By Mano Singham
Stephen Jay Gould, who was not religious, was a strong advocate of this notion of separate domains for the physical and moral worlds and even gave this ridiculous idea the pompous title of NOMA (Non-Overlapping Magisteria) and wrote an entire book Rocks of Ages (1999) to promote it.
Biologist Lewis Wolpert in his book Six Impossible Things Before Breakfast: The evolutionary origins of belief (2006) says quite emphatically at the beginning (twice on the same page) that he is a reductionist materialist atheist (p. x). And yet, towards the very end of the book, after saying (rightly) that however much science advances there will always be unanswered questions and that we "must have the intellectual courage to live with such unanswered questions rather than invent answers that have no basis other than in mystical experience," he proceeds in the very next sentence to make the extraordinary assertion that "we must also accept that science can tell us nothing about ethics or morality." (p. 215, my italics).
Even the august National Academy of Sciences weighs in with support for this dubious proposition. In a 2008 publication Science, Evolution, and Creationism in response to the question "Does science disprove religion?" it says:
Science can neither prove nor disprove religion. Scientific advances have called some religious beliefs into question, such as the ideas that the Earth was created very recently, that the Sun goes around the Earth, and that mental illness is due to possession by spirits or demons. But many religious beliefs involve entities or ideas that currently are not within the domain of science. Thus, it would be false to assume that all religious beliefs can be challenged by scientific findings. (my italics)
…
Many scientists have written eloquently about how their scientific studies have increased their awe and understanding of a creator…. The study of science need not lessen or compromise faith. (p. 54)
The NAS is flat-out wrong. The study of science does (or at least should) lessen and compromise faith because the two are fundamentally incompatible. What exactly are the 'entities or ideas' that are presumed to be outside the domain of science? One can only assume that the phrase was thrown in as a sop to soothe the delicate feelings of religious people, who desperately want to find a role for skyhooks.
The reason for this effort comes down again to the goals and ends political issue. Those scientists who seek to advance some secular goal for which they think they need the support of religious people need to find something to offer them in return, since there seems to be the feeling that the public will turn away from science and may oppose the teaching of evolution (or, even worse, stop funding science) if they feel that it is basically an atheistic enterprise.
So scientists may have seized upon the morals/ethics realm as the crumb to give religion, since that area is currently the farthest away from direct scientific investigation. This also allows them to keep in the fold those scientists who are still religious. In a way, the moral issue plays the role of Miss Congeniality in beauty contests, the consolation prize that is meant to pacify religious people and make them allies, by making them think that religion is not totally useless. Since scientists want to keep religion out of their research areas, they may think that giving them the vaguely defined moral sphere to ponder will keep them occupied.
I think this is short-sighted. Far from having nothing to say about morality and ethics and altruism, this is a very interesting area of research. The pioneering work on kinship altruism by W. D Hamilton and reciprocal altruism by Robert Trivers laid the foundations for understanding why natural selection can result in people evolving to have cooperative instincts even though a simplistic understanding of natural selection might suggest that we should always be looking out for ourselves.
(For the foundational papers in this area of research, see The Genetical Evolution of Social Behavior I and II by W. D. Hamilton (1964) Journal of Theoretical Biology, vol. 7, p. 1-52, The Evolution of Reciprocal Altruism by Robert L. Trivers, (March 1971) The Quarterly Review of Biology, vol. 46, no. 1, p. 36-57), and The Evolution of Cooperation by Robert Axelrod and William D. Hamilton, (March 27,1981), Science, vol. 211, p. 1390-1396. For a readable summary of the research on how evolution explains the origins or altruism and cooperative behavior, see Richard Dawkins The Selfish Gene (1989).)
In fact, what is becoming increasingly clear is that far from being born as blank slates on which god imprints moral laws on our minds, much of what we call human nature has evolutionary origins. It would not be wrong to suggest that understanding the biological basis of human nature, how evolution has shaped the things we believe and value, will be one of the frontier areas of research, bringing psychology within the ambit of biology.
(For other posts in this series, see here.)
Morals, Ethics and Altruism Predate Man And Religion.
The indisputable fact that all three behavioral traits exist in the animal kingdom and did before mankind evolved or religions were conceived of, argues conclusively for a natural evolution of morals, ethics and altruism dating back likely, many millions of years ago. Religion has no claim to exclusivity in these realms. Religions have furthered the reach of these traits through the spoken and written word, but this has also happened through fables, myths, fairy tales and folklore. Indeed it is these alternative forms that most religions have "evolved" or morphed from! A BASIC STUDY OF COMPARATIVE RELIGIONS WILL CONFIRM THIS VERY CLEARLY! Religious folks say that their particular religion is holier than the others, but I would say that science is holistically more whole than ANY religion ever will be. The explanatory power of the scientific method and the body of knowledge amassed throughout mankind's history far exceeds the meager lessons derived from the world's religions.
SCIENCE PREVAILS, RELIGION FAILS!
Darwin was a keen observer and theorist and his theory is PROVEN beyond a shadow of a doubt. The only reason it is still called a theory is because it can't be proven in the same way a mathematical theorem can. That is a problem with semantics, NOT the science!
