Science, not God, answers all moral questions! ~ Sam Harris (video)

Well, Harvard has turned against the Lord. Check it out.

I am sure that Harvard Divinity School would be very surprised to hear that!

I was shocked when I read it. Check out Harvard's chaplain's links and the comments that are posted.

I once attended the lecture of a physicist (complexity theorist Doyne Farmer) who noted how in his youth he'd been torn between physics and philosophy.

Loosely quoting: 'Physics gave satisfying answers to questions I didn't care about, while philosophy gave unsatisfying answers to questions I did care about."

I personally think there is an interplay between science and philosophy (including moral philosophy), and that eventually (granted in the very, very distant future) the vague questions of philosophy will be able to be reframed scientifically after passing through the medium of a much more advanced understanding of psychology. After all, it was not that long ago in the life of our species that the nature of gravity was a philosophical question, not to mention mental afflictions that are now understood (albeit as yet imperfectly) through brain science, which were even more recently still thought to be demonic possession.

I think we are already able, however, to begin answering questions about practical ethics more scientifically, though the debate over the proper end sought will continue to be largely philosophical for some time.

As far as answering every question, I think what we often learn is that we were asking the wrong question, or a nonsensical question. Why do massive objects prefer the lowest point? Others are just semantic games with no real content (for example they turn out to be a tautology that was not self-evident at first). Those questions which are neither nonsensical nor contentless but simply very difficult will eventually be answered scientifically, though it may take a long time, especially in areas where there are practical or moral barriers to direct experimentation.

There is a deeper sense in which I believe, observing the arc of scientific history, that there will always be unanswered questions. New discoveries and resolutions of previous inquiries have almost without exception generated new questions to be resolved. When a known unknown is brought into the realm of the known knowns, it tends to drag out from the realm of unknown unknowns, new known unknowns (my thanks, or apologies to Donald Rumsfeld). And I have a hunch that the unknown unknown is a well without bottom.

The universe is a fantastic place to live.

I like the quote!!

I usually find the value of philosophy isn't to get the answers to questions I care about, but to learn to connect with my world and think about problems in different ways. It helps my old brain to work and my spirit self to connect. But the final answer? No I wish....

I honestly have doubts about the validity of psychology as a science even though some of it is valuable. Cognitive therapies like Freudian analysis to me don't work and don't really make sense and I don't believe we have any such means today to help someone have a consistent methodology of changing their behavior to be more desirable and well adjusted. When I had psychology 101 in college, the professor sold it to us as a way to discover "what makes us tick" and at the end of the course, I was totally unconvinced. But maybe someday we'll get somewhere with that I can't really say.

I'm sure eventually science will answer a lot of questions that will surprise us in the future, but I'm sure the realm of unknown will be always huge. And you're right sometimes discovering something new brings up areas of unknown larger than what we had before! Based on questions we never even thought to ask. Amazing.

Every other field of study has to verify its validity. For philosophy it's "Cogito ergo sum." For chemistry it's the atomic theory; for statistics it's the central limit theorem; .... Only religion is conceited enough to think it is studying a real subject without having any evidence for it.

The universe is a fantastic place to live.

Comparitively speaking .... wait, ... - ouch! That made my brain hurt.

The universe is a fantastic place to live.

Have you ever been to New Jersey?

Have you ever been to New Jersey?

Holy crap that's seriously one of the funniest responses I've ever read in my life.

I kid on NJ. Definitely some pretty nice parts to it, but definitely some not so nice parts too, which I suppose is more pronounced when you're discussing an area that is so geographically small. I will say, Princeton's beautiful in the spring.

I'd have to admit I'm not comfortable taking humanity down the road you describe. One of my criticisms of modern society is the repudiation of higher virtues. Is life important enough to never take it? Is it OK to benefit scientifically from knowledge derived from deliberate human suffering? A person who analyzes such things in a "scientific" setting - hardly science at all really - would end up not valuing life highly because after all it's just a series of chemical interactions and of course would apply knowledge gained for healing regardless of how it's obtained. To me either of these directions is dehumanizing.

It's IMHO worthwhile to focus on the spiritual and the "higher" separate from science I realize that's hard to get but our life and ability to perceive comes from something not just a random set of chemical reactions. To deny it denies reality and reduces us to nothing.

markpup

I'd have to admit I'm not comfortable taking humanity down the road you describe...(snip) To deny it denies reality and reduces us to nothing.

Describing it may be reductionistic; but that doesn't mean that it is solely a mechanistic and/or chemical interaction. As some put it, "The Whole is greater than the sum of the parts."

One of my criticisms of modern society is the repudiation of higher virtues... (snip) It's IMHO worthwhile to focus on the spiritual and the "higher" separate from science

But that's exactly what Harris argues (Read his book "The End of Faith" for more of his perspective); he is saying that there are higher values that are discoverable thru scientific inquiry, and while he is an atheist regarding religion, he does think that we have a measurable "spiritual" component to our lives.

