Sam Harris - Morality and the Christian God

What Sam Harris asks for, Sam Harris receives. He put out a challenge to video editors to make a video for his speech on morality, and it was as if he was talking directly to me. I thank the all mighty non-existent God that people like Sam are willing and able to concisely and with devastating impact put forward the argument against religion. His voice and his ideas are LONG overdue and severely needed.

Video by Devon Tracey

A month ago, Sam Harris posted on his website an audio excerpt from one of his debates. It’s a popular excerpt, where he talks about the flimsy morality of God. Harris gave his readers permission to turn that excerpt into a video and Devon Tracey came through with this very nice visual representation of a powerful speech

This is worth listening to a few times. The morality of god the system devised the “chosen people”. It frames the insanity that is religion and can apply to all of them and does but is targeted to an audience that probably will not listen. It’s a very powerful speech with a dramatic backdrop.
Sam Harris on Wiki

reply to post by Grimpachi


He keeps blaming god for the worlds ills but really people are the ones responsible for those horrors. If a Tsunami slays a million people thats "gods" fault? If his example "christians" pray and nothing happens theres no god?

Misunderstood.

There is no eternal hell.

Religion is man made.

Mans inhumanity to man is responsible, not "god".

reply to post by intrptr


Honestly if you watch the whole thing then you know he says exactly that. Blaming god thanking god relying on god admonishing god it’s all insane. We are in control of our lives S%!t happens but it wasn’t god. The universe is messy and chaotic the sooner we realize that as a whole the sooner we will stop relying or believing some imaginary madman will take care of us either here or in an afterlife and make the place better for everyone.

reply to post by Grimpachi

…the sooner we will stop relying or believing some imaginary madman will take care of us either here or in an afterlife…

But his conclusion is there is no spirit world, right? I may think that organized religion has it wrong but so does he.

Theres a middle ground.

reply to post by intrptr

He keeps blaming god for the worlds ills but really people are the ones responsible for those horrors.

No.

Sam Harris is very much an atheist.

He's not blaming a being he doesn't believe exists! He's merely illustrating how immoral that being would be if he did exist as the faithful believe.

But his conclusion is there is no spirit world, right?

He's fairly open to the idea of expanded states of awareness we may be able to tap into…

He doesn't believe in a creator god or any religion et cetera.

reply to post by Grimpachi


I'm a huge Sam Harris fan!! I've read two of his books and watched every single debate of his on Youtube. Have you seen his Ted Talk?

I actually saw this vid clip recently on my Facebook since I 'liked' his page ^_^

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy

He's not blaming a being he doesn't believe exists! He's merely illustrating how immoral that being would be if he did exist as the faithful believe.

The "faithful" don't have a clue what they are worshipping. Ask then to describe "God" according to their religion. They shrug. Maybe they say, its mysterious.

As far as blaming god if he exists, thats as ridiculous as blaming you for all the worlds ills. You are a being too? Why can't you fix it?

If the religious folk really understand their "word" they would read in there that the "creator" said lets make man in our image. The creator isn't that special you see. Just maybe more advanced, and maybe more capable than we are right now.

This religious image of a bearded man in robes in the clouds that is all powerful is so much baloney. Its a tale that has grown in the telling and has become so far off the mark.

He is a "man" like you an I. He had a son like you and I. Not better than or more guilty for the evils of this world than you or I.

Soo he's an atheist then?

reply to post by cass1dy09


OK I can understand if you can't watch the video but the link to his wiki page is there too. Are you being serious?

reply to post by cass1dy09


Correct. He's an outspoken atheist who regularly debates theologians. Authors anti-religion books. He's an anti-theist more accurately. He got his first Ph.D in philosophy and a second in neuroscience. He's a really great speaker, I highly suggest watching him debate even if you're on the other side of things.

reply to post by intrptr

The "faithful" don't have a clue what they are worshipping.

I believe they are worshipping something imaginary. Not the creator god aspect so much as the specific religious description they attribute to it. I don't know if a creator god exists or not, but every fiber of my being calls bullcrap on an all-knowing all loving all powerful being having any hand in our religious books.