Apparently, you have an anti-religion (anti-god?) agenda
I don't understand why some people (like you) rejoice over scientific achievement as if science itself created what it discovered! I agree that organized religions are destructive to free thought, but just because you can find fault in them does not mean that it disproves a creator. Actually, I think that your title "Morals, Ethics and Altruism Predate Man And Religion" actually lean towards an existence of a creator.
What is your reasoning behind "The indisputable fact that all three behavioral traits exist in the animal kingdom and did before mankind evolved or religions were conceived of, argues conclusively for a natural evolution of morals, ethics and altruism dating back likely, many millions of years ago." (As if "God" started when "religions were conceived of"….?!) How did you go about proving that as an "indisputable fact" in the first place? I don’t think it is an indisputable fact that these traits exist today, but you assume that they existed throughout all time! Indisputably? Conclusively?! Proven beyond a shadow of a doubt!? ---Please make one conclusive statement.
I appreciate your passion for science, but please keep it scientific or at least rational.
These are my thoughts, not influenced by religious or political agendas.
Mike d
No Morals
I don't believe that morals exist. I do, however, believe that there are risks and probabilities that people should look at and study in making better life-style choices, and there is a societal code of laws and ethics which changes over time. The brain has evolved the ability to reason and make intelligent decisions based on the data that is present, therefore there is no need for the arbitrary sets of "moral laws" that religions commonly anchor their doctrines to. Some, if not most, religious "moral laws" are in fact very superstitious and completely obselete in a modern day and age.
The moral laws about (1) do not have other gods before YHWY (note: this one doesn't necessarily imply that the author was a monotheist), (2) keep the "holy day" sabbath, (3) do not "use god's name in vain" completely do not apply to the non-judeo-christian worldview. Furthermore, there are many exceptions to the all of the secular "judeo-christian moral absolutes" of (4) do not covet (5) or kill (6) or steal (7) or dishoner thy parents (8) or have sexual relations outside of marriage (9) or slander (10) or lie. These inherent exceptions to the rules or any rules for that matter (i.e. 'i' before 'e' except for in Einstein) prove that the rules are not absolute and thereby can't be a product of the mind of an all knowing being, but merely that of the human authors.
Update: http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/60-second-science/post.cfm?id=mon...
your faith is more "right" than other people's faith?
your statement "The brain has evolved the ability to reason and make intelligent decisions..." is based in faith/belief just as a religious follower believes in his deity. that statement is not even close to being scientific. so....your faith is more right than other poeple's faith???
No faith required
Why do you think that this belief requires faith?
We know that animals evolved and are evolving. This is a well established fact. There is a huge amount of evidence for it. Some of it is as close to absolute proof that science ever gets.
We know that genes influence brain development.
We know that genes will evolve to improve the chances of survival of those genes. This is a mathematically provable fact.
It's a known fact that brains make decisions to control the actions of a creature. Since better decisions are likely to lead to better survival, there will be a tendency for brains to evolve to make better decisions.
How does any of that require faith???
Rejoicing over Science
Why should we not rejoice in science?
Science has given us vastly improved health and doubled our life expectancy.
Science is knowledge. Why should we not celebrate knowledge?
Religion has mostly been responsible for preserving ancient superstitions and keeping us ignorant by preventing people from questioning dogmatically asserted ideas about the universe in which we live.
I think we should celebrate gaining of knowledge rather than preserving ignorance.
How is that irrational?
Mike Durland wrote:
I think that your title "Morals, Ethics and Altruism Predate Man And Religion" actually lean towards an existence of a creator.
Why? Relgious people very often claim that morality comes from religion and that without religion, there would be no morality. The fact that morality predates religion proves that this is not true. There is good evidence that animals have morals also, so it is pretty likely that our moral tendencies came from our ancestors.
It is pretty clear that cooperation is good for survival, so it is natural for morality to evolve.
How does any of that imply the existence of a creator?
Fact? fact? fact? since when?
Therefore (Pythagoras's belief/dogma), it is an un-falsifiable proven fact that humans were unreasoning animals that evolved into reasoning people. Of course not... this is based on theories and FAITH in conclusions that PEOPLE make based on observations we see TODAY. This is why I say that this statement is based in faith/belief not fact (just like a religious follower) --BTW you may want to get your "facts" right.
mike d
I think there is a misunderstanding
I do value science and knowledge, my intention was to point out when people are not scientific in their conclusions and therefore are going on belief/faith just like a religious follower. -----------Second point: regarding "Morals, Ethics and Altruism Predate Man And Religion" and how it leans toward the existence of a creator.- (citing religious beliefs does not make your point more valid). my opinion is that if something like morals can be proved to have existed (impossible by the way) before man (religion doesn’t matter because it is manmade) then it seems to me that plants and animals (and everything else) could have been created with morals, ethics and altruism. BTW morals, ethics and altruism don’t go too far within evolution's survival of the fittest.
question for Pythagoras
how do you define belief? how do you define faith? for me they are equal... this may be part of the confusion.
mike d
Dogmatic?
Why do you say that my beliefs are dogmatic or based on faith?