I just listened to the lecture - I was appalled on so many levels I hardly know where to start but briefly:

He asserts very clearly our brain and its chemical interactions is our source of moral reasoning. So much for any "spiritual" component to our lives.

He also seems to think if you removed organized religion from the equation, we'd have dispassionate non-rationalizing experts on "scientific" answers to questions of morality. I'm actually grateful for religious expression to save us from such an ugly fate - controlled by sociologists to modify the human "project" just so here and here. I'd rather have no life at all than live through that. The self-righteousness and rationalizations of such people would make Westboro and radical Muslims look like a picnic by comparison.

I'm not Christian or in any way organized religious but I think there's a spiritual center in us acquirable toward leading the best life we can - we know what that is without science or "experts" and to listen to what's going on around us through personal discipline and inner silence. Something any human can do if they focus their attention on it.

And also at the end, seeing applications of common sense as "scientific" judgements of what is right and wrong is a pretty cheap shot.

He asserts very clearly our brain and its chemical interactions is our source of moral reasoning. So much for any "spiritual" component to our lives.

Of course he does. He's a neuroscientist. He doesn't reject spiritual or mystical experiences, and he doesn't reject the value of such experiences to the individual - but the fact remains, every conscious experience we have has its root in the brain. That includes spiritual experiences.

Just because spiritual experiences have a neurological cause does not make them any less important. Why should it?

I suppose it's a difference of opinion, but I don't even remotely believe every spiritual experience has its root in the brain. Consciousness as we experience it requires that to be true. To me.

I'm not about to hypothesize how that works - now that would be science and to me outside of something we can figure out the rules.

And in this pluralistic society we have thankfully, I'm free to pursue that as I will. A society where "experts" can make moral judgments based on what they try to persuade us is "science" would take that right away pretty fast.

markpup

He asserts very clearly our brain and its chemical interactions is our source of moral reasoning. So much for any "spiritual" component to our lives.

Again, Harris expands of the spiritual element in his book "The End of Faith," and particularly lauds Buddhism as a rational, analytical, discipline to explore the spiritual element in our life, which he does indeed assert has a biological, evolutionary root, as opposed to a "supernatural" source "given" to us from somewhere outside our regular universe.

Apologies if I am reading you wrong, but you seem to be starting from the assumption that "scientific" means cold and calculating, which would inevitably lead to some sort of scientific tyranny; I would counter that I have read numerous books by scientists of a variety of disciplines, and it is clear that they are filled with mystic wonder at the universe displaying its mysteries. Many atheists are very spiritual people; it's the dogma of religion that is the offense.

Consciousness as we experience it requires that to be true.

Care to elaborate? My field of specialty is neurology. I don't find this to be a true statement. It would require rejecting almost every single ounce of knowledge gleaned from the field of neuroscience over the past hundred years.

but I don't even remotely believe every spiritual experience has its root in the brain

Could you please list some specifically that you believe do not have their root in the brain? Everything from OBE's to NDE's have been reproduced by manipulating the brain - be it pharmacologically, electromagnetically, or surgically. If you can reproduce it under controlled and repeated conditions in the laboratory, then invoking a metaphysical component to it certainly starts to stretch the imagination a bit.

now that would be science and to me outside of something we can figure out the rules.

Why do you believe that we cannot understand it? Consciousness is an aspect of nature, is it not? It interacts, in some fashion, with the material world - does it not? If something is a part of nature, and it interacts with the material world, we have the capacity to study it. And not only to study it, but also to form falsifiable hypotheses about it.

If you like, I have a number of research papers archived on the neural correlate of consciousness that I could share with you. Some of them may not be free to read though.

Hmm this is turning maybe too all about me - it's all good. I certainly appreciate the comments especially this late at night!!

OK in simple terms I'd describe religion as an acceptance of tenets of our universe by experience rather than facts and I'd say that exercise tends toward the spiritual. It's built into man to look around and wonder about basic questions - how the universe got here, how and why are we conscious and are aware etc. Nothing will ever stop us from that and I'd assert science will never answer those questions.

Spirituality can either be toward the supreme God in some concrete form like Christianity or Islam, or it can be more generic than that - a personal focus on spirituality which exists for each of us and is all together outside of any biological or evolutionary force. It's not given to us, it just is and is part of us. This is the spirituality I want to aspire to understand and that's what we all want the freedom to explore. It is most certainly positively not a "brain" function.

And it's obvious humans are capable but very flawed. The idea of scientific morality "experts" controlling questions of right and wrong sends serious chills down my spine - either we'll give everyone the right to accept or reject the tenets offered (please let's hope) or it will be like St. Augustine where those not agreeing have to be "brought in". The rationalizations coming out of that would make current established religious intolerance look like a walk in the park.

