[Note: This satirical article has also been posted at my home blog, 360 Degree Skeptic]

Do not love the world or anything in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. (1 John 2:15)

While Christians are supposed to keep their eyes on the prize to come, I have my eyes on lunch. Continuing with last Sunday’s theme of the sacred mundane, I present to you part II of my personal Bible: The Culinary Commandments.

Maybe the following commandments ought to be discussed in Sunday school sessions across the land, in addition to the customary 10. You know, teach the controversy. Why not let children hear alternatives so they can choose for themselves?

—

The Lord of my stomach spake the Commandments (which had been scribbled upon the most holy index card and attached to the fridge with a kitty-cat magnet). The kitchen echoed with these words:

Thou shalt put no other Lords before me, not even the Lord of thy intellect, and especially not the Lord of thy privates.

Thou shalt not make graven images in thy mashed potatoes, nor shall thy wrestle naked in thy coleslaw.

Thou shalt surely kill thy fish and fowl and swine and steer and cook these before eating of them. Raw flesh is food of foreigners and trendy infidels. Thou must save thyself from the temptation to sample a bite.

Thou shalt not steal the plumpest shrimp from the platter before thine dinner guests arrive. Thou shalt nibble on the ugly little ones.

Thou shalt not lie about thine Thanksgiving pumpkin pie being made from “scratch.” If thou has taken up thy can opener, thou must pay homage to Del Monte.

Thou shalt not commit an adulteration of thy pancake batter. If it ain’t broke, thou shalt not go throwing chocolate chips in there.

Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s grilled sirloin, though the savory smoke wafts into thine open window, and thou full knowest that thou is having tunafish casserole for dinner.

Now the Lord fell silent. He pulled a package from the freezer, put it in the microwave, and set it on “defrost.” The Lord continued . . . .

Remember thy napkin, and keep it in thy lap, and not just when dining with Grandma, who hath an eagle eye.

Honor thy father’s and thy mother’s recipes. Thou shalt never banish the blessed, original ingredients and in their stead use the lesser, “low-fat” kind. Nor shalt thou ever attempt to sneak soycheese, soyburgers, or soydogs into thine unsuspecting family’s supper.

Thou shalt not bear false witness about the milk. Thou shall check the expiration date and lift it to thy nose and thy mouth. For if thy wife drinks of it, and becomes ill and perishes, she will nevermore be in the mood to be fruitful.

And finally, the Lord said, For six days shalt thou toil at thy sink and at thy stove. But on the seventh day, thou may use thy cell phone to cry out for pizza. And though that prayer will be answered, thou shalt be charged for it.

Amen.

Related posts:

1. The Genesis of Dessert

To the news of a peer’s death in an automobile accident, one interviewed teenager said, “It’s fate. When your time comes, it comes.” Another tearily added, “God called him home.” Apparently, as far as you know, your time could be up at any moment. Nothing you can do about it.

This is sloppy and dangerous thinking. Perhaps it could contribute to such things as reckless driving. Hey, nothing you can do about it; it’s fate. If it’s not in the divine plans for you to be “called home” just yet, you can avoid questioning your own behavior. Or feeling distressed by the often unpredictable, impersonal, “non-caring” nature of calamity.

If all incidents of extreme bad fortune, and good, are in a god’s hands, you can additionally maintain the delusion that nothing happens without a reason. A significant reason. A personal reason.

What is the true cost of this superficial, sloppy thinking? I don’t know. I’m sure it depends upon the situation. In terms of athletes making a sign of the cross before competing or pointing to the sky after success, little cost. (Little obvious cost? There may be a diffuse cost in the modeling of superstitious behavior to young fans.)

In terms of a parent who believes that their child is sick because of sin or the devil or simply an un-elaborated “god’s will” (a form of partially rectifiable fate, via acts of repentance?) rather than due to, say, bacterial infection, and that prayer, rather than antibiotics, is the answer — well, this is very costly sloppy thinking.

The believer’s slip-shod “just because” (i.e. it is beyond my understanding and in the hands of divine forces) is a cul-de-sac on the road to knowledge and effective action. Not a god, but knowledge provides real power in terms of the ability to exercise control over our lives.

