Though expecting to be rather irked by it, I was surprised to find myself almost enjoying (and agreeing) with a lot of what Sam Harris had to say in his TED Talk entitled "Science can Answer Moral Questions." His thinking regarding the balance that needs to be struck between the Taliban's "cloth prison" approach to women's bodies and the over the top exhibitionism of the average corner kiosk seems right on the money to me. I would also agree with him that the statutes of political correctness that prevent us from critiquing these matters do indeed need to be challenged. And though it was not part of his talk, I was pleased to learn that he has been an ardent supporter of the state of Israel and tough critic of its opponents. So far so good.
What I do not yet understand is why he (or any atheist for that matter) makes so many moral proclamations. The average atheist makes certain basic assumptions about reality: that we all exist as a result of blind and purposeless happenstance, that free will is illusory, that there is no conscious "self" and that there is no objective right or wrong. As Dr. Will Provine has said, "[as an atheist] you give up hope that there is an imminent morality ... you can't hope for there being any free will [and there is] ... no ultimate foundation for ethics."
If that's the case, what precisely is Sam Harris doing judging the Taliban or anybody else? The case he tries to make is that morality is somehow scientifically built into reality and when done correctly results in what he calls "human thriving." But surely the objective listener must recognize that the notion of "thriving" itself is utterly subjective. The Taliban might very well believe that they are the pinnacle of human civilization and there has never been any shortage of cultures who's depravities were considered (by them) to be perfectly wonderful things to do. Are we really arrogant enough to suggest that we're so different?
Either way, why exactly does he care? What difference could it possibly make what one random collection of electrons does to another? He harbors some subjective notion that things ought not be done that way? Well tough darts. It boils down to his meaningless assertion vs. their equally meaningless one. Furthermore, if there is no such thing as free will, then what sense does it make to blame anyone for any action whatsoever? "I felt like it" or "I couldn't help myself" should be considered perfectly reasonable defenses to any "wrong-doing." In fact, the most sensible and logically consistent outgrowth of the atheist worldview should be permission to get for one's self whatever one's heart desires at any moment (assuming that you can get away with it). Why not have that affair? Why not take a few bucks from the Alzheimer victim's purse -- as it can not possibly have any meaning either way. Did not Richard Dawkins teach us that selfishness was built into our very genes? To live a "moral" life, the atheist must choose to live a willful illusion as the true nature of the world contains, as Dawkins suggests, "no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference." It boggles the mind how anyone with this worldview even bothers to get up in the morning only to suffer through another bleak and meaningless day. Freud summed this up well when he said, "the moment a man questions the meaning and value of life he is sick, since objectively neither has any existence."
In an '07 lecture at Sewanee University, Christopher Hitchens gave an oxymoronically entitled talk called "The Moral Necessity of Atheism." In it, he argued that racism was illogical due to our common "relationship to ground worms and other creatures." An original case for equality to be sure. In as much as we're all like earthworms we really ought to treat each other well. Strange. Is not Hitchens an ardent supporter of the tenets of Neo-Darwinism that necessitates the perpetual death struggle within all species at all times? Shouldn't he in fact believe the precise opposite of what he claims? Survival of the fittest does not suggest social harmony. Furthermore, doesn't Darwinism suggest that certain groups within a given population will develop beneficial mutations, essentially making them "better" than other groups? It would seem that racism would again be a natural conclusion of this worldview -- quite unlike the theistic approach which would suggest that people have intrinsic value do to their creation in the "image of God." (Hat tip: Moshe Averick, Nonsense of a High Order) And yet, like Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens is very often engaged in explaining "morality" to the world. What gives?
At the end of the day, the reason that I can agree with many of the moral assertions that these atheists make is because they are not truly outgrowths of their purported philosophies, but rather of mine. I would suspect that the great majority of the atheistic understanding of morality comes directly or indirectly from what is commonly referred to as the Judeo-Christian ethic. I have not yet found an atheist who is willing to follow his or her convictions through to their logical conclusions (outside of sociopaths like Jeffrey Dahmer who was at least honest enough to say, "I always believed the theory of evolution as truth that we all just came from the slime ... if a person doesn't think there is a God to be accountable to then what's the point of trying to modify your behavior to keep it within acceptable ranges?"