Frankly, I find the idea of turning to religion and religious groups for morality to be laughable at best. We've had genocides, pedophilia, wars, prejudice, discrimination, slavery, murder, rape, and so many other wrongs committed by the faithful. Frankly, religion has no claim to morality whatsoever when you consider the horrors its adherents have inflicted over the centuries, on both official and unofficial levels...

It's a shame that Harris, in his quest to show falacious reasoning of God as moralizer, (and in fact it would not be God, but religious dogma) did not address the neuroscience of right brain/left brain activity. He basically used all right brain thinking to prove the nonexistence of what the right side of the brain intuits. Both sides of our brains work!

Sorry, I miswrote: He used all LEFT brain thinking to prove the nonexistence of what the RIGHT side of the brain intuits.

how and why are we conscious and are aware etc. Nothing will ever stop us from that and I'd assert science will never answer those questions.

Science has already answered how we are conscious and aware. Quite well, actually. Neuroscience is not a new field. Did you perhaps mean why we are conscious and aware in the first place? Because the latter is referred to as the "hard problem and consciousness", and I would agree with you that I am not sure if science will be able to answer that.

a personal focus on spirituality which exists for each of us and is all together outside of any biological or evolutionary force.

How do you know, or how have you concluded, that it is outside of any biological or evolutionary force? Especially when the evidence suggests otherwise?

It is most certainly positively not a "brain" function.

Everything you experience is a "brain" function. Don't deceive yourself into thinking it is not. The next time you are gazing up at the stars in spiritual awe and wonder, be humbled by the fact that you are not viewing them as they are - what you are actually viewing is an image constructed at the back of your head, upside down, on the occipital cortex. What you are feeling are emotions generated elsewhere, largely in the limbic system, after that image is perceived.

But just because that sense of spiritual awe has a very firmly established root in the brain - that doesn't make it any less relevant or important for a human being to experience. Understand?

The idea of scientific morality "experts" controlling questions of right and wrong sends serious chills down my spine - either we'll give everyone the right to accept or reject the tenets offered (please let's hope) or it will be like St. Augustine where those not agreeing have to be "brought in".

Do you believe that religious morality "experts" have thus far done a better job of the matter? Because I sure as hell don't.

He used all LEFT brain thinking to prove the nonexistence of what the RIGHT side of the brain intuits.

He used both actually.

Dangerous as hell. I will never ever ever trust any human being to tell me what the "right" opinion is on something without thinking about it myself. Otherwise is George Orwell's 1984 - game set and match.

It's a perfectly reasonable question.

If we can except that some people are simply not qualified to say fly a plane or operate on us, then it seems to me that for some topics some people's opinion is equally unqualified.

What I can no longer tolerate are so-called news shows where they feel they need to give equal weight to both sides of an argument, no matter how utterly ridiculous - for example, they'll give the opposing sides on evolution, where it's an opinion based on science vs an opinion based on ______— (fill in the religion/ideology) and treat them as having equal merit.

And it's not just the news, this is in general society as well ... I go back to the quote "how have we convinced ourselves that every opinion has to count?" Every opinion is fine, for what it's worth, but we must recognize that there are people who are more qualified, more learned, have more expertise in certain areas, and Jerry Falwell College is not equal to Harvard or Yale.

What Harris would have us believe is that if someone went to Harvard or Yale instead of Jerry Falwell College or the local community college, their pontifications on what is correct moral behavior has *scientific* merit.

I think not. And thankfully I'm free to evaluate, accept or ignore any and all of these supposed facts as I see fit.

Giving any of this any real authority would be vastly more tyrannical than the worst nightmares you have about religious intolerance and control.

I'm not sure which tyranny I'd prefer - the religious fundamentalists who now claim the sphere of morality and are defacto tyrants of our morals, or the science community who at least put their theories up for debate, review, analysis and testing.

How do you put a moral hypothesis up for test? The whole point is this is a question science can't answer or even definitively derive multiple "correct" answers. I don't trust any human being to do this.

Religious fundamentalists - at least in this pluralistic society I can elect to join or not join an established religion. Would I have a similar choice if the *correct* moral behavior was decided by supposed moral scientists? I think that less likely.

mind, body and soul

And? What is the point that you are trying to make here, exactly? Define the "soul". If you define it as anything near what the definition of consciousness is, then I suspect that Harris would probably agree with you on what the definition of a "whole healthy person" is.

'whole healthy person" as mind, body and soul.

There's no such thing as a "soul" anyway.

Science studies the practical hand of God.

Science doesn't make assumptions like "god did it" or that god has a hand in anything.

That's all it is capable of doing and that's just a fraction of His mind.

First, prove there's a god.

Are you saying that scientists are not capable of playing blame games? That's the human condition. Watch the Congressional hearings on why the space shuttle blew up when the teacher was on board.

