I’d like to take some time this week to give my thoughts on why it is that science and religion seem so incompatible. While there are many out there who actively balance these two worldviews, they seem to do so in one of two ways: either they believe that the questions of science and religion do not overlap, or they believe that one ultimately trumps the other whenever conflict arises. I believe the first is ultimately untenable, leaving the second option as the more intellectually honest position to hold.
This week, I’d like to touch on two terms that come up quite often during religiously-oriented debates: moral relativism and moral objectivism. I will highlight the basic characteristics of moral objectivism and moral relativism and the importance of the differences between these two meta-ethical concepts.
Islamophobia: this term has been cropping up a lot recently, particularly in the wake of Murtaza Hussain’s article in which he labelled prominent atheist Sam Harris an Islamophobe (which I discuss here). While the dust seems to have settled after that particular spat, we are left with a serious question: is focusing on Islam above and beyond the other major faiths of the world intellectually dishonest and does that focus stem from other, more unsavory traits like racism?
This week, I’d like to examine exactly what it is that the New Atheists are attacking… what is the essence of ‘religion’ and is it something that it makes sense to fight against?
This week, I will examine Sam Harris’ The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values. I will break down the book by chapter and highlight the central ideas within each, responding to any interesting claims or concepts along the way. I hope this can be useful to those out there who might be interested in literature like this but have not had the time to take a look at the texts for themselves.