Email Updates - Get notified each week via email of the best new documentaries      Sign Me Up!
Processing your request, Please wait....

Enjoy this Documentary? Express your views below!!

Who Says Science has Nothing to Say About Morality?

Science|24 Nov, 2012|543 Comments |
Click Stars Below to Vote!
VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 2.6/5 (12 votes cast)

In his new book The Moral Landscape, neurologist and philosopher Sam Harris challenges the widespread view that science has nothing to say about moral issues and that religion is the greatest authority on the meaning, values ​​and a good life.

For Sam, the goal of moral physiognomy is to start a conversation about moral truth can be understood in terms of science.

Richard Dawkins is known for its persistence in the demand for a rational and scientific approach to solving most fundamental questions of life wherever and whenever it can be applied. Therefore, science can help us determine how we should live in the 21st century?

These two summits to discuss rational thought at the Sheldonian Theatre at Oxford University, as the science of morality could be formulated and applied to human welfare.

Who Says Science has Nothing to Say About Morality? , 2.6 out of 5 based on 12 ratings
Subscribe via RSSPlease subscribe to our RSS feed to have new doc's delivered straight to your reader.
This Video is Tagged With:

, , , ,



  1. ulthea says:

    @Frank289100 You mistake accepting evidence for evolution as subscribing to a belief system including values and morals – something that only your religion boasts. Lack of belief in a God says nothing about a persons ability to be rational or moral, and that you claim such shows how terribly irrational you yourself are.Thankfully, there are plenty of Christians who more than make up for your own lack of understanding on this, and who do, themselves, use logic. Pity you’ve been “left behind”.

  2. ulthea says:

    @JungleJargonJudging by your comments to others, it is clear you are not interested in gaining reliable knowledge, only that which is able to co-exist with your personal idea of God…which also differs to many millions of other believers. Of course, if God were perfect there would be no need for you to explain on his behalf, nor would your belief differ to others. But I am sure you have a scripted response for that one too, just like the rest of your drivel.

  3. ulthea says:

    @JungleJargon Your only argument against evolution is one from ignorance. All working mechanisms THAT WERE MADE BY MAN always have a maker. Fixed that for you. For a minute there it was as if you thought that living things could be studied and given value by comparison to non-living things, but you of course would not be that fallacious, would you?

  4. ulthea says:

    @JungleJargon Your arguments are flawed and ignore the mountains of evidence to support evolution. From ERVs, homology, junk DNA, polyploidy etc, every attempt to falsify has thus far only strengthened the theory. You can claim till you’re blue in the face that this evidence is not sufficient, but the vast majority of the scientific community disagree with you, and unlike you they have the education, experience and information to support their position.

  5. JungleJargon says:

    @H1gK1p You want me to show you the Maker of all matter and you can’t even see all matter.Believe what there is evidence of. Don’t believe what is not true. That means you cannot believe in evolution because there is no evidence of it.Directed functions, working parts and mechanisms always have a Maker. Don’t believe there are directed mechanisms that don’t have a maker.

  6. morganthem says:

    There is so much fluff around these conversations…… of course these discussions are philosophical in nature and tend to get fluffy by way of the sheer speculative aspect….. however even more introspection seems necessary to solve some of these major conundrums and in my honest opinion these problem’s answers are not able to be extrapolated to actually applicable science without a good deal of friendly discussion. Objectively curious questions are the path.

  7. TheEkstaza says:

    @Frank289100 If you are wrong about Thor, he may punish you equally as badly as if I may be punished by Allah for not praising him. This line of thought is worthless as we cannot disregard all of the possible negative fates that we ALL might have to face if we are wrong about some god that hasn’t even been described yet. There is no point in any of it. Without evidence in support of one deity or another, why take any of them at face value?

  8. TheEkstaza says:

    @Frank289100 What if you’re wrong about Thor? How about Anubis? Ra? Baal? Allah? Satan? Loki? The Flying Spaghetti Monster? He boiled for your sins, you know! What if you are wrong about any of the billions of possible deities that could possibly be in existence if we are to give credence to any and all baseless ideas about deities. I don’t think you have every taken into account the possibility that YOU might be wrong.

  9. MrY0ufail says:

    @Frank289100 Because for the centuries in the past, and even continuing to today, Atheists have been murdered by the thousands because of their words. That’s why atheists feel the need to attack religion. We are tired of sitting by while the ridiculous notions of delusional people dominate public discourse. We are watching with exasperation as religion clouds the big issues, (nuclear proliferation, economic struggles, global warming) with issues like gay marriage and stem cell research.