If the religious folk really understand their "word" they would read in there that the "creator" said lets make man in our image. The creator isn't that special you see. Just maybe more advanced

Are you alluding to alien intervention? That Yahweh is really an advanced alien?

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy

…but every fiber of my being calls bullcrap on an all-knowing all loving all powerful being having any hand in our religious books.

Men wrote those books. Religion is man made. Used primarily to control others for power and wealth.

Are you alluding to alien intervention? That Yahweh is really an advanced alien?

I resist using the terms both genres use to describe what we really know nothing about.

Just personally if the Universe is infinite then anything is possible as far as life forms go. What is a spirit if not an ancient life form from somewhere else?

Unless you believe in nothing. Of course thats rather narrow minded considering we've never been off this little rock. Sort of Middle Ages ignorant; the world is flat and the center of everything? We are the only life?

I can't accept that. I don't have lots of answers, just can't accept that.

reply to post by Grimpachi


I think you'll enjoy this as well. Short clip. He addresses Islam. Sorry for off topic. I wanted to link a good one for Christianity but they were all 1-2 hour videos I found.

Some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them.

-- Sam Harris, The End of Faith

Got that? Harris thinks it may be ethical to kill people for what they believe, whether they act on those beliefs or not. Kill them, not punish them or try to change their minds. Kill them.

Real moral hero you have there.

reply to post by adjensen

The following is Sam Harris's words from samharris.org

My discussion of killing people “for what they believe”

The following passage seems to have been selectively quoted, and misconstrued, more than any other I have written: *I took the passage out adjensen, but it's referring to the one you used*

This paragraph appears after a long discussion of the role that belief plays in governing human behavior, and it should be read in that context. Some critics have interpreted the second sentence of this passage to mean that I advocate simply killing religious people for their beliefs. Granted, I made the job of misinterpreting me easier than it might have been, but such a reading remains a frank distortion of my views. To someone reading the passage in context, it should be clear that I am discussing the link between belief and behavior. The fact that belief determines behavior is what makes certain beliefs so dangerous.

When one asks why it would be ethical to drop a bomb on Ayman al-Zawahiri, the current leader of al Qaeda, the answer cannot be, “Because he killed so many people in the past.” To my knowledge, the man hasn’t killed anyone personally. However, he is likely to get a lot of innocent people killed because of what he and his followers believe about jihad, martyrdom, the ascendancy of Islam, etc. A willingness to take preventative action against a dangerous enemy is compatible with being against the death penalty (which I am). Whenever we can capture and imprison jihadists, we should. But in many cases this is either impossible or too risky. Would it have been better if we had captured Osama bin Laden? In my view, yes. Do I think the members of Seal Team Six should have assumed any added risk to bring him back alive? Absolutely not.

The paragraph it was quoted from

The link between belief and behavior raises the stakes considerably. Some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them. This may seem an extraordinary claim, but it merely enunciates an ordinary fact about the world in which we live. Certain beliefs place their adherents beyond the reach of every peaceful means of persuasion, while inspiring them to commit acts of extraordinary violence against others. There is, in fact, no talking to some people. If they cannot be captured, and they often cannot, otherwise tolerant people may be justified in killing them in self-defense. This is what the United States attempted in Afghanistan, and it is what we and other Western powers are bound to attempt, at an even greater cost to ourselves and to innocents abroad, elsewhere in the Muslim world. We will continue to spill blood in what is, at bottom, a war of ideas.

edit on 2-12-2013 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy


It doesn't really matter what spin he tries to put on it, if you read what he wrote, he disassociates belief from action, and says that it is ethical to kill people for what they believe, regardless of whether they act on it or not.

That mentality, and the fact that this guy is held up as some great moral authority, should be terrifying to any rational person, whether they agree with Harris' atheism or not.

reply to post by adjensen


The spin is completely on those taking one line out of an otherwise long statement and trying to present that as something it was not meant to be,

Strange how it is usually the same people who scream one set of writings are taken out of context when they are presented as immoral will readily do exactly what they complain about to recent work. It is even stranger when those that have been misinterpreted who are still alive clarify those groups refuse to listen.