Prove there's a God?! I don't have to. :) chuckling.

Are you saying that scientists are not capable of playing blame games? That's the human condition. Watch the Congressional hearings on why the space shuttle blew up when the teacher was on board.

Were you addressing myself or Gordy?

Prove there's a God?! I don't have to. :)

OK, then you lack any credibility and your claims for a god are just empty ones and easily dismissed!

Are you saying that scientists are not capable of playing blame games?

What are you talking about?

Atheist crows can make all the noise they want

My opinion is that all birds are atheists.

Mister Joshua

Secondly, in the absence of a higher authority that can be said to have established jus naturales, what right would some scientist have to tell me how to live my life?

Well, one could argue what "right" does a supernatural deity have to tell independent beings how to live their lives? I find that most religious arguments tend to follow circular reasoning.

But also, your comment, and those of some above, seem to follow the "power = evil scientist = dictator" perspective. We already have hierarchies of authorities that tell us "how to live our lives," or at least try to enforce boundaries. I think it is reasonable to suggest that the rules are built into the game; if one takes an evolutionary point of view, the rules that allowed small clans of humans to co-exist to the degree we do are also a product of the evolutionary imperative.

In various writings Sam Harris points out apparently universal features of humans everywhere that suggests that they are built-in. These include spiritual experiences (particularly of the dissolution of the ego in altered states brought on by prayer, meditation, or drugs) and an avoidance of pain. He proposes that pain-avoidance serves as a basis for "universal morality" as is encoded in many philosophies and religions as the simple precept "Don't do things to others that you wouldn't want them to do to you."

The only logical way to live in the absence of God or a higher power would be the libertarian way of non-coercion and non-agression, with no person having natural power of others without their explicit consent.

The Golden Rule works pretty well.

markpup

- if you put out as a point that it's possible for a scientist to become a scientific "expert" on questions of morality and as Harris suggests we should only acknowledge specific subject matter experts as authority, should their conclusions be enforced on us all, or are we free to reject it?

Hmm, I'm not sure exactly how you make the leap from "experts" to "enforcers." Do we have physicists "enforcing" calculations regarding stress on bridge designs? Chemists "enforcing" how various molecules bond? What Harris seems to be positing as far as "experts" strikes me akin to educators learning that fetuses developing with exposure to classical music, infants being stimulated and read to, and children being taught to read and do arithmetic using particular pedagogical techniques develop into more intelligent adults than otherwise.

Within what we call religion now, there are some built-in restraints on that sort of personal arrogance because it at least acknowledges the existence of God above us - and I'm not judging God's existence here for you it's how religion would then think of it. You have a limiter.

I think that the history of organized religion contradicts you. Jihads, the Inquisition, the caste system; all these human abuses occured with the support of religion - "Gott mit Uns."

Regarding your comment in #12 below:

The opposite viewpoint of that to which I also adhere is humanity is what it is - we can't and shouldn't change it we should let it evolve to what it's meant to become. Trying anything else is inviting totalitarian societies since there would have to be a cadre of people somewhere pulling the strings to manipulate the whole of humanity to particular ends. I couldn't imagine anything worse.

I totally agree that there is social as well as biological evolution (and it may even be an interactive process, since society is another environment to which we must respond); but there have always been people in positions of power trying to shape society, both for good or for ill. You mention the people of the Enlightenment, some who shaped the American Expirement. I would argue that was a good attempt, vs. the Soviet social effort which was an abject failure.

Our attempts at guiding evolution, one can argue, are part of the evolutionary experiment!

uthaclena - in the first argument you have you make the point. You don't have chemists enforcing how various molecules bond.

I'll most assuredly never accept anyone enforcing moral *science* it is in absolutely no way shape or form the same thing.

If you're not talking about this type of enforcement, there's no point in bringing it up I'll ignore the so-called scientific morality anyway and so will very nearly every other human being out there and we'll definitely be none the worse for it. At this point you're doing it by persuasion which is fine by me.

To your last about the American Experiment - one of its fascinating aspects is the debate about fashioning a society to be better through reason vs letting it be itself and deciding policy and steps forward from lessons from our past was a hot point of debate. Jefferson clearly believed in the tenets of the Age of Reason and Adams did not. It wouldn't surprise me if Jefferson related well to what Harris talked about here - Adams most certainly would recoil from it and for a lot of the same reasons I did.

The Constitution and our initial government succeeded in part because it wasn't an attempt to refashion society the decisions behind it were very much a careful masterly done examination of the past and what kinds of government and institutions worked and what didn't.

Yes organized religion has a bad history I agree with you on that. But there's no way I think that history would be improved if we had even the remotest amount of enforcement of scientific *principles* we had to follow from so-called morality experts. That would make religious intolerance look pretty good by comparison.