(Untitled)

[ogda9871]

So I have to say I was a bit disappointed by Sam Harris' new book.  He seems to take a long-winded abstrusely philosophical approach to defend his thesis: that science can and should determine what we value, i.e. our morals.  The problem could be that his argument seems obviously correct to me to begin with--at least with me, he's basically

Comments

[thothamon1]

I still would like to read this. I hope the whole book does not become as difficult to read as the last third of "End of Faith".

[wynterdragon]

Having watched numerous debates and discussions with the scientists and philosophers they are trying to convince of these views (the one's we find obvious), I can assure you an essay wouldn't do. Nor their books, nor an entire library of books

[ogda9871]

I just wish the Rapture would come so secularists can begin working on this Earth without the meddling Christians. It just depresses me that one would even need to argue the obvious--that science can help us determine what promotes our well-being. It's the real work that needs to be done. It's pretty much the only work.

[wynterdragon]

Agreed.

I think science needs to get applied to morality, politics, social organization, economics (no matter how much they want it to be, economics is not yet a science, but behavioral economics is a good start and that is a whole 'nother rant), etc...

Belief, ideology, religion, gut feelings, anecdotal recollections, etc... all need to be cast aside and replaced with looking at reality, carefully and unbiased.