http://www.reasonproject.org/

What exactly constitutes "secular values" and what is this based on?

And this last sentence is absurd. If he thinks that these things do not exist in the "scientific" community and that they only exist because of religion then he is very naive.

Values that are not based in religion?

But what constitutes "based in religion?" Is it just that it is mentioned in a religious text? Is "Thou shalt not murder" a religion based value? Is that going to be thrown out?

And if it is not based on religion, then what is it based on? What makes one persons values any more important, and therefore worthy of teaching, than anyone else's values?

yes that will be thrown out b/c its based on religion u ****en ******. there's more than one book that talks about killing and why you shouldnt do it, some use reason to explain some just say you should b/c the book says so



its based on reason u ****en ******.

Yes, Sam Harris is endorsing that we refuse to adhere to anything ever said in every religious text. Murder, stealing, all fair game in his eyes. Is this really a question worth asking?

It's based on anything outside of religion ("secular" things, you might say). He is not saying that his values are more important, he is challenging the source of religious values.

I am asking the question to show how ridiculous his statements are. You should be able to see this.

He is not teaching secular values, just values that he has no objective basis for that happen to sound good to him at the moment.

I agree that your strawman argument, if presented, would be ridiculous.

He used the phrase "secular values," and you have announced that you don't feel that such a thing exists. That's very cute, but let's move on.

The long version:

It would be interesting to check in a year from now to see whether this has gone anywhere. The "Scripture Project" seems to have a very narrow focus and runs the risk of being a caricature of itself:

I despise Sam Harris's policy of "conversational intolerance". Only the savages of society will follow such a policy.

"Conversational intolerance". Situational context will dictate what it really is: religious bigotry, deviant personality manifestations, bad manners, bullying, peer pressure, etc.

A+ thinking there Sam...NOT!

And this guy is a public figure people rally around? What happened to the people living today to tolerate such. If it was broadcast on the news he'd never get away with it for all the bad press he'd catch.

lol, this is ridiculous. Pretending to always agree with everyone is clearly you MO, right?

No I'd like to see this position broadcasted.

Conversational intolerance (from wiki on Sam Harris)

Harris acknowledges that he advocates a benign, corrective form of intolerance, distinguishing it from historic religious persecution. He promotes a conversational intolerance, in which personal convictions are scaled against evidence, and where intellectual honesty is demanded equally in religious views and non-religious views. He also argues for the need to counter inhibitions that prevent the open critique of religious ideas, beliefs, and practices under the auspices of "tolerance."[11]

Harris argues that such conversation and investigation are essential to progress in every other field of knowledge. As one example, he suggests that few would require "respect" for radically differing views on physics or history; instead, he notes, societies expect and demand logical reasons and valid evidence for such claims, while those who fail to provide valid support are quickly marginalized on those topics. Thus, Harris suggests that the routine deference accorded to religious ideologies constitutes a double standard, which, following the events of September 11, 2001 attacks, has become too great a risk.[11]

In the 2007 PBS interview, Harris said, "The usefulness of religion, the fact that it gives life meaning, that it makes people feel good is not an argument for the truth of any religious doctrine. It's not an argument that it's reasonable to believe that Jesus really was born of a virgin or that the Bible is the perfect word of the creator of the universe. You can only believe those things or you should be only able to believe those things if you think there are good reasons to believe those things."


This man is a snake. You don't ever tell anyone he's good enough to practice intolerance to someone else. Every crackpot in the world will jump on that train.

As for religion making people feel good is not an argument. The survival of the human race probably depended on its ability to feel good but he's just going to ignore that because it doesn't match some personal criteria of his.

Isn't that where the people who wrote the bible,koran etc. got theirs?

But seriously folks, if you want objective morality, Justice if you will, you should check out John Rawls. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Rawls.

So basically, someone is advocating polite disagreement and you are trying to seize upon the fact that he's using the word "intolerance" as if that gives you a leg to stand on.

Read the description above. It sounds like double speak.

How so? Highlight the parts you believe to be contradictory. Please leave your own definitions off the table.

Well look how domineering and idiotic this statement is:

In the 2007 PBS interview, Harris said, "The usefulness of religion, the fact that it gives life meaning, that it makes people feel good is not an argument for the truth of any religious doctrine. It's not an argument that it's reasonable to believe that Jesus really was born of a virgin or that the Bible is the perfect word of the creator of the universe. You can only believe those things or you should be only able to believe those things if you think there are good reasons to believe those things."

The emphasis here is on thinking which excludes any one of a lower intellectual capability or perhaps having a mental health issue.

What if religion is the cure to their issue? You avoid committing suicide because you believe you'll go to hell or some other belief.

You cannot regulate other people's lives because it makes sense to you because there are hidden factors and a lot of people don't even know themselves well enough to explain things but they know what they get good results from.

It also fails to consider that the highest percentage of the world is probably living in 3rd World countries with substandard education. If you get a good feeling that your belief in God lets you tote a 6 pound jar of water on your head 8 miles to home then who the heck is Harris to make logic the criteria?

Besides many people have subconscious, intuitive beliefs and in some people these are more accurate and or the only way they know how to think. Just because they can't put things in terms the world can understand doesn't mean they don't understand in other ways.

splendour...i don't get why you bolded the part about usefulness not equaling truth...this is so obviously true that its not worth discussing...shahrad also seems not to get it...

it may be the solution to this guys problem, but that doesn't mean he actually goes to hell if he commits suicide...can you really not see that usefulness and truth are not the same?

it may be useful for me to believe that jennifer love hewitt is searching desperately for me just to be my sex slave, but that doesn't make it true...

Calm down please. He's talking about intolerance of ideas not people. For example if you are discussing stem-cell research and someone says they oppose it on religious grounds we should not except this as a valid argument, its fair game to be attacked like any other argument.

We're all very concerned about your rights, too.

In all seriousness, what exactly are they "excluded" from? If someone has an ailment that makes them unable to contemplate mathematics in any reasonable way, we don't hold it against them, we just don't follow their lead in mathematics.

Right, none of this has anything to do with conversational intolerance. I might as well have stopped reading at "you cannot regulate people's lives..." since he obviously isn't advocating anything of the sort.

Ha ha...ty for that post it made me laugh.

Yes I know there's a difference between usefulness and truth but in some sense we're talking literal versus practical truth.

Isn't practical truth the best usage even if it isn't literally true?


(I may be reading too much into Sam's policy but just the word "intolerance" bothers me and when I hear it I don't even want to hear him further. Its not practical to slap somebody in the face then expect they will settle down and listen to you. That only works in movies when someone is going into hysterics.)

But the whole point of the "conversational" is to emphasize that it's not intolerance in any other sense.

he isn't advocating a violent overthrow of religion...he simply wants to take religion off of its pedestal and make it open to criticism and commentary...something that for the most part is avoided at all costs nowadays...

Oh. I thought he meant ridicule.

What is a "practical truth", and what distinguishes it from a "literal truth"? I think I understand the essence of what you're getting at, so I substituted a more appropriate (because "wishful thinking" actually means something) phrase.

You say you know there's a difference between usefulness and truth but you're trying oh so hard to equate them. If you deny this claim, then please refrain from using such a garbage phrase as "practical truth".