Home » News, Philosophy, Science » If there is a moral landscape, is Sam Harris’s book a map?

If there is a moral landscape, is Sam Harris’s book a map?

Here.

Mostly, he wants to rescue atheism from relativism: “If there’s no God, everything is permitted.” For this purpose, he posits morality as “an undeveloped branch of science.” The view that science should play a key role in deciding morality and law is not unique; it surfaced as early as 1911. In an editorial, Scientific American excoriated “The absurdity of legislation to cure social evils without scientific facts to base that legislation upon.” More on the earlier absurdity later.

Harris’s project starts with the following basic assumptions: “… science should one day be able to make very precise claims about which of our behaviors and uses of attention are morally good, which are neutral, and which are worth abandoning.”

  • Delicious
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • RSS Feed

6 Responses to If there is a moral landscape, is Sam Harris’s book a map?

  1. Morality is something designed into humanity.
    I believe Atheists actually have a more sensitive morality, this is why they end up hating God.
    Also I believe that focus on good and evil is not the focus we were designed to have (makes you hate God). Rather we were designed to have a God focus (makes things make sense).

    Damn that tree and it’s fruit.

  2. v.insightful & succinct …. thanks.

  3. The Knock-Down Argument Against Atheist Sam Harris’ Moral Argument – William Lane Craig – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tvDyLs_cReE

  4. 4
    Christian-apologetics.org

    I would say that Harris is “climbing mount improbable”.

  5. “… science should one day be able to make very precise claims about which of our behaviors and uses of attention are morally good, which are neutral, and which are worth abandoning.”

    Lol.. Isn’t science already trying to attempt this now?

    What would happen if science one day inferred that Sam Harris and his moral map needed to be terminated because it would be “morally good” for our society to do so? Would Sam contest to this “precise” scientific claim, or would he just man up and walk the gallows?

  6. Harris is an idiot but he’s no fool. With a noxious built in audience and often equally noxious opponents his brand of poorly thought out and badly argued atheism gets him exactly the amount of camera time and notoriety that screams “profit”.
    The Four Toads of New Atheism have simply stolen Gorgeous George’s act and made a nifty bundle.

Leave a Reply