I have been a fan of Harris and his ideas for quite some time. In addition to reading his book Free Will and subscribing to his blog, I have watched nI have been a fan of Harris and his ideas for quite some time. In addition to reading his book Free Will and subscribing to his blog, I have watched numerous interviews/talks/debates, and I am very familiar with his ideas/works.
That said, I still found this to be a worthwhile investment of my time. I particularly enjoyed the section in the back of my edition, where Harris addresses some of the major criticisms he's received since the book was first published.
Though on the surface, one might interpret this as an attack on organized religion, I think it goes much deeper than that. In the end, I believe that Harris is attacking bad ideas and dogma, and it just so happens many religious institutions have more than their fair share of both. He also makes a point of pointing out that unlike most ideas that are open to criticism and debate, religion has been deemed untouchable--hopelessly sacred and beyond reproach.
Those who are familiar with Harris know that he is uncomfortable with being labeled an atheist and feels it is one that was imposed upon him rather than one he willingly adopted. He seems to believe that ideas (religious or otherwise) should be judged on their merit and their usefulness and that no idea is beyond questioning...EVER, and labels like atheist are not only unnecessary but counterproductive. However, it is clear he has limited patience for the vindictive gods of the old testament and their religious texts/teachings.
According to Harris, given what is going on around the world today particularly in the Middle East, it's critical we admit to ourselves that bad ideas are bad ideas regardless of their "sacred" origins. He warns that this mix of 14th century mentalities and 20th century technology is a potentially toxic one.
He also feels the moderate Christians, Muslims, Jews...whatever, are part of the problem. While he applauds their concessions to reason, he feels their reluctance to criticize the holy texts and their efforts to keep religion free from scrutiny contributes to or, at the very least, facilitates fundamentalism.
Harris doesn't appear closed to the possibilities of our universe's origin. To the contrary, like many--myself included, he seems to acknowledge that the possibilities are far greater than people thousands of years ago were capable of imaging, and that's part of the problem.
He advocates the use of scientific exploration/scientific method as the best tool we have for truly understanding the universe we live in and uncovering the truth, but doesn't believe that spiritual experience needs to be at odds with scientific possibilities/investigation. He also argues that morality isn't a function of religion. Moderates are proof of this. There is a reason why most modern-day Christians don't regularly stone people, regardless of the fact that it was an accepted form of punishment in biblical times. Our sense of morality has evolved beyond our religious texts. On the flip side, accepting the degradation and abuse of women in other countries because it is culturally acceptable is immoral...and we don't need a religious text to understand that.
Interestingly, Harris has received criticism from both theists and atheists/agnostics alike. Theists accuse him of bashing religion and are quick to bring up evil men like Stalin and Hitler to make their point(view spoiler)[Harris' response is even if one agrees there were no religious undertones to what these men did (and one could argue the hatred of the Jews was facilitated by the Christian belief that Jews were responsible for the death of Christ in the case of Hitler), there were pervasive dogmas and a slew of bad ideas involved. He repeatedly clarifies that his problem with a religion goes only as far as its dogma and to the extent that it promotes and protects bad ideas (hide spoiler)]. Some atheists are quick to point out that Harris is only regurgitating earlier, more convincing arguments. They also like to challenge the soundness of his philosophical arguments, though it seems to me they are only arguing over shades of blue. And of course some agnostics like to take the high road and accuse men like Harris of turning atheism into a dogmatic religion, which if you're familiar with his platform couldn't be further from the truth.
On the other side, his work has also received praise from both moderate theists and atheists/agnostics.
Personally, I tend to agree with much of what Harris says and feel, new or not, his arguments are thought provoking (and most importantly--accessible) and maybe even enlightening. Obviously, every generation is in need of men willing to advocate for reason, and Harris is a wonderful writer and speaker. I also think his intense study of philosophy combined with his extensive knowledge/studies in neuroscience give him a somewhat unique perspective from which to have this discussion.
Okay, so I guess it would be helpful to disclose that I am a long-time fan of Sam Harris. Not only do I agree with most of hisOh my, where to start...
Okay, so I guess it would be helpful to disclose that I am a long-time fan of Sam Harris. Not only do I agree with most of his ideas, but I find him to be both an articulate and entertaining writer, always a plus. The Moral Landscape is no exception.
The motivation for this book seems to be the commonly held belief that religion, if it does nothing else, serves as the source for our morality. It is one of the most common arguments Harris encounters in his campaign for reason, which often finds itself pitted against religious institutions and their belief systems.
