Chris OConnor wrote:

lindad_amato wrote:Let's please make sure we wait until Jan. to start. Hopefully, then we'll have a good number of folks involved.

It is important for those of us that are planning to read and participate to make periodic posts here in this forum prior to the start of the discussion period. Visitors and members need to see that other people are planning to be involved in the discussion. Seeing some activity will motivate them to buy the book and start reading.

I suggest we make new threads with Sam Harris videos from YouTube and concentrate on the author for the next few weeks. If we give people some interesting threads, not based on "The Moral Landscape" but merely on Sam Harris, they will be far more inclined to jump into the book discussion once it starts.

So please do post! Say anything.

Agreed, completely. I just hate missing the beginning of a discussion if it starts a bit before the month.

lindad_amato wrote: I very much enjoyed this video. I believe that Harris means reasoned inquiry more than scientific discovery. He seems to be proposing his "Universal Morality" , an agreement of the meaning of morality as an alternative to blind faith in various religions.

If it's reasoned inquiry, that wouldn't be different from what others or Harris himself have already said. Richard Dawkins said that he was one who before reading The Moral Landscape thought that science and morality were separate. Now he thinks that science can inform morality, and I'm wondering how Harris managed to convince him.

DWill wrote:

lindad_amato wrote: I very much enjoyed this video. I believe that Harris means reasoned inquiry more than scientific discovery. He seems to be proposing his "Universal Morality" , an agreement of the meaning of morality as an alternative to blind faith in various religions.

If it's reasoned inquiry, that wouldn't be different from what others or Harris himself have already said. Richard Dawkins said that he was one who before reading The Moral Landscape thought that science and morality were separate. Now he thinks that science can inform morality, and I'm wondering how Harris managed to convince him.

It seems as if they are both looking for some empirical way to substantiate their atheistic and anti-organized religion beliefs. Personally, I don't believe that the backing of science is necessary. The evidence that religions and their beliefs cause seriously negative socioeconomic, political and self-centered actions is apparent.

Here's a link to an interesting article, which discusses some research along the lines of what Harris has been involved with.
http://www.npr.org/2010/12/15/132078267 ... c=fb&cc=fp

Thanks, I'll look into that link later. The somewhat surprising result of Harris' neuroscience view would appear to be endorsement, to a certain degree, of people "doing" religion. In the video where he showed an image of a Muslim in prayer, he said that the brain state of that person might be a desirable one; however devotion looks inside the brain, it seems to equate to a feeling of well-being, the goal of morality in Harris' view. Harris' disagreement was with other, perhaps dangerous, brain states that a Muslim might have.

I would hope Harris moves away from the the anti-religion theme in this book. As Kwame Anthony said in his review, he's taken two big bites of that apple already. He needs to show us his alternative to the conventional explanation of morality.