Over on Huffington Post, that \u201critually-impure\u201d site of left-leaning bias (yes, I check it along with Drudgereport every day), Sam Harris has decided that one can, in fact, derive an \u201cought\u201d from an \u201cis\u201d using science. The article is so long, I couldn\u2019t read it all, but it seems to hinge on this easy-breezy thing called \u201cwell-being\u201d. That is to say that one (probably Sam Harris himself, no doubt) can scientifically determine those actions that most contribute to an organisms\u2019 \u201cwell-being\u201d, and then one can decide what to do. It\u2019s kinda like natural law, I think?\u2026 only, not really. Of course, he gets in a few zingers against Church teachings and the sexual abuse crisis. He can\u2019t help himself.
As a Catholic, I find him offensive. As a scientist, I find his hypothesis to be absurd. In particular, take a look at his example of his \u201cscientific\u201d case against women wearing a burka.
I would love it if you could take a look at his article and provide an opinion. I so enjoy your posts on the \u201cprofessional atheists\u201d.<\/p><\/blockquote>\nThere are certain activities one needs to budget time for. Among them is not, for me, taking time to take seriously anybody who thinks they can provide a \u201cscientific\u201d case against the burka. It\u2019s like arguing with some guy with tape on his glasses about the \u201cscientific\u201d case for explaining love in terms of pheromone interactions. There\u2019s something *wrong* with these people, like a personality disorder. Normal people, if they are going to argue against a burka, do so on normal human grounds like \u201cIt assumes there is something disgusting about the female body\u201d or some such argument. Of course, such argumentation presumes things like \u201chuman dignity\u201d and other facts rooted in our status as creature made in the image and likeness of God (facts which remain fact even if the person relying on them does not clearly see them). But absurd attempts to provide some \u201cscientific\u201d basis (doubtless owing to Darwinian concerns about maximizing breeding potential) simply show that, once again, evangelical atheists like Harris are about as far from Bright as you can get.<\/p>\n
There seems to be an inverse corrolary between those who worship the intellect and those who use it. Harris, like so many atheists, is a devout worshipper of the intellect.<\/p>\n