According to Harris, religion has long been credited with providing humankind a morale code, a precept that many atheists are unwilling to challenge. For, in some cases, even the greatest champions of science, rationality, and logic seem to feel that science has little to offer once we start talking morality and ethics.
Harris, however, argues that this is just not the case. Science, he claims, already has lots to say about morality and, with the continued progress in the neurosciences, will only have more to say in the coming years. He further points out that what science has to offer is infinitely better than the world's many religions for a multitude of reasons. I tend to agree and here's why...
For one, it is clear that as a rule and generally speaking there is a trend toward treating people better and more humanely in part because--through science--we have expanded our understanding of ourselves and the dynamics that exist in the societies that form the basis of our existence. This is not to say we don't have a long way to go...simply that we have made progress in the right direction. One needs only to look back into our not too distant past to see the barbaric behaviors that were once commonplace and considered justifiable. So though many nostalgic grandmas and grandpas may not agree, over the years, we clearly have raised the moral bar on many levels.
Secondly, religion(s) (especially today's most popular religions) are not the source of our morality and never have been, otherwise we would still judge certain instances of rape, pillaging, infantcide, human sacrifice, and genocide to be completely moral. Again, it is our evolving understanding of ourselves and our environment that shape our ideas about what is and what isn't moral in the various religious texts and not vice versa. Furthermore, asserting that religion establishes morality is self-limiting in the sense that only one religion can be the true authority.
Just because we don't currently have all the answers to all the complex moral questions that face us...doesn't mean that the answers don't exist. It also doesn't mean that all the answers are equally valid and worthy of our respect. In many cases, science offers a process by which various answers can be systematically evaluated. As our level of understanding continues to grow, so will our moral sense continue to expand.
Finally, if you accept that our beliefs and our actions are the complex result of our physiology, genetics, and past experiences then it would seem logical to believe that science will ultimately have lots to say about those beliefs and actions as well as their consequences for both the individual and for society. Such information can and will serve as a foundation for making moral decisions, and/or decisions that maximize the greatest good for the greatest number of people.
In the end, I think Harris'main point is that the understanding of ourselves, our world, and our universe provides the foundation for our moral reasoning and as such, science not only has, but also will continue to contribute to our understanding of the moral landscape.
Harris gives concrete examples of the many ways in which science has already helped to shape and mold our contemporary moral code.
For example, consider the following:
A man kills his girlfriend.
A man kills his girlfriend after finding her in bed with her lover.
A man kills his girlfriend. Later, doctors find a tumor in an area of his brain that is associated with impulse control.
A man who was severely abused by his mother as a child kills his girlfriend.
We view each case differently with respect to morality in part because we have a better understanding of the brain and behavior than we did two-hundred years ago.
But this represents a small fraction of what is discussed in the book, and I really can't even begin to do it justice, so I won't try.
As always, Harris is a champion of reason and doesn't sugar coat his contempt for any dogmatic institution that discourages critical thinking, including religion. He also stresses the innate dangers of treating all ideas as being equally valid and deserving of our tolerance and respect, especially when it comes to morality. He also tries to bridge the gap between philosophy, which must take into consideration what we don't know, and science, that which is focused on our current knowns...though continually expanding its borders.
Bottom line, if you've ever contemplated the complex issues that face us all, not simply as individuals but as a society, and ultimately as human beings, then this book is worth reading if only for the points being raised and ideas being explored. Furthermore, if like me, you believe that religion isn't the basis for morality, than this book will help you to explore that idea in greater depths.
Harris most definitely writes to the average person (a plus in my mind), which often garners him criticism within certain circles, but for all the wrong reasons...and thank goodness that he does. ...more
In his book, Free Will, Sam Harris offers an interesting discussion on the merits of free will. According to Harris, our thoughts and thus our behavioIn his book, Free Will, Sam Harris offers an interesting discussion on the merits of free will. According to Harris, our thoughts and thus our behavior results from a complex interaction of genetics, early-life experiences, economic, religious, cultural, social, and political situations present in our lives, as well as all the experiences we've had up to that moment, which include the world acting on us in ways that are often beyond our control. He points out that even conscious choices are limited to options that come courtesy the current state of our mind since we now know that many "conscious" decisions are made in the brain before they ever reach our consciousness, ultimately bringing us back to our genetics, our early life experiences, etc, etc.
Using illustrative examples, Harris offers us a novel way of viewing behavior that seeks to understand and explain our actions as a manifestation of our biology rather than attributing them to some abstract notion like free will. Sure we are free to choose but only to the extent that our biology allows us, thus free will really isn't free and is simply an illusion subject to forces acting beyond our consciousness.
For those interested in brain science and the biological basis for behavior, this is a must read.
Loading...
