When I started tweeting (@JoshRosenau), I was unconvinced. I'm already overwhelmed with silliness and interesting people writing interesting stuff, so why would I a) want to read more and b) want to restrict myself and others to 140 characters. And the character limit still grates, though I'm learning to have smaller ideas.
But what's nice about twitter is that it's a massive conversation across continents with the people you like chatting with. And the 140 character limit eliminates the throat-clearing and extended explanations that tend to come into contentious blog posts. You can link to that, or you can just say what you think and see whether anyone disagrees, and then reply if and when they do.
Fun.
So Daniel Loxton, who I met last summer at DragonCon and who edits Junior Skeptic magazine, has gotten some flack for writing a book about evolution in which he says that science and religion can be compatible, and kids should talk to their parents and trusted community leaders about how evolution fits into their own moral universe. This spawned a long comment thread at his blog, much of which was obnoxious, and an interesting set of exchanges on Twitter. For instance, he and Jim Lippard have been discussing whether everything useful ultimately has scientific basis, or if there are things outside of science. This is a central point in the ongoing blogwar over accommodationism, but perhaps thanks to the strictures of Twitter, the discussion stayed focused and seems to be getting somewhere. Loxton began by arguing:"[if metaphysics are in scope for science] then political theory must be in scope too. Everyone's pet peeve is in scope." Lippard countered by noting: "Facts & values aren't completely independent--science & ethics, science & politics, and science & law all overlap." After a few rounds, Lippard adds: "We start doing science w/extra-scientific background assumptions, & doing science can cause us to revise them."
I replied: "Values influence what scientific questions you ask, too. And policy comes from the interaction of evidence and values." The conversation continued a bit, then waned, then was picked up by SkepDude. After some back and forth in the same vein, SkepDude raised an interesting question that I throw out to the blogs as well: "I'll stick to my Hitcheneske [sic] challenge: Can you conceive of one moral principle/action that would not exist if not for science?"
This is nice, as it turns the common plaint of anti-accommodationists on its head. The request is often (to quote Larry Moran's recently discussed blog post): "offer up examples of knowledge gained by religion that are fully compatible with the scientific approach but couldn't have been derived from that approach alone." This always struck me as a loaded question, as it kinda begs the question. A theist might offer "God is love," or "Jesus is the son of God." The reply would be that these claims aren't verifiable scientifically, and various corollaries to them seem to contradict our scientific understanding of the world (massive suffering for the former, the Resurrection for the latter). We can argue about theodicy, and whether various theological approaches to the problem of evil leave a loving God as a viable option, and a lifetime of talking about religion convinces me that this discussion will not result in a theist conceding theodicy as insurmountable. But even if theodicy ultimately disproves a loving God, it doesn't disprove the core theological truth claim: "God exists." I don't know of anything that could do so, and Richard Dawkins and other anti-accommodationists have conceded that point as well.
There are other problems with the underlying notion of compatibilty implied by Moran's question, but that's for another post.
SkepDude's formulation corrects many of these flaws. If compatibility meant that the two produce identical outcomes, it would simply mean that one or the other was otiose. The test of whether things outside of science are compatible with science is whether the two produce distinct but non-contradictory (or, perhaps given that science is changing and inherently uncertain, minimally contradictory) results. So "do unto others as you would have then do unto you" works nicely as an example which fits Skepdude's framework. It's an idea which existed before science in pretty much all religious systems. Experiments in evolutionary game theory show reciprocal altruism of that sort to be stable strategies, but there are other stable strategies. To choose which strategy we follow, we need something more.
Religion is not the only source of that "something more" of course, but it is a source, and the choice, whatever its basis, is ultimately one made on extra-scientific grounds.
So what do you think of SkepDude's challenge? Is there a moral principle which would not exist but for science?
- Log in to post comments
I tend towards the so called 'New Atheist' perspective as a general rule, but I do think that there are philosophical questions which are interesting intellectual exercises and don't necessarily lend themselves to scientific evaluation. That doesn't make them 'wrong', it simply makes them unscientific. Factual claims can be tested, thought claims are a dicier proposition.
And given that I'm a moral relativist at heart I would be hard pressed to come up with a moral principle that requires science.
If there are any moral principles that are formulated using concepts that have been produced by science, then those are examples--though those may well be derivative principles.
Concepts of "deviance" and "normality" have been altered as a result of scientific study and measurement, and those concepts have figured in moral systems.
