Initial post-talk thoughts: Harris & Dawkins Oxford
Just got home after 3.5 hour drive , so just some quick note taking before I pass out. I may flesh this out tomorrow on the way down to Bristol.
* Overall, Sam was as lucid as ever. Great to see in person
* 20 mins of Sam peddling TML with the usual talk, however each time I hear it he has adjusted things slightly, giving emphasis to different chapters of the book.
*I feel like I’m 80% with him. There are a number of things I have issues with, but as I think about the concept more and more, and source the end notes of the book, the clearer what he is saying becomes. I want to get to the end of the week of talks, re-read the Russell Blackford essay on TML, and then properly write out my thoughts as they currently stand.
* 30 mins of Dawkins probing Sam on potential issues people may take with the books central claims. Also added his own qualms, which seemed developed and genuine. This was the highlight of the evening, as it gave Sam room to manoeuvre around the topic loosely. I find he speaks just as succinctly and poignantly off the cuff as he does with his prepared speeches. I do feel this section could have been even better though. I would have liked to have seen more of a disagreement between the two of them on “ought/is” distinction amongst other things. A genuine back and forth dialogue would have been even better I think. But its not like I’m really complaining, if I’m going to sit through anyone probing/interviewing Harris on his book then its gonna be Richard! Strangely Dawkins started out by reading a few paragraphs from the rather large section in the book where Harris goes off at length re: Francis Collins debacle. Whilst I agree entirely with what Sam has to say, that section simply goes on disproportionately too long for the significance it has on the premise
* Q&A: Without wishing to offend anyone, the questions were pretty poor. I understand that it’s not easy to quickly articulate a question at the microphone, and I don’t really believe I would have necessarily asked anything better, however most of the questions seemed to come out as statements or opinions. “I agree with you but…” The questioner would then wait for Sam to try and explain why he disagreed with their opinion. What this really amounted to was a sort of “bet you haven’t thought of this”. In almost every case, he had thought of that and had even referred to it in his opening remarks. This was the only time Sam seemed ro ramble, and appear slightly lost. For several questions he ended up responding vaguely to the given opinion, then referring back to his earlier introduction. This could appear like a weakness in his argument, maybe it is and perhaps I’m doing people a disservice, maybe when I see the DVD it will seem different again. Or maybe it’s a hard thing to do, get out a question on this tricky subject, and maybe people just haven’t yet read the book and were solely going by what they had heard tonight or from YouTube. :/
* After the Q&A there was a book signing. I got TML and EOF signed. I’m saving LTACN for tomorrow when Sarah will be with me and we can get a cheeky picture taken.
* Speaking of pictures sorry for the appalling shot. I was a good boy and didn’t take my 550d in to the theatre thinking it wouldn’t be allowed. Well turns out it was, and so all I could manage was this from the iPhone. Tomorrow I shall take in the dslr for better pics 
One final note, Oxford is gorgeous. A little strange as it seems it is entirely a littlebig student world unlike anything I have ever seen! The Sheldonian theatre was smaller than I was expecting and a great intimate venue for the event.
Right I’m battered, g’night. See you all tomorrow.
dB
In another universe…
I am certain I never fall in love with music, I am far more intelligent than this present corporal organ will allow, I study a serious subject, and I am now wandering around the sunny streets of Oxford being paid to think about…you know…big shit… n stuff.
For now though, in this universe I will have to make do with living vicariously through intellects far greater than mine.
Harris & Dawkins: Pre-talk thoughts
Im currently en-route to Oxford for the first of the Sam Harris events and I’ve stopped off for a break from the M1 and to do some thinking.
I’ve got The Moral Landscape on the iPod and I’m about 2/3rds through it. This will be the second time I’ve listened/read through the book and my thoughts are starting to become clearer.
I think the negative reviews of the book are not entirely unfounded, but at their root lies perhaps a misunderstanding of how Harris is using the term ‘science’.
Whilst Sam does go into detail as to what he means by ‘how science can determine morality’ I also feel that he is not entirely blameless for the confusion. The subtitle of the book implies a very specific utilisation of the scientific discipline. The word ‘science’ conjures quite precise imagery in the collective consciousness of the book buying populace.
I think this is even more of a problem for the philosophers and theologians that have criticised it. It would be interesting to see what a philosopher of the sciences like Daniel Dennett thinks of it. I have no doubt that Dennett would set aside the fact that they are on the same team in order to de with Harris’s claims.
Sam is using the term ‘science’ very broadly, to the effect that we can use objective observation to see how the brain reacts to certain states of ‘well being’ and propositions of moral/ethical actions. He then argues this is the basis for deciding on whether actions are objectively moral or not.
