Sam Harris wants to disregard the is/ought, fact/value dichotomies and in doing so circumvent the naturalistic fallacy and claim that science can determine an ought from an is.
I wonder if he is aware of natural law theory? Or if he even has some sort of understanding of the terms “good” and “goodness”?
Muffles, I’ll ask you again:
What is your understanding of a “materialistic (philosophically speaking) conception” of reality?
You continuously employ bait and switch tactics whenever you discuss “materialism” or “materialistic philosophy”.
You bait by praising the success and “history” of the “materialistic approach”, whatever that is, you don’t say.
And when asked to elaborate on this (and your understanding of materialistic philosophy), you switch by saying materialism is not a complete and fully-developed metaphysical position.
You want to call yourself a materialist and praise its successes but at the same time haven’t got a clue what it entails and then demand that some other “scientific” approach is needed before abandoning materialism.