ApologiaPhoenix
March 7th 2011, 02:01 PM
I wrote this for Religion Dispatches in response to Michael Ruse's article on The Moral Landscape by Sam Harris. In case it doesn't get published there, I wanted to put it up here.
It is as follows:
Michael Ruse is definitely right about this book and about the new atheists. Upfront, I will state that I am a Christian apologist who has done a number of debates. I have argued that the new atheist movement has little on research and much on rhetoric, and it is showing.
Now some might say that Harris has said that several have emailed him to say they have apostasized from their faith, including ministers. I have no doubt of this. Why? Because sadly too often the Christian church has been guilty of the same thing. There is more of an emphasis on having a conversion and having "experiences" rather than growing in the grace and knowledge of Jesus Christ and learning what Christians really believe. In fact, if I was in charge of a church, I would say that if someone wanted to become a Christian, I would make sure to question them extensively to make sure they really knew what they were committing their lives to.
Thus, those who I do not believe have done any thinking of serious measure on the subject of morality will be convinced. Those who have however will find this work extremely lacking.
One step I take in looking over a book by a new atheist is going to the index and bibliographies and seeing how many evangelicals there are, past and present, that are being interacted with. The number is always abysmal. When I read books by Christians however arguing against atheists, the number is quite higher of atheists that are cited regularly. When one reads the new atheists, they get the picture that there is no answer on the other side. As has wisely been said before, "Beware the sound of one hand clapping."
Harris in this book does not once define goodness. He teaches about well-being, but what does that mean? For many today, happiness means having a good feeling. For Aristotle, it meant something different. A child could not truly have happiness due to not having lived enough and one's happiness could be altered even if they were dead. Does Harris interact with this? Not a bit.
Instead, Harris just goes from the assumption that we should all seek the well-being of all. Well why should I? Provided I get what I want, why should I give a rip about anyone else? Why not just use them as I see fit to bring about my well-being. Why should I sacrifice my well-being for the sake of someone else's well-being?
I have no problem with Harris's idea about using neuroscience to determine what is going on in our brains when we consider a moral proposition. I have a problem however with him saying that this can tell us what is moral. It cannot. It can only tell me what I think is moral if even that. Suppose two different people have different brain scans. How do we differentiate between the two?
I'm going to make the unique suggestion that what we should do is to look at the action itself. Harris makes the mistake that is made in the ontological argument. You cannot get from an idea in the mind alone to an external reality of that idea. Suppose that when thoughts of sex come up for instance, my brain shows intense excitement. What am I to deduce from that? Probably as a man, that I enjoy sexuality. Okay. What else? Does this tell me who it is right for me to have sex with? Does it tell me how often? Perhaps my brain shows distress when I think of sex with someone other than my wife. Is this because of a religious delusion? Could it not be that the happy playboy might instead be wrong when he thinks about having sex indiscriminately with anyone? How do we know? Maybe we should study sex and marriage themselves.
For the biblical worldview, Harris really doesn't have a critique. Ruse is right when he says that not once is Thomism mentioned. You will not find interaction with someone like Francis Beckwith or J. Budziszewski in here. Go through this book and you will be unaware unless you studied it elsewhere that there is a concept such as Natural Law. That doesn't say the concept is true of course. However, it is seriously argued and needs to be seriously addressed if Harris wants to deal with critics.
Harris is quick to write off the Bible on slavery, but is there any sign of study of the Biblical culture? Not a bit. Harris in dismissing the Bible instead cites Bart Ehrman. No interaction with N.T. Wright, Gary Habermas, Mike Licona, or any other such names on textual criticism and the dating of the New Testament. Instead, he cites a non-Christian and it's not a shock who he cites. Why is it not a shock? Because when I read new atheists, they consistently cite either Bart Ehrman, Dan Barker, or both. This is not to say that Ehrman or Barker are ipso facto wrong, but it gives the impression that I believe is true that Harris simply reads what his side says and then reads what his side says about what the evangelical side says.
When I came to page 66, I circled the point about how there need not be a consensus on a belief for that belief to be true. I circled it because I wanted to use it as an atheist admitting such since such an argument is often used against religion. However, I found I had to use that earlier than I thought because just twelve pages later, Harris dismisses religion because there is too much disagreement on religion and different beliefs are incompatible.
Harris also continually pushes forward this belief that Christianity teaches that morality comes from the Bible. I have no doubt some do, but that is a misunderstanding. The Bible does teach morality, but moral statements are not true because the Bible says them. They're true independent of the Bible and the Bible records them because they are true. The Bible itself in Romans 2 says that moral truths are written on our hearts. The expulsion of the Canaanites from the land of Israel in Leviticus 18 and 20 has the implication that since these people are being expelled for these practices, then they should have known better. Does Harris really believe that if the account was true, that when the Israelites got the Ten Commandments that they said "Hey everyone! We need to stop this murder stuff now!"