Through my private conversations with atheists, most of whom I would describe as very good people, I am becoming convinced that they don't really buy the party line when it comes to ethics. Like it or not, they seem to have an objective sense that certain things are "just wrong" and it's almost as if those things are built into the fabric of reality. Objective morality requires an absolute standard by which to judge it. The alternative is amorality. As Dr. Joel Marks said, "the long and short of it is that I became convinced that atheism implies amorality; and since I am an atheist, I must therefore embrace amorality..."
You can't have it both ways. If one has embraced the worldview that embraces amorality, then it would be logical to admit that one's personal morality is based on subjective preferences and comforting fiction or to recuse oneself from discussions (and lectures) on the topic.
Follow Rabbi Adam Jacobs on Twitter: www.twitter.com/RabbiAdamJacobs
The Moral Landscape: Q & A with Sam Harris :: Sam Harris
Sam Harris: Science can answer moral questions | Video on TED.com
Atheist Sam Harris argues morality stems from science, not ...
Adam Jacobs: 'What I do not yet understand is why he (or any atheist for that matter) makes so many moral proclamations. The average atheist makes certain basic assumptions about reality: that we all exist as a result of blind and purposeless happenstance, that free will is illusory, that there is no conscious "self" and that there is no objective right or wrong.'
All those "basic assumptions" that Adam Jacobs makes are his own, so the contradiction he uses those assumptions to assert about atheist thought are false.
'we all exist as a result of blind and purposeless happenstance'
The formation of life from inanimate atoms does not require a deity. Such does not make our existence purposeless. It only reveals that Adam Jacobs would FEEL purposeless without his imaginary fiends.
'free will is illusory'
Not being granted by a deity likewise DOES NOT mean free will is non-existent.
'that there is no conscious "self"'
Cogito ergo sum is a statement only about one's own consciousness with no mention of any deity.
'and that there is no objective right or wrong'
This is the depth of theistic presumption. Respecting fellow members of one's own species is obviously advantageous to the survival of the species. Even wolves do not eat their own. "Do unto others" needs no divine law-giver. It's bloody obvious.
Again, speculation, but I think it's hard to try and remove some sort of religious influence just from today. It seems to me that you'd have to go back and remove religion from all of time to really get an objective look at it. Maybe find an aboriginal tribe somewhere that has never had religion since the very beginning and see how they do it.
Also, your suggestion that an aboriginal tribe removed from Western Civilization (and thus Christianity) would not have "religion" is kind of amusing, since every tribal or aboriginal culture I've ever heard of had some form of organized spirituality nascent to their way of life...not necessarily involving god, or certainly the Judeo-Christian "God", and usually worshiping nature and/or spirits... (continued)
I exist because a series of animal species survived not through random chance, but from hard work in surviving to the next generation. Animal species that didn't have the right adaptations died, those who were able to slowly develop the correct ones lived.
As an Atheist my freewill is self evident. I have no god or goddess who tells me what to do or influences me. There is no destiny, beyond the path I create myself. That is real freewill.
Right and wrong are self evident only people who have mental diseases like Sociopathy need to have right and wrong explained to them. To me it boils down to treating others like I want to be treated. If there is ambiguity, I just ask myself if I would want to be treated that way or would some other way be a better way to approach it. So I am not thinking about what God would want, I am thinking about what another human being would like to be treated (much better IMHO).
Like many theists, you just can't imagine life without your myths and dogmas. I tried your way and frankly am appalled by the way people treat one another in the name of some god. I would rather just take responisiblity for my actions and feel better or worse by following my own heart
Then I started reading Moral Landscape. I have still to internalize his arguments. But I think he has touched upon a very important issue.
On a different not, I have always looked upon Asimov`s three laws of robotics, and the zeroth law as addressing a philosophical and practical issue: How does one program moral and ethical values in a sentient being, that knows its creator. Of reducing the number of commandments, to just one, the zeroth law!!
This article assumes that there is a doctrine of atheism, similar to a religious doctrine, that all atheists must follow. This premise is fundamentally mistaken. And it is f@tal to his entire argument.
