I don't really see how this is relevant at HN.
Science and Religion: an essay by Einstein
11–17 of 17 posts
Re: Science and Religion: an essay by Einstein
#12I don't really see how this is relevant at HN.
Einstein was a great hacker (for some definitions of hacker) and this essay "gratifies one's intellectual curiosity".
Re: Science and Religion: an essay by Einstein
#13Sam Harris offers a great counter argument to the idea that "science can only ascertain what is, but not what should be" in the Moral Landscape. Essentially, many aspects of human emotional wellbeing are counter-intuitive and can be best studied by empirical means (fMRI, psychology studies, etc.). In that way science offers a better alternative to religion in defining societal rules and ethical behavior.
Morals and Ethics lie more in the realm of philosophy than science.
Insofar as morals and ethics are the result of human thought, I think the sciences of neurology and psychology have a great deal to say about them. This is, in part, Harris' point.
Re: Science and Religion: an essay by Einstein
#14Re: Science and Religion: an essay by Einstein
#15Sam Harris offers a great counter argument to the idea that "science can only ascertain what is, but not what should be" in the Moral Landscape. Essentially, many aspects of human emotional wellbeing are counter-intuitive and can be best studied by empirical means (fMRI, psychology studies, etc.). In that way science offers a better alternative to religion in defining societal rules and ethical behavior.
The Moral Landscape is an ok discussion of ethics, but the real question is one of meta-ethics. Sure, science can give some pointers to help human wellbeing. But it can't make the assertion that thriving is a good thing, or that individuals ought (in the sense of a moral imperative) to care about anything beyond their individual wishes.
Harris starts with a naturalist/atheist/humanist/utilitiarian meta-ethic, and goes from there. But he doesn't (and cannot, due to the nature of science) show that such a meta-ethic is correct to begin with.
Re: Science and Religion: an essay by Einstein
#16I don't really see how this is relevant at HN.
Einstein was a great hacker (for some definitions of hacker) and this essay "gratifies one's intellectual curiosity".
Okay, it's always a question of definition when it comes to "one's". :)
I do get your point however, and since you got more up-votes than me here I wont argue with it. I'm still a newbie at HN. :)
Re: Science and Religion: an essay by Einstein
#17Sam Harris offers a great counter argument to the idea that "science can only ascertain what is, but not what should be" in the Moral Landscape. Essentially, many aspects of human emotional wellbeing are counter-intuitive and can be best studied by empirical means (fMRI, psychology studies, etc.). In that way science offers a better alternative to religion in defining societal rules and ethical behavior.
My problem with Harris' argument was that it was speculative in a way science, almost by definition, can't be. He doesn't say science can provide answers now, but it will in the future. However this latter proposition runs counter to what we know about the trajectory of science via Feyerabend and Kuhn, who are more Harris' opponents than Hume, though even his response to Hume on the is/ought distinction is disturbingly dismissive.