Slashdot Mirror

"Redefine?" Um, no, the problem is defining it in the first place - aka: THE hard problem for neuroscientists and AI researchers. Folks like Daniel Dennett and Sam Harris write whole books on the topic, and still can't nail down a firm definition.

The effort to answer that question may seem eccentric or even pointless, but it's not stupid.

Sam Harris had a podcast with him which was mildly interesting. Scott basically agrees that Trump lies out his ass but is fine with it because he's convincing. Scott views Trump as a master manipulator which—for some reason that I cannot fathom—is a good thing for this country. He doesn't even think Trump is going good things beyond conning everyone into believing he is.

If you want to hear a good argument for the case against Trump, I would recommend the Sam Harris podcast episode called "The lesser evil". While not a "conservative", Sam is not exactly loved by the left. He is labelled as a racist by Ben Affleck and his liberal ilk, due to his stance on Islam. He is *very* critical of Hillary Clinton, and calls her out on corruption. He spends the first half of this episode making the case against Clinton in an effort to convince people he is not a partisan. But then he gives his criticism of Trump and it's sobering, especially now that he's won.

https://www.samharris.org/podcast/item_working/the-lesser-evil

I guess it doesn't really matter anymore in terms of affecting anyone's vote, but I guess we will see who was right in the near future.

Sam Harris had a podcast which contains an audio clip of an imam teaching that it's OK to kill gays, that it was the compassionate thing to do. I got the impression from the 'cast that the clip was from an imam in the Orlando area, and that it was taken a week or so before the shooting.

(I can't link the specific podcast at the moment because the site that I read it at is temporarily offline.)

We have often thought that the right to practice religion is absolute, but I'm wondering now if it should be.

Does being a religion give you a license to say anything you like? We have laws against hate speech even though we have free speech in general, and we have laws against speech that encourage a specific crime.

We guarantee freedom of religion, but we also guarantee freedom of life.

Which one has priority?

Maybe it's time to prioritize freedom of life over the freedom of religion. Maybe we should say categorically that you *can't* preach that it's OK to kill people of a certain class, whatever the class might be.

This would apply to any religion, even Christian ones ("thou shall not suffer a witch to live"), and it would apply to all cases: people who leave the religion are free to go unmolested (Islam, Scientology), people that the religion dislikes would be free to go unmolested (Christianity, Islam, Hinduism), and so on.

So for example, I would cite The Westboro Baptist church claiming that gays should be put to death, or evangelists calling on their flock to assasinate abortion providers.

As a country, I think we might legitimately say "not in this country" to these extreme views, and in these specific cases maybe intervene and say "no, you can't preach that even if your religion believes it".

Personal safety should be absolute, and the right to religion isn't more important.

In the aftermath of the Orlando shooting, imams haven't stopped teaching that gays should be killed.

Perhaps they should.

Since this thread is moving towards gun control and I'm probably too late anyways, but I should note that The Riddle of the Gun is a difficult one to answer. I don't have the answer, but I have to hand it to Sam Harris for taking a good shot, I mean, stab at it.

How is it a non-sequitur?

It's facile. If people are free to criticize Sam Harris's avocation of torture and racist profiling,, whyyyyyyyy isn't Harris free to criticize Islam? There is no line connecting the dots between A and B.

He's free to criticize Islam, the question is whether his criticism of Islam is just, useful, and accurate.

Ie its not, nor should be illegal, but it's unethical. As for women lying about their age I'd say that's also unethical.

So, academic suspension for coeds wearing makeup? Civil fines for women in their 30's who use college graduation pictures on dating sites? The point I'm getting at here is the selective outrage at misrepresentations while dating.

Again I never suggested penalties of any kind.

You're also conflating deception with marketing, there's certainly some overlap but there are significant differences.

How is it a non-sequitur?

It's facile. If people are free to criticize Sam Harris's avocation of torture and racist profiling,, whyyyyyyyy isn't Harris free to criticize Islam? There is no line connecting the dots between A and B.

Ie its not, nor should be illegal, but it's unethical. As for women lying about their age I'd say that's also unethical.

So, academic suspension for coeds wearing makeup? Civil fines for women in their 30's who use college graduation pictures on dating sites? The point I'm getting at here is the selective outrage at misrepresentations while dating.

It isn't always easy to tell which tech businesses will die and which won't. Nobody can see the future, there is no guaranteed safe path, etc.

So, the best thing is to stay adaptable, allocate regular time for learning new skills, and manage your finances well so you can survive long dry spells.

To that end, embrace minimalism, stay single, stay out of debt, and invest your cash in a diverse range of bonds and stocks (be sure not to over-emphasize those tech stocks!).

If that lifestyle sounds ghastly to you, try secular meditation. It will heal your mind, and help you to see that the formula for happiness that you have been spoon-fed is not only dangerous, but completely ineffective.

Or....you can take your chances.

There will be no end to this conflict until both sides can agree that both sides are wrong.

There will be no end to this conflict until both sides want an end to this conflict.

Israel has shown that they would accept a two-state solution. Hamas has written the destruction of Israel into their charter. Don't you believe that Hamas means what it says?

Also:

Imagine how fatuous--indeed comical it would be--for the Israelis to attempt to use human shields to deter the Palestinians. Some claim that they have already done this. There are reports that Israeli soldiers have occasionally put Palestinian civilians in front of them as they've advanced into dangerous areas. That's not the use of human shields we're talking about. It's egregious behavior. No doubt it constitutes a war crime. But Imagine the Israelis holding up their own women and children as human shields. Of course, that would be ridiculous. The Palestinians are trying to kill everyone. Killing women and children is part of the plan. Reversing the roles here produces a grotesque Monty Python skit.

If you're going to talk about the conflict in the Middle East, you have to acknowledge this difference. I don't think there's any ethical disparity to be found anywhere that is more shocking or consequential than this.

http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/why-dont-i-criticize-israel#.U9WnT5ebKes.twitter

Let me guess.... the article you link to details how every tunnel they've found contains a strictly audited log of past use which conclusively demonstrates your point? No?

I know you are being sarcastic here, but seriously, what would it take to convince you that a tunnel from Gaza into Israel was intended for attacking Israel?

How about if it was actually used to attack Israel... would that be enough to convince you? (Link with no subscription needed)

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2014/0728/Hamas-attacks-by-tunnel-rattle-Israelis-on-Gaza-border-video

It sucks to have rockets raining down on civilians, but those are because Israel prevents Hamas from acquiring more sophisticated weaponry capable of being targeted.

You are seriously arguing the moral equivalence of Hamas and Israel? You are seriously saying that it's okay for Hamas to rain down rockets indiscriminately on civilians because Israel has been able to keep them from getting better weapons?

This is where I say "Have a nice life" and stop bothering to try to talk to you about this, or anything.

Much like the purpose of the IDF is to kill Palestinians

The "D" stands for "Defense", not for "Kill Palestinians". And if Israel really wanted to kill Palestinians, why do they go to so much trouble to try to warn people to get out of areas that are about to be hit?

If they really wanted to just kill people, they could be racking up the kills a lot faster than they are.

But you don't even believe that yourself. You are either trolling me or trying to make some sort of point with hyperbole.

Or perhaps we can be reasonable people and acknowledge that these tunnels have been being used to smuggle essential supplies ever since the Israeli-Egyptian blockade was put into place

No, the tunnels from Gaza into Israel have never been used to smuggle essential supplies. The tunnels from Gaza to Egypt, yeah sure.

Worse still, such dangerously reasonable lines of thought might lead to a peaceful agreement between the two warring parties.

If only a peaceful agreement were possible.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-krauthammer-moral-clarity-in-gaza/2014/07/17/0adabe0c-0de4-11e4-8c9a-923ecc0c7d23_story.html

http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/why-dont-i-criticize-israel#.U9WnT5ebKes.twitter

Have a nice life.

While it may be fair to say that prayer has this effect, what is prayer? Meditation. Introspective meditation, a form of secular meditation has been under intense scientific study and has been shown to have greater effects on the brain than prayer. It's even heavily endorsed by everyone's favorite Atheist and neuroscientist Sam Harris

But then maybe I'm a shill. Or maybe I'm a victim of shills. Or maybe I'm just biased and easily led because I think that GG is thoroughly intellectually dishonest in at least some of the statements that he does put his own name on.

BTW: If you care to read that one through, it culminates with the best smackdown I remember seeing.

While we agree on many things Crosshair on this one you are DEAD WRONG. Look up the number of Muslims in a country and how the violence goes UP the more Muslims you have. If the country is 100% Muslim no problem right? WRONG as then the Imams start jockeying and fighting each other for control!

And tell me friend...what does the west have to do with the Shia murdering the Sunni and vice versa? that has only be going on...ohhh...about 600 YEARS now and shows no let up in sight.

Remember friend you are a cow to them, that's right, a cow. You might want to read this with just a few snippets of what they think of you infidel, and I'll just end with some quotes from their own book that illustrates better than i ever could why there can NEVER be peace with Islam:

Quran 4:89: They (infidels) desire that you should disbelieve as they have disbelieved, so that you might be (all) alike; therefore take not from among them friends until they fly (their homes) in Allah's way; but if they turn back, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and take not from among them a friend or a helper. Quran 8:12: Instill terror into the hearts of the unbelievers; Quran 2:191: kill the disbelievers wherever we find them Quran 22:19-22: for them (the unbelievers) garments of fire shall be cut and there shall be poured over their heads boiling water whereby whatever is in their bowels and skin shall be dissolved and they will be punished with hooked iron rods. Quran 8:12: Your Lord inspired the angels with the message: I will terrorize the unbelievers. Therefore smite them on their necks and every joint and incapacitate them. Strike off their heads and cut off each of their fingers and toes. Quran 8:7: Allah wished to confirm the truth by His words: Wipe the infidels out to the last. Quran 8:59: The infidels should not think that they can get away from us. Prepare against them whatever arms and weaponry you can muster so that you may terrorize them. They are your enemy and Allah's enemy. Quran 8:60: Prepare against them whatever arms and cavalry you can muster that you may strike terror in the enemies of Allah, and others besides them not known to you. Quran 9.29 Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection. Quran 47:4: Strike off the heads of the disbelievers and, after making a wide slaughter among them, carefully tie up the remaining captives.

The bible and it's ilk the Koran and all the rest are some of the worst set of "moral teachings" mankind has ever inflicted on itself.

You have only to do two cents worth of internet search or read God is Not Great by Hitchens or Why I am Not A Christian by Russel or anything by Dawkins and especially Sam Harris's The End of Faith http://www.samharris.org/ to explode the idea that religion is moral, or was moral at one time in the past

This is not something where you one say "well, you say this and I say that so both our arguments are equally valid.. because it's about morals" because religionists exactly DON'T believe that morals are relative and neither do scientists..

People behave in the ways they do because of genetics and environmental pressures. A part of that behaviour is the apprehension of and feelings about morality. Absent a compelling environmental contingency compelling a person to violent action, and that includes jealousy,. only sociopaths have to be told that killing is wrong. The rest of us *feel* it to be a horror and just plain wrong.

Ditto the uneasy feelings we get when we defy the norms of our society Sure, we can over come them for a reason, but that reason is also typically value - like The Truth- we learned from our society.

No one needs the Bible or any other holy book to help them to feel moral. It's a part f our genetic inheritance.

Ditto a moral society. Science is what produces a moral society because science brings us to truth and reality and when that meets our genetically mediated desire to "not do evil" and to empathize with our fellow human, we then can effectively meet those goals.

