Sam Harris has issued a challenge regarding his book 'The Moral Landscape'. He is expecting essays of 1000 words or less, each one being judged on "the degree to which it challenges the central argument advanced in The Moral Landscape." I will oblige. Below is the unedited version. To comply with the 1000 word requirement, the edited version (to be submitted to 'his website' tomorrow), consists of fewer Quotes from the book, a condensed introductory paragraph, and (in a couple of instances) more streamlined extrapolations. I appreciate the challenge in that it has been a very good thinking exercise.

Sam Harris is not an idiot. I agree that questions of morality and values must have right and wrong answers that fall within the purview of rational disciplined thought. I agree that rational disciplined thought demands one avoid behaviors that move us toward a 'worst possible misery' scenario. I agree that a scientific method is as applicable to rational disciplined thought in the arena of morality, as it is to any arena of science. I agree that to ascribe a visual representation of multiple peaks and valleys is an apt analogy for a moral landscape; though I believe multiple islands separated by varying depths and distances of seas, and with varying flora and fauna (as described here), may better suit the rational disciplined thought necessary for this discussion. I do not agree with Mr. Harris' assertion that "a clear boundary between facts and values simply does not exist" and I intend to show that many of the arguments proposed by Mr. Harris actually help to define that boundary.

1. Definitions: In his words, Sam Harris defines 'values' as "the set of attitudes, choices, and behaviors that potentially affect our well-being, as well as that of other conscious minds." (I agree that what constitutes well-being has a finite range of answers.) A fact is 'a truth known by actual experience or observation.' Contrast that with his definition above and you will see that we cannot predict potential outcomes of attitudes that cause choices that cause behaviors, and this in itself creates a boundary between facts and values; and while 'in principle' there may be definitive (biological-based) causes of attitudes, the fact that we cannot trace and define this (infinite?) pathway of cause and effect makes this reasoning a transcendental truth; i.e. an unknowable certainty, beyond human explanation or experience; (see last week's post). Transcendental, in turn, being beyond common experience is often (rationally) considered to be spiritual. Many go on to interpret spirituality in a faith-based context. The fact that there is a line from values to spirituality (and for some, on to faith), and the fact that (instead of a line) it is a leap from facts to transcendental truths, again solidifies that boundary between values and facts.
2. Science: In his words, Sam Harris argues "that the division between facts and values is intellectually unsustainable, especially from the perspective of neuroscience." Surely he must have meant 'only' from the perspective of neuroscience, because I see no other evidence; and even this evidence, (based as it is, on perspective), is shaky. Facts and values are clearly different, even by his own definition. And though I agree with his comment that facts and values do have something in common, this does not mean they share an identity. That would be like telling someone with a strong preference for Coca-Cola that Pepsi-Cola is exactly the same; or that they are both identical to RC and Shasta Cola and Kroger's generic cola. For many people, one cola clearly stands out as 'the' fact of cola and all others are value choices made by a less-informed individual. It is no wonder that facts and values look the same to neuroscience; my value is a fact, but if we disagree, your value is a choice. I know what I like and these individual preferences show over and over that perception (in practice and in principle) is reality, and the division between a fact and a value is based on perspective, thus creating an intellectually sustainable boundary.
3. Free Will: In his words, Sam Harris states "that though our choices depend on prior causes, does not mean that they do not matter." In the same paragraph, he goes on to say that "decisions, intentions, efforts, goals, willpower, etc., are causal states of the brain, leading to specific behaviors, and behaviors lead to outcomes in the world;" and that "human choice, therefore, is as important as fanciers of free will believe." "Our choices ... do ... matter." This speaks for itself. And though I chose his words carefully, I did not twist them. Mr. Harris also writes "if I had not decided to write this book, it wouldn't have written itself." This exemplifies my evolving conception of free will: the conscious output of work / effort that can be quantified and has impact. These conscious efforts are a reflection of our personal values; and that being so, free will is (and should be) hard work. Mr. Harris also presents free will (or the lack thereof) as a never-ending line of cause and effect, portraying intentions as mysterious and their author as oblivious. Granted, there are many instances of illusionary control, but when I choose to walk six miles from work for my heart health, my intentions are not mysterious and I am not oblivious. As with Mr. Harris' book, my heart is not going to walk itself. And this example of free will (or not) again differentiates between fact and value.
4. Conflict: And finally, in his words, Sam Harris argues that "the goal is not to get more Americans to merely accept the truth of evolution (or any other scientific theory); the goal is to get them to value the principles of reason and educated discourse that now make a belief in evolution obligatory." In the same paragraph, he then goes on to describe faith as an "underlying condition" exemplified by "conviction without sufficient reason, hope mistaken for knowledge, bad ideas protected from good ones, good ideas obscured by bad ones, wishful thinking elevated to a principle of salvation, etc." If he is arguing from science, his comments are valid and thought provoking; but if (as he states) Mr. Harris is arguing for "reason and educated discourse," his arguments would be more effective from common ground. Condescension and 'hot button' proselytizing will not encourage rational, disciplined thought and discussion. The adversarial nature of his comments further solidify the boundary between facts and values by making apparent the emotional 'sense of me' found in many values, including his own. In a disagreement, despite a preponderance of evidence in any direction, an unmoving sense of fact is, in actuality, a value. A combative stance re-emphasizes the boundary by laying barb-wire along its length.

I have argued that there is a clear boundary between facts and values. So what? So, instead of pitting science against religion, let's use this boundary to narrow the borders of a common ground covering rational, disciplined thought. So, if Sam Harris could bring himself to acknowledge 1) the existence of values (that may vary by belief but do no physical harm), 2) rational discussion of transcendental truths, and 3) the rational validity of spiritual speculation, and if Religious Activists could bring themselves to acknowledge 1) the importance of valuing simple spiritual speculation (without the excess baggage of religious dogma or physical harm), 2) rational discussion of transcendental truths, and 3) the rational validity of scientific exploration and advancement, then we have narrowed the borders to encompass a rational understanding of morality that utilizes the synergy of science and spirituality.

Mr. Harris claims that "some people and cultures will be right (to a greater or lesser degree), and some will be wrong, with respect to what they deem important in life." This does not have to be. Once we have found common ground, and once we discipline ourselves to rationally find mutually beneficial Goodness (beginning with 'Do No Harm"), we can practice that Goodness instead of divisively discussing principle. We have the potential to evolve transcendentally, as we have empirically, thereby narrowing the varying degrees of 'right' and 'wrong' to a point where an increasing majority can actively accept these 'value' differences and admit to simply varying degrees of 'right'.