Make Your Life Better!

Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins – Conversation about Science Religion and Morality at oxford England. atheist Clinton Richard Dawkins (born 26 March 1941) is …
Video Rating: 4 / 5

Comments (25)

  1. Dimon paramon said on 11-03-2015

    Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins – Conversation about Science Religion and

  2. Dimon paramon said on 11-03-2015

    Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins – Conversation about Science Religion and
    Morality atheist 

  3. Dimon paramon said on 11-03-2015
  4. chris lacock said on 11-03-2015

    Harris refuses to sound clever, unlike some of the questioners, who I’m
    quite sure spend years at Uni simply re-wrapping fundamentally flawed ideas
    in more and more complicated linguistic wrapping paper.
    I see Harris’s greatest strength as this unflinching intellectual honesty.
    I don’t think there is any pretention about the man.
    I wonder if this is in large part borne out of years of meditation and
    honest self enquiry? And if so couldn’t many ‘smarts’ benefit from a
    similar practice? (i.e. a meditation/mindfulness practice ) 

  5. Tim Richardson said on 11-03-2015

    I wonder if it’s fair to say that Sam’s argument reduces to the idea that
    morality can be objectively evaluated with respect to an agreed upon goal
    of morality (sentient well-being). Perhaps we could simply make objective
    prescriptive statements in the form of “if/then.” Sam uses the example,
    “Smoking is a cause of lung cancer. If you don’t want lung cancer, you
    should not smoke.” I wonder if this is perhaps a simple formula for making
    objective moral statements. Although, the if/then formula also takes into
    account the wish of the individual whether it’s good for his/well-being or
    not. I’m just thinking out loud. 

  6. charlesvan13 said on 11-03-2015

    It would be interesting to see Sam Harris debate someone who works in
    philosophy, such as a Princeton or Oxford professor, on these issues of
    ethics and free will he’s written about.
    The controversies he’s had with political demagogues don’t move the needle
    toward better understanding at all.

  7. Einsteins Wisdom said on 11-03-2015

    Wow Dawkins is going to be 74, we need more lectures before he passes

  8. KatyPeezy said on 11-03-2015


  9. mor shahor said on 11-03-2015

    real life heroes 

  10. Joshua Folds said on 11-03-2015

    Based upon the litany of Christian beliefs which were delineated at 28:00,
    Sam Harris has a clearer understanding of Christian doctrine than do many
    so-called nominal Christians. However, he approaches the faith-based
    subject of Christianity with a purely scientific barometer. If the Apostle
    Paul were alive today, he might have advised Sam Harris not to waste his
    time. “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of
    things not seen”. The Apostle Paul, a medical doctor, seemed well aware
    that you cannot measure faith in a test tube. “…the evidence of things
    not seen”. That verse is a hard-stop. If Sam’s pure intention is to
    debunk Christianity on the basis of the non-scientific aspects of faith, he
    has failed. Christians understand that faith is a highly personal,
    individual, introspective, immeasurable, spiritual and unquantifiable
    thing. Faith has no chemical component. It has neither a molecular nor an
    anatomical composition. Sam is traveling the world and writing books to
    reassert his hackneyed assertions to other like-minded atheists. I must
    admit, he is a highly articulate and friendly fellow. But his ideas have a
    certain reverb that resounds like an echo chamber. His objectivity is

  11. prygler said on 11-03-2015

    Really great talk and argumentation from Sam Harris for a science of good
    and bad morality that should govern society, institutions, law-making,
    policy-making and human behavior.
    The best thing about Sam Harris is that he is not trying to boost his ego
    or create a positive self-image in his mind about himself. Rather he seeks
    truth, honesty and spreading honest debate. There can only be too few of
    humans like Sam Harris. Obviously Richard Dawkins is atleast to some degree
    trying to boost his ego and it is clearly a motivational component in his
    behavior and talks (to appear smarter than others).
    For people who don’t understand precisely what Sam Harris says: He says
    that yes David Hume has a point, but if we agree that the ought is to
    maximize well being, then science can tell us objectively how to do that.
    So Sam Harris’ philosophical position is simply to maximize well being and
    using science to give the knowledge to tell us how to do that.

  12. chel3SEY said on 11-03-2015

    Harris and Dawkins are assuming too much here. Harris wants us to believe
    that it is literally “nonsense” to not regard the promotion of human
    well-being as self-evidently a ‘moral truth’. But it isn’t self-evident to
    reason, even though it may be self-evident to people who already value
    human well-being. It is a circular argument. Denying his claim is not
    self-contradictory and would be regarded (quite rationally) by many as
    perfectly consistent with morality.