If the concept of "God" in the claim "God exists" is defined in such a way that it becomes a possible object of knowledge, it's likely that it's also defined in such a way as to be subject to argument that could lead to evidence against such a claim, if not to actual disproof. I'm fairly comfortable arguing that the literary character "God," whose nature is described in Jack Miles' fascinating (& Pulitzer Prize-winning) book, _God: A Biography_, is a fictional character--yet that's the God of three of the major world religions, believed in by several billion people, as constructed from what the Tanakh says that he did and said.
I think, by the way, that you correctly identify Twitter's enforced brevity as a cause of forcing people to get to the point. My own initial experience with Twitter started skeptically, and I was convinced of its value after a similar exchange as well as a few experiments with live-tweeting comments on conference presentations.
Indeed, you need more just to view 'being a stable strategy' as a desirable characteristic in the first place.
How about "Thou shalt not burn people as witches when your crops fail and someone has a strange dream"? Or "It's immoral to try to cure illness through exorcism." (Or are those too specific to count as "principles"?)
More to the point, perhaps, don't the uppity atheists welcome secular philosophy along with empirical science â particularly when it comes to issues like ethics? I'd say that secular philosophy has a pretty good track record of establishing moral principles that religion has been blind to.
I would say that basic human equality -- that we are one species -- is an idea that has taken root as a moral imperative only since science confirmed its essential truth (and then, only with much struggle). Sure, the idea has been around for centuries, but only as an abstract ideal, and always as a minority viewpoint. Science has made it real and universal.
- Is there a moral principle which would not exist but for science? -
Homosexuals deserve equal rights.
Posted by: Reader
Is there a moral principle which would not exist but for science? -
Homosexuals deserve equal rights.
Why is this dependant on science?
There have been equal rights for all as a moral idea in earlier philosophies and religions before modern science existed. I don't recollect the Spartans ranting against homosexuals.
Posted by: Physicalist
I'd say that secular philosophy has a pretty good track record of establishing moral principles that religion has been blind to.
Could you name some?
I should have said "Hitchenesque" correct? But that would've taken an extra charachter; you know how precious those are on Twitter, furthermore....ah I'm rationalizing after the fact; I made a spelling mistake, I ought to be grateful for the correction, but this damn human nature tends to get in the way. LOL.
Thanks for the mention, BTW, you don't have to capitalize the "D" in Skepdude, neither one!
Well, the notion of equal rights for all people is a pretty big one. (Discounting gender, race, class, sexual orientation, when it comes to legal/moral protections; the fact that slavery is evil; etc.)
I'm thinking mostly of Locke here.
The evils of imposing a foreign culture on a people by force (not to mention genocide or enslavement of native peoples) is also an moral concept that derives from secular thought rather than religion (it seems to me).
The morally permissible nature of bacon-wrapped scallops is yet another example (I attribute that one to Bentham) . . .
I'm sure that any ethicists lurking around could provide a host of additional examples.
Physicalist - Your first case (witches) is just a specific case of the larger "You should not burn people alive" moral principle. You can add all kinds of "ifs" and "whens" to make it so that it depends on science to verify something, but the larger principle doesn't depend on these "ifs" and "whens". Same goes for the exorcism case. Moral principles would forbid us tying someone down (against their will), torture them (people have literally died under exorcism) for no observable benefit. Furthermore, I doubt there are many scientific studies involving witches and exorcisms anyway.
HP - Science CAN help move certain things along as you rightly point out here. However, science is not needed for the larger principle - that which says roughly "all human beings should enjoy the same basic rights" - to exist. In this case the scientific advances were used as a means to maybe popularize the already existing moral principle, but they had nothing to do with its formation.
The evils of imposing a foreign culture on a people by force (not to mention genocide or enslavement of native peoples) is also an moral concept that derives from secular thought rather than religion (it seems to me).
Posted by: Physicalist
Well, the notion of equal rights for all people is a pretty big one. (Discounting gender, race, class, sexual orientation, when it comes to legal/moral protections; the fact that slavery is evil; etc.)
The banning of slavery was, in modern times, initiated worldwide by the UK, on specifically Christian moral arguments by Wilberforce, not on any secular claims. Slavery was defended by Christians using quotes from the Bible and not moral claims.
No secular philosophy and no direct scientific underpinning that I know of.
The evils of imposing a foreign culture on a people by force (not to mention genocide or enslavement of native peoples) is also an moral concept that derives from secular thought rather than religion (it seems to me).
Why is it wrong? If they are a slave holding culture shouldn't we educate them to amend their ways?
The animal rights extremists, who also tend to claim to be secular, would strongly deny this concept of non-inerference.
The morally permissible nature of bacon-wrapped scallops is yet another example (I attribute that one to Bentham) . . .
Islam and Judaism ban these foods, few if any other religions do.
