy

Comment 107 by ccw95005

Personally I'm disappointed in Sam Harris for pursuing an illogical line of thinking in trying to make facts of morality scientifically verifiable.

He's not wrong. Morality has a Dictionary definition, it’s principles concerning the distinction between bad and good behavior. The concept of bad derives from humans’ ability to suffer, and the concept of good derives from humans’ ability to enjoy. Sam Harris merely recognizes this and builds from there, all in a perfectly logical fashion. You can try and refute him, but you’ll be forced to perversely twist the meaning of words, to the point where you’ll argue that “good” is just as appropriate as “bad” to describe the biblical version of Hell. We can safely disregard people who talk like that, just as we can ignore nutjobs that will argue that cancer is “healthy”.

I think he also believes in some kind of psychic phenomena.

Like what exactly? Care to elaborate?

Thu, 24 May 2012 23:07:41 UTC | #943377