A Review of Sam Harris’ The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values, Part 1 (of 3)

Introduction

In his latest book, The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values, prominent “new atheist” Sam Harris attempts to shore up what is undoubtedly one of the weakest aspects of atheism: the determination of moral values.

For the next three Today’s New Reasons to Believe posts I will be reviewing Harris’ book.

Human Evil

Although many atheists blame religion as the cause of human suffering¹ and tend to minimize human selfishness, Harris genuinely sees it as humanity’s major flaw.² He writes:

I know that helping people who are starving is far more important than most of what I do. I also have no doubt that doing what is most important would give me more pleasure and emotional satisfaction than I get from most of what I do by seeking pleasure and emotional satisfaction. But this knowledge does not change me. I still want to do what I do for pleasure more than I want to help the starving.³

This statement reminded me instantly of what the Apostle Paul says in Romans 7.⁴ The fact that Harris himself acknowledges that he cannot live up to his own moral values calls into question whether “science can determine human values” in any meaningful way.

Human Well-being

Harris defines morality in terms of human well-being, with its intent being to advance our welfare. He also claims that human well-being is a function of the brain’s state.⁵ However, he doesn’t present evidence to support the idea that any particular states of the brain can be produced in any particular way. (Yet, evidence exists that suggests certain moral behaviors generally considered evil produce a functional state of the brain indicative of well-being in those morally reprehensible individuals.)

 “Changes in wealth, health, age, marital status, etc.,” Harris writes, “tend not to matter as much as we think they will—and yet we make our most important decisions in life based upon these inaccurate assumptions…we are poorly placed to accurately recall the past, to perceive the present, or to anticipate the future with respect to our own happiness. It seems little wonder, therefore, that we are so often unfulfilled.”⁶

The Bible describes such a scenario: King Solomon was a man who had it all—hundreds of women, immense wealth, and political power. Yet, at the end of his life he wrote one of the most cynical works of all time, the book of Ecclesiastes. Though he possessed every physical pleasure a man could want he describes it all as vanity and futility.⁷

Christianity claims that material things cannot substitute for a relationship with God. Dozens of scientific studies have shown that those who practice some form of religion exhibit superior mental and physical health compared to those who don’t.⁸ Scientific data shows that adolescents who receive frequent religious instruction behave more appropriately and are better adjusted to adult life in society compared to their non-religious peers.⁹ In addition, those children are also happier.⁹ Sam Harris never bothered to cite such studies.

Part 2 of this review will continue on Wednesday with a look at Harris’ opinions on free will and moral truth.