The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values in Atheists and Skeptics

Jan 07, 2012 David S. T. rated it it was ok

Shelves: science, religion

I've read several books from the so called 'new atheists'. I've found that on books concerning religious matters, I mostly hate their books. Its not that I even care that they're atheist or not, I'm all for reading atheist arguments. I recently read Sagan's agnostic lecture book and loved it, but I have a problem with they way the present their material, they take the most absurd extreme examples of religion and throw them out as the norm. Most of these examples would infuriate the vast majority I've read several books from the so called 'new atheists'. I've found that on books concerning religious matters, I mostly hate their books. Its not that I even care that they're atheist or not, I'm all for reading atheist arguments. I recently read Sagan's agnostic lecture book and loved it, but I have a problem with they way the present their material, they take the most absurd extreme examples of religion and throw them out as the norm. Most of these examples would infuriate the vast majority of religious people, I often feel that their arguments are more polemics and anti religious propaganda than actual thought out reasons of whether there is or isn't a deity. Sadly it seems the more I read their book reviews on sites like amazon, it seems that many of their followers take the same intolerant stances. With that being said, for the most part I like Dawkin's evolution books, so I figured that its worth a shot reading Harris's book on using science to determine morality. Sadly it seems the 'science' part of the book is pretty sparse and its just more of the same.

I think I sort of agreed with the idea of this book before I started reading, basically that we should use science to help determine our morals and actions. I wouldn't be exclusive to science though, but if something can be tested and proved to be useful then I'm all for it. I actually don't think that religious values should be the norm for our laws, for example even though you could argue that Paul (see Romans in the bible) and orthodox Christianity are reasons for requiring marriage to be between a man and a woman, but if you remove the religious aspect of it, I think that most people with an open mind would allow gay marriage (I wonder if one day we'll look back on these things the same way we look back on racial issues). I think issues such as stem cell research or abortion should be discussed and both sides presented. I also think we're getting overpopulated and so I'm all for things like using condoms for birth control.

My first surprise with this book is just how sparse the references to scientific studies are, I guess at this time there just aren't that many or Harris didn't want to mention them because it might quickly outdate his book. There are a few studies mentioned every now and then, but for the most part its more of him trying to show how religion is a bad way to determine morality, how there can be objective morality and that science can reach it (although few examples of what he means). For the most part I was okay with this, I didn't agree with everything he presented and don't think that some issues aren't easy to agree on, but I didn't hate the book up to this point.

Then came the chapter on religion which basically made me want to put the book down (had this been earlier in the book, I would have stopped reading, but by then I was already too committed to stop). Harris didn't grow up religious and I think he fails just to understand what its like for a believer to believe. Take for example, at one part of the book he mocks belief in Jesus, one of his comments mocks the idea that Jesus can hear a billion prayers at once. Logically if Jesus was only a man then this is a pretty good argument. Now regardless of what you actually believe, pretend you're a christian who believes that all things were created through Jesus (meaning that a billion billion galaxies were created by him, see John 1:1-3), then its not hard to see why a Christian would have no problem believing that Jesus could hear a billion prayers at once, its relatively a simple task compared to creating the universe. Obviously mocking someone for accepting prayer to a being like this is pretty absurd. Of course if you believe that Jesus was just a man then he couldn't hear just one prayer let alone billions.

Later he comes to a rant against Francis Collins, the person appointed by Obama as the director of the National Institutes of Health. Basically, he's pissed that Collins, someone that hold religious convictions is appointed to such a high position, and he basis this on religious grounds. He admits that Collins holds the same position as him on issues like evolution or stem cell research, but he can't stand the fact that Collins prayed before taking this position. Now here is my point, I hope that one day we can get to a point of racial, ethnic and religious tolerance for all people. For example a place where the next president candidate is elected on his views and past voting precedent and not on something like his religious stance. I think it is wrong that if someone is an open atheist/agnostic, he doesn't stand a chance of being the president regardless of his credentials. I'm not sure Harris would agrees on the opposite, I think if he had his way only atheists would be qualified. Take Collins, Harris seems to attack someone whom does seem to be qualified for the position almost solely on his religious beliefs.

