I found this in a pile of free books no one wanted and left out on the street! Want to come along for a journey and see if Mr. Harris has somehow discovered something that every other person who ever lived says is nonsense? Adventure awaits!!

Uh oh, folks. On *literally page 1* Mr. Harris puts in a reference note that goes to the back "itty bitty fine print" notes section of the book where he, interestingly, proceeds to redefine "Science" to include "history I personally think should count as Science."

This is mere *words* after he assures the reader there will be no subjective shenanigans regarding "Whose definition of 'moral' or 'better' should we use?"

Wonder why this alteration of a given definition is hidden in the back like that, cough cough.

Mr. Harris continues, explaining that he argues questions about Values are questions about the "well-being of conscious creatures" and "therefore translate into facts that can be scientifically understood."

This is lovely rhetoric. It is also clever manipulation. Here's why:

He does nothing to define "well-being" and leaves something *vitally important* (essential, really) to the imagination of the reader. The very concept of well-being is subjective, and science does not care a lick about subjective things of this nature.

It assumes your idea of well-being is the same as his. And hey, maybe it is! But... what if not? Then we return immediately to the "who is correct?" question which literally is the foundation for why science cannot determine human values.

He smartly uses the term "well-being" and quickly continues onward because no one (except those actually looking at what he's saying closely) would think to question such a thing, since who does not want "well-being" for themselves and others?

It is like a politician saying their plan after elected is to make things "better" so you should totally vote for them because we all want things to be better!

Side note: politicians literally do this. Do not fall for such tactics.

(Full disclosure, if Mr. Harris later defines "well-being" rather than leave it ambiguous I will gladly acknowledge it then. However *now* is the place to do it rather than "later," as the *entire argument of the book rests on this missing information.*)

Shout out to the words "neurophysiology of happiness" on page 2. Nothing says "happiness" like Naturalism! (Ps. You are accidental space dust that imagines consciousness exists because of meaningless intermixing chemicals. Sure does make you feel warm and fuzzy, doesn't it?)

Oh Sam.

Sam, Sam, Sam...

Sigh.

Let's unpack this statement of page 2 (page 2!). "The argument I make may be controversial, but all you need to do is accept Naturalism (blindly, because I say how simple it is here to do so), which is a worldview that literally can't even support itself."

Sorry, all. I have made it to page 3 and there is so much to refute here that I am aghast and cannot continue. This is a trash fire of rhetoric and bad logical leaps. I know of no book I've ever attempted to read that so quickly devolved into such awful nonsense. Words fail me.

I will attempt to revisit it tomorrow, with more energy to try to tackle 1/10th of the mess on these pages. What a disaster of a book. Do people not know they are being psychologically manipulated by this man? Goodness. I see fully why it was abandoned in a stack on the curb.

One more tweet for the night: My wife (wisely) reminds me to "be humble and love others."

While I am *quite* frustrated by Mr. Harris' manipulative rhetoric, I wish him peace, truth, and the fullness of love of his Creator. As sincerely as I can, for it is Good to wish Good.

IMPORTANT UPDATE about this thread. (Wouldn't fit in a tweet, so click the image to read it in full.)

Continuing.

"I am not suggesting that we are guaranteed to resolve every moral controversy through science."

I appreciate this disclaimer. What I am less enamored with is that it flies in the face of the subtitle of the book: How Science Can Determine Human Values.

If you are going to promise something before the reader even buys your book, it is advisable that you don't try to get out of that promise on Page 3. Still, good for him at being honest at this point.

Could one argue that if a system only resolves "some morality" it maybe isn't even a system that resolves morality at all? Yes I think one could. And surely the line between the resolved bits and the unresolved bits would be subjective, yes?

One of the reasons to attempt (successful or not) basing morality/values on science is for the objectivity of science. To make it not merely opinion based. But science (or anything) cannot do what it cannot do, even if it *is* otherwise objective.