    Harris and Dawkins appear to have double standards: one for religion (a
    very high standard, which it fails to clear) and one for morality (a low
    standard, which it clears). If they applied the same high standard to
    morality, it too would fail.

    Scientists (like Harris and Dawkins) make poor moral philosophers.

    And for those who will accuse me of being a theist, I’m not. I am a very
    devout atheist.

  13. Byron Welichko said on 11-03-2015

    I’m confused, if pouring water over someone’s face is considered torture,
    what is locking someone in a cage for the rest of their lives?

  14. Bubba Loueee said on 11-03-2015

    Has Mr. Dawkins given consideration that the earth could have been millions
    of years old on it’s first birthday, created complete with fossil records,
    age being part of it’s construct from the beginning? I’m not interested in
    defending corrupt Christianity, just what the preserved ancient texts have
    recorded that can be of benefit. In other words, religious organizations
    are a lot about business, politics and wars for control on a grand scale
    and at least about making money on a smaller scale. Not that atheistic
    people are separate from those thing. Just that there are clearly some
    aspects that are not being properly addressed by those of faith or no
    faith. One being, was the earth created a few thousand years ago as an
    ancient, mature planet and are too many people not thinking things through
    with enough depth and honesty?

  15. econogate said on 12-03-2015

    If he maybe not conscious of his own thoughts, then he maybe not really the
    author of his thoughts but the editor. His thoughts seem not of his free
    will, they just come through random neurological pathways and he then edits
    those random thoughts into coherent patterns that he agrees with.

  16. TheChelanga said on 12-03-2015

    Yes Religion is not the answer not atheist or science and certainly not
    evolution up to now!! This stupid man can’t event understand that today’s
    laws where made by not scientist but most of them continue to hold!! some
    have been refined and this guys seem to know only about the culture he or
    his own race has have existed or historically connected to them!! Man how
    some people seem to pretend that they know every thing!! clearly they

  17. MidnightSt said on 12-03-2015

    oh my… an animated ad for the creation museum before this video? they
    really started to up the offensive, since i last had the stomach to check
    on the stupid vs reasonable people discussion… :-D

  18. BB Wolf said on 12-03-2015

    Please watch just for Sam Harris’ introduction alone, regarding the bizarre
    disconnect of certain people who as he notes, are finally attuned to the
    supposed suffering of terrorist captives, but ignore the real suffering of
    women throughout the fundamentalist world.

  19. Shehzad Ahmed said on 12-03-2015

    Every person KNOWS that they prefer pleasant mental states to unpleasant
    mental states. You might prefer temporary pleasure to future well being-
    when you smoke cigarettes or you might chose to undertake unpleasant
    activities such as hard work so that you can make money which you believe
    will bring you happiness in the future. Now, what I prefer might not always
    be what you prefer. a sadomasochist who wishes to be flogged actually
    derives a pleasure greater than the pain. ultimately we do things we like
    and avoid things we don’t like. we know this. this is how every sentient
    being works. right there you have objective morality. To do anything to a
    sentient being that it does not want to be done to itself is wrong, it’s
    bad because as sentient beings we know that we don’t want things to done
    to ourselves that we don’t like.
    Rationally speaking the only difference between my mind and your mind is
    that I’m inside mine, and the fact that I am inside my mind is not a
    logical reason to prefer my well being over yours. we should device methods
    where we both can experience well being. Where the total well being is
    greater than the total suffering. simple.
    Q: well, I don’t know what I really like
    A: Ok, would you like it if I throw acid on your face
    Q: yes, I might like it who know
    A: but why did you react by screaming and crying- reactions associated with
    suffering- when I threw acid on your face?

  20. Sean Armstrong said on 12-03-2015

    The field of theology should be discarded like yesterday’s toilet paper.
    What we should have instead is religious HISTORIANS. Theologians are junk

  21. Michael Sirrine said on 12-03-2015

    The sooner we realize that Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins and Christipher
    Hitchens are the true Platos of altruistic morality, the sooner we evolve
    as a species!

  22. To Readers Ensure to Read about TAWHEED first said on 12-03-2015

    Sam Harris, Hitchens and atheists are right in claim of ( there is no god


    NOTE : However muslims affirm similar, but conclude with ( there is no god,
    but only Allah ), that muhammud pbuh is the final messenger sent by Allah.

  23. Citizencitizens said on 12-03-2015

    Even Richard Dawkins has to invoke God to get an answer, see 0:39min of the
    video, LOL

  24. pixie886 said on 12-03-2015

    Wow, a conversation with my two favorite people! :D

  25. Hog La said on 12-03-2015

    Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins – Conversation about Science Religion and
    Morality atheist .

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *