Tag Archives: Atheism

Harris’ Science Fiction

Leave a reply

sam-harrisIn his 2011 book, The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values (see here), Sam Harris put forth the assertion that “science can determine human values.” It even says that right in the tagline of the title. He has also explained his thesis in his well-watched Ted Talk (see here) and defended it in various forums.

If Harris had elaborated on how science can inform human values, his might have been an interesting and even provocative enough thesis. But to claim that science can determine human values is a huge overreach that Harris completely fails to justify. And in failing so completely I fear he has done more harm than good.

According to Harris, happiness for the greatest number is the greatest good. Since we can measure happiness, we can use scientific methods to predict the best ways to maximize it. Those then become our ethical and moral goals. Simple right?

But competing desires for happiness cannot usually be fully weighed and resolved analytically. And to the extent they are, they are weighted against very fuzzy and subjective criteria where there are often only bad alternatives. And what about merit? Is everyone’s happiness equally important? Yet according to Harris, all these problems are just technical challenges to be solved by acquiring better happiness data and developing improved optimization algorithms.

More importantly, the very starting premise of happiness maximization is itself an ethical presumption produced not by science but by humans – namely Sam Harris. There are many competing values and there is no agreement that maximizing happiness should be our highest ethical principle. As just one example, it is my sincere opinion that ensuring the long-term habitability of our planet is more important than immediate human happiness.

But I am pretty sure Harris would respond to this by simply claiming that ensuring the habitability of our planet makes us happy and is consistent with his theory.  One need only include future generations in the overall happiness calculus. What Harris consistently attempts to do is to subsume every competing and often exclusive value under an ever-widening definition of happiness. This quickly degrades into absurdity with no help from me.

And this is just one example of how quickly Harris’ thesis breaks down or becomes irrelevant. That Mr. Harris failed utterly to make his case is not just my conclusion, but the apparent consensus of the academic ethical philosophy community. A number of academic papers and commentaries have stated this in no uncertain terms. Whitley Kaufman from the University of Massachusetts published a 2010 review paper in Neuroethics (see here) that strongly challenged essentially every one of Harris’ key arguments. Below is a synopsis of some of the main criticisms I consolidated from various academic sources. I include them for completeness but feel free to skim to get the gist.

  1. In general his arguments are full of fallacious logic including but not limited to: internal contradictions, false assumptions, straw-men, appeals to emotion (including the Islamophobia which he cannot seem to suppress), promissory arguments, and circular reasoning.
  2. He circumvents many flaws in his reasoning by simply redefining terms. He avoids others by claiming that science and philosophy are really just the same thing. Both of these machinations are quite similar to the techniques that Ken Ham uses to avoid glaring flaws in his creationism case (see here).
  3. Many of his arguments are theoretical and predicated upon some imagined future-state capabilities of science.
  4. He presents extreme positions that pose no real ethical dilemma at all as proofs of his thesis, and then contends that science can similarly answer all the infinitely more nuanced and complex questions in-between.
  5. He begins his logical progression with a moral judgment as a given, then follows with scientific evidence to support it. Thus he avoids science having to actually answer the very fundamental questions or morality he purports that science can address.
  6. His own views are essentially indistinguishable from John Stuart Mill’s utilitarianism which says that our moral imperative should be the greatest happiness for the greatest number. However, just like Mills, Harris fails to recognize that that itself is a non-scientific moral judgment. Even if one grants him that as a moral imperative, he still fails completely, again as did Mill, to explain how science would allow one to choose between a large number of conflicting happinesses, or moreover how to factor in other intangibles like justice.
  7. He fails completely in his effort to address the “is/ought” divide and show how science can answer the “ought” questions. He seems not to even fully understand the dilemma. In fact, he explicitly claims that it is a virtue that he is not familiar with cornerstone principles of ethical philosophy – principles that he claims are incorrect or substantially different from his own. He rather puts forth worn arguments that have been definitively refuted for centuries.
  8. In his desperation to find a science of ethics, he has adopted a simplistic utilitarian starting point that makes a science of ethics possible. And in completely circular logic, he concludes that therefore utilitarianism must be true and sufficient to provide a moral basis for all ethical questions.

Let’s be clear. Harris’ main goal is to take god out of the ethics and morality equation. That’s a good thing, so why bash him for trying?

It is a good goal, but to accomplish it we don’t need to replace the god of Biblical fantasy with a god of science fantasy. I fear that Harris’ overreach (so like the hubris of Icarus) only proves the religious case better than his own. His arguments are so flawed and impractical that they may cause many people to reconsider their trust in science more skeptically than their trust in religion. His arguments may sound so implausible as to cause many to conclude that the clarity of religion is in fact essential to point science in the right direction – which is exactly the same claim the Vatican has long maintained.

And the unfortunate thing is that this is a completely unnecessary overreach. We are already directed by our better natures as guided by evolution and informed by sound objective science. Trying to establish a science of morality is not visionary and before its time. In this attempt at least it is deeply flawed and probably counterproductive.

