Since the publication of my first book, The End of Faith, I have had a privileged view of the "culture wars" -- both in the United States, between secular liberals and Christian conservatives, and in Europe, between largely irreligious societies and their growing Muslim populations. Having received tens of thousands of letters and emails from people at every point on the continuum between faith and doubt, I can say with some confidence that a shared belief in the limitations of reason lies at the bottom of these cultural divides. Both sides believe that science is powerless to answer the most important questions in human life. And how a person perceives the gulf between facts and values seems to influence his views on almost every issue of social importance -- from the fighting of wars to the education of children.
This rupture in our thinking has different consequences at each end of the political spectrum: Religious conservatives tend to believe that there are right answers to questions of meaning and morality, but only because the God of Abraham deems it so. They concede that ordinary facts can be discovered through rational inquiry, but they think that values must come from a voice in a whirlwind. Scriptural literalism, intolerance of diversity, mistrust of science, disregard for the real causes of human and animal suffering -- too often, this is how the division between facts and values expresses itself on the religious right.
Secular liberals, on the other hand, tend to imagine that no objective answers to moral questions exist. While John Stuart Mill might conform to our cultural ideal of goodness better than Osama bin Laden does, most secularists suspect that Mill's ideas about right and wrong reach no closer to the Truth. Multiculturalism, moral relativism, political correctness, tolerance even of intolerance -- these are the familiar consequences of separating facts and values on the left.
It should concern us that these two orientations are not equally empowering. Increasingly, secular democracies are left supine before the unreasoning zeal of old-time religion. The juxtaposition of conservative dogmatism and liberal doubt accounts for the decade that has been lost in the United States to a ban on federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research; it explains the years of political distraction we have suffered, and will continue to suffer, over issues like abortion and gay marriage; it lies at the bottom of current efforts to pass anti-blasphemy laws at the United Nations (which would make it illegal for the citizens of member states to criticize religion); it has hobbled the West in its generational war against radical Islam; and it may yet refashion the societies of Europe into a new Caliphate. Knowing what the Creator of the Universe believes about right and wrong inspires religious conservatives to enforce this vision in the public sphere at almost any cost; not knowing what is right -- or that anything can ever be truly right -- often leads secular liberals to surrender their intellectual standards and political freedoms with both hands.
If we were to discover a new tribe in the Amazon tomorrow, there is not a scientist alive who would assume a priori that these people must enjoy optimal physical health and material prosperity. Rather, we would ask questions about this tribe's average lifespan, daily calorie intake, the percentage of women dying in childbirth, the prevalence of infectious disease, the presence of material culture, etc. Such questions would have answers, and they would likely reveal that life in the Stone Age entails a few compromises. And yet news that these jolly people enjoy sacrificing their firstborn children to imaginary gods would prompt many (even most) anthropologists to say that this tribe was in possession of an alternate moral code, every bit as valid and impervious to refutation as our own. However, the moment one draws the link between morality and human well-being, one sees that this is tantamount to saying that the members of this tribe must be as fulfilled, psychologically and socially, as any people in human history. The disparity between how we think about physical health and mental/societal health reveals a bizarre double standard: one that is predicated on our not knowing -- or, rather, on our pretending not to know -- anything at all about human flourishing.
Imagine that there are only two people living on earth: We can call them "Adam" and "Eve." Clearly, we can ask how these two people might maximize their well-being. Are there wrong answers to this question? Of course. (Wrong answer #1: They could smash each other in the face with a large rock.) And while there are ways for their personal interests to be in conflict, it seems uncontroversial to say that a man and woman alone on this planet would be better off if they recognized their common interests -- like getting food, building shelter and defending themselves against larger predators. If Adam and Eve were industrious enough, they might realize the benefits of creating technology, art, medicine, exploring the world and begetting future generations of humanity. Are there good and bad paths to take across this landscape of possibilities? Of course. In fact, there are, by definition, paths that lead to the worst misery and to the greatest fulfillment possible for these two people -- given the structure of their brains, the immediate facts of their environment, and the laws of Nature. The underlying facts here are the facts of physics, chemistry, and biology as they bear on the experience of the only two people in existence.
