Of course, people of faith are right to insist that there is more to life than being reasonable—which is to say there is much more to life than merely understanding the world and getting one’s beliefs about it to cohere. But we can have ethical and spiritual lives without lying to ourselves and to others and without pretending to be certain about things we are clearly not certain about.
- S. Harris
Where is the (scientific) evidence of these ethical and "spiritual" lives, so stylized? I mean, outside of a physicists convention, what is the historical evidence for this really quite broad conclusion?
Absent that, can't we also suggest that Sam is somehow fundamentally (pun intended) lying and pretending, too? Seriously, circa 5,000 years of recorded human history, and little evidence of humanity coming to the kinds of conclusions that Sam suggests. Wouldn't that be scientific evidence against his conclusion? Even if his argument has logic, the timeline suggests that there ought to be more than that in any compelling evidentiary explanation, and perhaps even something more than just hypothicating a persistent "delusion".
I think, for instance, that we would both rank the Islamic doctrines of
martyrdom and jihad pretty high on our list of humanity's worst ideas. - S. Harris
Depends on how you define "martyrdom" and "jihad", but suppose we were to concede the point for argument. Can we really say, unequivocally, that non-religious parties come to pinnacles of greater non-violence than so-called religious parties? Hardly. I don't think Kim Jung-il, who may well be willing to use nuclear weapons, is particularly religious, in the ordinary sense of the term. Was Pol Pot religious? Genghis Khan?
There is an old saying that there is nothing common about commonsense. I'd be interested to see Mr. Harris try to come up with 'commonsense' understandings for any number moral questions and dilemmas (I'd start with personal ethics, but it doesn't have to be limited to that). For instance, what is his rational against murder? Here's the counter-argument: I'm a stronger biological entity than my neighbor. It is easier to steal and/or murder to obtain food/wealth than to work hard for it. Therefore, as the stronger, I should logically steal and/or murder my neighbor, as needed, and thereby obtain goods and efficiently maintain my relative strength.
Besides, we just went through the holidays, and it was nice to say, for instance, "Merry Christmas and all the Joys of the Season". This invokes a whole period of joy and tradition and, even, I would say, a humanity deeper than humanists have to offer.
Notwithstanding, what do we say to our atheist friends, "Happy Calendar Day to You"? Or, "Joyous Personal Moral Sense Day to You"? LOL.
sullylink