Dogmatic beliefs are beliefs that cannot be questioned. Why do you say that my beliefs cannot be questioned? I didn't say anything like that.
I already explained my reasons for believing what I believe. There is no faith or dogma involved. I believe what I believe because there is good evidence for everything that I believe.
If I become aware of any new evidence I will change my beliefs. I don't have any holy book or creed that tells me what I should and should not believe. I believe what I think is true based on what evidence I know about.
If you think my facts are wrong or incomplete, I am always happy to learn.
Faith vs Belief
I define faith as belief without evidence.
Belief with evidence is knowledge.
Knowledge is always a good thing. Faith is usually not a good thing in my opinion.
You might also be confusing faith with trust. "Faith" is often used to mean trust. I have a high degree of trust in science because the scientific method has proven to be a reliable way to separate truth from fiction. The proof of this is everywhere. Our technology would not be possible without the knowledge we have gained through science.
open minded
I said that you comments were dogmatic because they were. You spoke of a series of un-falsifiable absolutes in your post (read it). Thank you for changing to a more scientific conversation. My point was to point out that some atheist's defend their BELIEF just as blindly as an indoctrinated religious follower does. You are showing a more rational side of being open minded and I appreciate that. "The important difference between science and religion is that religion comes with ABSOLUTE statements".
Unfalsifiable?
My beliefs are not unfalsifiable. You claim that my belief that our ancestors were unreasoning animals is not unfalsifiable. That's just nonsense.
When Charles Darwin proposed his theory of natural selection as an explanation for the diversity and complexity of life, he had some proof, but there was not very much evidence of human ancestry. The theory of evolution makes many predictions. If any of the predictions turned out to be false, the theory would have been falsified.
Biologists have spent the last 150 years trying to falsify the theory of evolution, but all of the predictions have proven to be correct. This is why there is no longer any doubt about the theory of evolution amongst biologists. We now have a huge amount of evidence for human ancestry.
I'll give you one example of a prediction that turned out to be correct:
The theory of evolution makes the claim that humans and great apes have a common ancestor, but we don't have the same number of chromosomes. We have 23 pairs, whereas all other great apes have 24 pairs. Therefore either one of our ancestors lost a chromosome (which is very unlikely because that would almost certainly be fatal), or two chromosomes fused together in one of our ancestors. The theory therefore predicts that we should find that one of our chromosomes pairs will match two pairs in chimpanzees. That turns out to be the case and there is other evidence that human chromosome 2 is a fusion of two chromosomes in earlier species. This evidence alone is extremely strong. It is very hard to conceive of any other possible explanation. But there is even stronger evidence in the form of shared retrovirus DNA.
Do you not believe that humans and other apes have a common ancestor?
I will say it again: I don't hold beliefs on faith. I only believe things that I have good reasons to believe. If you don't agree, you should at least give some evidence or a good logical argument instead of merely making the unsupported claim that I am being dogmatic.
I suppose you are right in one sense that my belief is unfalsifiable because there is already so much evidence in favour of the theory of common descent that it is hard to conceive of any new ways that it might be falsified. It is already pretty much a proven fact and for that reason I treat it as true, just like my belief that the motion of the planets is due to gravity and Newton's (or Einstein's if you want to be picky) laws.
Fair enough
Thank you Pythagoras for being the most scientific person I have found on this website so far.
To answer your question: I don't think that people know enough to conclude anything. I try not to believe in anything to the point where I am convincing other people of my belief (like some of the Atheists on this site).-------
one quick example of scientific evidence that life forms stay fairly consistent (other than minor adaptations to survive): the G1, G2 and M checkpoints that regulate the cell during mitosis (due to cyclins) will kill the cell (thru apoptosis) if the DNA (which is the foundation of the chromosomes you mentioned) is damaged or is not able to duplicate exact replicas (daughter cells) of the original cell. The only time cells replicate when they are altered is when they become cancerous (not a beneficial mutation).-----
I am not making any conclusions, but I am saying we can't know for certain the state of mind of animals or humans in the past. I don't think we can even know the state of mind of people today! :)
Science doesn't tell us about morality, conscience does
Even Richard Dawkins recognizes that Science tells us nothing about Morality. Science tells us about the triggers for certain behavious, but it cannot tell us to call such behavious 'good' in any serious sense - this is something that we project onto them. Take a look at David Hume's 'is/ought problem' to understand how the two are different.
Does this mean that 'Religion' (a vague word, in my opinion) tells us anything about morality? Not necessarily. Taking morality outside science doesn't inherently put it in the hands of organised religion, but the article seems to fear this. I think the article confuses two things:
- Science tells us nothing about morality
- Religion is the 'sole arbiter' of morality
These are SEPERATE statements, but in the article they are treated as linked for the sake of killing two birds with one stone.
Science provides us with information on which to base our decicions, but it cannot be the arbiter of what a 'good' decision is. Even very 'evil' decisions can be based on information, after all. In my view it is Conscience that is our moral sense, something uncoupled from any organised religion. But is it uncoupled from God? Yes, I have heard of the Euthyphro Dilemma; I've studied it. Like so many dilemmas, it may be a false one.
God and moral authority
If there is a god, from where does his moral authority come?