While our James Hoskins has pointed out that Steven Pinker could stand to take a few theology lessons, Ross Douthat’s been straightening out Sam Harris on his confused scientism. Apparently he thinks that science can determine human values in a meaningful way, to such a degree that he’s willing to pay $20,000 to anyone who can refute his central argument. Of course, that gives him 20,000 reasons to not buy the argument.

Avatar for Derek Rishmawy

Derek Rishmawy

Derek Rishmawy is a Ph.D. student in systematic theology at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. He contributes to The Gospel Coalition and Christianity Today, and he writes at his own blog, Reformedish. He also co-hosts a podcast called Mere Fidelity. You can follow him on Twitter @DZRishmawy.
WWW Twitter Facebook

9 Comments

    1. You obviously didn’t get the memo that Scientism is a threat. Even though hardly any scientist or philosopher buys into scientism. But it’s a threat nonetheless.

    2. Scientism = a particularly popular brand of reductionism that is quite popular among the new atheist set. They don’t call it that, but that’s what it is. Most good philosophers don’t hold it, you’re right. And scientists who know better don’t. It just so happens that the ones who know better don’t get a lot of press.

    3. My impression is that what’s popular among the new atheist set, or for that matter the evangelical set, doesn’t really amount to much in the world of science and philosophy.

  2. I think it’s only fair to point out that Harris will not be judging the arguments.

    From the contest rules:

    9. With you as the judge, how can we trust that the best attack on your thesis will see the light of day?

    Having fielded several accusations that this contest will be rigged—if not by design, then by my own ignorance and bias—I reached out to the philosopher Russell Blackford for help. Russell is among the most energetic critics of The Moral Landscape, and I am very happy to say that he has agreed to judge the submissions, introduce the winning essay, and evaluate my response.

    Of course, only I can say whether I find the winning essay persuasive enough to trigger a change in my position (and the larger prize). But if I’m not persuaded, I’ll have to explain why, and Russell will be there to see that I do so without dodging any important points.

    – See more at: http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-moral-landscape-challenge1#sthash.pHXbV6td.dpuf

    Reply

Comments are now closed for this article.