The atheist Sam Harris has just lobbed a bombshell into the roiling debate over science and religion. In his new book The Moral Landscape, he argues for an entirely new understanding of morality, based not on religion but on new insights from science, especially brain science. Harris, a neuroscientist himself, is out to demolish the idea that science is by definition a value-free space. "The split between facts and values - and, therefore between science and morality - is an illusion," he writes. "Science has long been in the values business." He believes science and rationality provide a far better foundation for moral guidance than tired prescriptions from religion.
Harris' book comes on the heels of Stephen Hawking's recent assault on religion and philosophy. His claim that "the universe can and will create itself out of nothing" -- without God's intervention -- sparked a predictable furor. But even more provocative is Hawking's assertion that science can finally answer some of the great existential questions: Why is there something rather than nothing? And why do we exist? As Hawking and fellow physicist Leonard Mlodinow write in their book The Grand Design, "Traditionally, these are questions for philosophy, but philosophy is dead." Why? Because it hasn't kept up with modern developments in science, particularly physics.
For centuries, philosophers and theologians have presided over these questions about values and purpose, but scientists such as Harris and Hawking are no longer willing to cede this territory to religion. The cutting edges of science -- from cosmology and evolutionary biology to neuroscience -- are now tackling the most profound questions of our existence. Even the soul is under scientific scrutiny. Or at least the soul as it's defined by modern science: the self-aware mind with its keen sense of morality and free will.
Is this scientific overreach? The late biologist Stephen Jay Gould certainly thought so. In his 1999 book Rocks of Ages, he tried to broker a truce between science and religion by claiming they are two utterly distinct realms of understanding, what he called "nonoverlapping magisteria" (NOMA). Science, according to Gould, covers the empirical world of fact and theory, while questions about moral meaning and value fall within the religious realm. This attempt to divide the world between fact and meaning has shaped the discussion of science and religion, but we're now moving beyond Gould's dichotomy.
I've interviewed a number of leading scholars in the science and religion debate. Many of them -- both secular and religious -- reject Gould's concept of NOMA. "He dodged the question. That's no answer at all," said the eminent biologist E.O. Wilson. "I think it's nonsense," added fellow biologist and leading atheist Richard Dawkins. Plenty of people on the religious side agree. "It's never been true," said ex-Buddhist monk B. Alan Wallace. "Religion, whether we like it or not, is making many truth claims about the natural world as well as the transcendent world."
Gould may have proposed his NOMA for purely pragmatic reasons. As an outspoken critic of creationism, he probably decided that the best way to keep evolution in the classroom was to declare that it had nothing to do with religion. "The politics is very straightforward," Dawkins told me. "The science lobby, which is very important in the United States, wants those sensible religious people -- the theologians, the bishops, the clergymen who believe in evolution -- on their side." Dawkins himself takes a far more controversial stance, claiming that God is incompatible with evolution. He acknowledges that his position is politically explosive, but he considers it intellectually honest.
While Dawkins' conclusions are debatable, the solid wall between science and religion is now crumbling. But instead of lamenting this development, I suggest we celebrate it. We may actually be on the verge of a far more intriguing and invigorating public discussion -- at least once we get past questions about biblical literalism. Many of the "big questions" swirling around the science and religion debate actually undermine Gould's clear dichotomy: Is the universe "designed" for life? Was the appearance of Homo sapiens an evolutionary fluke? Does any part of the mind operate independently of the physical mechanics of the brain? Do we need God to experience transcendence or the sacred? Scientists have responses to all of these questions, but so do spiritual thinkers.
Indeed, some of the most thought-provoking work in evolutionary biology and neuroscience is now being done by scientists with a spiritual bent. Take Simon Conway Morris, a paleontologist at Cambridge University who is quite open about his own Christian faith. His study of evolutionary convergence has led him to argue that the evolution of humans -- or some intelligent creature like us -- was inevitable once life first appeared on Earth. In other words, the evolutionary process may not be inherently meaningless. Or consider University of Pennsylvania neuroscientist Andrew Newberg, whose brain-imaging studies of meditating Buddhist monks and praying Franciscan nuns reveal nearly identical neural activity, despite their vastly different metaphysical beliefs. Are these spiritual experiences strictly the product of electrochemical surges in the brain, or do they spring from some deeper connection to a transcendent reality? Newberg says he is open to either possibility.