Changing Minds

2 Replies

beliefs-behaviors-resultsBeliefs drive behaviors and behaviors produce real-world results. If beliefs are mistaken, those results are probably suspect. To improve results we must ensure our beliefs are valid.

But can we atheists ever convince any believer that they are wrong to put their faith in fantasies? Indeed, can anyone ever even change anyone’s mind about anything? Most people would answer this question with a resounding no! The prevailing view is that no matter what evidence or logic you put forth, people are unwilling, even incapable, of ever changing their opinion about anything – let alone their deeply held beliefs.

Do you think that is at least somewhat true? If so, let’s test it by seeing if I can change your mind about changing your mind.

You almost certainly believe that your own mind can be changed. You are probably confident that if you are presented with reasonable proof you will adjust your beliefs accordingly. Well like you, everyone else believes the very same thing about themselves. Either you are the only one with this capacity while everyone else is deluded, or you are as deluded as everyone else, or everyone else is actually quite capable of changing their minds just like you.

I’m pretty confident it’s the last option. One proof is simply that we are here. We could not have survived the gauntlet of evolution without a tremendous ability to adjust our beliefs in response to new information. It is unreasonable to think that we could have adapted to a rapidly changing world without that innate capacity. And it is consistent and reasonable to assume that this malleability cannot inherently differentiate between religious beliefs and beliefs about anything else.

Another proof is that we actually see beliefs change all around us all the time. Our beliefs have been and are being continually shaped, even transformed, by sales and marketing, education, culture, indoctrination, religion, brainwashing, media, personal experiences, life events, new information, and a host of other influences. Indeed, beliefs are some of our most fluid of ideas because they are not fettered by physical constraints. Missionaries prove this every day.

Sure, you are quick to say. It’s easy to adopt beliefs, but once formed it’s virtually impossible to eliminate them. But religion itself disproves that idea too. The mere fact that organized religion must expend such an incredible amount of resources to instill and maintain their fantasies acknowledges the inherent fragility and vulnerability of even the most deeply held beliefs.

Still, it is understandable that one might come to the conclusion that beliefs are impervious to reason. Most of us personally never seem to succeed in convincing anyone of anything. Whenever we try, whenever we put forth what we think is a clearly indisputable rational argument, we seem to be talking to a brick wall.

No doubt it is quite difficult to change minds. But that doesn’t make the effort futile. Consider that dating is one particular form of persuasion. For many of us it’s frustratingly difficult to find a date let alone true love. We can’t seem to convince anyone we’re worth dating and so we conclude that dating itself is hopeless. But people all around us do it all the time and we can too. And as with dating, there well-known techniques that have proven to work extremely well in the art of persuasion in general. These include establishing trust, reframing the debate, making it personal, making it their idea, systematically dismantling rationalizations, and moving the other party along in small incremental steps.

So we should not be discouraged if our efforts to evangelize atheism do not seem to yield perceptible results. Our collective efforts do matter. Sure, they are unlikely to be rewarded with some “come to atheism” epiphany. But we must trust that every little drip, drip, drip of reason erodes away at the brittle sandstone upon which religion is constructed and does make a real difference even if we don’t often see it.

And as my final proof, do you feel even a bit more optimistic about your chances of having a real impact on individuals and on society? If so, I have changed your mind at least a bit. If not, that only proves that I failed to make my case or that you cannot perceive how your thinking has been influenced. Either way, I rest my case.

This article written by me was first published in the New York City Atheists July Newsletter and I reprint it here with their kind permission. NYCA holds monthly meetings with great speakers on topics of general interest as well as a large number of more focused meetings and events. Even if you don’t live in NYC, you can still find tons of resources on their website (found here).

From Belief to Delusion

3 Replies

When I wrote my 2008 book Belief in Science and the Science of Belief (here on Amazon), I intentionally treated belief as just, well – belief. I intentionally softened any characterizations that might seem excessively inflammatory and personal. But in this more intimate setting amongst friends like you, we can ask whether the word belief is far too weak and benign, even inaccurate, to describe many of the assertions of the Religious Right.

Remember the formal debate between Bill Nye and Ken Ham on creationism? Ham challenged Nye to debate the topic and the notable exchange took place on February 4th, 2014. You can find the debate online if you missed it (here on YouTube). If you are old enough, you might know Bill Nye as the amiable “Science Guy” from his highly-regarded science show that ran from 1993 through 1998. Mr. Nye continues to be a passionate advocate and popularist of science.

Creation Museum

“Learning” at the Creation Museum

His opponent, Mr. Ham, was and is the President of the Answers in Genesis Ministry and is a tireless evangelist preaching young Earth creationism – mainly targeting kids. Mr. Ham is a key principal behind the Creation “Museum” (website) – a Biblical-themed amusement park that you may have glimpsed in the film Religulous by Bill Maher.

