You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

0
2

[–] antiracistMetal [S] 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

I loved The Moral Landscape.

@peaceseeker

0
1

[–] PeaceSeeker 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago  (edited ago)

You guys should both read The New Atheist Denial of History by Borden Painter Jr. It's a quite short work but very succinctly exposes, well, the denial of history endemic in all of the new atheists' writings and philosophies. It isn't an attack on atheism; just the shoddy ground upon which the work of the new atheists stands. I would appreciate both of your thoughts on the book.

@chirogonemd

0
1

[–] antiracistMetal [S] 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

There's a book called the history of atheism, by a theologian. I bet there are the same ideas there.

0
1

[–] chirogonemd 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Why? You were the one who disliked the open-question. You pointed me to Moore's argument. Sam is dancing around it the entire time.

Basically the whole book is Sam saying there is an X that is good, though not God, some social-political state (a material situation) that we can discover that objectively maximizes the frequency of brain states that equate to human flourishing, because they are concomitant with the said material situation. He's assuming what the good is. He makes several appeals to ways that we could, for instance, objectively identify the optimum world cuisine on some physiological criteria about which promoted the highest human health. Here again, he's determining the good. His own values become the objectively best ones.

It's some form of utilitarianism, just more rooted in material states and so the notion that it could be studied empirically makes it super fashionable sounding.

It can't be ignored how consonant this whole idea is with dialectical materialism. Instead of implicitly burying the connection between material status and well-being, he's just making these things explicit by making the move to the brain. This material situation causes this brain state and this is the best possible brain state. Take those bourgeois brain states and spread the wealth! This is a less transcendental form of Marxism waiting to fucking flower. It sounds so reserved and reasonable, but underneath there an answer being given to the question: well, who gets to decide? Well, the non-partisan neuroscientists and psychologists of course.

The same ones telling us today that little boys can be little girls. It's only about brain states! If the brain state is better for this boy when he thinks he's a girl, this is morally superior to put him in a dress!

I'm telling you, Sam's moral philosophy is a neo-Marxism parading as data-driven science.

@PeaceSeeker

0
2

[–] antiracistMetal [S] 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

There's utilitarianism, consequentialism, and realism. I'm thankful to Harris for converting me from relativist to realist.

I love Moore's open question argument. I just don't agree with it.

Your concerns about authority and Marxism do not undermine the case for realism.

@peaceseeker

0
1

[–] PeaceSeeker 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

Trust me, if a framework where "science can determine human values" is adopted, then the same people telling us what constitutes hate speech will be deciding the "objective" standards of goodness.

No ADL, I don't hate the Jews. I love the Jews!

@antiracistmetal