Just read the book.
I have not read this book as yet, but have watched the debate between Sam and William Lane Craig, which I felt Craig won, as Sam never addressed the main issue of the debate, but went off into the stand atheist spiel. His whole argument came down the human “Well Being” as the foundation for morality. But seemed oblivious to the reality the human well being could be defined in multiple and diverse ways. No doubt, Hitler believed he was acting in the “well being” of the German people by incinerating 6 Million Jews, and Stalin, Lenin, Mao, Pol Pot, thought they were acting in the “well being” of their cause when millions of people were killed and slaughtered in the interest of promoting the Communist utopia. And, no doubt, all abortionists believe they are thinking about the “well being” of the mother when they butcher millions of unborn children every year.
In a godless universe where everything is nothing but mindless matter in motion, who is to say what is right or wrong, good or evil, moral or amoral. What is, simply is - end of story! How can mindless mutations and ruthless violent natural selection be the source of altruism or morality. Which is all relative and situational. And that was Graig’s whole point, that Sam never answered. .
It is precisely against cockeyed worldviews like this that The Moral Landscape is leveled. I feel like saying more but I fear I’ve already wasted too much time on this.
I can safely conclude that the Moral Landscape is about as credible as the arguments Sam uses with William Lane Craig, which was far from persuasive. If anyone argues otherwise. Give me the compelling arguments, and we will see how they fare.