Wednesday, October 6, 2010

The New Science of Morality

Edge is a website inspired by C.P. Snow’s idea of two distinct intellectual cultures: one consisting of scientific innovators and the other consisting of literary thinkers. He suggested stronger communication between the two groups, hoping that a new breed of pragmatic, holistic thought would be the result. Edge allows a uniquely constructive collaboration between university professors, esteemed authors, and notable scientists.

This June, a conference regarding issues of morality included Sam Harris, Joshua Greene, and Paul Bloom among other invaluable contributors. It was called The New Science of Morality. On a side note, Sam Harris recently discussed his book The Moral Landscape on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart (October 4, 2010).

The group composed a consensus. It approaches the topic from neurological, sociological, epistemological, psychological, and genetic perspectives. There is an equally wide range of implications that can be drawn from the consensus. Endless food for thought...

Consensus Statement:
edge.org/3rd_culture/morality10/morality_consensus.html

Event page, including individual transcripts and audio downloads:
edge.org/3rd_culture/morality10/morality10_index.html

Saturday, April 17, 2010

Disparity

There seems to be a regress that is polarizing the beliefs of the religious and non-religious. It is a symptom of the dangerous assumption that the different ideas that comprise a religion can be upheld or rejected together. When a religion is criticized, the critic frequently addresses problems that do not speak to the values held by a believer who has been touched by the faith.

Many moderate Christians, for instance, hold their faith dear to them because of personal reasons. Perhaps they have had a profound experience that they feel compelled to identify as divine. Because of the uncertainty involved with philosophy, they do not find their emotions unreasonable at all--certainly not to the extent that the nonreligious find Christianity as a whole.

Sometimes it's just as simple as an appreciation of the subculture. Whatever the reason a person has for treasuring a faith, it is seldom the same as what is being criticized. What causes one person to reject a faith seldom has anything to do with the "presence of God" that someone else genuinely believes to have felt. Why is there such a difference? It is because of labels. The name of the religion that a critic condemns is the same name of the religion that shelters the emotions of a believer. A critic can easily become satisfied with the rationale for their distaste without understanding or even considering this spiritually engaging effect.

I, for instance, am disgusted by idea of hell. Why should I respect an idea that condemns me to an eternity of unimaginable torture? And for what--my refusal to profess allegiance to a religion? The two are caused by each other! The point is that neither points of view do a whole lot to convince the other side. But why should they? Why should a Christian care if I don't find one of their minor claims rational or even ethical? When someone has an emotional connection to an idea suggested by a specific religion, that connection can often withstand a remarkable amount of logic because it seems to transcend verbal explanations. It doesn't hurt if that religion is supported by a strength in numbers or a family tradition. What we see again are sentiments that reject one another without addressing each other.

The result of such a disparity is division. The believer comes across to the critic as unreasonable, illogical, and stubborn. At this point, he or she has two options. The first one is to attempt to combat the logic that the believer sees as a threat. The believer may invent fallacious arguments to do so and become exactly what their opponents scorn, thereby fueling the endless cycle of frustration. The second option is to passively reject nonbelievers as well as the debate itself as spiritually lacking. Besides the resultant misunderstanding and condescension, the danger in this lies in the possibility of associating their emotions with the intolerance and absurdities that the rest of the religion entails. This person may end up taking on these intolerant and absurd opinions and mindsets, which again polarizes the two sides. If not, then he or she may become disillusioned and leave the religion and be haplessly left without a creed. As it so happens, this is yet another scenario that can be caused by the unfortunate nominal association between that religion's different and potentially incompatible aspects.