It is nice to see Mr. Harris has come to the realization that his philosophy for life, at least in the public eye, is “bankrupt” (pun intended). I for one would no spend one thin dime or give him any computer “clicks” by viewing his web page, pod cast, or buy his books. While I am interest in what he has to say, he gets zero support or recognition from me. I find out about people like him by reading read various reviews, both positive and negative, etc. If I do not trust someone, I give them very little of my time and attention.
Just Me 999
Hmmm... A thoughtful article. Does it hold up logically? Not quite. The article gets shaky, at several points in its presentation:
Either Or Fallacy: says Harris’s secular ethics as having no reason for moral behavior, while Christianity offers the only real reason. This ignores a massive literature of secular moral philosophy and humanistic ethics with plenty of robust grounding: Aristotle and Kant to name a few.
Straw Man: Harris is essentially reduced to someone who “just thought about morality” and hoped for the best. But his actual arguments, while contestable, are a little more subtle than neurons firing is truth.
Double Standard: Harris’s philosophy must explain why everyone would act morally under his system. But no worldview guarantees that—not even Christianity, which the author admits. The author does make a good point about the Christian worldview providing a great answer though.
Do I agree with Harris' philosophy? No, not at all, but we can do better here with the logical argument - seems a little contrived to be honest.
Work of His hands
Reading The Moral Landscape during my misspent younger days, I was struck by the exchange between Harris and a moral relativist.
In The Moral Landscape, he recounts a conversation he had with a secular woman at a conference who claimed you couldn’t say one culture was better than another or that any behaviour was objectively right or wrong. Their exchange went something like this:
Him: So what if a group of tribespeople ritually blinded every third child?
Her: It would depend on why they were doing it.
Him: Let’s say it was because of their religion. They have a doctrine like, “every third shall walk in darkness.”
Her: Then you could never say it was wrong.
Harris was completely floored by this lady. He couldn’t see how his religion of scientism and atheist materialism was directly responsible for the cultural and moral relativism he was so appalled by. I didn’t make this connection at the time either (hadn’t come to Christ back then)—although I do remember concluding that science wasn’t a good basis for determining human values. Atheist materialism winds up in the same place as non-Christian religions; people doing whatever’s right in their own eyes, often while murdering and maiming the innocent. Praise God we fallen humans aren’t the arbiters of right and wrong! My own human wisdom is way too messed up. Don’t like to think where I’d be if the Lord had left me to it.
BOBGUTJAHR
Those who devote themselves to the purpose of proving that there is no purpose constitute an interesting object for study.
-- Alfred North Whitehead
Scots WhaHae
Bingo @ Baer!
“He’s not nearly as susceptible to emotional pressure as most other people… but Sam Harris is also foolish.” >> As all atheists are. “Claiming to be wise, they become fools.”
After listening to lots of Sam, I am convinced he’s more emotional than most people. Emotion — not logic or science — motivates the core of his empty wonky worldview. But he’s just not nearly as expressive as most people and he shades everything w/ a balm of “calm.”
“It’s hard to be honest. It’s nearly impossible to be honest without any real metaphysical reason to be.” >> Ravi Z once explained: “I’m not saying atheist don’t act ethically. I’m saying they have no rationally compelling reason to do so.”
It is nice to see Mr. Harris has come to the realization that his philosophy for life, at least in the public eye, is “bankrupt” (pun intended). I for one would no spend one thin dime or give him any computer “clicks” by viewing his web page, pod cast, or buy his books. While I am interest in what he has to say, he gets zero support or recognition from me. I find out about people like him by reading read various reviews, both positive and negative, etc. If I do not trust someone, I give them very little of my time and attention.
Hmmm... A thoughtful article. Does it hold up logically? Not quite. The article gets shaky, at several points in its presentation:
Either Or Fallacy: says Harris’s secular ethics as having no reason for moral behavior, while Christianity offers the only real reason. This ignores a massive literature of secular moral philosophy and humanistic ethics with plenty of robust grounding: Aristotle and Kant to name a few.
Straw Man: Harris is essentially reduced to someone who “just thought about morality” and hoped for the best. But his actual arguments, while contestable, are a little more subtle than neurons firing is truth.
Double Standard: Harris’s philosophy must explain why everyone would act morally under his system. But no worldview guarantees that—not even Christianity, which the author admits. The author does make a good point about the Christian worldview providing a great answer though.
Do I agree with Harris' philosophy? No, not at all, but we can do better here with the logical argument - seems a little contrived to be honest.
Reading The Moral Landscape during my misspent younger days, I was struck by the exchange between Harris and a moral relativist.
In The Moral Landscape, he recounts a conversation he had with a secular woman at a conference who claimed you couldn’t say one culture was better than another or that any behaviour was objectively right or wrong. Their exchange went something like this:
Him: So what if a group of tribespeople ritually blinded every third child?
Her: It would depend on why they were doing it.
Him: Let’s say it was because of their religion. They have a doctrine like, “every third shall walk in darkness.”
Her: Then you could never say it was wrong.
Harris was completely floored by this lady. He couldn’t see how his religion of scientism and atheist materialism was directly responsible for the cultural and moral relativism he was so appalled by. I didn’t make this connection at the time either (hadn’t come to Christ back then)—although I do remember concluding that science wasn’t a good basis for determining human values. Atheist materialism winds up in the same place as non-Christian religions; people doing whatever’s right in their own eyes, often while murdering and maiming the innocent. Praise God we fallen humans aren’t the arbiters of right and wrong! My own human wisdom is way too messed up. Don’t like to think where I’d be if the Lord had left me to it.
Those who devote themselves to the purpose of proving that there is no purpose constitute an interesting object for study.
-- Alfred North Whitehead
Bingo @ Baer!
“He’s not nearly as susceptible to emotional pressure as most other people… but Sam Harris is also foolish.” >> As all atheists are. “Claiming to be wise, they become fools.”
After listening to lots of Sam, I am convinced he’s more emotional than most people. Emotion — not logic or science — motivates the core of his empty wonky worldview. But he’s just not nearly as expressive as most people and he shades everything w/ a balm of “calm.”
“It’s hard to be honest. It’s nearly impossible to be honest without any real metaphysical reason to be.” >> Ravi Z once explained: “I’m not saying atheist don’t act ethically. I’m saying they have no rationally compelling reason to do so.”
Well said and insightful.