I wish there was another certain author around to clarify his book.

reply to post by adjensen


Yes its his professional opinion (read fact) belief and behavior share an intimate relationship. An objective reflection on that should only make it more apparent to anyone. Someone who has a Ph.D in neuroscience can appreciate it on a whole new and telling level. Beliefs are not benign.

He wasn't saying to kill anyone and everyone if they have bad beliefs! If you are taking that from it still, I am wondering if you really read my last post.

Here is a Ted Talk of him on morality. He's clearly a man with a good heart and a concern for the well-being of others.

reply to post by Grimpachi


Sam Harris is immature and lacking understanding of core, key, basic theological precepts of orthodox Christian doctrine;

SAM HARRIS: CRITICISMS AND REBUTTALS

With Harris the unholy trinity of recent Atheism is complete. The spirit is the same; the content doesn't change. Atheists never get tired of consuming the same tiring message -- and people like Harris, Dawkins and Hitchens provide.

"But, after reading his book, I am left feeling that he is a fanatic rationalist who leaves no room for nuance or interpretation. In his writing, Harris appears to feel so alone in his rationalism that he is compelled to shriek at his audience, using blasphemy and insults to get a reaction out of people of faith.

As I read "Letter to a Christian Nation", which one can easily do in an hour and a half, I started to feel that the author, perhaps deliberately, perhaps despite himself, transforms his monologue into the same fanatical, fundamentalist, incomprehensible dogma that he so thoroughly denounces."

Pascal Levensohn, "Book Review-- 'Letter to a Christian Nation' by Sam Harris."http://www.pascalsview.com/about.html

"He dropped out of Stanford, where he was an English major, in his sophomore year and started to study Buddhism and meditation. He flew around the country and around the world, to places such as India and Nepal, often for silent retreats that went on for months."

"Which gets us to another problem with Harris's work often cited by critics: He can preach only to those who have left the choir. As a critique of faith, "You people are nuts" isn't likely to change a lot of minds. There is the broader question, too, of whether religious moderates really are enablers for extremists. Maybe moderates are a bulwark against fanatics. If this is really a war of ideas, it is probably not a war between no religion (which is what Harris would like) and extremism. It's a war between moderation and extremism, which is a war one needs moderates to fight.

"You're not going to convert everyone to atheism," says Harvey, the retired Stanford professor. "Secular humanists like Harris ought to be concerned with allies, to win fights on questions like the separation of church and state. But Harris isn't concerned about the political implications of his arguments, because he thinks that anything supernatural is evil."

"Harris isn't against all religion. He endorses Jainism, a religion-philosophy from India that finds God in the unchanging traits of the human soul. But everyone who organizes his or her life around an ancient text that purports to convey the words and sentiments of God -- Harris would like you to surrender your prayers, history and traditions. You are welcome to check out Jainism, but Harris recommends that you accept his conclusion, which is that we live in a universe without God. Deal with it."

"The End of Faith" and "Letter to a Christian Nation" contain plenty to outrage just about everyone. Harris assails political correctness, evangelicals, liberals, right-wingers and even Judaism, which often gets a pass in such debates. (Harris charges that Jews have been complicit in their centuries-long persecution because they have insisted on setting themselves apart from the rest of the world.)

David Segal, "Atheist Evangelist.", www.washingtonpost.com...


If Harris is right, there can't be any genuine engagement between reasonable people (people like Sam Harris) and Christians or other religious believers. As Douglas Wilson observes, "It is one thing to say that we ought to move away from politically-correct euphemisms (which I agree with), and then to go on to say that everyone in the history of the world outside your little atheistic society is a raving psychopathic wackjob."
John Wilson, Book Review: "A response to Sam Harris' Letter to a Christian Nation."
www.christianitytoday.com...

reply to post by godlover25


What was the point of that post?

Yes religious people take qualm with Sam Harris. Of course….

You just pasted random Christians venting about him.

What are you thoughts?

With Harris the unholy trinity of recent Atheism is complete.

lol I love it.

Unfortunately we lost Hitchens. I'm sure the evil atheists will elect a new devil to take his seat soon.

reply to post by godlover25


Sooo..... What do YOU have to say about the content of the video? I am not that interested in what others have to say about Harris's previous work. I could have looked it up if I was. Are you part of the groups that refuse to watch?