Still! In the spirit of my attempt to be Aquinasesque here, if Mr. Harris can prove otherwise then I will change my view on what science cannot accomplish (namely, metaphysics).

I regret to inform you the next paragraph makes it challenging to give him the benefit of the doubt.

So, I have not abandoned this thread, I'm just struggling at the moment to continue because the next paragraph essentially requires a full dissertation to discuss all the things wrong with it in a clear way.

Alright. Who is ready to tackle this next paragraph over the course of like 700 tweets because it is extremely complex and needs explained well rather than vaguely? :P

To begin, we must discuss two things:
1) Atheism vs. Anti-theism
2) Fundamentalism

I will try to keep it brief, but I don't want anyone reading who doesn't know these concepts to feel lost, so I will attempt a short, likely-incomplete summary.

1) Atheism is not the same as Anti-theism, and sometimes they are confused. This is for a number of reasons, which I'd love to get into, but won't. (I myself once confused them. Only after being friends with some atheists did I learn the differences.)

Put *far* too simply, an atheist is someone who does not believe God exists (not to be confused with an Agnostic who admits not knowing one way or the other). However the majority of atheists simply leave it at that. You believe God exists? Cool with them, that's up to *you.*

An Anti-theist, on the other hand, is not cool with you believing God exists. They see theism (religion, really) as decidedly negative. Sometimes they are partially justified in it, too! The Church as a whole has done some terrible, un-Christ-like things. So many. It is horrific.

May we never lose sight of the witness our actions as Christians make to those who do not know God. We not only do harm when we do harm, but we do even worse harm because we profess to be followers of God's love and grace. (Much more could be said, but let's continue.)

Anti-theists are, generally, extremely uncharitable towards theism. They are interested only in the negative of the thing they hate, not in anything positive about it. You will not see anti-theists heralding Christ telling his followers to love their neighbor and serve the world.

Some will even blur truth in order to support their position. Such is their hatred that they do not care if what they say is truthful or not, only that they can score "points" or cast a damning light on the subject of their animosity.

This brings us to 2) Fundamentalism. A fundamentalist, relating to the Bible, looks at the text as purely and wholly literal with no room for allegory, analogy, or symbolism.

I would like to not go into a full explanation of the following sentence: *Fundamentalism is extremely foolish nonsense and should be abandoned.*

I will touch on it briefly, though.

The Bible is filled with allegory, parables, symbolism, and poetry. It is this way *for a reason.* Overly-simplified (oh how I hate doing it this way, sigh) God is too big. He is too big for a book, he is too big for language, he is too big for our brains.

BUT, and thank God for the but, he is still capable of coming to us and starting a relationship. One that, if we so desire, can continue for eternity. Not just a really long time - for literal "ever." (Another concept we struggle to grasp.)

Viewed through a Fundamentalist lens, the Bible does not make sense. As it shouldn't since it isn't constructed for that lens.

For this reason, can you guess what the favorite way to view the Bible is to Anti-theists?

(Side note: I am (possibly stupidly) generalizing here, overall, to try to explain complex things via Twitter. Oh this is dumb. But this is where we are, so I am trying my best. In the end, not everyone fits into such boxes. Please don't misunderstand that.)

Keeping in mind those two things, here we have a shot of the paragraph on page 3 of Mr. Harris' book.

Read along and then we shall discuss.

If you were unfamiliar with the Bible and came across this paragraph, it would absolutely be written in such a way as to convince you what it says about the verses in Proverbs was summarized well by the words here. That this paragraph is, essentially, shared truth.

The problem, and it is a major problem, is that it is not shared truth, but rather shared *mistruth.*

It is an Anti-theist using a Fundamentalist lens to "inform" the uneducated of a lie that misses the elementary purpose of the verses being referenced.

Remember earlier in the thread I spoke of being uncharitable? This is a solid example of being uncharitable. Mr. Harris takes a trio of verses from Scripture and says they are about something that suits his purpose, totally against the totality of the book itself.

