Alex Evans

036:165:001
Paper #1

Uniting Science and Faith
A Neo-classical Critique of The Moral Landscape

Sam Harris, a world renown neuroscientist and philosopher, spoke at the 2010 TED
Conference about the importance of science in regards to cultural and religious morality.
His philosophical views have been received with both praise and criticism in the academic
world, while facing mostly rejective arguments from religious groups. Despite the
numerous opposers to his scientific claims on human well being, he was, like many other
TED talkers, very well received by the conference audience. I will dissect his speech
according to the neo-classical features of Burgchardts presentation of Wichelnss analysis
of rhetorical criticism.I argue that this particular rhetorical event brought forth very
revolutionary ideas in a productive manner and ,while While focusing on Sam Harriss
TED Talk on The Moral Landscape, I will attend to the speakers audience, perceived
character [and delivery], emotional appeals, arguments, arrangements of ideas, [and] style
(Burgchardt, p.147, 2010) that were used to positively influence the viewers conception of
cultural and religious morality..
First, I will focus on the nature of the TED conference audience, as they play a vital
role in persuading viewers to internalize the ideas of Sam Harris. It is well known that the
content of many TED talks are based on idealistic, grandeur claims about how to change the
world, ideas that have built the TED brand into a sincere and exciting learning
environment. The content of Sam Harriss lecture on revolutionizing the definition of
morality fits neatly into the usual TED repertoire and is acknowledged through the
overwhelming positive reception of his new ideas. As a scientist presenting to a room full
Formatted: Font: Bold
of westerners, the validity of his scientific facts are accepted as fact and not as
philosophical belief. The TED audience is an especially important part of Sam Harriss
argument because, just given a little research on the academic responses to his books, he is
not accepted in the same manner elsewhere. He constantly butts heads with philosophers
and religious extremists who oblige either cultural relativist of cultural universalist views
that clash with Harris ideas. However, these conflicts are hardly ever found in day to day
communication so he assumes the liberty of presenting to an audience who do not come in
with the immediate challenge of his views. Outside of the immediate TED audience, there
are over 2 million people who have seen this video, so there is a very real possibility that
the popularity of his speech arises from the appearance of a receptive, logical, and
meaningful argument. The setting greatly assists Harriss argument and I think it does
great work to naturalize the content of his potentially controversial theories on cultural
and religious morality. Even outside of the immediate TED audience, the rooms whole-
hearted embrace of science has made for a powerful online viewing experience. Similar to
Martin Luther Kings speech on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial, Sam Harriss message
was freely expressed to a crowd of admiring individuals that accepted his words as the
truth.Regardless of the contents validity, it is the image of an audience wholeheartedly
receiving a speaker that can convince a wider audience through the simple appeal to
popularity, a powerful rhetorical devise in our day and age of video dissemination.
In addition to the audiences role in the speechs rhetoric, the character of the orator
also contributes to the speechs power. Sam Harriss status as a neuroscientist contributes
greatly to his scientific propositions. Especially in a culture that values science as much as
ours. His portfolio of award-winning books also offer him the credentials of a best-selling
Formatted: Font: Not Italic
author, a familiar marketing phrase in the world of book publication. Aside from Harriss
credentials, the presentation of his character also plays a role in his rhetorical mechanics.
According to Goffman, the presentation of the self is enacted through the use of fronts,
that part of an individuals performance which regularly functions in a general and fixed
fashion to define the situation for those who observe the performance. (Goffman, p.22,
1959). As we observe Harriss performance, we can see that he stands on the stage in a
formal attire, reminiscent of a collegiate professor who will begin a thought-provoking
lecture that is well prepared and, mostre importantly, true. Throughout the speech, his
delivery is humble, sincere, and concise; a demeanor that holds water for his argument and
paves the way for the smooth dissemination of his ideas to viewers everywhere.
The peak of enticement arrives when Harris addresses the Middle-eastern concept
of the burka. Here, his rhetoric involves the use of a dreary photo depicting a crowd of
women in simple grey burkas and the description of their state of misery as being forced
to live in cloth bags at the cost of being beaten with steel cable or having battery acid
thrown in their faces. (Harris. 2010). He then goes on to describe what occurs in this
culture when a daughter gets raped. Harriss delivery then appropriately becomes very
