thoughts on sam harris

[Angrboda]

Harris reminds me of the Mae West quip about how when she is good, she's good, but when she's bad, she is oh so very bad. I like Harris a lot, and he's definitely worth reading and listening to, but not always. A comment from one of the reviewers of The Moral Landscape is that Harris joins a long line of people who believe they've transcended philosophy when in reality they are simply doing it very badly. The Moral Landscape is probably worth reading, and most of the people I know who've read it (an atheist book club and a philosophy group) liked it very much. I personally hated the argument and general conclusions he was making, though the book itself is an enjoyable read.

I found two main flaws with The Moral Landscape. First, a lot of it is devoted to criticism of religion, apart from any relevance to his main thesis; he could have cut two whole chapters without affecting his argument any. Second is that the philosophical underpinnings of his thesis are flawed and inadequate. Philosophers have been considering some of these questions for centuries without resolution, and Harris, for his part, doesn't resolve the questions so much as simply dogmatically assert that his answer is the correct one, ignoring all the potential flaws with it. I guess a third point is that "the science" he presents is just window dressing for the philosophical argument. The science presented doesn't justify the philosophical answer or really add to it in any way. I think the reason a lot of people liked the book is that it provides a very conventional reply to the questions, and gives people the impression that their pre-existing biases toward the convention are being rigorously demonstrated to be true. Nothing could be further from the truth, and I suspect the affinity expressed is largely because Harris is saying things that these people already, uncritically, believe to be true.

As to his free will book, it's probably worth reading. It gives a solid introduction to the hard determinist position on free will, and while it does include persuasive support for the various points of the position, it doesn't put a lot of meat on those bones. His explanations and support are rather threadbare and perfunctory, which likely results in little more than preaching to the choir. The arguments are definitely there. However, if you either do not understand the hard determinist position, or fundamentally disagree with it, I don't think this book will address either of those difficulties. It's not a book which "teaches," so much as gives you a "Hard Determinism in 7 Days and 7 Nights" whirlwind tour. If you're looking for something to help you understand the position and the debate itself, I don't think the book goes nearly far enough. Still, at $10 and 60 pages, it's a worthwhile start.

In the same breath I would recommend Daniel Dennett's Elbow Room: The Varieties of Free Will Worth Wanting. It's a rather short book, but it's rather densely argued and therefore not an easy read (it's been over 10 years, so I'm going from memory). In it, Dennett goes through a philosophical analysis of what we might "mean" by free will, pointing out the strengths and weaknesses of the various understandings. Less technical and perhaps more complete and accessible would be something like The Oxford Handbook of Free Will. I've only glanced at the table of contents, but it's well reviewed. (Though I was somewhat taken aback to note that the first essay on Determinist Incompatibilism was written by a compatibilist criticizing the position. Though again, I haven't read the book yet, so that's just a surface reaction.)

Oh, I should probably address Daniel Dennett's Freedom Evolves while I'm here. This book is a defense of the compatibilist position. I would avoid it if I were you. I recommended it to one of my atheist book clubs and they hated it. (Though they loved the discussion, no doubt due to my sparkling and evanescent personality.... I'm sure!) I disliked the book because I felt there were major errors in Dennett's argument. However the primary complaint I had from most people was that it was confusing and difficult to understand, and frustrated most people trying to understand it. I didn't have any difficulty with it, but many complained that they had to struggle and read very slowly, sometimes rereading whole chapters, just to feel that they had some idea of what he was saying. In short, if you don't understand the free will debate and the compatibilist position already, then Freedom Evolves likely won't help you.