/lit/ - Literature

>>13525430
Anything by this mad prophet can serve as an aftermath to the God Delusion. It offers well phrased arguments and opinions on everything that religion used to tell you.

Does anyone take this guy seriously anymore?

Pic unrelated.

Answer this: If I could take a blood sample from you and tell you what your political views are, how stupid would you feel about having devoted your life to a cause that is as logical having blue eyes or being Chinese? Would you reconsider your views?

---

FREE WILL is a tired topic of discussion, I know, especially because we operate under the illusion that it does and there aren't any real important implications either way.

If I said to you: "you're conservative because of a causal chain of events that you had no influence on" it would be meaningless in practical terms.

But now there is an evident causal link ... genetics -> behavioural traits -> political predisposition.

For example (hypothetical) gene 11p15 is responsible for making you highly deviant, and highly deviant people are usually liberal. Now repeat this with 5 others genes, adjust the value with your parents' income, and with some regression analysis the final value should be 99.98% accurate.

>haha you don't have free will

how do you respond?

>>10601225
>and not one that can ever make ethical judgments
wrong

He's never actually done any philosophy. He just parrots whatever secular humanists said and commentates on it. He's never actually had an original idea. At most he's an activist.

He's about as much as a "philosophy" as I am.

Is he the most intelligent man of the 21st century?

>Sam Harris dismisses compatibilism as a form of theology
what the fuck did he mean by this?

>>10486654

>>10473864
>implying science won't solve political philosophy eventually

>single-handedly solves philosophy
what have you done with your life, anon?

Panel discussion with Sam Harris, Lawrence Krauss, Peter Singer, Steven Pinker, Patricia Churchland, and Simon Blackburn

Y'all enjoy

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qtH3Q54T-M8

Yes yes well done Jordan, well done..

HOWEVER

>>10337646
yeah but...

WHICH GOD ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT????

"how do you do, fellow utilitarian?"

>*turns on microphone*
>*ahem*
>excuse me but..
>*dramatic pause*
>...but which God are you talking about?

>>10266153
>>10266160

sorry boys

noam's a pleb

Daily reminder that all moral claims are consequentalist.

>>9947249

The well-being of conscious creatures.

Imagine a universe in which every sentient being suffers as much as possible for as long as possible, lets call that the worst possible misery for everyone. Lets agree that the worst possible misery for everyone is "bad" and that if we should do anything it's to avoid it.

Everything anyone does has causal effects which brings us either closer or farther away from the worst possible misery for everyone. So your actions, and yours beliefs which influences your actions, determines whether you as an agent in causes us to move in one direction or the other on the spectrum of misery.

Thus actions which causes us to move towards the worst misery for everyone are "morally bad", and naturally actions which causes us to move away from it, ie to move towards flourishing and well-being are "morally good".