It;s no coincidence that religion is the number one source of wars throughout history, always in the name of doing good. That's because it's false knowledge, bad knowledge , with a Bronze Age understanding of How People Work and How The World Works and when THAT is what is guiding your inborn desire to achieve good and peace in the world, THIS is the result: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LACyLTsH4ac

Sam Harris argues the case in Lying .

We can afford it. All the USA needs to do is slow down killing other people and use about 10%o f the military budget for Mars and it is a done deal.

Problems on Earth are mainly not due to technology or money, but poor government. People are not starving because there isn't enough food. They starve because they live in places with incompetent, corrupt, or evil governments. Going to Mars is cheap and easy compared to solving poverty.

We are much better at managing the planet. There has never been such widespread wealth and peace for such an extended time. Room for improvement, but we are on the right track. Well, maybe not the Tea Party.

Single dimensional dichotomies are about all that most people can handle when it comes to analysis, which is unfortunate.

It is definitely unfortunate. I think the only valid single-dimensional dichotomy upon which to place ideas is whether their implementation results in increasing well-being for people and society. Well-being here is defined by me, ala Sam Harris, as increasing happiness of individuals and cooperation between individuals.

Very well said.

Your point is the topic of the excellent The End of Faith, a worthy read on the subject of fundamentalists vs. moderates in 'People of the Book' religions.

ok, I unplugged for the weekend and wasn't going to respond, but I've heard this argument from so many people it's apparent that many believers fail to see the problems with it.

If you believe in the relion and dogmas associated with that religion, you have to believe in The Book that laid down those laws. The Abrahamic religions all claim that The Book is the Word of God, delivered through a heavenly messenger (typical an (arch)?angel). This is how the justification is made for these laws - "one cannot go against the Word of God".

The problem is that most modern versions of these belief systems play with a "moral buffet" that allows them to discount the strict practices laid out in those ancient times. Specifically, nearly all the laws set forth in Deuteronomy and Leviticus cause major problems when trying to reconcile them with modern society. So, the religious heads leave them out of the required practices.

If you're going to play the buffet game and only follow the laws you believe are "Just", then you are no longer part of that religion. Period. You have built your own religion to an extant. More over, since you believe in the book at all, you must accept that it is the Word of God to truly believe in it. If you discount any portion, then you clearly don't believe that. Since it has been shown time and again that The Book was written by man, edit by man and delivered by man, (with the stories often written *centuries* after the events the described) the only way to accept the teachings is through faith that it is the Word of God.

If you're taking only the basic moral code from The Book, you don't need the book. Simple moral codes can be laid out sans-dogma and can adapt over time. Religions, by their very nature, cannot adapt. Once the Word of God has been laid down, it can never be changed else your god is falible which opens up a huge hole in the belief system.

In short, if you do not feel that it is just to stone your neighbor, son, daughter, wife or stranger for not believing in your god, you are not a true adherent to the Abrahamic religions (Deuteronomy 13:6-11).

Check out The End of Faith by Sam Harris for a great commentary on moderate religions.

And Richard Dawkins wrote a brilliant counter to that piece in The God Delusion. Others with similar veins include Sam Harris' The End of Faith and Christopher Hitchens god is not Great.

What creates terrorists is a belief that their own cause is right enough and that the personal rewards will be high enough that they are willing to sacrifice others (and/or their own) lives in actions that defend or further their beliefs. The causal beliefs can be political, religious, or economic in nature or due to simple irrationality. Any particular slight against the belief can then be a trigger for the resulting action. Today, religion seems to be the cause of most irrational actions. Read Sam Harris' The End of Faith for more on the psychological basis of terrorism and other irrational actions.

Christian (and Islamic and Judaeic) dogma inevitably and logically results in fundamentalism and rejection of all secular (ie, rational) thought and belief. To think otherwise is to ignore the very scripture one claims to believe in.

(Long Now has a great talk given by Harris available for free download in Ogg Vorbis or MP3)