Few educated people believe the voodoo of ‘evil spirits cause disease.’ In those regions of the world where it persists, you will find both bottom-drawer education and inadequate health care systems. In our country, with its good health care and fairly decent education, gods have been pushed out of the physician’s black bag. Pretty much. And our society is better for it.

I am convinced that we should keep pushing talk of gods out of our explanations of how the universe operates. They’re in the way. Gods limit our vision. Sure, some people may want to prop gods in front of those annoying uncertainties for which we have no clear answers, but I’d rather not. I am one who prefers the leaden “I don’t know” answer to the believer’s airy “just because.”

[first posted earlier today here]

Related posts:

1. Why We Believe in Gods

To my mind, Sam Harris’s otherwise fine new book, The Moral Landscape, has three weaknesses.

First, much like his blockbuster, The End of Faith, this books starts blazingly strong, then peters as the page numbers go into triple digits, particularly post page 150. Harris seems to include previously written filler to bring the book to hardcover length. He throws in a few, fairly lengthy tangential-at-best arguments that don’t seem to advance his argument so much as attempt to settle unsettled disputes with intellectual adversaries.

Second, the book is conspicuously brain-focused. Not coincidentally, Harris’s own field is neurobiology, and he understandably emphasizes it. Yet the subtitle of the book reads, “How Science Can Determine Human Values,” not “How Neurobiology Can Determine Human Values.” Sure, stick with what you know to a degree, but science is much bigger and has much more to offer than the relatively immature field of neurobiology alone (now seemingly in vogue thanks to fMRI research).

A more obviously interdisciplinary approach would make for a stronger argument, considering both the number and types of variables involved and what other scientific fields already have to say about morality.

Morality can, has, and should be studied on many levels. Yes, our brains are epicenter of all we are and do, yet without bodies and their unique physiology (muscles, organs, hormones, etc.) the “felt experiences” that Harris speaks of as being at the heart of human flourishing become impoverished.

Additionally, without the input of family, social groups and culture, without learning experiences of any sort, without transient environmental influences, too, human psychology would consist of nothing more than innate temperament coupled with potential. As importantly, morality is a largely social phenomenon, and without a thorough understanding of it at that level, we are likely missing something.

Yes, the brain is what it all comes down to — in a sense. Harris writes, “Cultural norms influence our thinking and behavior by altering the structure and function of our brains.” Back to neurobiology again.

Yet this boiling it all down to the brain strikes me as akin to talking about evolution exclusively at the level of the gene. Is evolution all about individual genes? Of course not. For one, the process of natural selection takes place at the level of the organism, and, secondly, evolution itself is defined at the level of populations of related organisms, of entire species. A similar need for a multi-level perspective likely exists in the case of morality.

My hunch is that it might be more productive to place greater focus on what’s “going on” with a person in the context of his/her social group(s). After all, no sane human thrives when their world is in turmoil.

Harris writes:

“It is surprising that so little research has been done on belief, as few mental states exert so sweeping an influence over human life.” p.115

Not only does the book focus heavily on neurobiology, but Harris places special emphasis on the “brain states” capable of being measured thanks to new technology. Yet while static images of brain function do nicely lend themselves to an empirical inquiry, these brain states are transient and certainly not the full story. Rather, the bigger picture is about mental processes — events — generated by a myriad of inner and outer conditions.

Harris’s extreme focus on states of the brain nearly suggests a Matrix-like view of human psychology. As one who believes the field of psychology in general is far too individual-focused, this seems at odds with a potentially more fruitful perspective. As the study of human evolution is beginning to make clear, our kind is brainy, yes, yet that brainy-ness likely evolved to allow us to better adapt to and fully utilize extremely complex social environments.

My third and major beef with the book is that it did not contain enough science. How could a book purportedly about how science can determine human values contain so little science? Okay, it is a young field, particularly if we focus on neurobiology. But there is a ton of science out there that directly relates to human morality, including but not limited to that provided by the fields of cultural anthropology, psychology, sociology, and economics.

