• In total there are 36 users online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 36 guests (based on users active over the past 60 minutes)
    Most users ever online was 789 on Tue Mar 19, 2024 5:08 am

The scientism philosopher Sam Harris

Engage in conversations about worldwide religions, cults, philosophy, atheism, freethought, critical thinking, and skepticism in this forum.
Forum rules
Do not promote books in this forum. Instead, promote your books in either Authors: Tell us about your FICTION book! or Authors: Tell us about your NON-FICTION book!.

All other Community Rules apply in this and all other forums.
User avatar
ant

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 5935
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:04 pm
12
Has thanked: 1371 times
Been thanked: 969 times

The scientism philosopher Sam Harris

Unread post

“Some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them.”
- Sam Harris

What people might Harris be referring to here?

This sounds like something directly out of Mein Kampf

Which people here on BT agree with what Harris said?
User avatar
Dexter

1F - BRONZE CONTRIBUTOR
I dumpster dive for books!
Posts: 1787
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2010 3:14 pm
13
Has thanked: 144 times
Been thanked: 712 times
United States of America

Re: The scientism philosopher Sam Harris

Unread post

Unfortunately for you, people don't worship Sam Harris in the same way that people worship the Vague, Generic Deity whose word must be taken as gospel of course.

Harris claims taking that statement out of context distorts his view. Unless the "proposition" is a credible threat of lethal force, which maybe is what he meant, I would disagree with it until I see otherwise.

http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text ... y2#killing
User avatar
ant

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 5935
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:04 pm
12
Has thanked: 1371 times
Been thanked: 969 times

Re: The scientism philosopher Sam Harris

Unread post

Thank you. Wanted to be clear on it thats why I asked.
I have to say I cant dispute what Harris is specifically referring to here
The fact that belief determines behavior is what makes certain beliefs so dangerous.
It seems obvious that an anti-theists belief that there is no God determines his behavior toward theists.
The fact that celebrities like Harris, Dawkins, Hitchens, and recently Kraus willfully depict religious people as backward, delusional, and anti science is an intentional scheme to create caricatures to marginalize.
The post 911 strawman against religion, narrowly defined, is evidence as well.

Nonetheless, I agree with what Im nearly certain Harris is saying about extreme beliefs held and how might we are forced to deal with them (ie ISIS in Iraq)

Thanks. good read.
User avatar
Interbane

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 7203
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 12:59 am
19
Location: Da U.P.
Has thanked: 1105 times
Been thanked: 2166 times
United States of America

Re: The scientism philosopher Sam Harris

Unread post

This sounds like something directly out of Mein Kampf

Which people here on BT agree with what Harris said?
What if the words were from the Mein Kampf, and the person we're considering killing were Hitler? I'm not sure if I agree with Harris, but there are some beliefs that are truly dangerous. And there are people in power that could use those beliefs to terrible effect.
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.” - Douglas Adams
User avatar
ant

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 5935
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:04 pm
12
Has thanked: 1371 times
Been thanked: 969 times

Re: The scientism philosopher Sam Harris

Unread post

What if Hitler would have lived, and rather than execute him, science was able to administer a drug that would eradicate any guilt or pleasure (or both) that he experienced from all his crimes, after which his state of well-being would be increased so that he was able to live in society.
Is that morally acceptable?



What if the Nazi's had won the war;
After having conquered all their enemies (and the world), Nazism began to flourish, and its people's well being improved dramatically after having been at war for years.
How would you define the "moral landscape" of a world like that?
User avatar
Interbane

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 7203
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 12:59 am
19
Location: Da U.P.
Has thanked: 1105 times
Been thanked: 2166 times
United States of America

Re: The scientism philosopher Sam Harris

Unread post

What if Hitler would have lived, and rather than execute him, science was able to administer a drug that would eradicate any guilt or pleasure (or both) that he experienced from all his crimes, after which his state of well-being would be increased so that he was able to live in society.
Is that morally acceptable?
There’s not good options here. This would be a great dilemma to put in a novel. It’s like the old intuition pump regarding going back in time to kill the man. Let’s say we did that. You have 3-4 options.

1) Leave the man as-is, hoping the future would play out differently even though at the time he has all the same beliefs.
2) Administer a drug that essentially strips him of his humanity.
3) Kill him.
4) Try to educate him away from his Ubermensch philosophy. Hopefully it would change his belief system, but no guarantees.

I’m not sure if I would feel comfortable making that choice. I think I’d try number 4, and if it didn’t appear to be working, I’d kill him. Number 2 isn’t really morally acceptable. I'm confident number 1 wouldn't work, as our universe is deterministic.

What if the Nazi's had won the war;
After having conquered all their enemies (and the world), Nazism began to flourish, and its people's well being improved dramatically after having been at war for years.
How would you define the "moral landscape" of a world like that?
If the people flourish and the moral landscape is good, then the moral landscape is good. Would that justify the means to arrive at the end? No. I believe there are always other means to achieve the same ends.

A similar dilemma would be to ask; Let’s say Nazism spread across the entire globe via the death of millions. Without the spread, we’d be on our current trajectory, and let’s say we go extinct from climate disaster. But with the spread of Nazism, our world would flourish into transhuman or posthuman society and survive for thousands of years at least.

That’s tough. I’d have to say that Nazism spreading across the globe would be preferable to the extinction of our species. Especially if posthuman status was on the horizon, elevating us enough to see the mistakes of our past.
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.” - Douglas Adams
Post Reply

Return to “Religion & Philosophy”