Harris's comments about Collins seems to have pissed off some fellow atheists, and Harris goes on to reprint their letters / newspaper columns. These remarks from the others seem logical to me (more so than the majority of the book), they think Harris should back down, not attack someone based on Christianity, that Harris and the new atheists are doing more harm than good on issues like evolution (I've seen this first hand where someone will deny evolution because it makes you an atheist like Dawkins). Harris ignores this because truthfully his goal isn't getting things like modern science / evolution accepted but its to remove religion. Which brings me to my final point, who is the audience of this book? Harris seems to try to piss everyone off, religious, philosophers, and fellow scientists. It seems the audience is the very limited to his new atheist followers. This is the biggest problem with the book, if you want to see change happen you have to convince a much broader audience, we live in a democracy and a majority of the population does still believe in a deity and Harris tries to be elite and attack the masses and expects real change to happen, but the only thing which will happen is they'll further oppose his view. This major thing makes the book pretty pointless, Harris is just trying to convince his small (relatively) audience and no one else.

With everything being said, I'm done reading these new atheist books for now, I'll get my atheist / agnostic arguments elsewhere. I don't have time to read intolerant Christian fundamentalists, I don't have time to read their atheist counterparts either. ...more

3 likes · Like · see review

Sep 18, 2013 Bryan rated it did not like it

Shelves: not-owned

This book is mostly Randian style claims about objective "scientific" moral truths, with a similar lack of evidence to demonstrate the claims. Harris fails on all counts to give even a single study that lends credence to his claims and instead offers up meandering diatribes about other cultures while shoveling a conveniently western "moral" opinion down your throat. Over and over and over and over.

Somewhere in the middle of this, he throws in a horribly graphic and detailed description of child ...more

1 like · Like · see review

Jul 02, 2011 Stephen rated it liked it

Review – The Moral Landscape by Sam Harris

This book is typical Harris, if you liked his excellent ‘End of Faith’ and ‘Letter to a Christian Nation’ then you will undoubtedly like this one. It pulls together his twin interests of philosophy and neuroscience, both of which he holds a degree in, and puts forward the (some would say audacious) case that science can, in theory, tell us about morality and values.

The mainstream thinking about morality has, of recent times, been that there is no such th ...more

Like · see review

May 23, 2011 Fox rated it really liked it

Shelves: philosophy, atheism, non-fiction, religion

This book is a bold jump into the field of science-based ethics. The idea that science can address morals and values is an interesting one, and deserves investigation. Harris demonstrates his wonderful geekiness with an index and notes section almost equivalent in size to the rest of the book, but perhaps to make up for a lack of thoroughness in philosophical reason. I really enjoyed the book and really--he is presenting an idea very much on its infancy, so kudos for that. The preliminary argume ...more

Like · see review

Nov 14, 2014 Elaine rated it liked it

I liked it, but found it to be a little verbose. Also, there were a lot of what I call "GRE words" in there that interrupted the flow as I had to stop and think what exactly they meant before I could carry on. I think it would have been a better read if he had used more everyday language. ...more

1 like · Like · see review

Oct 29, 2010 Tracy Black rated it it was amazing

Excellent book! Harris made a very good case. He's obviously put a lot of thought into this. It seemed every time I saw a problem or thought of a counter-case to a point he made, he was addressing it within a few pages.

...more

1 like · Like · see review

May 27, 2011 J rated it it was amazing · review of another edition

Fantastic read. Harris makes a compelling argument that in the future, as science advances, we will be able to define, on a spectrum, what is moral. The book was hard to put down but it is divided into sections which make it easy to read at short sittings. The notes and citations portion of the book is just as interesting as the book. I would recommend this to anyone interested in science, ethics, the future, and/or morals.

Like · see review