The whole point of rejecting religious dogma (and this varies from person to person) is so that you don't have to ascribe to any so-called sage's point of view. You are free to make up your own mind and act in a way that fits your sense of what is right without having to limit yourself to that which is written in some ancient text by goodness knows who.
Suffice it to say that not believing in God does NOT equal not believing in free will. That morality and religion are NOT synonymous. That atheism does NOT equal amorality.
The rabbi asks "What difference could it possibly make what one random collection of electrons does to another?" Whether or not he admits it, feelings and emotions are very real and very meaningful phenomenon of all conscious creatures. They are the products of what the rabbi disparagingly refers to as "random collections of electrons."
The rabbi argues that "the most sensible and logically consistent outgrowth of the atheist worldview should be permission to get for one's self whatever one's heart desires at any moment (assuming that you can get away with it)." This reveals a complete ignorance of the evolution of moral behavior, which is that these selfish acts produce highly adverse outcomes for the well being and thriving of a social species accompanied by the breakdown of civilized society and much negative reported and subjective emotions and feelings. These behaviors are thus selected against their adverse outcomes in cultural and biological evolution.
It seems to me that the conservatives ought to be the atheists, and the liberals ought to be the theists.
Conservatives, as much as they prattle on about moral values, really don't have any. Morality always takes a back seat to greed, being (situationally) judgmental, and the sense that ultimately, I am a free man and I don't answer to anybody but myself, whether it's big guvmint or big God. The right-winger is always the center of his own universe. How you fit God into that picture, I do not know.
Liberals, on the other hand, actually believe in higher values. Any war can be wrong -- even ones that we fight. Racism is always, universally wrong in all times and places (except for the vocal fringe that don't count anti-semitism as racism). We are responsible for taking care of each other, simply because that is the right thing to do. Liberals live as if there were divinely instituted universal moral laws. "Love your neighbor as you love yourself" is a Liberal creed, not a Conservative one. And nobody can make any sort of case for Jesus being a free-market conservative libertarian or for being all that strict on ethnic or gender issues.
You claimed that science should explain everything or else the atheist has conceded a theistic point - namely that there are things that science can't explain. Perhaps there are atheists who think this way, but I'm certainly not one of them. I look to philosophy (of which science is a very important branch) for understanding, and I'm perfectly willing to entertain other branches of philosophy when a subject is beyond science's ability to investigate. In the case of morality, it only seems natural to look at the various philosophical theories on ethics rather than epistemology. Specifically, this subject questions the meta-ethical foundations of a particular ethical theory.
Personally, I think the black and white view of objective vs subjective is a mistake, and in actuality there is a spectrum between the two. If there were a scale from 1 to 10 with 1 being fully objective and 10 being fully subjective, I would probably put morality around a 3 or 4. There are objective facts that you can derive about human health, harmonious societies, and human progress, and these facts play into morality as consequences of actions. But there are also human preferences, emotions, and instincts that affect morality.
The main point is we atheists don't get all truth from science just as theists don't get all truth from religion.
If you approach the world from a naturalistic perspective, then anything that is not derived from science is imaginary, irrational, or just plain stupid. Or so I've been told more times than I can count. I'm curious where else other than science an atheist might get "truth."
And yes, this is a sincere question from a former atheist.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWNW-NXEudk&feature=player_embedded#!
No - he used the concept of selfishness as a metaphor when applying it to genes and did so very clearly and obviously. Try reading the book.
Likewise, it is entirely possible to be either a subjectivist or an objectivist and be an atheist.
The question of whether morals are subjective or objective is not a direct result of being a theist or atheist.
Anyone can look for and read books on the topic of ethics to find this information, it is not hidden knowledge. Well-schooled people have been arguing all sides for hundreds of years.
I'll look for what science actually has proven, not what scientists "seem to" be doing or what scientists "believe" or otherwise have faith in.
Besides, if that truly is the case, what exactly has religion proven?
What would you say if science made all sorts of bold statements like "the earth is round" and "the earth revolves around the sun" and when you asked how they knew that they said "you'll just have to have the faith of a child, we don't owe you any proof."?
