Sam Harris Is Wrong About Morality | Can Morality Be Objective without God?

#richarddawkins #richarddawkinstour

This episode features the eminent scientist, Prof. Martin Rees, as he joins me in traversing the worlds of physics and biology.

Together, he and I grapple with the profound complexities of understanding reality, from contemplating multiple dimensions to exploring the implications of scientific insights that inspire and challenge us.

Dive into the evolution of humankind to include digital and AI creations, ponder philosophical questions of consciousness and self-awareness, and speculate on the future of machine consciousness.

----------------------

Join Substack:

Subscribe to Poetry of Reality Channel:

Follow:

[mariospanna]

Big fan of yours Richard, you look great for 83. Lets hope you are around for many more decades, we need more people of reason and fact.

[traffic-law]

Morality is nothing more than the rules we make to govern our societies. To a large extent they have universal application because societies are founded on similar basic fundamentals. Morality, whether it be objective or subjective, is independent of god for the simple reason that there is no god.

[deadbishop]

I find it strange that an atheist or "cultural christian" can say we can't get morality from reason, when every religious text is written by people not gods; and in other words all the morality in the books are from people, even if those people claim it's in the name of some god. And as Richard Dawkins says; today religious people choose what verse to follow based on modern, secular reasons.

[joescuteri]

How LUCKY are we to be alive to hear these two giants in conversation 👏👏🙏🙏

[RoverT]

For people running this channel, make a separate clip with the part talking about the title and give this professor due respect and stick his name in this full interview.
I’m not in the mood to find the meat for the bait I clicked on. Maybe I’ll come back and watch the full interview some time.

[colinellicott]

I came away unconvinced that Harris is wrong. Nice chat though. Thx.

[mohammadtajabadi]

Why is this video titled "Sam Harris is wrong about morality"?
It looks like a clickbait such as those videoes with titles "person1 destroys person2".
It's not in Richard's class, at all!

[TheAverageGuy]

A wonderful talk. Professor Rees is able to convey his ideas very succinctly.

[JonnyWisdom]

34:54 The way that Dawkins asks a question is inspiring, his wording is so concise and his question is so defined, it's like poetry.

[stephenholmgren]

This channel keeps me sane in an crazy world 🖖

[timsullivan]

I'm gonna go out on a limb and answer the thumbnail's question BEFORE watching the video: No chance he's wrong.

[shawnboadway]

It really is getting tiring having to respond to assertions that people need a god or religion to be “more” moral. I’m glad Richard pushed back against the claim, but it is tiresome to hear it still parroted even by non-religious thinkers.

[ScienceSummary]

That small part of YT actually worth watching. Two great thinkers on interesting tricky questions, I liked the subject 19:55 most and cited you in the Kialo argument map "What is God?" because one potential definition of God(s) could be aliens (and I don't know why people use words without defining what they mean): whether they could only be godlike or possibly actual God(s) was a question just waiting to be addressed by somebody notable explicitly. I think all possible ways should be addressed and next up could be the simulation hypothesis (maybe in another video?).

I disagree that it's "[just] a semantic question" – semantic questions are questions about meaning, it couldn't be much more useful, and this needs to be addressed explicitly rather than just implicitly and it's good to do so before religious people do so.
It's also great that Dawkins stood by his assertions about religion in culture and didn't give in or change subject just because some reasonable major/valid points have been raised by Rees and that he put up a bit of scrutiny against them. There's many further points Dawkins could have made such as that there's not one path/way of the Church not surviving – for example there could be popular ways people substitute whatever they got from religion, e.g. in terms of meaning, moral guidance, and motivation in their lives. The benefits have been greatly overstated and one could have ethics/philosophy as a major subject in schools (could you address that – the lack of it in many countries or as a default subject and the need for it – in another video?)

[mazikeensmith]

Of course, anyone who lands the Templeton Prize, will ONLY say good things about religion.

Richard, you are NOT wrong about religion in society. Thanks for being the voice of Logic and Reason!!!
Much Love and Respect ❤

Eternal Memory of Daniel Dennett!!!⚘❤

[ReeTM]

Thank you for hosting such a living legend. Much love

[ScottPalangi]

Richard, couid you please, regularly, just talknabout how wonderful Russel's Teapot theory is, it us so fantastic.

[davidb]

Wow, not come across Prof Rees, but what a clear explanation he gives, of the technique of identifying if a star has a planet. If only all scientists explained things this logically.

[loofatar]

I work in the field of artificial intelligence and neuroscience. I disagree that machine consciousness is coming, yes there are improvements in models of language and vision in deep learning field, but even the intelligence of a honey bee is more then these models. We are long way from true autonomous intelligence and even millennia away from real understanding of what is consciousness.

[NathanChappell-ycdh]

The more time I spend working with computers the less I consider a future inhabited by them and not us "inspiring."

[seekerhonest]

We life in a subjective perceived world with subjective man-made morals, based on KNOWLEDGE, EXPERIENCES and AGREEMENTS.
Over several generations we figured out that e.g. mu rder causes a lot disadvantages: you k ill someone from another familiy, they will k ill someone of your family, both families are weaker after.
Both families KNOW, based on that EXPERIENCE, that its better to not mu rder, they AGREE about that and develop a subjective moral and a juristic law agaisnt it.
Agreements like this lift the personal subjective moral on a common level, till the nevel of a nation, etc.
Based on KNOWLEDGE, EXPERIENCES and AGREEMENTS, we all agree that murder is by moral a no go and by law a crime.

The only way that murder can become accepted is claiming that its a demand from a "higher will" and by that an objective moral (which doesnt exist, but they claim it anyway). With that trick the Hebrews justifyed the gen oz ide they did on the Ammonites, and the Nazis justifyed they gen oz ide they did, etc.
Objective morals are not only not existing, they are also dangerous.