In a similar vein, vegans sometimes claim that their lifestyle is more ethcal than us members of PETA (People Eating Tasty Animals) so one group of secularists, many vegans are also atheists/non-believers, would claim the opposite and side with Islam and Judaism in this regard.
"secular thought" is not necessarily scientific, which is the challenge here.
Metaphysics is about the truth of life, the only reality that counts most. It can't be proved with a test tube but it'd validity is proven all humans. A book says it all.
Following the truth and live by the truth is the natural course to happiness and success. We can only succeed by fulfilling Godâs plan, i.e. following natural laws (Godâs laws).
Wise people such Plato, Isaac Newton and Thomas Edison all follow natural laws.
We can find out Godâs plan for us from the cosmic energy imprinted by our birth which determines our endowments. There is simple and sure procedure to map out our cosmic energy introduced in the book: THE TRUTH OF UPS AND DOWNS, COSMIC INEQUALITY, authored by Lily Chung, a product from the hard work of 24 years.
If we were not born with the ideal energy to lead a great life as it often happens to the majority of people, we can take remedy of cosmic calendars in the the book, and natural laws from I Ching ( all listed by categories in another book: SUCCEED NATURALLY, THE I CHING WAY.)
.
THE TRUTH OF UPS & DOWNS
The first book documenting cosmic impact on personal life, illustrated with
global celebrities for authenticity. Here are some examples:
Why did Richard Nixon become the US president at age 55? Could he have avoided the Watergate incident? Why did Superman, Christopher Revee, incur a fatal fall from a horse while he excelled so much in so many sports? Would the knowing the cosmic impact avert the incident?
John Jr. Kennedy had his four vital events occurred in the interval of a 12-year period: death of father, 1963, death of step-father, 1975, resign from prosecutor post, 1987, death, 1999. Reasons? Why did Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis marry twice in a metal years and widowed twice in the wood years? Why did Linda Evans (the head actress in âDynastyâ) broke practically all her relationships in wood years? Why did Ingrid Bergman committed marital affairs at age 38-41?
Why did Robert Taylor made 7 movies (the highest production in one single year in his life) in 1935 (a powerful wood year) and, no movie in 1945 and 1961 (powerful metal years)? How did metal flow destroy a mathematics professor (Tek Kaczynski)? Knowing the cosmic, could he have lived a different life?
We live under the mercy of the cosmic flows! The Truth of Ups & Downs illustrates a procedure to understand our personal cosmic flow and how to properly attune to it with the use of perpetual lunar calendars. The procedure is called the 4-pillars or Bazi, long popularly discussed but never properly documented.
The book includes many simple guidelines and an easy fool-proof procedure to map and read our cosmic energy. It has 110 years of lunar calendars on tracts of cosmic flows by year, month and days for easy tracking on its move.
The book is available
@ Skepdude #11:
I'd guess that the "ifs" and "whens" are going to amount to over 90% of moral deliberation, so I wouldn't want to downplay the impact of science on morality on this account.
Indeed, if you want to get really general, there's only going to be one moral principle: Do what's right; not what's wrong. (Or, if you prefer: Act only under that maxim that you could at the same time will to be a universal law.) The rest is just details. If science gives us details that religion doesn't, well, that should count for something.
I think your appeal to whether a process has an "observable benefit" might be smuggling in some scientific values over religious ones. After all, didn't the religious folks think that the unobservable benefit of saving souls from hell outweighed anything we might physically observe?
@ Chris' Wills #14:
While some of Wilberforce's arguments were religiously based (as were many of the arguments of his pro-slavery opponents), my recollection is that the vast majority of his abolitionist arguments had a secular grounding. Perhaps I overestimate Locke's influence, but I see his advancing (however hypocritically) purely secular arguments against slavery as an important step that influenced the Quakers and ultimately Wilberforce.
If you don't recognize the instrumental and intrinsic goods of multiculturalism and maintaining ties to ancestral roots, I'm not going to be able to help you in this forum. (I assume your comment wasn't questioning the evil of genocide.) I'm not saying that the evils of native traditions (slavery, or what have you) are to be left unchallenged, nor am I advocating cultural relativism. But I do believe that forcing people to adopt foreign religions is a serious evil. If you disagree, I think you've got some severe moral misconceptions.
(Same goes for bacon wrapped scallops.)
@Physicalist #17,
Nevertheless, you still haven't given one example of a moral law/principle that we couldn't derive if not for science. You are right that ifs and whens always come in play when morals is concerned but my point is not to discount the ifs and whens, but to point out that you can construct the language in a certain way as to make the moral principle seem dependend on science, but in fact there is a larger principle behind the specific case that does not.
