A Review of Sam Harris's Lying

 I remember back in general philosophy class of how Immanuel Kant would deal with the scenario of a person pursued by an ax murderer. If you were sheltering the person in your house, and the murderer showed up at your door inquiring as to the whereabouts of his intended victim, Kant believed that you would be morally obligated to tell him the truth. Our conclusion in class? If pursued by an ax-murderer, don't go to Kant's house.

Like Harris's Free Will, this book was originally published in ebook form, then came out as a slight volume, this time in hardback. When I first read about this title on Harris's blog, I had the impression that Harris's position was essentially the same as that of  Kant, who famously (or rather infamously) believed in absolute morals--really absolute morals.

Fortunately, however, if one were chased by an ax-murderer, Harris's house would be a much safer bet. He presents a like scenario, in which you are harboring a boy being pursued by a murderer, and he inquires as to the whereabouts of his intended victim. In such a case, according to Harris, telling the truth would not be obligatory, as in such a case you would be dealing with an individual who was not open to rational discourse. It is arguable even taking a human life, (if doing so to save the life of someone else, for example) may be morally justified in some unlikely scenarios. And so it is with lying. However, Harris also cautions that in such a situation as this, if the murderer were not confronted, he will likely go on to victimize more people. A more effective result might occur if one were to say to him, according to Harris, might be, "I wouldn't tell you where he was if I knew, and if you take one step closer, I'll blow your brains out!"

 Notice that this isn't a lie! Of course, he also takes into account that not all of us would have the strength, guts, or resources for such a confrontation, but tells us that the murderer must be eventually be confronted by someone who does, sooner or later.

A few years ago, I made a few posts on sabbath-Keeper's Forum, a site run by a pastor Harold Kupp and his forum. Kupp happened to be in agreement with Kant that lying was always and invariably wrong, as it was one of the Ten Commandments. I've noticed, by the way, that many of the teachings of the Bible were not meant to be adhered to in every single case, though often it is taken as though they are. At any rate, I presented to pastor Kupp the classic scenario of a Jew hiding in attic and Nazis at the front door. Amazingly, he still insisted that in such a case telling an untruth, even to individuals clearly beyond rational discourse, would be wrong. However, he also believed that lying is never essential for the best outcome, and that other options would be made available in such a case. I'm not quite that confident, but here Kupp's position was a bit nearer to Harris's. Still, if one had not the resources, and simply refusing to tell the Nazis about where the said Jew was hiding would likely give that information away, it is difficult for me to see what the other options would be.

Aside from such uncommon moral dilemmas, however, Harris deals with the "white lies," and seeming inconsequential untruths that many of us tell on a frequent basis. He shows how telling even seemingly trivial lies have unfortunate consequences if they are discovered. Among the examples he gives of this are two rather amusing incidents in which adults told small lies to cover their tracks, but a child in attendance spilled the beans. He also observes, as I have, that many people think that "white lies," in response to questions such as: "Does this dress make me look fat?" are actually a moral good. A person asking such a question, however, is seeking information about her appearance in the dress, and deceiving her is not doing her a favor. And if the deception were discovered, well, she probably wouldn't ask that person's advise again. Harris gives a personal account of how he reviewed a book manuscript by a friend, which he thought was terrible. He truthfully communicated his opinion to his friend, and regardless of any hurt feelings that might have resulted, the friend was able to revise his writing, and is now a successfully published author. 

Harris adequately relates the actual problem of lying. Most of us accept this as generally being true, but the author deserves credit for going to depth as to actually why it is true. He shows, therefore, that there definitely are moral truths to demonstrating the harm to ourselves and to others which result when moral truths are cast aside. A very Christian position actually, whether Harris realizes it or not.

Review of Sam Harris's Free Will

This is a slim volume by noted atheist Sam Harris that was first available on Kindle and was then released in paperback.

I have a few rather serious thoughts about it, as it presents a dreaded scenario of the type when scientific findings are odds with one's religious convictions. 

