Worth A Watch: Where Science Meets Morality
Filling in your moral landscape. Source: kazez.blogspot.com
In this fascinating lecture-debate ”Who Says Science has Nothing to Say About Morality?” held at Oxford University on April 2011, American author and neuroscience Sam Harris and evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins pitch together to argue the merits of reason as a means to interpret morality. Harris, author of The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values accepts the difficulties inherent in moral subjectivity and uses polarised examples to establish a framework of truth within which scientific analysis and evalutation can lead to moral conclusions. An example would be the universal truth that avoiding the “Worst possible misery for everyone” is a good thing. From here certain logical conclusion can be asserted about how our society ought to live or more specifically how it ought not to.
He emphasises the necessity of logic and reason by shedding light on the incompatibility of irrational belief-systems which undermine the process of debate itself. Harris alludes to the factual statement “water is two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen”. It is a truth that has been confirmed through a century of scientific proofing. But a person who truly believes in religious scripture may deny this statement as a contradiction of biblical verse. This leads Harris to assert “All we can do is appeal to scientific values. If the person doesn’t share those values then the conversation is over”. A frustrating but insightful notion. “If someone doesn’t value evidence, what evidence are you gonna provide that proves they should value it?”
This said, both Harris and Dawkins seem insatiable in their desire tospread the reason as its were, dismantling such unfortunate statements as “Of course you and I don’t need religion, but the riff-raff out there do”, as condescending, unimaginative and deconstructive to a collaborative humanistic approach. The two atheists seem confident that we are heading in the right direction and perhaps the most telling statement by Harris is this one:
Just as we don’t have Christian physics though the Christians invented physics. Just as we don’t have Muslim algebra though the Muslims invented algebra, at some point we will not have Christian and Muslim morality. The truth has to float free of these provincial ideas… The only tool we need to do that is honest and open inquiry.
The debate evolves from its focus on logical consistency to the philosophical problem areas of consequentialism, airing such timeless philosophical questions as “how do we balance one person’s well-being with the well-being of the group?” “Would you kill one person to save five?” Or how to scientifically balance short-term with what may prove to be morally opposing long-term consequences. We are forced to consider whether, for example, a tragedy such as Fukushima that is unequivocally bad on the surface, may cause changes to energy that improve the lives of millions in the long term.
While we must accept that the limits of our scientific knowledge do not (yet) allow us to evaluate every unique moral decision with flawless scientific evidence, and that you’ll probably leave with more questions than answers, there seems little doubt, at least to these ears, of the validity of a scientific approach to morality. Especially when the alternative is religion. To quote Harris again:
The goal, clearly, is to build a human civilization based on shared values.
The invasion into both religion and science by politics threatens their efficacy. To use mysticism as a club to force political allegiances and to use that same club to try to discredit the truth of science is probably the most dangerous and damaging human action on this planet. It has been going on since earliest humans and has slowed and detoured humankind's evolutionary progress. Religion has power and influence with respect to compassionate relationships among humans. Science has the obligation to explain and or clarify all the amazing things that exist and occur throughout the Cosmos. Added together they produce a joyful existence, in my opinion.
Interesting points. I personally am not fearful of technology or its advances. The exception to that is where we make sci-tech discoveries and advances and essentially weaponize them. If we are to succeed in any notable evolutionary progress we need to de-emphasize warmaking. Sure we must always be ready to deter destructive aggression (WWI WWII) but huff and puff invasion tactics like Iraq just plain suck! The amazing de-emphasis on warmaking that evolved among the Native Americans is an interesting example. The Pueblo culture is living proof of that amazing shift. I am not referring to NA resistance to European expansion into North America, I am talking about their warring with each other. You have some interesting thoughts, but hopefully you will not let scientific advances make you feel threatened or marginalized. I do agree that a Cyborg civilization would not be my cup of tea. I worry little about that as I expect I will be in my next stage of energy transference before that happens. :-)
I don't think it's so much of a question as to if Homo sapiens will sequester to eternal life; the question at hand is whether or not we see a species with the intelligence (or far exceeding that) of Homo sapiens become eternal. As many biologists will point out, ferns are basically eternal in that the fronds you see are only the above-ground portions of an extensive network of roots, all which are connected (many fronds in a patch of ferns are quite literally one individual). However, ferns are not capable of critical thinking and carrying out the complex tasks in which humans are. The technological advancements in A.I. have been increasing exponentially, the same as all of technology, and we can now fit the technology of the first computers (massive pieces of machinery) on a tiny chip. There is a fine line between human immortality and that of another species and the scary part lies in the fact that humans may produce their own evolution via technological advances and ultimately create a new species - play God, if you will. Do I believe that this will happen, no, not anytime soon anyway. However, the idea is out there and it is supported by data. As you said, Homo sapiens will likely never become eternal, but the evolutionary crossing of technology and nature may lead to the evolution of such a species that will, bringing various pros and cons with it.