Couple this with his word choices. Look at "Needless to say" stuck in the middle there. Really? "Needless to say?" This is abhorrent. Ignoring that something needless to say would not appear in the book (manipulative rhetoric) the conclusion is *not* self-evident.

But possibly worst of all (and I don't even know what to call worst here, because it is all so atrocious) *IF* it were true that the misunderstanding of those verses *WERE* the reason for harm being done can we not all agree the absolute best course of action is to correct it?!??

Instead, Mr. Harris allows (and supports) this incorrect view to propagate!

Why?

I can think of two options. 1) He does not actually know what the verses mean and did zero research/exegesis or 2) He intends to propagate lies for the purpose of his agenda.

I am going to pause now. I am going to sit here sincere, and think *hard* about other possibilities for the answer to that "why."

I encourage you to join me. Let us be charitable. Is there any non-horrific reason (not either willful ignorance or manipulation) for him to do this?

Alright, thought given, time to continue for a bit this evening.

I have been presented with two additional thoughts regarding my attempt at being charitable here. First, @RonaldDPotts1 noted that perhaps Mr. Harris simply discounted Christianity as being so unworthy of consideration that he did no additional research (or fact checking at all).

This could certainly be a *reason* for the paragraph currently being discussed to appear as it is in the book, but it still falls into the category of "willful ignorance" (and hardly excuses the act).

Doing the work (especially as a published author), even if you find it beneath you, is necessary. Being wrong, even about something you think is silly, is still being wrong. We owe it to the world to do better than that. We most definitely owe it to the reader.

The second idea I received was from a very thoughtful non-online friend of mine (far smarter and better educated than myself) who said "Perhaps you should be charitable with his *argument* rather than with him or his lack of research/understanding?"

I like this idea, and it needs highly considered and implemented. However (and I say this not to get out of charity, but for clarity's sake) if someone's argument is based in falsehood, you cannot "be charitable" to it and magically make it a reasonable argument.

What I mean by that is the best I could do is say "If this incorrect thing was not incorrect, Mr. Harris would have a point here, jolly good show."

Doesn't work. Because it *is* incorrect, so it's pointless to be so charitable as to diminish or throw away truth.

What I *can* do is remove the incorrect bits and try to dig into the argument underneath, rephrasing it so it is correct instead. Here is it:

Corporal punishment exists, in part due to ignorance. Research shows corporal punishment leads to more violence and social pathology.

What has been removed here is rhetoric, rhetoric, rhetoric. And also false information, namely that "the Creator of the Universe Himself has told us not to spare the rod lest we spoil the child."

And let's clear *that* one up while we're at it, because truth > lies.

Mr. Harris references three verses of the book of Proverbs to back up his assertion that God has said not to spare the rod lest we spoil the child. Zero of those three verses say do not spare the rod lest you spoil the child. Zero of them.

Proverbs 13:24 comes closest, but here me using the word "closest" is like saying "Building a fire to keep your family warm is close to burning down your neighbor's house because you don't like him."

That is to say, not close at all.

Proverbs 13:24 (NIV translation, but pick any one you want if you don't speak Hebrew)

"Whoever spares the rod hates their children, but the one who loves their children is careful to discipline them."

I will keep this brief, though I could tweet about it all night.

First, and possibly most importantly:

You, me, and Mr. Harris are very blessed. We live in an age where one can go to their favorite search engine and literally type "what does Proverbs 13:24 mean" and we will get *hundreds of thousands of pages of answers.*

This of course will include some very poor answers, and that is why solid exegesis and more than two minutes of study is both wise and important. We don't necessarily need more information, we need the best information. And thankfully that can be found.

And we could have a nice long discussion about interpretations and what makes an answer good or poor, and those are wonderful things to explore. I will not be doing that here, instead summing it up in this way: If there's any confusion, find wise teachers.

There are a ton of articles online about ways to treat a ruptured appendix. Some are good (like, go immediately to the ER) and some are bad (rub globs of honey on your belly and take a nap).

Good doctors study hard to be as correct as possible. They're the ones you want to seek.

