Copyright © 2016 Michael James Blackaby All rights reserved. The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary has permission to reproduce and disseminate this document in any form by any means for purposes chosen by the Seminary, including, without limitation, preservation or instruction. A WORLDVIEW ANALYSIS OF SAM HARRIS’ PHILOSOPHICAL NATURALISM IN THE MORAL LANDSCAPE: HOW SCIENCE CAN DETERMINE HUMAN VALUES __________________ A Dissertation Presented to the Faculty of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary __________________ In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy __________________ by Michael James Blackaby December 2016 APPROVAL SHEET A WORDLVIEW ANALYSIS OF SAM HARRIS’ PHILOSOPHICAL NATURALISM IN THE MORAL LANDSCAPE: HOW SCIENCE CAN DETERMINE HUMAN VALUES Michael James Blackaby Read and Approved by: __________________________________________ James Parker III (Chair) __________________________________________ Ted J. Cabal __________________________________________ Mark T. Coppenger Date______________________________ This dissertation is dedicated to my amazing wife, Sarah, and to our son, Everett. Sarah, thank you for the countless sacrifices and words of encouragement. I could not have done this without you! Everett, thank you for sharing the first two years of your life with this project. You have already made me so proud! TABLE OF CONTENTS Page PREFACE ......................................................................................................................... vii Chapter 1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................. 1 The Facts/Values Distinction ............................................................................. 1 The Science of Morality ..................................................................................... 4 Harris’ Five Philosophical Foundations ........................................................... 11 Thesis ............................................................................................................... 18 2. PHILOSOPHICAL NATURALISM AS A PRESUPPOSITION ....................... 24 Introduction ...................................................................................................... 24 C. S. Lewis’ Argument From Reason .............................................................. 30 Plantinga’s Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism ................................ 39 An Unlikely Ally: Nagel’s Doubts ................................................................... 45 Conclusion ........................................................................................................ 55 3. WELL-BEING: THE ONE TRUE PURSUIT OF MORALITY? ...................... 57 Chapter Page Introduction ...................................................................................................... 57 Aristotelian Foundations .................................................................................. 58 Casebeer’s “Natural Ethical Facts” .................................................................. 68 Owen Flanagan’s “Really Hard Problem” ....................................................... 72 Blackford’s Objections ..................................................................................... 76 Defining “Well-Being” .................................................................................... 83 “Homeostatic Property Clusters” and “Infinite Goods” ................................... 90 Conclusion ........................................................................................................ 99 4. FREE WILL, DETERMINISM, AND MORAL RESPONSIBILITY ............. 102 Introduction .................................................................................................... 100 The Issue of Free Will .................................................................................... 104 Harris’ Determinism ....................................................................................... 111 “Ought” Implies “Can” .................................................................................. 121 The Moral Gap ............................................................................................... 128 Conclusion ...................................................................................................... 132 5. NATURALISM AND MORAL RELATIVISM ............................................... 137 Introduction .................................................................................................... 137 Taking Darwin Seriously ............................................................................... 142 The Myth of Morality ..................................................................................... 147 Inventing Right and Wrong? .......................................................................... 154 Conclusion ...................................................................................................... 161 6. IN SCIENCE WE TRUST? ............................................................................... 163 Chapter Page Introduction .................................................................................................... 163 Harris on Religion and Science ...................................................................... 166 Harris on Philosophy and Science .................................................................. 171 Science and Religion in Conflict? .................................................................. 176 Presuppositions of Christianity and Science .................................................. 179 Shermer’s “Moral Arc” .................................................................................. 188 Conclusion ...................................................................................................... 192 7. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................. 194 Summary of Harris’ Worldview ..................................................................... 194 Lying: A Case Study ...................................................................................... 203 Men Without Chests ....................................................................................... 208 Conclusion ...................................................................................................... 213 BIBLIOGRAPHY ........................................................................................................... 217 PREFACE I owe much of the credit for my education to my father, Richard Blackaby, who encouraged his oldest son, facing high school graduation with trepid bewilderment, to continue his education. At the time, the prospect of going back to school did not entice or excite me. Over several back-and-forth arguments, my father convinced me to enroll in college. Who would have thought this same son would now be placing “Dr.” in front of his name? Certainly not me! The influence of a good father is a unique and irreplaceable blessing in this world, and I have been fortunate to receive the best I could imagine in that regard. I must also credit my mother with the many hours of editing she has provided for the countless writing assignments of her three children. She deserves an honorary MA in creative writing, PhD in Christian Aesthetics, and PhD in Apologetics for the amount of editing she has done in all three fields! Many thanks goes to Dr. Parker, Dr. Cabal, and Dr. Coppenger, for the help they offered during the process of this dissertation. Thank you for pushing me to be better, even when it required significant edits and late nights! Also, thank you Dr. Douglas Groothuis for your helpful insights on my defense draft. Marsha Omanson, your expert use of red ink has made me a stronger writer, and I thank you. I also think of one particular professor during my seminary studies, Dr. Jeremy Evans, who showed me how interesting Christian Philosophy and Apologetics could be. By taking a philosophical approach to subjects like church history and systematic theology, I suddenly found topics that had once bored me now enthralled me. When he had us read God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything, by Christopher Hitchens, it opened my mind to the importance of engaging with ideas I disagreed with, although much of that engagement was done with clenched fists. This dissertation is largely a result of the interests awakened in me during his Christian Philosophy course. I also stand in a vast line of thinkers who engaged the world of ideas long before I ever put pen to paper (or, more appropriately, fingers to keyboard). I have often wondered what the intellectual landscape of our day might look like if my heroes C. S. Lewis, Blaise Pascal, and Francis Schaeffer were still among us. They, however, have run their race. They have fought their fight. They have laid the groundwork upon which those of us in the twenty-first century now build. They have passed the torch of engaging our culture for Christ to us. To these three in particular I am thankful, and I am proud to stand with them as a fellow defender of Christian truth. Finally, it seems as though no project of this kind is possible without the proper working atmosphere and a significant dosage of caffeine to enable thoughtful writing. I must thank Safehouse Coffee Roasters in Griffin, Georgia, for meeting both needs. I’ll be waiting for you to install a plaque for me on