Thank you Jeff. The scientific process is often an incremental discovery process and included in that are intermediate hypotheses or theories. I see that as the case with the idea of eternal human life. There is a great deal of research that makes up those incremental steps that actually enhance our lives including increased longevity. The problem is often little public information is shared about those incremental steps that would help us understand that the goal of eternal human life is a research target that produces myriad and beneficial spin-offs. Will we be made eternal? I doubt it, except maybe as cyborgs and in that case we are no longer Homo sapiens we are sleek and highly functional machines. I would not worry. Yes we will get to live longer and be productive intellectually longer, but not truly eternal. For most of us that will be a relief as there is a limit to our durability; especially in times of political obtuseness.
I agree with Waddell. In some aspects, science has been used for the benefit of not only human life, but for the betterment of life as a whole. However, some applications of science have resulted in some unstable and unpredictable outcomes. For example, in general, people do not want to die and science has come up with some ideas of potentially preventing death. Although not in place nor even close to being in place (in my personal opinion), artificial intelligence (AI) and subsequent immortality is a real possibility for the future. As unpredictable and terrifying this idea may be, it is a realistic idea and could some day transform the way in which this planet operates, or could ultimately be the demise of the existence of life on this planet as we know it today - the next mass extinction (I recommend watching "The Transcendent Man", a look at the life and ideas of Ray Kurzweil). .
The investigative processes of science must be essentially dispassionate whereas the application of some aspects of science, e.g. medical, must be compassionate. I was pleased to hear this clearly expressed in the discussion and it should be noted by those who view science as the antithesis of religious beliefs and practices. One other critical understanding is that human manipulation of science in threatening and harmful ways is neither a shortcoming nor inherent component of science. It is, in my opinion, the most egregious of behaviors by Homo sapiens and could be the root cause of our extinction.
"If we could put hurricane in prison we would" - i think this sums up quite a lot about the world we live in! Although I'm yet to believe that science trumps religion (they can both exist side by side) I found this very thought-provoking, thanks for sharing.
Sure they can. If you can direct me to a working model for this, I'd be most grateful :-p
A vital and critical topic. In the United States right now there is a theo-political activism that is directly targeting science and attempting to legislatively retard it including science education. Heavy media events on TV are directly aimed at intimidating those with religious allegiances to be fearful of science and to limit the teaching of it in schools. Rational discussions with these groups is essentially impossible and this has a retardant effect on scientific funding and progress. The issues presented in this excellent discussion are escalating and most of the science community are wary of confronting it. This must change, and as this discussion points out, humankind must arrive at a non-ltheocratic definition of both morality and spirituality. Spirituality and science are actually not in opposition to each other when free of theological manipulations.
Thought-provoking! Brings to mind a good book, worth reading, came out about a year ago: "Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do?" by Michael Sandel, who teaches justice at Harvard and has free online classes. http://www.justiceharvard.org/
Amazing image, Al!
[...] gather her strength and gradually grow into a prodigious mother. Her offspring? Modern Science, the Age of Reason, and a whole new way of [...]
[...] places emphasis on the price of life, unlike those faiths which seem to believe that what happens after death is somehow more [...]
[...] rights are universal and guaranteed by international law. They are also guaranteed by many national laws around the [...]
[...] he did not wish to vanquish religion entirely (a matter on which he disagreed with fellow horseman Dawkins), but as Marc Tracy has noted his intellectual idols were indeed largely Jewish: Marx; Trotsky; [...]
[...] a medical student, one is constantly bombarded with sights and experiences that challenge core beliefs, not only on a philosophical level but also on a practical one as any decisions we take about what [...]
[...] our knees and crawl around to imitate our rodent friends. Rather, we need to take a fresh look at our morality. Perhaps a return to the core values espoused by religions over millennia – even in a [...]