This is another major area for confusion. I don’t think Sam is arguing that there exists objective morality outside of human experience. For example that there is an unseen rulebook somewhere that outlines morality independent of whether humans exist or not. This is essentially the line taken by religious apologists and what they mean by object morality. Harris is almost misusing the term objective, or at very least redefining t somewhat. This is why it felt to me that Harris and Lane Craig were debating at cross purposes last week.
I intend to write an in depth review of The Moral Landscape after the talks this week, and after I have finished reading/listening to it once more. This is obviously not that review, just my ongoing feelings on the subject.
Once you accept Harris’s claim that ‘well being’ is the subconscious or conscious default goal of all sentient creatures, his reasoning and arguments are extremely logical and convincing. This is not to say I’m completely happy with it, or that the first premise of ‘well being’ being the arbiter of what we should want is true. Harris foes however spend a lot of time giving reasons as to why he believes this is the case.
The negative reviews seem to be over looking these massive chunks of the book that address many of the concerns and supposed problems that are levied at it. It leads one to believe that many ‘reviewers’ are not actually reading the book itself :/
Anyway, quick slash and back on the road! Hope the weather is still this nice in Oxford
dB
A Week of Sam Harris
I’ve been a big admirer of Sam Harris in recent years. His ideas can at times be controversial to both theist and atheist alike, yet he always remains lucid, calm and a strong advocate of rational thought.
Having watched a lot of debates and talks online over the years I’m finally going to get to hear him speak in person as he’s going to be in the UK promoting his recent book “The Moral Landscape”.
The real exciting thing is that his string of talks coincides with an easy week off work, and so I’m going round the UK to see all but one of them!
Tuesday it’s a double whammy of awesomeness as he discusses with Richard Dawkins on the same stage the topic, “Who say’s science has nothing to do with morality?“, for this one I’m driving down to Oxford alone (get it touch if you fancy meeting up).
Wednesday Sarah and I are driving down to Bristol Festival of Ideas for a stand alone talk by Sam on TML book itself, hopefully staying over to enjoy the town the following day.
Finally, on Saturday with Sarah and her father, it’s over to Cambridge for the WordFest. Here Sam will be in discussion with Ian McEwan, presumably along the same lines as the Dawkins event.
A rather pleasant week of rational thought and ideas, hopefully the weather wont turn too much.
I’ve read “The Moral Landscape” once through fully and am about halfway through my second reading in preparation for the talks. I’m also reading some of the heavy criticism it received as well as positive views of it to try and wrap my head around the issues in greater detail and form
Hopefully I’ll have my laptop with me and blog about it whilst I’m out and about. I know that the Dawkins discussion has definitely sold out but if anyone’s going and wants to meet up before/after for drink and talks get in touch. The other events may still have tickets available, check the links above.
dB
A Fresh Start
Hi there to all; newcomers as well as people putting up with me changing this once again!
I’ve been messing around with various blogging platforms for as long as I can remember; livejournal, wordpress, blogger, posterous etc. I think I’ve been through them all, however I have never got into a consistent habit of actually writing content. Well I’m determined to change that this year and I’ve had a bit of an on-line service clear out.
I’ve decided to cut down what I’m using and put my content into two camps. Longer, composed posts on specific topics, and what I suppose I’ll call life blogging. WordPress has always been in my opinion the most fully featured and extensive system for the former, and I’ve finally decided that Tumblr works best for the latter.
For some time I was sure that Posterous was the perfect platform, however only supporting tags not categories really prevents it being useful for long posts and organising. Posterous also doesn’t have the same community drive that Tumblr has making it less useful for life blogging. The themes available, whilst becoming more numerous are not as slick as Tumblr either.
I think I got caught up in Posterous because of my slight OCD tendencies to sync and normalise data across different places. Basically the “auto posting everywhere” that Posterous can do made me obsess on maintaining so many different services and accounts, that eventually I’m thinking less about content and more about ironing out the auto posting quirks and errors.
Regarding the auto posting, I’ve realised that people only really care about Facebook and Twitter! So by coupling Tumblr to fb and twitter, all my life and photo blogging bases are covered. WordPress can also be coupled to twitter and fb provides a more structured forum for longer subject composed posts on religion, atheism, scepticism, Arabic etc.
By letting go of my strange psychological need to use and understand every platform out there, I can try getting focussed on writing and posting more interesting stuff. And if I really need/want to, I can manually copy and paste between Tumblr and WordPress for the overlaps.
So, that’s it…I’m going to start making a concerted effort to post at least once a week here, and well I guess whenever the mood strikes for Tumblr.
David