Ruse is also right about Harris's rant against Collins. I can literally picture Harris as foaming at the mouth as he writes this and I literally wrote in my copy of his book "Get a grip, Harris!" Yes. All these pages devoted to Collins and honestly, I do not use Collins in my apologetics. Did Harris consider also taking on Hugh Ross, Alister McGrath, or John Lennox?
Harris says that because some scientists have no problem with religious faith just proves that the juxtaposition of good ideas and bad ideas is possible. (Page 160) Why can't it be the reverse Harris? Why could it not be that your position is proof that good ideas and bad ideas are possible? Or is it just the ipso facto position that theists are deluded.
Of course, when Harris does describe some theistic behavior, he picks the most outlandish types. I know several Christians and I cannot think of one who would defend the nonsense Harris presents, but yet for Harris, presenting an account like this is showing what theism is like on a normative basis.
I finally agree with Ruse that if God wants to destroy the new atheists, getting this book published is a great way to do that. However, I hope He does not want to. As a Christian, I work often at reading all I can and learning all I can. As I have watched, I have seen a change in atheists online mainly. They are consistently getting less informed in their approach ever since the new atheists show up. If the new atheists are the pinnacle of atheistic thinking (They are not at all) then I say the Christian faith is in good hands.
I believe the old atheists were answered well also, but with the new atheists around, it just gets easier. The sad part is however is that it does become tiresome when you read someone just ranting and thinking The God Delusion is the magnum opus of atheism. I cannot take seriously any atheist who cites any of the books of the new atheists, but I notice in the blogosphere that immediately, new books by them are taken as gospel. Dawkins says he unthinkingly bought into the myth that science says nothing about morality. However, he has now unthinkingly bought into the idea that Harris has. The mindset never changed. All that changed was the ideology that was defended.
So to the new atheists I say "Onward! Keep going!" After all, the more you write, the more your side is lowering its research capabilities. Those of us who actually believe in reading both sides of issues and doing real research will just keep gaining more and more ground. To any atheists, if you want to be the joke in the debate section, just keep referring to the new atheists over and over. Do avoid the old atheists at all costs. They had these silly notions that philosophy could still tell us something and that science was not the end-all and that Christianity had actually done some good in the world and religion did not need to be destroyed.
However, while I would hope the fad of the new atheists would continue, I do not believe it will. There is too little substance behind this movement to keep it going for long. When an atheist like P.Z. Myers thinks the Courtier's reply, which is simply an admission that one is ignorant of a topic and needs not study it, counts as a reply, one can anticipate that the movement is on its last legs.
It is as follows:
Michael Ruse is definitely right about this book and about the new atheists. Upfront, I will state that I am a Christian apologist who has done a number of debates. I have argued that the new atheist movement has little on research and much on rhetoric, and it is showing.
Now some might say that Harris has said that several have emailed him to say they have apostasized from their faith, including ministers. I have no doubt of this. Why? Because sadly too often the Christian church has been guilty of the same thing. There is more of an emphasis on having a conversion and having "experiences" rather than growing in the grace and knowledge of Jesus Christ and learning what Christians really believe. In fact, if I was in charge of a church, I would say that if someone wanted to become a Christian, I would make sure to question them extensively to make sure they really knew what they were committing their lives to.
Thus, those who I do not believe have done any thinking of serious measure on the subject of morality will be convinced. Those who have however will find this work extremely lacking.
One step I take in looking over a book by a new atheist is going to the index and bibliographies and seeing how many evangelicals there are, past and present, that are being interacted with. The number is always abysmal. When I read books by Christians however arguing against atheists, the number is quite higher of atheists that are cited regularly. When one reads the new atheists, they get the picture that there is no answer on the other side. As has wisely been said before, "Beware the sound of one hand clapping."
Harris in this book does not once define goodness. He teaches about well-being, but what does that mean? For many today, happiness means having a good feeling. For Aristotle, it meant something different. A child could not truly have happiness due to not having lived enough and one's happiness could be altered even if they were dead. Does Harris interact with this? Not a bit.
Instead, Harris just goes from the assumption that we should all seek the well-being of all. Well why should I? Provided I get what I want, why should I give a rip about anyone else? Why not just use them as I see fit to bring about my well-being. Why should I sacrifice my well-being for the sake of someone else's well-being?
I have no problem with Harris's idea about using neuroscience to determine what is going on in our brains when we consider a moral proposition. I have a problem however with him saying that this can tell us what is moral. It cannot. It can only tell me what I think is moral if even that. Suppose two different people have different brain scans. How do we differentiate between the two?