The book in general struck me as more philosophical than scientific. More concrete examples would have made for a better book. Or maybe even a single, fully-fleshed out example. Yes, you must implicitly and perhaps explicitly start with first premises and a groundwork of reasoning. Still, what better way to put some flesh and bones on the skeleton of your argument than a few, full examples?

Divorce comes to mind. Divorce rates in this country and others have climbed over the last few decades. Many preachers and politicians claim that the increase in divorce rates tells us that “family values” are in crisis.

Are they? Is immorality on the rise and people in need of more religion to remedy the situation?

To progress towards an accurate understanding and a solution (if needed), I turn to science. What does science have to say about the increase in divorce rates? Off hand: that increases in divorce rates worldwide are strongly associated with a number of factors, the most important of these being both legal changes (availability of no-fault divorces) and the changing social/educational/economic status of women. Where women are better educated and are capable of providing for themselves and their children — you will find higher divorce rates.

So the preachers with their terrifically-superficial religious approach are mistaken. Higher divorce rates are not simply the result of a decline in family values. One could make the argument that if you value happy moms and more free and flexible family structures, an increase in divorce rates might actually be a change for the better. Is it a bad thing for women to be free to end bad marriages? Not all marriages are good, not all lend themselves to individual and collective flourishing. In the least, a more wise solution to climbing divorce rates would be to persuade people to avoid entering into the types of marriages they will later want to end.

Many other examples come to mind. But more on that in my next post – The Moral Landscape: How the Sciences Can Guide Morality.

Related posts:

1. The Moral Landscape: The Highs
2. Are Religion and Science Reconciling?
3. What Science Says about Morality

Sam Harris’s new book, The Moral Landscape, is a thought-provoking read. I recommend it. My highest praise is reflected in this note I scribbled while reading: “One of the most important and clear-minded books I have ever read.”

I wrote that? Yes, though my overall enthusiasm did wane somewhat toward the end (as my next post will tell). It is a book I will keep in my personal library. And I have few.

What’s so good about the book? First, the importance of the topic and the straightforward, unapologetic way Harris attacks it. Too often the subject of human morality has been ceded to philosophy in academia and religion in the public square.

As for the ceding of morality to religion, this is both mistaken (if not ironic) and unproductive.

Why is designating religion as the source and domain of morality mistaken? Read the texts. The older the text, the more likely it reflects anachronistic values. Xenophobia, sexism, cruel and unusual punishment, etc.

Okay, a person may respond, but that was religion in the wrong hands. Now it is in the right hands. To that I would respond that it is not religion that corrected itself, but modernity that caused religion to adapt to the changing world. So religion is really not the source of today’s best versions of morality. Sure, pulpits can and do help broadcast values best suited to today’s human environments. But not all the time. As I mentioned in a previous post, religions frequently serve as a brake on positive social change, on extending rights and compassion toward an ever-expanding circle of people.

No, religion is not the source of morality. It is not only ironic but fully relevant that research into moral behavior has revealed scant and weak association at best, an inverse relation at worst, between religious affiliation and what we would label moral and ethical behavior.

One glaring, specific example: Not hundreds of years ago, but recently the Catholic Church demonstrated in its actions a greater concern for protecting their coffers and member priests than prosecution those guilty of sexual crimes against children. Yes, those supposedly occupying the high ground of morality — priests — do molest children. They will also steal and cheat. Ironic? Not really. For while religions most explicitly give voice to issues of morality, moral behavior likely has more silent sources: our genes (apes and other animals show rudimentary forms of moral behavior), our individual temperaments, our family and social environments, etc.

A second important point Harris makes is this:

“I will argue that morality should be considered an undeveloped branch of science.”

Why science? Because religious values, as Harris puts it, “come from a voice in a whirlwind.” They just are. We know because a god supposedly whispered it in a prophet’s ear. Which is a very superficial knowing. This “just do it” type of morality is fully shallow and impervious to correction. What’s more, it promotes mistaken and small-minded motivations for behaving well. To please my god, to get into heaven, etc. In reality, morality is about social dynamics. How should I treat others so that I and my group-mates near and far can live a good life?