An even more provocative idea comes from University of Calgary biologist Stuart Kauffman, one of the gurus of complexity theory and a recipient of a MacArthur "genius" award. In his book Reinventing the Sacred, Kauffman argues against the reductionist paradigm of modern science. He believes this has left us flailing in a sea of meaninglessness, exemplified by the Nobel Prize-winning physicist Steven Weinberg's comment: "The more we comprehend the universe, the more it seems pointless." Kauffman disagrees. He says scientific reductionism simply can't explain the inherent unpredictability of biology or human culture. Most audacious of all, he wants to appropriate the word "God" for non-believers by celebrating "the ceaseless creativity" of nature itself. Why invoke God? "It's the most powerful symbol humanity has created," he told me, but he says the God of traditional religion no longer jibes with our scientific knowledge.
Are these scientists just grasping at straws, desperate for cosmic purpose to ease their existential angst? Perhaps. Then again, for sheer audacity, consider the highly speculative theories about multiple universes proposed by today's leading physicists, based on their interpretations of quantum mechanics. For instance, Hawking writes, "The universe does not have just a single existence or history, but rather every possible version of the universe exists simultaneously."
Can science ever prove or disprove this theory? For that matter, is this science or is it metaphysics?
Michael Graziano: Why is Music a Religious Experience?
Relationship between religion and science - Wikipedia, the free ...
Albert Einstein: Religion and Science
Column: Science and religion aren't friends - USATODAY.com
Richard Dawkins: Is Science A Religion?
A Reaction to Sam Harris' Scientific Morality | Harmonist
NOMA No More? The Possibility of Scientific Morality | Faith Forward
This is simply another sign of the surrender. I think science would be better served bowing down to the genius of Werner Erhard whose EST seminars preached that very philosophy.
It is because it is.
The scientific method, indeed.
A believer "believes."
What is so difficult about this? Why do we need to talk this to death? The more we talk about it, the muddier the lines become, until we reach the point where evangelical Christians can actually say with a straight face that scientists "believe in" evolution.
Scientists examine.
Believers believe.
Let science go on discovering more and more wonders of the universe, and go on proposing more and more theories. They will continue to develop scientific knowlege of the universe but never of anything outside it and therefore never discover its origin.
When he is at his science a true scientist must exclude God from his research and concentrate only on the physical data within the universe. The basis of faith is not verifiable within the physical universe that is why theology and science must coexist because they do not deal with the same data.
When science comes up with a theory which recognises the undeniable and universal phenomenon of faith then it can claim it is being impartial. But a true scientific theory would not be one which sets out to demonstrate that faith need not be considered. It has to be considered, it exists vastly in humanity, and it is not enough to wheel out the fatuous chestnut that religion is completely explained as failed and outdated attempts to explain the mysteries of the universe. Religion is not primarily interested in HOW the universe came into existence but WHY and that is an entirely non scientific question.
Imagine what he WANTS is just whatever's best for him.
Now imagine it as whatever's best for him and his family
Him, his family & his neighborhood
Him, his family, neighborhood, town, state
Expand to include whole nation
Expand to include all the people in the world
Expand to include all animal life
All life in general
Everything
Sounds like God !
noeffect posted something, apparently, beyond your rational thinking, so you gave up and found god when the point is that if you exercise your brain, you can find a direct meaningful answer that involves reality, without the need to create reasons to justify action beyond obvious consequence.
it may sound like god to the tone deaf, or those who have no idea what god is
Imagine a guy does whatever he pleases to get what he wants.
Imagine what he WANTS is just whatever's best for him.
Now imagine it as whatever's best for him and his family
Him, his family & his neighborhood
Him, his family, neighborhood, town, state
Expand to include whole nation
Expand to include all the people in the world
Expand to include all animal life
All life in general
Everything
At each step imagine how his actions must change to comport with what he wants. As the sphere increases in size, do his actions get more, or less, ethical? NOW, qualify his actions with the ability to ACCURATELY vs INACCURATELY assess the truth about what's "best" for each level. How complete and true is his data, and how flawless his computing power?
I guarantee that as you work the problem from the bottom upward, the more rational (able to accurately compute, given true data) the person and the bigger the size of the sphere, the more his behavior will be observed to be ethical.
