As part of my non-fiction reading, I decided to work on reading a book titled ‘The Moral Landscape’ after running into a swell book deal at Barnes and Noble. Although the book has a great deal of topics to discuss, I thought the work would greatly contribute to the blog with its ongoing debate between science and morality. According to the neuroscientist, he posits the claim that science does not only recognize morality, but also has the ability to prescribe what is or what is not morally acceptable in today’s society.
Even with the accusation of utilitarianism, I believe Harris’s work has a couple of other issues to discuss which are worth discussing (beside the fact that he wants morality to be limited to a group of elitists, which he considers himself to be one of). For starters, I think the major issue overall is the qualifications of moral law giving. If there was an extra point I could give to the ongoing philosophical proofs for the existence of God, I would say something like this:
“All moral prescriptions must come from a source that is not only an immutable, universally applicable, and eternally lasting, but also a source (or point of reference) that transcends beyond the human race.”
For without these qualifications, morality prescribed by anyone (including Sam Harris) is totally pointless. I will be more than glad to point out the questions and qualifications that are necessary for any Atheist to consider, especially when trying to share this ‘Christ-less’ alternative to the universe. I have a lot more to say on the topic of Atheism because more and more of them are claiming the same baseless arguments that most Christian apologists have answered already. I think the more they spend in selling their books in trying to convince the audience of their ‘rationalism’, the less I am convinced that their arguments are really worth mentioning or even reading about because of the poor support of them.
Hopefully, some Atheist will answer my question.