I'm going to make the unique suggestion that what we should do is to look at the action itself. Harris makes the mistake that is made in the ontological argument. You cannot get from an idea in the mind alone to an external reality of that idea. Suppose that when thoughts of sex come up for instance, my brain shows intense excitement. What am I to deduce from that? Probably as a man, that I enjoy sexuality. Okay. What else? Does this tell me who it is right for me to have sex with? Does it tell me how often? Perhaps my brain shows distress when I think of sex with someone other than my wife. Is this because of a religious delusion? Could it not be that the happy playboy might instead be wrong when he thinks about having sex indiscriminately with anyone? How do we know? Maybe we should study sex and marriage themselves.
For the biblical worldview, Harris really doesn't have a critique. Ruse is right when he says that not once is Thomism mentioned. You will not find interaction with someone like Francis Beckwith or J. Budziszewski in here. Go through this book and you will be unaware unless you studied it elsewhere that there is a concept such as Natural Law. That doesn't say the concept is true of course. However, it is seriously argued and needs to be seriously addressed if Harris wants to deal with critics.
Harris is quick to write off the Bible on slavery, but is there any sign of study of the Biblical culture? Not a bit. Harris in dismissing the Bible instead cites Bart Ehrman. No interaction with N.T. Wright, Gary Habermas, Mike Licona, or any other such names on textual criticism and the dating of the New Testament. Instead, he cites a non-Christian and it's not a shock who he cites. Why is it not a shock? Because when I read new atheists, they consistently cite either Bart Ehrman, Dan Barker, or both. This is not to say that Ehrman or Barker are ipso facto wrong, but it gives the impression that I believe is true that Harris simply reads what his side says and then reads what his side says about what the evangelical side says.
When I came to page 66, I circled the point about how there need not be a consensus on a belief for that belief to be true. I circled it because I wanted to use it as an atheist admitting such since such an argument is often used against religion. However, I found I had to use that earlier than I thought because just twelve pages later, Harris dismisses religion because there is too much disagreement on religion and different beliefs are incompatible.
Harris also continually pushes forward this belief that Christianity teaches that morality comes from the Bible. I have no doubt some do, but that is a misunderstanding. The Bible does teach morality, but moral statements are not true because the Bible says them. They're true independent of the Bible and the Bible records them because they are true. The Bible itself in Romans 2 says that moral truths are written on our hearts. The expulsion of the Canaanites from the land of Israel in Leviticus 18 and 20 has the implication that since these people are being expelled for these practices, then they should have known better. Does Harris really believe that if the account was true, that when the Israelites got the Ten Commandments that they said "Hey everyone! We need to stop this murder stuff now!"
Ruse is also right about Harris's rant against Collins. I can literally picture Harris as foaming at the mouth as he writes this and I literally wrote in my copy of his book "Get a grip, Harris!" Yes. All these pages devoted to Collins and honestly, I do not use Collins in my apologetics. Did Harris consider also taking on Hugh Ross, Alister McGrath, or John Lennox?
Harris says that because some scientists have no problem with religious faith just proves that the juxtaposition of good ideas and bad ideas is possible. (Page 160) Why can't it be the reverse Harris? Why could it not be that your position is proof that good ideas and bad ideas are possible? Or is it just the ipso facto position that theists are deluded.
Of course, when Harris does describe some theistic behavior, he picks the most outlandish types. I know several Christians and I cannot think of one who would defend the nonsense Harris presents, but yet for Harris, presenting an account like this is showing what theism is like on a normative basis.
I finally agree with Ruse that if God wants to destroy the new atheists, getting this book published is a great way to do that. However, I hope He does not want to. As a Christian, I work often at reading all I can and learning all I can. As I have watched, I have seen a change in atheists online mainly. They are consistently getting less informed in their approach ever since the new atheists show up. If the new atheists are the pinnacle of atheistic thinking (They are not at all) then I say the Christian faith is in good hands.
I believe the old atheists were answered well also, but with the new atheists around, it just gets easier. The sad part is however is that it does become tiresome when you read someone just ranting and thinking The God Delusion is the magnum opus of atheism. I cannot take seriously any atheist who cites any of the books of the new atheists, but I notice in the blogosphere that immediately, new books by them are taken as gospel. Dawkins says he unthinkingly bought into the myth that science says nothing about morality. However, he has now unthinkingly bought into the idea that Harris has. The mindset never changed. All that changed was the ideology that was defended.
So to the new atheists I say "Onward! Keep going!" After all, the more you write, the more your side is lowering its research capabilities. Those of us who actually believe in reading both sides of issues and doing real research will just keep gaining more and more ground. To any atheists, if you want to be the joke in the debate section, just keep referring to the new atheists over and over. Do avoid the old atheists at all costs. They had these silly notions that philosophy could still tell us something and that science was not the end-all and that Christianity had actually done some good in the world and religion did not need to be destroyed.
However, while I would hope the fad of the new atheists would continue, I do not believe it will. There is too little substance behind this movement to keep it going for long. When an atheist like P.Z. Myers thinks the Courtier's reply, which is simply an admission that one is ignorant of a topic and needs not study it, counts as a reply, one can anticipate that the movement is on its last legs.