In the same way, you can find wise teachers who are constantly humbly seeking the truth. And, much like any subject, you will learn through studying which are most often correct and where even those most-often-correct-ones sometimes have blind spots. Because we're all human.

At any rate, my first point here is merely that one should seek solid information about anything they don't understand, and that is especially true of Scripture.

If Mr. Harris did that, and still came to the conclusion he did, I simply do not know what to say.

It is nearly beyond my ability to reasonably believe that he made any attempt at exegesis of this (or the other) Proverb verses. He does not seem stupid. But one would almost have to *be* stupid (not an insult, but I mean "having a low intelligence") to conclude as he did.

Does that mean no one ever has? Certainly not! Plenty of people have taken this verse to mean as he has, "beat your children," and missed the point of the Proverb. They either lack reason and comprehension, or they wish to do something and will twist truth to justify it.

But here is the vital and devastating problem: Mr. Harris has the potential to provide the truth here, to correct any foolish person who does not understand this verse, and *chooses not to.* He adds no footnote (as in other places) explaining to the reader this idea is corrupt.

Why? Would this not suit his supposed goal, in doing everything possible to stop punishment via physical pain? It seems that it would not hurt one bit to offer the truth, because if anyone *did* beat a child as a result of ignorance of reason, reason could fix that.

So again we must return to our two options: Willful ignorance (i.e. he really believes, how I cannot know, that the verse is about what he is saying it is) or purposefully perpetuating lies to suit a personal agenda.

Charitable or not, I see no other options.

I know which I believe it is, deep down, but understand that even if I am wrong and it is the *other* option, it remains wholly unacceptable.

Spreading mistruth, whatever the reason, is flat out bad. It is anti-truth. I can think of few things worse than being anti-truth.

By the by, the phrase "spare the rod, spoil the child" quoted by Mr. Harris is not, in fact, in the Bible at all, but from a 17th century poem.

Guess how many minutes it took me to research that thanks to the Internet. Hint: It was less than 3.

And now I'm afraid I need another break, because frankly it is extremely frustrating discussing such horrific misleading as found here. I spent so many years of my life foolishly manipulating others (Pride is a h*** of a drug) and so now when I see it happening I *loathe* it.

I'm off to do some praying and caring, basking in love and truth. Nothing brings peace like those things.

When we return to this discussion, I have some *heavy duty* stuff to talk about. We're going to question "the obvious." It will likely be extremely challenging to many.

Continuing the exploration of Sam Harris' book "The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values" now. However one quick note before we progress:

I have much work to do as of late. Perhaps more than I've ever had in my life. (Such is trying-to-make-a-small-business-sustainable, while at the same time pay bills and be social and maintain a home and build a new church and what seems like 1000 other things.)

As a result this live-tweeting of a questionable book is going to have to take a serious back seat to many other tasks. I think it is still important, because the truth always is, but it other things have to come first at the moment. I trust you understand.

So we will conclude with this very important bit and then this thread will be on hiatus for the foreseeable future. If I find some time to jump back in, I will. (And we're only on page 3, lol.)

For reference, here is the paragraph containing the vitally important thing we have next to discuss. https://twitter.com/JK_Riki/status/1198326687349592066

"Is there any doubt that this question /has/ an answer? Is there any doubt that it matters that we get it right?"

There are two ways to take these questions, and which of the ways is a matter of *utmost* importance.

The first is that these are not questions at all, but rather statements. Mr. Harris (if this is the way he means) is not saying "Is there any doubt?" but rather "There *is* no doubt."

Full disclosure, I hate this tactic. It is insincere at best, and manipulative at worst.

But leaving aside my personal feelings (as best as I am able) this is, problematically, a claim that is left to an aside. Mr. Harris, again if this is his intention, is saying "there is no doubt" and then not backing it up. Instead it is phrased in such a way as to say...

... you (the reader) should not doubt that there is an answer and we should care. For no reason other than Mr. Harris has declared there is no doubt.