Q E D.
when was the word infidel withdrawn from the koran?
when did christianity accept evolution?
Your notion that religion is evolving is baseless, and ignores the point that it is religion that is keeping man from evolving to our true potential.
it is these sets of rigid laws, controlling how to think, that inhibit man from expanding our minds and seeking enlightenment.
religion is the reason you couldn’t comprehend noeffects point, and why you were left with the one blinding answer religious people give when faced with thinking; god did it.
ANYONE (whether they opt to act only from a menu of rules or to act according to rational calculation) can only act within the concept of what they are able to perceive or to find out.
The ethical person holding a barbecue for 120 strangers serves mayonnaise which has been kept cold, fully-cooked chicken, and beef heated to 160 degrees in the center, because botulism, salmonella and e-coli can sicken or kill, and, either, "Thou shalt not kill," or, "It's not an ethical act to sicken a bunch of strangers." A FAITHFUL person might serve anything and everything, cooked any old way, because "God will provide," and "Because I am faithful, God would never sicken my guests, and if *I* take precautions, then this is an affront to God, since what happens to everyone is up to Him, not me."
Do you see a difference, here?
Or is there only a chain of effects of effects of effects (determinism)?
If there is purpose, what is it, and where does it come from?
Anyone care to try?
Is there such a thing as consciousness?
What is it?
Or are there only neural feedback loops triggered by accidental external stimuli which arose randomly and will eventually resolve into randomness?
We believe we are AWARE of awareness, consciousness, purpose, intent, etc. - but if these are actually only electrochemical reactions within discrete lumps of protoplasm then, irrespective of the complexity (I will not say sophistication, as this implies wisdom - a possibly fictitious value) of such systems, do we ACTUALLY believe this, or is it all really just matter and energy, coming from nowhere and going nowhere?
Just wondering.
... and yet you have just done that which you condemn, i.e., subjected "human frailties or thinking attitudes" about God by bringing God into this discussion board. How do you plan on getting around this contradiction?
I think it's interesting that researchers have found that "thinking of God" does not change the brain patterns and is found to be no different from thinking about anything else — as far as affecting EEG tracings. However, transcending thought to experience the silent, timeless state of pure Being totally changes the brain pattern.
During this experience, EEG tracings show heightened alpha coherence (alpha indicates relaxed wakefulness; coherence indicates more integrated brain function). It's not an 'out of body' experience because the body is intimately connected to the mind during this state. Physiological indicators show deep rest and reduced stress—the body becomes balanced and rejuvenated.
Transcending or going beyond the mind's active, surface levels during meditation, one experiences 'the inner Self.' It is said to be a 'spiritual' experience because there is no material content—it is experienced as pure abstraction beyond spacetime, conceptualization and dogma. It is not a state of expressed energy or intelligence, but a field of pure potentiality devoid of activity: a silent ocean of consciousness.
Every person has the ability to experience transcendental consciousness—we're hardwired for it. Pure consciousness is a universal field at the basis of everything, but to experience it (and for it to show up as a brain wave pattern) the mind has to first settle down to its least excited state.
Looking forward to them...
Anyway, every time the vikings run into something of Norse legend, such as the Dragon of the North Sea, the Christian never see the stuff. While they battle this giant dragon, the Christian asks the guy that is a coward, since he's not fighting, what everyone is going on about, "There is not Dragon of the North Sea!".
Later, when they finally reach Asgard, The Christian doesn't see the rainbow bridge, Bifröst, nor does he see Asgard. They are trying to find a way in, and are knocking on the door, and the Christian just walks through it.
Your comment of, "Bridge to Nowhere", made me think of that. Anyway, watch the movie, it's great.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rft9QtIFks
"MILITANT AGNOSTIC: I don't know and NEITHER DO YOU!"
Think how much better off the world would be if everyone admitted it's true.
"Worship the Great Spirit, and respect all worship of him by others, for none have all the truth, and all who worship reverently have claims on our respect."
Those atheists who adhere to strict moral codes are serving God as surely as those religionists--of whatever variety--are. God is smart enough to know who strives to do what is right and who does not. God does not need my help.
God may not need my help, but the world does. I will, in the course of life, meet people who need something I can give, and it is here that one serves God, by whatever name one uses.
The best human definition of God I can offer is that God is the ultimate truth. Since science seeks truth, science seeks God.