Harris's position, as is suggested by the cover, is the free will is essentially a fraud. Everything anyone ever does or says has been predetermined by our subconscious mind, before our conscious mind is aware of it--and he backs this position up with hard scientific facts.

That is not to say that Harris's conclusion is not still a matter of scientific dispute. I recently spoke with an unbeliever who did not agree that free will is nonexistent. This is not necessarily an atheistic position at all, of course, though Harris happens to be an atheist. In fact, one of the most disturbing things about the non-existence of Free Will is its close proximity to Calvinistic dogma. In fact, th scenario Harris presents would fit very squarely into the tenants of Calvinism.

I once attended a congregation that was predominately Calvinist, among whom I got along well, and a pastor who once stated that Calvinism was "the only truth of God's word."

Needless to say, I disagree, at least in principle, with virtually everything in Calvinist doctrine, and this is why reading Free Will without bias was such a challenge for me. I have to say, though, that some of the things Harris says about our lack of free will have encouraging things to say for Christian worldview. One of them is that recognition of this is liable to result in a far more Christ-like response to the deviants and conformists among us. This is even, perhaps especially, true in the case of those who commit heinous crimes.

Looking at the case of a monstrous individual who has victimized an innocent person--I really don't want to discuss any actual case here(Harris himself describes one very disturbing case in The Moral Landscape), we generally are prone to cry out for terrible retribution against the perpetrator. Such feelings are difficult to do away with, and indeed I myself once held the position of "an eye for an eye." I also write fiction, and I admit to devising appropriate comeuppances for the villains of my stories on many an occasion. This attitude is rooted firmly in our desire to see justice done to evildoers, and partially in our compassion for the innocent.

But in a Christian context, taking revenge is just plain wrong. It will only lead to the further perpetuation of evil. Responding with love to vilest among us is certainly challenging, but it also happens to be Christ's command. And recognition that even the vilest are victims of their own subconscious should invariably enable us to respond in the morally correct way. Harris himself has observed something that we all must admit: that it is terribly bad luck to be born with the mind of a psychopath. Therefore, the psychopath is himself a victim, at least to that extent.

On the other hand, the whole notion of the non-existence of Free Will just isn't very palatable to me, especially from the point of view that our own choices determine, at least in part, the relationship we have with Christ. God would necessarily be unjustified in judging us, if free will did not exist at all. And getting back to the most evil among our species, Harri's position would strongly suggest that even the worst mass murderer is, at base, no more accountable for his crimes than a newborn is for inheriting a selfish nature. This would seem to negate the special moral status many of us recognize in infants and children.

For my own part, whatever the science regarding Free Will, I will attempt to live my life as though I have a choice, even if Harris's position proves correct.

The Moral Landscape by Sam Harris

It has been a very long time since I have added anything to this blog.

I promised, well over a year ago that I would get around to reviewing Sam Harris's new book The Moral Landscape. It has actually been out for more than a year now itself, and I have already read it.

Harris's main thesis here is that, contrary to the assertions of many theists, objective moral truths really do exist, and reason and science should serve as tools to discover them. One of the main areas in which I find myself in agreement with atheists is the issue of unquestioning obedience. A common criticism aimed at atheists is that without a god, we are therefore free to make up any rules we like, even though very few atheists are true moral relativists. The problem is that unquestioning obedience to scripture, which is often implied, is the alternative to reason, runs straight into serious moral problems, especially when it comes to the doctrine of eternal punishment for sinners, and also the atrocities committed in the name of God in the Old Testament. The reason fundementalist Christians hold fast to both of these, as I'll argue further in another essay, has nothing to do with morality at all. And I might offend some Christians with what I am about to say next.

When it comes to moral guidence, I do not rely, first and formost, on scripture. I rely on prayer.

Harris, who literally calls for the end of faith, would do away with scripture entirely. And since he does not believe in faith, he would also, of necessity, do away with prayer as well.