That would be the moment science fell out of favor with all but the most criminally credulous. Oh, wait...
Wow, but you deal in the small, don't you. While you're dealing with electrons, I'm dealing with actors in a social construct, for which the goal is the well-being of those actors.
That said, with your all-knowing god grinding the gears, it seems futile to try to shape one's own destiny with any sort of gusto - but that's another argument.
To accept the existence Yahweh of the Torah (without evidence in any case) is to accept that morality is arbitrary. Sorry, but it seems to me that there are good reasons to act in a way that aides social benefit and prevent social harm.
If you think that an odd relationship with morality, I'll have to ask: do you get your morality from the Torah? If so, I find it strange that I've heard no police reports of you stoning people to death, which, as a Rabbi, I understand you're asked to do quite often.
Or, hey, do you use your own cognizance, as you and your ilk have done for centuries while convincing others they're unable to do the same, forcing them to wallow in true moral ignorance?
What, for instance, is "wrong" with racism if there is no "right or wrong"? If racism is only "wrong" because it upsets people, and if being upset is defined as an imbalance of chemicals in the brain, then shouldn't the ultimate goal of science be to invent a "happiness pill" that will keep us all happy and content regardless of whatever external stimuli may want to induce unpleasant chemical changes in our brains?
"I could go on"
You could go on presenting straw man arguments, you mean. You just denied that you're asking science to provide moral directives, yet now you use terms like "scientifically wrong" and "Darwinian imperative".
In short, you're just talking nonsense.
What justifies people accepting the burdens of acting morally? If it is to avoid supernatural punishment, that is not a morality of a mature mind where one is moral for the good effects of being moral (good for the sake of goodness), but is a morality suitable for the unsophisticated mind of a child.
My morality based in science and rational thought can immediately and conclusive answer all of the above questions. I don’t see that your religious morality is even remotely competitive.
My morality can be stated as “Self denying acts that increase the benefits of cooperation in groups are moral.” It is all that is I need for a basis of secular morality that immediately answers the above questions and any other question about morality I have ever had.
I love it how liberals and conservatives switch places when it comes to individual issues. "We should not legislate morality" means different things to people who want to stop abortion and to people who want to stop gender discrimination.
This is both nonsensical and insulting to atheists.
I will match my atheist morality against yours any time and the only question in my mind (if I assume intellectual honesty on your part) is how long it will take for you to cry ‘uncle’.
If your religion is the source of all morality, you should have no trouble answering these simple, practical questions about morality:
When is immoral to follow the Golden Rule?
Why are both the Greek ‘pagan’ moral virtues courage, leadership, beauty, and magnanimity considered moral simultaneously with the almost opposite ‘Christian’ moral virtues humility, chastity, and temperance?
Why do people variously believe it is immoral to eat pork, trim beards, not be uncircumcised, and to do other random things with no obvious connection to morality? If you are going to say, because God said so, I’ll ask why did God say so? The difference between our moralities is I expect you cannot really answer any question about why a God (if there was one) might have made such strange moral rules. I can explain exactly why and those reasons are found entirely in the natural world, specifically in the mathematics of game theory.
Continued in next post due to word limit per post
could you please give a definition of the word "morality"? I don't mean telling mean actions which you think are moral and those which you think are immoral, I mean a defintion.
I think that you have missed the point. What theists have that atheists don't appear to me to have is a coherent moral vision that serves as a paradigm & structure for moral reasoning. I have never heard an atheist articulate how s/he goes about reasoning through & resolving moral ambiguities, of which life is full. I have heard atheists propose that morality is based on "empathy" & that it is natural to have empathy, but I see all of the horrendous wicked acts committed because humans lacked "empathy" for each other & constructed elaborate belief systems to justify their mistreatment of others.
I am not Jewish but I have learned through my friendships & relationships with Jews that there is Noachide Law which both Jews & Gentiles must follow & there is the Law of Moses, which only Jews must follow. The laws in Judaism, as I understand it, exist as a way to fully obey God. There is a difference between laws & "moral rules" & even "moral virtues", which are really the product of obedience to the law.