sincere as he reveals that When a girl gets raped, her fathers first impulse, rather often, is
to murder her out of shame [pause]just let that fact detonate in your brain for a
minuteyour daughter gets raped, and what you want to do, is kill herwhat are the
chances that that represents a peak in human flourishing? (Harris, 2010). The immense
appeal to emotion here is quite apparent. We can hear it in his solemn tone, we can see it
in his somber facial expressions, and we can feel it through the sympathetic silence in the
room. This use of emotional appeals confronts the urgency of his proposition. Time is
being lost, people are undergoing enormous abuse, even dying, and it helps the viewers to
understand just how important this fundamental reworking of morality is to the future of
human happiness.
To mention the nature of Sam Harriss argument, it is necessary to combine the
effect of his presentation style and the arrangement of his ideas. The persuasive work and
style of the speech are enacted through the arrangement of examples and analogies,
offering viewers a visual and audile presentation of the ideas in a real-world context. One
of the most effective examples of what Harris deems morally-questionable religious
practice is found when he describes the current state of corporal punishment in the US. He
mentions that Hundreds of thousands of children incidentally, are subjected to this every
year. And the location of these enlightened districts, I think, will fail to surprise
youWere not talking about Connecticut. (Harris, 2010). This comic North-South
comment triggers laughter in the audience, to which he then reveals a map of the US with
every southern state colored in red to indicate legal corporal punishment, adding that
the rationale for this behavior is explicitly religious (Harris, 2010). Throughout this
example, he frames the American South as a hot bed for religious extremists, much to the
humor of the TED audience. He emphasizes the ridiculousness of corporal punishment
once more by asking, Is it a good idea, generally speaking, to subject children to pain and
violence and public humiliation as a way of encouraging healthy emotional development
and good behavior? Obviously, this rhetorical question is impossible to refute, placing this
example among the many grounds for his overall argument. As an increasing population of
the U.S. dont want children to suffer physical abuse because of the scientifically-proven
implications of such upbringings, his comical stab at the Bible Belt passes by unchallenged.
At this point in time, many people are aware of the accuracy of science in explaining
the physical world, and Harris has done great work in transferring his scientific knowledge
from the physical and psychological worlds to the final frontier of human knowledge: the
moral and religious world. I think that what he contributes is incredibly fascinating
because he remains one of the first scientists to bridge the revolutionary gap between
science and spirituality. As Harris braves the enormous opposing views on spirituality and
cultural relativism, he embodies a certain sincerity as an orator that speaks to viewers on a
level of concern that many others can relate with. The style of his argument addresses the
common group identity of all of us living in the world and explains the scientific evidence
that neurological health indicates human flourishing. Scholars shouldnt just assume that
every culture is moral in its own right, we have made advancements in educating ourselves
about the factual aspects of psychological well being and Harris deserves to be heard as we
contemplate the next steps in human knowledge. As we move forward into the future of
cultural and spiritual morality, lets hope that Harris words will continue to enlighten
people about the scientific repercussions of their behaviors and ideologies, solving
enormous human conflicts and making the world a better place.

Wichelnss neo-classical framework of analysis has offered an in depth look at the
variables contributing to the popularity of Sam Harriss 2010 TED Talk on his visions of the
future scientific moral landscape. By analyzing the TED audience, Harriss role as an orator,
his use of emotional appeals, and the ways in which his argument is stylistically arranged,
we have dissected the rhetorical strategies used by a man who strives to leave his
philosophical mark on the history of mankind.








Bibliography:
Burgchardt, Carl R. Neo-Classical Criticism. In Readings in Rhetorical Criticism 4
th
ed., 147-
148. State College, PA: Strata, 2010.

Goffman, Erving. The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1959.
Print.

Harris, Sam. "Sam Harris: Science Can Answer Moral Questions." Sam Harris: Science Can Answer
Moral Questions. TED.com, Feb. 2010. Web. 20 Mar. 2014.


REFLECTION: In accordance with the feedback I received after completing the first submission of
this paper, I emphasized more of my own views on Harriss claims about cultural and religious
morality. I realized that, in the first submission, I had mentioned the particular rhetorical moments of
persuasion in his speech without determining if they were productive or destructive towards the
progression of society. Now, I have included my views that Harriss claims are absolutely necessary
to the betterment of humanity.