Sam Harris is a rare atheist who is repulsed by moral
relativism. This popular philosophy claims that morality cannot say that
anything – genocide, rape, murder, or kidnapping – is absolutely and objectively
wrong. Why not? Because morality is just an idea created by humans!
In contrast, Harris claims that he has an alternative to
both moral relativism and religious fundamentalism, the two extreme. According
to Frank Turek:
·
In his book The
Moral Landscape, Harris takes the position that objective moral values
really do exist, and they can be explained without invoking God. He claims that
if we just use our reason, we’ll see that “human flourishing” is the standard
by which we determine something is good or bad. Anything that helps humans
flourish is good. Since reason and science can tell us what helps humans
flourish, there is no need for God to ground objective moral values. If Harris
is correct, it seems that he has successfully shot down the moral argument for
God.
However, Harris’ attempt to establish a foundation for
objective moral values encounters many problems:
WHY HUMAN REASON?
Atheistic “reason” tells us that we are just another animal. If this is so, why
should we assume that humans are special and it’s all about “human”
flourishing? Why not “cat flourishing” or “cow flourishing?”
WHY SHOULD OUR
FEELINGS, MORAL INTUITIONS, OR REASONING BE CONSIDERED OBJECTIVELY TRUE? “Human
reason” comes up with different values, depending upon culture and other
factors. There needs to be a higher objective criterion to mediate between the
competing human ideas, but there is only one, the one Harris has rejected – God.
WHY SHOULD HUMANS
EVEN FLOURISH? There is absolutely no rational objective and answer to this
question. Instead, Harris has secretly imported a moral absolute that only God
can support. It is God who wants us to thrive above the beasts. Admittedly, we
are wired to have compassion, avoid pain, and seek pleasure, and, from a
Christian perspective, our wiring alerts us to God’s moral truths. But to know moral truth is different from providing a godless basis for moral
truth, as Harris is attempting to do. Besides, if this wiring is just the
product of a blind and amoral evolutionary process, obeying our wiring is like
following a blind man.
REASON OR SCIENCE
ALONE CANNOT ACCOUNT FOR VALUES AND MORALITY. Science can observe phenomena
but not values. It can observe what is, but not what should be. Likewise, reason
can proceed only after it has been given a value to serve. Only after we
establish “human flourishing” as a value worth pursuing can science inform us
what foods to eat and how to live in order to flourish.
MORALITY CANNOT BE
COHERENT WITHOUT THE CONCEPTS OF FREEWILL AND CULPABILITY. In his recent
book, “Free Will,” Harris wrote, “Free will is an illusion.” Consequently, what
feels like freewill is nothing more than chemical processes that had mindlessly
evolved. This leaves no room for human culpability. If our thoughts and actions
are entirely controlled by biochemical reactions, then we couldn’t have done
otherwise. Hence, there is no basis for guilt and culpability. Nor is there any
rational basis for Harris’ outrage against the atrocities of Islam.
Last night, I was pleasantly surprised at a Sam Harris
discussion group to find that the participants were not taken in by Harris’
answers. However, they didn’t seem to have any problem to merely make-believe
that there are moral absolutes and even, when necessary, that there is a God.
To this, I responded that if they chose to make-believe for
the sake of their “flourishing,” why not then take to the next step to consider
the evidence for God’s actual existence? Evidently, that was a step too far.
No comments:
Post a Comment