Science and reason, he beleives, are the most reliable tools we have, not only for discovering facts about the material universe, but facts regarding morality as well. Since, as a theist, I agree with him that moral objectivism is correct, I also agree that objective moral truths may indeed to discoverable through rational inquiry. The thing is, as Harris demonstrates in his book, the moral truth in some areas may be very difficult to discern. Since most of us are not scientists, and do not have the toos of scientific inquiry at our disposal, prayer and intuitive reasoning will have to suffice for the short term.

In the past, Harris has defined true morality as a question of happiness vs. suffering, but think it is fairly obvious that this definition is not quite sufficient. Consider a virtual reality program in which all the inhabitants are kept in a state of everlasting bliss. Would such a state represent the peak of moral good? Few people would actually answer "yes." Part of the reason is that such a world would be an utter sham, and we tend to place high moral value on the quality of Truth. The apparent pointlessness of a state of eternal euphoria, too, is also a problem, and part of the reason the common perception of heaven is, in fact, fraught with moral difficulties. Using the degree of happiness vs. suffering as a yardstick to determine morality, indeed, leads to difficulty, as may be seen by Peter Singer's now notorious defense of infanticide:

http://www.equip.org/articles/peter-singer-s-bold-defense-of-infanticide

Harris, who seems to have realized the problem inherent with "happiness vs. suffering" prior to writing this, alters his definition of morality somewht however, to "Human and animal well-being," indeed, a definition with a far closer proximity to the truth. It is true that most of us can generally determine how "moral" a thing is by its contribution to human well-being. Harris is critical of the supposed "morality" of suicide bombers on precisely these grounds. Morality cannot be simply a matter of "pleasing God," even though there are scads of both Christians and Muslims who would define it thusly. While we can rationally argue that if the actions of Muslim terrorists tie directly with the writings of their holy book, than it is a reasonable assertion that their faith itself is in error. It is my beleif that the same charge cannot be brought to bear upon the Christian faith. Don't beleive me? Name any terrible act done allegedly in name of Jesus Christ, and it will, of necessity, go diretly against His teachings.

Writes Harris:

Because most religions concieve of morality as a matter of being obedient to the word of God (generally for the sake of recieving supernatural reward), their precepts often have nothing to do with maximizing well-being in this world. Religious beleivers can, therefore, assert the immorality of contraception, masturbation, homosexuality, etc., with ever feeling obliged to argue that these practices actually cause suffering. They can also pursue aims that are flagrantly immoral, in that they needlessly pereptuate human misery, while beleiving these actions are morally oligatory. This pious uncoupling of moral concern from the reality of human and animal suffering has caused tremendous harm.

A scathing indightment of morality= "pleasing God." Indeed, very many religius folks, when faced with addressing the immorality of homosexuality, often fall back on the arguemnt of "it's not my opinion; it's what God's Word says." What they (and Harris) neglect to mention (and perhaps even to consider), is that anything branded as sinful by the Bible does, or did (indeed there were some prohibitions, like eating shelfish, that were verturned by the time o Christ), contribute to human harm. I won't go into the health risks associated with homosexuality, but they are leigion. I will mention briefly that the fact that so many innocent children contracted HIV back in the eighties, and were themselves aften the targets of persecution by the fearful, was largey a result of homosexual activity and drug abuse, is appalling to say the least, polliticaly incorrect as it is. So far as contraception, it may be right in some cases, and wrong in others depending on the circumstances. I might add that there is no Biblical passage at all even suggesting the immorality of contraception. That it has become a religous issue to such an extant has far more to do with the need to preserve culture and tradition than any connection with the teachings of Christ, or even of Moses. Ditto with homosexuality; while I explained the immorality above, and the fact that it is indeed prohibited by scripture (if not the actual teachings of Christ) the chief reason so many conservative Christians seem opposed to gayness, and gay marriage in particular, has more to do with a perceived threat to the nuclear family. Is the tradtional, nucelear family the most conducive to human welfare? Quite possibly, in most cases, it is. In others, perhaps not so, which is why adherence for rules for rules sake offers little reliable guidence for moral conduct.

