I think Harris raises some great points, and I wholeheartedly agree with him on several issues, for example: the existence of moral facts, including the recognition of the problem of radical cultural relativism (some cultural practices are not valuable at all); skepticism of an absolute and impenetrable fact/value distinction; and the probable inability of science to answer all moral questions; and perhaps most significantly, the tendency of Christians to focus on issues like gay marriage and ignore larger social problems.
Here is where I take issue: It is not in fact the case that “the only people that agree with [Harris] are religious demagogues” who “got the answer from a voice…” There are scores of reasonable religious people who agree with Harris on fundamental issues whom he does nothing whatsoever to recognize. He sets up a false distinction with science and reason on one side and power-hungry, scary-looking religious dictators on the other. With all his talk of continuums, is there really none here? Is religion really always the bad guy? When he cites the Bible, he doesn’t even quote it correctly. If a commitment to universal human values is as important as Harris says it is (and I agree with him), then why is he intentionally alienating his strongest allies? He won’t find many sympathetic ears in Dawkins’s camp, that’s almost certain.
And that’s perhaps my primary point regarding Harris’s idea—that it’s not actually his. Christianity has been making these points for thousands of years. Francis Schaeffer saw the danger in the fact/value dichotomy decades ago. The Bible itself makes it clear that we all know the difference between right and wrong and that with wisdom we can discover it for ourselves.
For example, Romans 2:14-16 says, “For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.” And there are dozens more similar passages. It is unfair to say that Christians believe that all moral knowledge must be handed down from on high. What we DO believe is that there is no adequate grounding or motivation for morality without God’s existence.
Something else I’m not clear on: Is this a utilitarian ethic?
I believe that Harris raises alot of good points in pointing out science and it's possible roles in the creation of values. However there is a second part to this as well. In addition to science and fact being able to affect values, it is also true that values affect science. Often times people come up with scientific theories that were clearly created out of a value the scientists had beforehand. For example Newton was able to try to fit in God into his physics. Or the fact that scientists held onto ether theory out of a beleif that all things should work mechanically. The idea of fields does not fit that theory so they were slow to accept it. I wonder how Harris would address the fact that science has often been corrupted by these values as well and has not been as objective as Ted Harris would hope.
I think Harris raises some great points, and I wholeheartedly agree with him on several issues, for example: the existence of moral facts, including the recognition of the problem of radical cultural relativism (some cultural practices are not valuable at all); skepticism of an absolute and impenetrable fact/value distinction; and the probable inability of science to answer all moral questions; and perhaps most significantly, the tendency of Christians to focus on issues like gay marriage and ignore larger social problems.
ReplyDeleteHere is where I take issue: It is not in fact the case that “the only people that agree with [Harris] are religious demagogues” who “got the answer from a voice…” There are scores of reasonable religious people who agree with Harris on fundamental issues whom he does nothing whatsoever to recognize. He sets up a false distinction with science and reason on one side and power-hungry, scary-looking religious dictators on the other. With all his talk of continuums, is there really none here? Is religion really always the bad guy? When he cites the Bible, he doesn’t even quote it correctly. If a commitment to universal human values is as important as Harris says it is (and I agree with him), then why is he intentionally alienating his strongest allies? He won’t find many sympathetic ears in Dawkins’s camp, that’s almost certain.
And that’s perhaps my primary point regarding Harris’s idea—that it’s not actually his. Christianity has been making these points for thousands of years. Francis Schaeffer saw the danger in the fact/value dichotomy decades ago. The Bible itself makes it clear that we all know the difference between right and wrong and that with wisdom we can discover it for ourselves.
For example, Romans 2:14-16 says, “For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.” And there are dozens more similar passages. It is unfair to say that Christians believe that all moral knowledge must be handed down from on high. What we DO believe is that there is no adequate grounding or motivation for morality without God’s existence.
Something else I’m not clear on: Is this a utilitarian ethic?
I should add: while Christians believe that everyone knows the moral law, the problem lies in the DOING.
ReplyDeleteI believe that Harris raises alot of good points in pointing out science and it's possible roles in the creation of values.
ReplyDeleteHowever there is a second part to this as well. In addition to science and fact being able to affect values, it is also true that values affect science. Often times people come up with scientific theories that were clearly created out of a value the scientists had beforehand. For example Newton was able to try to fit in God into his physics. Or the fact that scientists held onto ether theory out of a beleif that all things should work mechanically. The idea of fields does not fit that theory so they were slow to accept it.
I wonder how Harris would address the fact that science has often been corrupted by these values as well and has not been as objective as Ted Harris would hope.