by Nickolas 207 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
Harris contends that the only moral framework worth talking about is one where "morally good" things pertain to increases in the "well-being of conscious creatures".
Now THAT is a HUGE gray area and dangerous waters indeed.
I am a consious creature ( whatever that means) and it will increase my well-being to have sex with Adriana Lime, whether she wants to or not.
Slippery slope....
I am a consious creature ( whatever that means) and it will increase my well-being to have sex with Adriana Lime, whether she wants to or not.
Perhaps, but you've hopefully evolved with the farsightedness beyond that of a caveman... so you realize that your well-being(s) would be hanging on your wife's coat rack if you fulfilled your shortsighted desire with Adriana Lima. You recognize the greater well-being of maintaining a good relationship with your wife and not having to register as a sex offender, right? And then comes sympathy, in that you can visualize how it would affect the other parties involved.
Of course, this is all conjecture so... salt and pepper the hell out of it.
Ahhh...Adriana Lima. PSac...don't put too much on my hastily thrown together sentence while at work. Having not read the book I'm hardly an authority to speak for what Sam Harris is saying.
If interested, here's Harris speaking at TED on the subject. His ideas usually stir up some controversy, which I like.
SBC, even after editing
I have read a few of scathing reviews of his book, a couple from atheists, but I have not read the book, nor do I put that much stock in reviews.
I prefer to read it for myself.
Shack, I haven't read any of Harris' books yet but I have my eye on The Moral Landscape. Coincidentally, I read through his interview on the Amazon page earlier this week and I like what he had to say so I'm sure I'll eventually buy his book and read the first three chapters before skipping to the last page to see what happens.
Dawkins puts forward the hypothesis that altruism (which to me is the test of morality) is genetic.
That's kind of scary, isn't it, dear Nick (again, peace to you!)? I mean, doesn't that negate the WILL be altruistic, thereby suggesting that if, say, your great grandfather was altruistic you probably will be, too... but if was a low-down dirty rotten scoundrel... you probably will be, too? And, in that light as to the latter, is it possible that that IS true... that some ARE, by genetic inheritance... low-down and dirty... and so there IS some extrinsic "force" that exists to help such ones overcome their rotten scoundrelness? You know, besides Paxil, Prozac, and Xanax?
Just askin'... 'cause Mr. Dawkins hypothesis is very concerning, considering that, if true, the opposite MUST be true... and so there's really nothing such folks can do... except help make drug manufacturer's [more] rich... and FDA flunkies [more] necessary.
Things that make you go "hmmmmmmm"...
Again, peace!
A slave of Christ,
The Bambina
Got you covered, dear WS (the greatest of love and peace to you!). Before the day's end, if that's okay? Actually, check your PM, please? Thanks and PEACE, chile!
SA... sorta on her own, but not really...
Got it Shel. Sent you a reply.
Peace
Cheez: I'll eventually buy his book and read the first three chapters before skipping to the last page to see what happens.
Haha...yep, I'm bad for having too many books on the go. Get into a book, stall out for whatever reason, start in on another book...then you have 3 books stalled about 3rd way in.
I've read his The End of Faith...scrutinizes the tolerance of religious fundamentalism, takes Islam to the woodshed. He followed that with a short book A Letter to a Christian Nation...excellent quick read.