As I argue in my new book, even if there are a thousand different ways for these two people to thrive, there will be many ways for them not to thrive -- and the differences between luxuriating on a peak of human happiness and languishing in a valley of internecine horror will translate into facts that can be scientifically understood. Why would the difference between right and wrong answers suddenly disappear once we add 6.7 billion more people to this experiment?
Granted, genuine ethical difficulties arise when we ask questions like, "How much should I care about other people's children? How much should I be willing to sacrifice, or demand that my own children sacrifice, in order to help other people in need?" We are not, by nature, impartial -- and much of our moral reasoning must be applied to situations in which there is tension between our concern for ourselves, or for those closest to us, and our sense that it would be better to be more committed to helping others. And yet "better" must still refer, in this context, to positive changes in the experience of sentient creatures.
The question of how human beings should live in the 21st century has many competing answers -- and most of them are surely wrong. Only a rational understanding of human well-being will allow billions of us to coexist peacefully, converging on the same social, political, economic, and environmental goals. A science of human flourishing may seem a long way off, but to achieve it, we must first acknowledge that the intellectual terrain actually exists.
Follow Sam Harris on Twitter: www.twitter.com/SamHarrisOrg
1. It erroneously conflates science and reason. One is not the synonym for the other. Science uses (and relies on) reason, but so does mathematics. To say that one cannot apply science to a question is not the same as saying that one cannot apply reason.
2. It presumes to know THE ANSWER to ethics: goodness = “human fulfillment/flourishing”. It states this axiomatically then asks “what’s the best way to be moral?” This is begging the question, i.e., attempting to answer the question requires accepting the premise on which the question is based.
It may be that cognitive science can one day tell us “How do [most] humans engage in moral reasoning?” Perhaps after that, we could derive some set of rules that can be used to predict moral outcomes and inform us on the most direct paths to those outcomes. But reifying this process as “discovering the nature of goodness” presumes too much, and, more importantly, starting by stating what those moral outcomes are encourages post hoc justification instead of investigation.
I understand that Dr. Harris is engaging in metaethics , not ethics. Still, his metaethical claims are as unsubstantiated as postmodernists’ metaphysical claims are. If he wants to examine the science of morality, he should start by first asking what morality is in the context of the brain (his research expertise). Observation precedes hypothesis, after all.
Harris defines science in the simplest and clearest terms I have found. On page 29 he says "Science simply represents our best effort to understand what is going on in this universe". With that in mind its clear that science depends on reason as one of the tools it uses to understand the universe. Science is really clear thinking about any problem.
Also Harris doesn't presume to know the answer to the most profound question that can be asked only that it is a question that can be examined. He takes pains to make it clear that an improvement in human flourishing is a positive moral movement. To argue otherwise is to give up in defeat and acknowledge that answers are the domain of God.
As for James Brown's claim that either human flourishing is a positive moral movement or that we must turn to God, it is equally false. One might, for example, believe that morality requires enhancing the richness and diversity of the biosphere. And it might then follow that human flourishing is an inherently immoral act
Faved/
Morality predates humanity, and can be seen in the behavior of our closest living genetic relatives, the chimps and bonobos. These traits developed as a survival tactic in communities that hunted animals. Reciprocity and the golden rule increased chances of survival in a tribal setting. Too bad we no longer feel that camaraderie as a necessary part of our lifestyle.
The real issue in our present culture appears to be the detrimental influence of modern "learning" that conflicts with instinct, causing humans to unlearn inborn traits. The goal of parents and teachers might be focused on reinforcement of instinctual behavior, rather than overlaying modern societal norms that distance us from our inherent natural behavior.
For research in this area, and touching stories of empathy in the wild, I recommend "The Age of Empathy" and "Primates and Philosophers" by Frans de Waal, a prominent primatologist.
By analogy, my research in the field of zoopharmacognosy (animal self healing) has persuaded me that wellness-supporting behavior is also instinctual, but has been totally distorted by our modern concept of health care. Research in this area can be found in "The Wellness Project."
Roy Mankovitz, Director
http://www.MontecitoWellness.com
With this language, we are trying to separate when people are talking about subjective experience versus talking about objective truth and morality. Although this linguistic model conveys a persons’ subjective experience, we also adhere to a developmental model that says there are certain actions that are required for our moral development.
