Sam Harris has written a brief but fairly clear book which makes some telling indictments of traditional Christianity and Islam. He also questions certain elements of the Bible which any honest theist has to struggle with; nevertheless, there are aspects of this book that seem deficient and lacking in nuance. It is those aspects that I will concentrate on in this review.
Harris contends that the Bible counsels parents to beat their children with a rod whenever children misbehave (page 8). However, Harris fails to consider the fact that the "rod" spoken of in Proverbs 13:24 is probably metaphorical (see 2 Samuel 7:14; Isaiah 10:5). Even if ancient Jewish fathers were encouraged to strike their children literally, however, this counsel only poses a difficulty for the contemporary permissive mindset. While the view is not popular in our day, there are still some psychologists or officers of the court who advocate spanking children in the proper way. Similarly, the Bible's counsel does not advocate abusing children, but rather encourages parents to train their children out of love. Harris' thoughts regarding the Bible sanctioning the killing of one's children is also a misconstrual of the biblical text and shows ignorance of the ancient judicial process found in ancient Israel. It took more than mere "talking back" to one's parents to suffer execution. See the relevant accounts in Leviticus 20:9; Deuteronomy 21:18-21.
Mr Harris claims that all of our "primate cousins" are "generally intolerant of murder and theft" (page 21). This statement seems difficult to square with reality in view of the fact that animals probably cannot "murder" anyone or anything since they lack the ability to engage in the premeditation that is involved with murdering someone or something. Primates cannot form criminal intent (mens rea), therefore, they cannot commit murder. Two things required in English law for the commission of a crime are a guilty act (actus reus) and a guilty mind (mens rea). Moreover, it appears that one would also have to use the word "theft" very loosely with respect to the actions of primates. It must be emphasized that they lack the ability to form criminal intent.
Finally, I must say that Harris' comments on blastocysts and stem cell research are chilling (pages 29-32). One does not need to believe in an immaterial soul or even be a Christian to oppose the destruction of blastocysts for the purpose of stem cell research. Immanuel Kant argues that human life has dignity in se. A blastocyst is a potential human person--that is, there is a sense in which the blastocyst has entered the human community even if one wants to fuss about human personhood. If this is the case, then the dignity of the blastocyst should be respected or treated with esteem and care. Harris' argument about any cell in our bodies being a potential human being is just less than intelligent. The potential of the blastocyst becoming a fully grown human person and the potential of cells from my nose becoming a human person are not analogous situations. We know that the blastocyst has the potential to become a fully formed human person; we cannot say the same about a cell from my nose.
12 comments:
The last paragraph though meaningful, still brings laughter to my heart. I guess it is the delivery of what is being said. On the other hand the 1st two paragraphs emphasize to me how easy it is for someone to take things to far without making sound analysis for what they choose to say. Thank you for your thoughts on this.
Edgar;
Good points. I have that book and Sam Harris' book, "The Moral Landscape," which has been debated by many. Here he tries to define the moral quality of 'good' or any moral quality as evolving and learned not predisposed by our Creator. I think Bill Craig debates him on these issues as well as many others in his understanding of the moral quality and redefining its scope.
Philip and Dokimazo, thanks for providing some feedback. I originally wrote this review on amazon, and the last paragraph was meant to address Harris' remarks in a somewhat whimsical manner. Sorry, but I found and still find his suggestion about blastocysts to be silly and desperate. More seriously, when it comes to the biblical view of discipline, he twists scripture beyond all recognition. In any event, I do want to edit/revise some parts of my review.
Some years ago, I read Harris, Hitchens, and The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. But I have not read The Moral Landscape although one day I might. On the other hand, an excellent rejoinder to all these atheistic works is Edward Feser's The Last Superstition. His book is not perfect, but he certainly takes the new atheists to task, including their view of morality.
Edgar;
Along those lines also is,"C.S.Lewis and the New Atheist" by Peter S. Williams. I have Feser's book it is a good read. Of course both get deep into philosophical juxtapositions which tend to wear me down.
Dokimazo,
I like Peter Williams also; he's originated some good arguments contra atheism. Feser is a scholastic-style philosopher, so he loves to make distinctions and promote the Aristotelian/Thomistic way of thinking. Therefore, I tell others about his book, but let them know what to expect.
I find it quite strange that the argument that 'if an embryo is a person, so is any skin cell, but that's absurd, so neither are' is so popular. It seems to rest on a confusion between potentials. The embryo is developing itself as a singular being to mature, but a skin cell is just hanging out being part of a larger whole and would have to undergo some change that would change what it is.
Although, I wouldn't say that it is potentially a human being, but is a human being with potential (that is, to become a mature human being). Given this you could go take the 'substance view' or a 'potentiality argument' (like Don Marquis) and say that you shouldn't be killing a being with either a species-specific flourishing like ours, or a 'future-like ours.' Neither of which, any given cell in our body has.
I don't quite understand Harris' moral view, esp. since he is a absolute determinist, and his trying to ascribe moral qualities to animals or the acts of animals seems pretty lame. I see someone mentioned WLC's debate with Harris on that; I watched it, O maybe two years ago, and it was pretty good.
Hi Sean,
I agree with you that there's a substantial difference between embryos and skin cells. My comments in the review also strictly pertained to blastocysts, that is, embryos with approximately 200 cells.
When I say that the blastocyst is a potential human being, what I should have written is "potential human person." Of course, this language is not used to support a pro-choice stand, but it's only meant to say that while the blastocyst is human--there is still more development left at this early stage and whether or not someone concedes that the blastocyst is a person, that still doesn't mean there's grounds for abortion. But I would agree that the wording there should be changed.
Lastly, it's difficult to understand how absolute determinism jibes with ethics. Peter van Inwagen formulated a pretty solid argument that seems to refute compatibilism and any link between morality and absolute determinism. Maybe Harris should just bite the bullet, and acknowledge that absolute determinism leaves no room for ethics.
Here's another ccritique of Harris' book: https://beyondthedish.wordpress.com/2011/02/05/sam-harris-abuses-human-embryology/
I think that he kind of does to a degree, or thinks the more important issue is to focus on what we as society do with people who, while not responsible in any objective sense for what they do, do pose risks to other people. Should we arrest, imprison, them? Of course this seems open to some brave new world stuff, that is, if "punishment" is severed from whether it's just or not, why not just give people mind altering drugs to make them happy all of the time or corrective surgery to make them function properly, be less violent or whatever, regardless of whether what they've done deserves punishment or not.
Who knows what changes will happen to a system loosed from divine law? I like neuroscience, but it leans toward determinism, for the most part. One book I perused recently says that more than 90% of what we do is governed/produced by unconscious processes. That data stuns me, even if I don't accept the claim at face value. Like you pointed out, if we accept a deterministic view of human nature, how should our theoretical anthropology influence the way we punish criminal acts or sin.
Buy is 90 percent of what we do especially morally relevant?
I reviewed the book, and the writer states that 99 percent of what we do is unconscious. Granted, that doesn't mean that the same percentage of our actions is morally relevant. However, if the claim is true, it leaves hardly any room for free moral actions or so it seems.
Post a Comment