"Because Mr. Harris declares it" is, in my view, a bad reason to believe anything.

(And that is not meant as a dig against the man himself. Any man making a declaration is, in my view, a bad reason to believe something. It should be backed up, not left to the side as if it were not important.)

The other way these questions can be taken (which I do not believe is as he intends, but here it is all the same) is as sincere questions.

"Is there any doubt?" Why yes, Mr. Harris, there *is.*

In fact, your "about the author" bio says that you have a degree in philosophy from Stanford University. So you should be more than well aware that there is, has been, and likely always will be quite a bit of "doubt" in this area.

For quite literally thousands of years there has been doubt, which is why *we have philosophy.* One might even say it is the reason a book that proposed "Science is the answer to Human Values" *would need to exist at all.*

And this is perhaps what is at the heart of the problem with this book, at least as far as we have read: It begins with an assumption and proceeds to build a case on top of that without questioning the assumption (or even really acknowledging it).

But then what happens is essentially the following:

"Human values exist, and everyone knows what they are. Now here is how data can show where certain things work towards those values and other things don't."

Yet put this way it becomes very clear that the "science" is not *determining* the values, but rather a means to (potentially) show us how to best achieve our existing values (at least when information is not withheld or misrepresented, as so far the book has done).

Even a few years ago I would not have spotted this key element. I would have likely been wooed by Mr. Harris' clever rhetoric and slight of hand (words) to think he was making a legitimate case.

This is the danger of ignorance. It allows those with silver tongues to manipulate.

(Aside, this is one reason I think we should teach this sort of Reasoning Ability in schools from an early age. But of course we cannot, because the system itself often uses it to keep kids in line. It is kind of a mess. But I digress.)

To conclude, for the time being, there is indeed doubt about questions having answers *and* if it matters if we get it right. To have that doubt is hard, to be sure, because it means we cannot simply believe in "common decency" and the like, but must instead look deeper.

Still, if we DO look deeper, we can be sure we aren't making assumptions based only on personal preference and then causing others (or even ourselves) that they are anything more than that. And this is important, because our foundational beliefs color everything else.

One last thing before we break. I am consistently giddy when I come across books and theories that propose answers to these very big questions. I seek such ideas, because I want to *know.* I want what provides the best answer, the most truth, to these deep wonderings.

To cast one's lot in with a lesser system or perspective is a recipe for disaster (even if that system or perspective is "comfortable"). Life has taught me to go after and seek out the best option, because everything else falls apart when pushed to the breaking point.

My own exploration has caused me to find that, so far, Christianity gives the best objective answers on a foundational level. However if someone shows me something better, why would I not switch to something more true? Truth is paramount. Alignment with Truth is my goal.

A wonderful thing about making alignment with Truth the goal is that it doesn't force one into self-created limitations. One need not "throw out" religion (as Mr. Harris wishes) any more than one need "throw out" science or math or history or anything else that proves true.

I have found it to be a solid goal. If that changes I will admit my mistake, but so far it has proven itself again and again.

Final thing (for realsies this time, sorry I forgot I wanted to mention this when I said "in conclusion" before):

I am glad I came across this abandoned book while walking down the street. It has changed my life, though perhaps not as Mr. Harris intended.

Reading his uncharitable rhetoric while also being in the middle of a study of Thomas Aquinas (who, I remind you, is known for his charity in debate) has shown me with wonderful clarity why Charity is the way to go. Not just go, but BE.

It is, perhaps, not "as fun" (in a way that stokes the ego) as mockery and snark, but my very soul feels lighter each time I take the charitable road. I do not know if you, dear reader of these tweets, have given it a shot, but I now highly recommend it.

Until the thread continues, I wish you great success in seeking fullness of truth. Peace (and a heart of charity) be with you.

If I can figure out where I left off in this book, I may start back up with a bit more analysis. Though I may also simply move it over to blog-format so no one has to peer through 1000 tweets 280 characters at a time, ha ha.