Based on neuroscience and development of the brain, certain things need to happen for the brain to develop. These are based on physiology, are not subjective, and are not just culturally determined. There is a way to honor subjective experience, while also recognizing absolute moral values, like it is wrong to kill people. www.greenpsychology.net
* Morality equals obedience to an authority, the inherently good protector from evil who has both the right and the duty to use force, including breaking the law, to command obedience and fight evil.
* Obedience to authority requires personal responsibility and discipline. Obedience is enforced through punishment.
* A hierarchy of authority is used to maintain order. Loyalty is required to maintain the hierarchy.
* Obedience leads to true freedom. The more conservative followers obey revealed truth (e.g. by Rush Limbaugh), the more they become liberated.
* The market is seen as a legitimate authority that makes rational decisions. The market rewards discipline and punishes the lack of it. The market is fair and moral.
* Let the buyer beware.
* Competition is crucial for building discipline.
* Prosperity indicates discipline which is moral, since discipline is required to obey moral laws and whatever is required by those in authority.
* If people are given things they’ve not earned, they become dependent, lose their discipline and with it, their capacity to obey moral laws and legitimate authority.
* If you are not prosperous, you are not disciplined nor moral and deserve to be in poverty.
* People are born bad, greedy and unscrupulous. To maximize their self-interest, they need to learn discipline, follow the rules, obey laws and seek wealth rationally.
As progressives, we can jujitsu conservative morals back to conservatives. For example, a public
Conservatives believe it's everyone's individual responsibility to take care of him/herself. Also, that "winning" is a sign of being deserving and being a good person. So, having losers in our society is acceptable to them. Some will win, some will lose. They believe males rank higher than females. This is why the legitimacy of gay marriage threatens their identity, because it disrupts the hierarchy built into their moral belief system.
Truly, progressive and conservative brains are wired differently. I don't believe conservatives will ever buy into Sam Harris' philosophy which is about improving the living conditions for everyone. As Stephen Covey would put it, it's the difference between believing in the abundance mentality vs. the scarcity mentality.
For conservatives, their moral system comes first and must be defended at all costs.
- Tom
Natural Law has had a very strong influence on Western legal and moral systems but there is no way that Aquinas' interpretation* of it in any way justifies a closer look into Christianity (which is inherently immoral if taken literally).
Harris is suggesting that it is possible to investigate the source of human morality scientifically. Given the prodigious advances in neuroscience in the past 20 years it pleases me that yet another gap for the theist's god(s) looks like disappearing up its own fundament.
* 750 years ago, not 1500 as you erroneously claim
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This reflects your lack of scholarship or knowledge about Christianity. Also as fascinating as it may be that morality is harddwired into our physical selves, that gets us where?All sorts of other tendencies are hardwired as well, lazyness, meanness, selfishness...etc.knowing it will not make a difference, we already know what is right, we just can't seem to do it.
paraphrase : prefrontal cortex is CEO in the brain and seat of moral reasoning
practice of meditation enlivens prefrontal cortex ; in particular TRANSCENDENTAL Meditation (TM) results in Global EEG coherence , phase synchrony , integrated functioning of frontal lobe, temporal lobe , parietal lobe, , occipetal lobe
It's bogus. The assumptions are false and the results are non-existent and non-replicatable.
So what does that do to your claim?
good and neccessary adjunct to all medical schools and theology schools : " human physiology : expression of VEDA and vedic literature " Tony Nader MD PHD neuroscience
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And that is where the secular bus comes to a screeching halt. There is no moral imperative to grow and love each other; there is only a small me-and-mine-centered view of the world. Invariably the folks that have been the most generous are those practicing a faith albeit sometimes imperfectly.
THis guy is a poor leader for the secular/atheist movement. His "arguments" are cliche , triete and peevish. I'm basing this on his appearance on the daily show with Jon .
Besides which, they don't subscribe to the fairy tale 'do over' in the afterlife, thus making their time here worth more.
You only think that atheists have a me-and-mine centered view of the world because that is what you need to believe. I can assure you that you could not be further from the truth. In my own experience in life I have found quite a few theists, especially christians, to be incredibly selfish and self-righteous. I have never met a selfish atheist, and you will be hard-pressed to as well.
I believe we are innately good, are hardwired for good but just as easily can default to pettyness, meanness and lazyness.