  10. TomFynn says:

    @Frank289100 “I believe eventually Dawkins will acknowledge GOD.” Until you come up with some good evidence, no.”I would never wish hell on any man.” Apparently your GOD does.”Instead of being a neutral Atheist they are the stupid one’s that attack him.” Well, yes. See above.”They never take into account the consequences if they are wrong.” Yes, we do. That’s why: see above.

  11. Frank289100 says:

    @mexicandruglord Your 100% right. I argue the same things with these animals. These people twist and redefine the original meanings of words. I believe eventually Dawkins will acknowledge GOD. Sad thing Hitchens never did. To play around with the tremendous power up above is suicide. I would never wish hell on any man. To Atheists GOD is a great unknown. Instead of being a neutral Atheist they are the stupid one’s that attack him. They never take into account the consequences if they are wrong.

  12. Frank289100 says:

    @TomFynn If you Irish had brains the potato famine would never had happened. Irish ingenuity planted one strain of potato. Instead of planting different strains they planted one so when it hit it wiped out they whole potato crop coast to coast. Hitler said meat was poison for the mind. Stop eating that fried bologna.

  13. TheEkstaza says:

    @JungleJargon What a load of BS nonsense. Morality does not rely on religious beliefs. It is very easy to be a moral atheist. In fact, I think it is easier to choose to be moral without a god. I don’t have to worry about doing something immoral because a deity asks me too.

  14. @tinyknott “People really should learn the difference. Go back to school kiddo.”Wikipedia holds the patent on definitions now, eh? Hardly.Atheism and theism deal with faith, either having faith or not having faith that a god exists. Agnosticism has to do with knowledge, which does not apply to supernatural claims, but is colloquially used to describe someone who allows the possibility a god exists even if they don’t have faith it does.Self-identifying agnostics are actually atheists.

  15. @Frank289100 “Atheist – Believes there is no GOD.Agnostic – Questions the existence of GOD.”Incorrect, atheism is the rejection of a theistic claim that a god exists. Agnosticism refers to knowledge, and knowledge is not applicable to the supernatural, but agnostic is colloquially used to describe someone who allows the possibility a god exists even if they don’t have faith that it does.

  16. @JungleJargon “As soon as you say something about morality, you are no longer an atheist.”As soon as you say something about morality, you are no longer Christian, as the bible only offers a do-as-i-say-not-as-i-do morality, where slavery, genocide, child abuse and even worse atrocities are commanded by a supposedly all-good all-loving god. Anyone who does not kill his/her neighbor for working on the sabbath, for example, is not a Christian.

  17. @tinyknott I find it funny that you call me a kiddo then site Wikipedia as your source of a definition when there are plenty of dictionaries out there that say otherwise. Wikipedia also says that Atheism is the rejection of the belief of Gods, which agrees with my definition in a broad sense. I’m surprised you didn’t look up agnosticism in Wikipedia as well. Then again you probably did, realized the definition is basically mine, then ignored it. Perhaps you should learn the difference.

  18. Marcara081 says:

    @TomFynn Agnostic: a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.This is not unreasonable thinking, and at the same level as an atheist. Agnostics just aren’t jumping to any conclusions about the possible existence of some sort of god or any other universal truth.But it doesn’t matter either way.

  19. TomFynn says:

    @Frank289100 “The definitions I gave you are the exact one” The definitions you gave are the definition *you* gave. Oh and you do know that just because the words for something are Greek, the Greeks got nothing to do with it? Just making sure.”Are you an Atheist, Agnostic or theist.” If you cannot figure that out from my post, there really is no point, is there…?

  20. TomFynn says:

    @Frank289100 Atheist: Concludes quite reasonably on the failure by theists to provide evidence for their claims that there is no God, as there are no chemtrails, no alien abductions and no controlled dets on 9/11.Agnostic : Cannot quite bring himself to the same level of reasonable thinking yet.

  21. Eric says:

    OK, we’ll try this again. Atheism is not a lack of belief in everything, it’s a lack of belief only in a deity or deities. Understand? Everyone does and says things largely on what they believe, it’s just that when Atheists behave morally it’s because they do it for the sake of it, not because some invisible sky daddy and Santa clause for adults demands that they do. When an Atheist acts in a moral way it’s because they believe it is the best thing for society. See, we do believe in things. Here’s another thing I believe. I believe blind dogma has done far more harm than good throughout history.

  22. Tenshijhun says:

    I feel your pain. We are about 20k in debt. (yes, that is painful to admit.) I am very new to this. Just stteard in January, but my goal is to elimate our debt by June 29, 2011. Good luck. I am sure you can do it.

Leave a Comment