As I listened to the specious and frankly ludicrous arguments put forth with such conviction by Mr. Ham (see here), I could not help but wonder whether belief is far too mealy-mouthed a word for what Ham and those like him suffer from. Is not delusion is a far more accurate word to describe his kind of thinking? And if so, is it really helpful to be so very reluctant to call it what it is?

Now, before the psychologists amongst you get all up in arms that I’m diagnosing my fellow human beings, let me assure you that I use the word delusional purely in a lay sense, not as any kind of clinical diagnosis. But just because the word has particular meaning in clinical settings, does not mean we are not allowed to use it in a more general sense. We don’t need a judge to certify certain criminal activity as criminal and we don’t need a priest to proclaim certain behaviors as evil. We are perfectly free to do so as well.

For a fair and impartial definition of delusion we can most conveniently start with Wikipedia (go to link), which defines it as follows:

“A delusion is a belief held with strong conviction despite superior evidence to the contrary. As a pathology, it is distinct from a belief based on false or incomplete information, confabulation, dogma, illusion, or other effects of perception.”

That definition establishes a very clear distinction between belief and delusion, one which is easily recognizable at least at the extremes. A belief is simply an unsupported conclusion based on insufficient or incorrect information. A delusion is a belief that persists regardless of any amount of evidence to the contrary.

In the case of Ken Ham, his creationist views go far beyond a mistaken belief based on false or incomplete information. He maintains his unalterable convictions despite incomparably superior evidence to the contrary. No doubt, he would argue that the evidence for evolution is not actually superior, but any delusional person would similarly deny all evidence contrary to their delusion. Any objectively rational person could not help but conclude that the evidence for evolution goes far beyond merely superior to overwhelming and that the convoluted arguments that Ham puts forth to deny this evidence are utterly irrational.

According to Wikipedia again, delusions are further subcategorized into four distinct groups. One of these, the “Bizarre Delusion,” is defined as follows:

“A delusion that is very strange and completely implausible; an example of a bizarre delusion would be that aliens have removed the reporting person’s brain.”

I contend that the thinking of Ken Ham and other evolution deniers should be fairly and accurately categorized as a Bizarre Delusion. Their creationist views are certainly “completely implausible” and it would be considered “very strange” if they were not so commonplace. It is important to recognize that they have studied this a lot, and do not simply hold a completely uninformed and clueless belief in creation like presumably say, Rick Perry. And they are evidently not just lying about their belief like at least some other Conservative politicians. They are truly delusional.

Words matter and they should be used accurately. In principle, if a more accurate word is available it should be used. It seems undeniable that Bizarre Delusion is a far more appropriate word than belief to describe the thinking of Ham and those who share his delusions. But words also have power, and we should avoid words that convey implications or elicit reactions we would like to avoid. So even if the bizarre thinking of Ham and others like him is in fact delusional by definition, what value is there in labeling it as such? Doesn’t that just necessarily alienate those you would like to bring around to a less delusional way of thinking?

Even considering those possible undesirable side-effects, the word belief is neither accurate nor helpful in describing these delusions. It is not merely polite and non-confrontational but it actively helps enable these delusions. It suggests that such delusional thinking is harmless and even reasonable and acceptable when sheltered under the protective umbrella of other more rational beliefs. But delusions are seldom harmless and never reasonable or acceptable. Calling this kind of delusional thinking “belief” gives it more legitimacy than it deserves. If we were to consistently refer to this kind of thinking as delusions rather than as beliefs, we would more accurately communicate the true nature and real-world implications of these tangibly harmful assertions.

Certainly using the word delusion instead of belief would elicit a much more visceral response by opponents and allies alike, but I for one would welcome that reaction. I say call a delusion a delusion and stand by the implicit assertion that such delusional thinking goes way beyond mere belief and that it is irrational, unacceptable, and harmful. Calling a delusion a delusion may be just the hit of reality that these deluded people need, or at least those influenced by them need, to honestly reconsider the soundness of their reasoning. At the very least, it may give some people, politicians in particular, some hesitation in associating themselves with these delusional ideas.

So the next time someone espouses delusionary thinking, consider calling it out (nicely) as delusion. Instead of responding with the customary “I respect your beliefs but I don’t share them,” you might say something more provocative like “sorry but I can’t give any credence to such delusions.” If the other party questions how you dare characterize their sincere, heartfelt belief as a delusion, you should be able to give them a very clear and compelling justification for your use of that word. Or just refer them to Wikipedia.

But do not overuse it. Although one could arguably call any belief in god delusional, to do so would only dilute its effectiveness. There is a wide grey spectrum between belief and delusion. Reserve the label of delusional to those like Ken Ham who are clearly at the delusional end of the spectrum.

Here is an extra credit homework question for you. If Ken Ham has clearly slipped from belief into delusion, how far has he slid down the slope from delusion to insanity?