Harris's book does, however, make some fascinating insights into the socio-cultural biases which tend to affect that which we percieve as moral. According to a study he cites, socio-political liberals tend to view morality in terms of harm and fairness. Conservatives tend to view morality in terms of harm, fairness, respect for authority, and group loyality. Notice that conservatives do not jettison harm and fairness, but add the two additional qualities. Harris beleives that conservatives may still be thinking on terms of harm, though it may be a different sort of harm considered by liberals. Perhaps conservatives also consider "harm to one's group," as equally immoral. This rather demonstrates that there is a tribalitic bias at work in conservative thought, and tribalism tends to be antithetical to the teachings of Jesus. One thinks of the associations of "God and country," and the often aggressive pro-millitary stance of the Religious Right. On the other hand, Harris cites an additional study which demonstrated that liberals tends to harbor a strong, yet appantently unconscious, racial bias in favor of minorities. According to this, liberals were eager to sacrifice the life of single white person to save the lives a group of non-whites, but not he other way around, all the while maintaining that the issue of race had not entered into their consideration.

The Moral Landscape is indeed a thought-provoking book, and it will certainly contribute to the debate surrounding how humans ought to regard right and wrong.

Sam Harris and Conversational Intolerence

Sam Harris, one of the leading New Atheist authors, has a forthcoming book called The Moral Landscape, due out this coming October. Already, I'm chomping at the bit. Unlike Same'sw two previous titles, The End of Faith and Letter to a Christian Nation, which were blatant attacks on religion, this new offering purports to argue that science, not faith, can and should be used as a means of determining morality. This will be an interesting read! I have my doubts, seriously, that Harris can put forth an actual sceintific method for determining morals, but will be interesting to see what he says.

The one thing I want to talk about right now, though, is what Harris refers to a "conversational intolerence." What it means, essentially, is to show no respect for opinions which are deemed irrational by the listener. If someone suggested he believed that Zeus, for exmaple, was a real being, they would not be taken seriously, and might well be met with mockery and derision. The same sort of logic, Harris beleives, ought to apply to the Christian God. Since there is no more credibility for him, in Harris's opinion than Zeus, beleivers in Him ought be regardeded similarly. This, of course, doesn't take into account that if one religion is true, we should expect it to still be thriving today, and very influential, and doing the most material good in the world, along with gainging new convets who claim to have persoanlly experienced said relgion's God. Which does all this sound more like, Christ, or Zeus?

To be fair, Harris deserves credit for opposing state enforced intolerence of faith. But the question is, just what good can we reasonably expect from Harris's "conversational intolerence", especially in a debate about relgion? Harris himself may see this sort of intolerence as a sort of "polite disagreement", as he as never used flaming tactics in interviews and debates that I have seen. However, not everyone is civil when it comes to conversational intolerence. I've seen a great amount of trash-talking and personal attacks on beleivers on atheist messageboards, most of which seem to be in the service or so-called rationality. Since I've watched a number of episodes of the Atheist Experience on Youtube. I remember one episode where they were talking about whether atheists should side with religious "moderates" in opposing Creationism in the science class. In general, they did not want to side with theists at all, because if the topic of faith evver came up, they (the atheists) admitted they would instigate conflict. One of them said that if confronted with a beleif he did not consider rational, "sorry, you're going to get flayed alive."
Really? How does this sort of intolerence contribute to any sort of civil discussion? It doesn't, of course. I do not beleive that any theists have seriously reconsidered their opinions after meeting with such "conversational intolerence." Religion is a major force in th world, and treating beleivers as they would an occasioanl beleiver in Zeus is not going to make religion go away. It will, however, create hostility between the two sides, which will make civil discourse more difficult. Harris himself has seemed reasonable when it comes to repsenting his point of view in public. Perhaps theists would do best to follow Harris's example, but not his advice.