I am not sure what you mean by "scientific values" precisely; what I am referring to is the scientific process itself: gather data, formulate hypotheses, test them! Science tells us how the universe is and how it operates; it does not,and I maintain it cannot, tells us how we ought to behave that we could not derive otherwise (philosophically specifically in the case of ethics); and no one has yet given me a satisfactory example to the contrary.
Skepdude:
But what I donât understand is why thatâs particularly relevant. Look, what if I say that science canât tell me anything about the nature of reality that isnât discoverable without science? Someone points out that without science weâd be ignorant of viruses, atoms, galaxies, etc. But then I reply, âOh, but these are just special instances of the far more general principle that material things exist. And that can at best be justified philosophically. Science has to assume the existence of the material world.â
Thereâs some truth to this reply, but overall, itâs just a sophistical dodge.
Perhaps we can agree that without science there are many moral truths that weâd be ignorant of (e.g., that itâs immoral to respond to an uptick in traffic accidents by claiming that a particular woman is a witch and attacking her and forcing her out of town â as Palinâs buddy Muthee did), but that scientific investigation is not going to reveal the most general moral principles (such as that people ought not be punished for crimes that they didnât commit).
(I still find some plausibility in the claim that there's a sufficiently general principle of cultural tolerance and equality that would be lacking but for scientific knowledge.)
I note that your original tweet, as quoted in Joshâs post, includes moral actions as well as principles. That makes the game far too easy, doesnât it? Vaccinating children is a moral action that wouldnât exist without science. (Notice too that thereâs a big difference between asking whether a moral principle/truth would be recognized in the absence of scienceâ your first question --, and asking whether it could be recognized, which question you shift to in comments.)
So I guess Iâm not sure what the challenge is really supposed to amount to, and why it is significant. Many people (e.g. Russell Blackford) have mounted serious attacks on NOMA, but this isnât really an issue that I have much to say about. I will say that science should not be thought of as a value-free enterprise, so we arenât going to be able to draw stark lines between some âpureâ science that tells us âhowâ things work and a completely separate domain of ethics/values/religion/or-what-have-you.
Physicalist,
Your vaccination example is very interesting indeed. That one made me think long and hard because in the surface it seems to invalidate my point. But then think of cars. Engineering makes cars possible. Not running someone over is also a moral action (or non-action), but are you willing to say that morals thus depend on engineering?
The point of my twitter exchange with @lippard was that he claimed, so far as my recollections can be trusted, that morals do depend on science, while I and @Daniel_Loxton maintain that science doesn't mandate morals. That was what started my "challenge".
Now think the vaccine case through to its logical conclusion. Vaccines save lifes, that's a fact. Science tells us that fact. But how can science tell us that we ought to be saving lives? That's my whole point. Science can tell us facts about the world, but how one should behave in relations to others isn't an objective fact waiting to be discovered by science, and that is why I maintain that morals are independent of science.
What science gives us is knowledge of how the universe around us operates. We can, and we do, incorporate that knowledge into our moral system, which makes it easier for us to figure out the correct moral action to take in a given situation. Therefore in your vaccination example it goes something like this:
1-I ought to save human lives whenever it is possible for me to do so.
2-Science tells me that vaccines save human lives.
3-Therefore, I ought to vaccinate.
You are right that my use of the word "action" probably broadens this too much, maybe I should have stuck with moral principles which is what this whole conversation is about anyway. Whenever one studies ethics, it is principles that ones study, not particular examples. Bottom line is this:the more knowledge we have, the easier it is for us to apply the moral principles; but these moral principles do not depend on this knowledge for their existance, and that's the heart of this issue.
But, Science rules anyway!
Obviously there are many actions that would not be possible without engineering. Some of those actions are moral, some are immoral, and some are (arguably) morally neutral. The example was merely meant to demonstrate that discussing the possibility of actions is clearly a red herring. What you care about are moral truths/properties/principles.
Overall, I don't disagree that the facts revealed by science are distinct from very general moral principles. Perhaps Lippard was denying this, but I don't see that denial in the quotations in Josh's post. (Indeed, it seems to me that he's making the quite legitimate point that moral truths and scientific truths are going to intertwined in a complicated way, and that it would be a mistake to think that there are meaningful -- i.e., practical -- moral truths that are independent of scientific knowledge. It seems to me that this point is reinforced by our back and forth.)
I'll again mention that (almost?) everyone who claims that science (as opposed to religion) provides a grounding for morality is either explicitly or implicitly including secular philosophy with "science" for the purpose this debate.
But it is an objective fact that is waiting to be discovered by the conjunction of science and secular philosophy. And religion doesn't seem to be a very good guide to those truths.