He wanted Francis Collins removed as head of NIH because of Harris’s prejudices.

David Heddle called Harris on it:
Sad Case of Sam Harris

Anyone who has attempted to read “Letter to a Christian Nation” should know that Harris also has no grasp on theology, either.

“Harris’ basic argument went like this:
1. The goal of ethics is to make conscious people have more enjoyable lives “

The stupid, it burns! Ethics is moral philosophy; standards of conduct and the like. It has nothing to do with leading an enjoyable life; it has to do with determining what is the best course to follow if a difficult decision must be made. Ethics doesn’t always have to be life-and-death, either.

“2. Neuroscience can tell us factually what sorts of things make people happy or unhappy, whole or broken, etc.”

Mr. Harris, exactly where are the MRI scans, fMRI scans, or scientific proof that you supposedly have wherein neuroscience explains what makes us happy? Worshipping God makes me happy. What neuroscience do you have available to corroborate that?

Neuroscience can tell us that serotonin (a chemical) can make us feel full or happy and that eating chocolate allows the flow of serotonin to increase.

2. “Therefore, ethics is a scientific discipline, with objective rights on wrongs determined by science.”

No. The first two premises do not necessarily lead to the third. Any conclusion is therefore illogical.
Science does not make claims on what is ethical or not ethical; that is left to philosophers.

Harris and the other new atheists amuse me to no end when they attempt to dismiss God blithely and to suggest that any religious morals cannot possibly be valid but science can tell us what’s right and wrong.

How much does hate weigh?

What does a molecule of love look like?

Can you put an abstract concept like ethics in a test tube?

If science as they narrowly define it is limited to what can be empirically verified and tested, then ethics isn’t a scientific discipline. Harris’ argument fails on multiple levels.

I highly doubt that. If that were the case, a typical ethicist would insist that everyone megadose on antidepressants or psycho stimulants until we’re all as happy as can be. Without passing out of course…

“2. Neuroscience can tell us factually what sorts of things make people happy or unhappy, whole or broken, etc.”

In my view, this premise isn’t false altogether but definitely incomplete. You may be able to do a brain scan on someone and see what there reaction is to some things, but if several billion people are going to have slight variations amongst each other then the situation becomes far more complicated. And what kind of happiness are we going for anyway? Euphoria? Adrenaline rush? Once again standards become more aesthetic and not accessible to anything you could pull off in a lab or clinic.

“3. Therefore, ethics is a scientific discipline, with objective rights on wrongs determined by science.”

Nah, Harris is definitely too entrenched in scientism on this one. Those who have read up on the works of Nozick and the problems posed by utility monsters already know why you can’t rely on utilitarian justifications for anything. That would definitely include ethics. And since when did neuroscience have the power to measure “happiness” (whatever that means) for billions of people anyway?