Of course, the task of understanding what thoughts best express and what behaviors best promote “a good life” is a daunting task. Yet what better discipline to inform our attempts than one that depends upon continual input and complete transparency? “Just because” violates a cardinal rule in science, so you will not find it there. Instead, there is nonstop digging and debate, which leads to progress.

As one educated in psychology, I completely concur with this line by Harris:

“A science of morality would, of necessity, require a deeper understanding of human motivation.”

What do religions tell us about human motivation? That we have been saddled with original sin? That we can be inhabited by devils and/or evil impulses? Not much real insight there.

From where can we attain a deeper understanding? From science. Some would argue philosophy, but I would disagree. For the most relevant philosophical discussions on morals are informed by real-world data, best supplied by science. And the most relevant science has already integrated the most robust insights provided by philosophy.

Yes, determining exactly which values should be considered essential to human morality is not going to be easy. But it is a nascent undertaking, thus patience would be wise.

Harris writes -

“It seems to me, however, that the concept of well-being is like the concept of physical health: it resists precise definition, and yet it is indispensible.”

While Harris’s term for what I call the good life — “human flourishing” — has received criticism, for good reason and bad, his attempt represents an initial probing. He has taken a step toward explicitly exploring the subject while armed with information and insights supplied by science. What’s not to applaud?

Besides the importance of the topic, and the thoroughly enjoyable agility of Harris’s writing and reasoning style — he often strikes me as a pen-wielding Zorro — there was much food for thought in the book. And the biggest bite I personally took was into Harris’s own neurobiological research. In a study on brain response to different types of cognition — ‘what is true’ and ‘what is good’ — he found that “it appears that we have a common system for judging truth and falsity in both domains.”

“In fact, mathematical belief (e.g., ’2 + 6 + 8 = 16′) showed a similar pattern of activity to ethical belief (e.g., ‘It is good to let your children know that you love them’), and these were perhaps the most dissimilar sets of stimuli used in our experiment. This suggests that the physiology of belief may be the same regardless of a proposition’s content. It also suggests that the division between facts and values does not make much sense in terms of underlying brain functions.”

Interesting. Very interesting. Ethical beliefs, it seems, may simply be subset of conclusions a brain makes, rather than distinct phenomena.

To end with a final, particularly juicy quote based upon findings provided by the psychological sciences:

“As far as our understanding of the world is concerned–there are no facts without values.”

To conclude something is “a fact,” must we value measuring and replicability? Must we value something we call “making sense”? I wonder.

It seems to me that emotion and cognition are a set of conjoined twins. And morality part of the twins’ shared heart.

—

This article simultaneously posted at my home blog, 360 Degree Skeptic.

Tomorrow – The Moral Landscape: The Lows

Related posts:

1. The Moral Landscape: The Lows
2. What Science Says about Morality
3. Are Religion and Science Reconciling?

Many people believe that science is strictly the domain of mute facts. What is. And it consequently has nothing to say about values and morality. About what should be. Many religious folks, or simply thinkers friendly to religion, will claim that values and morality are a special category addressed best or exclusively by religion.

I disagree for two main reasons.

First, if you read the ancient, sacred texts, and know something of the history of religion, you will find that the values expressed by a religion reflect the needs and concerns of those preaching and promoting the religion at the time. The Bible, for example, is filled with verses that can only be seen as abhorrent by today’s honest thinker. Stoning adulterers, killing children in warfare, keeping slaves, etc., etc. Why are these barbaric practices in the Bible? Because the books of the Bible were written in a different time. A less civilized time. Literally.

Consider the case of slavery. Why is it not outright condemned in the texts upon which many religions are based upon, religions whose practitioners recognize it as an abhorrent practice today? Because times have changed. And no, religion didn’t get it wrong initially, and then got it right, thus deserving the credit as the engine of values and morality. Instead, times changed. And by that I mean a shorthand for the many factors that influence human thought and behavior: sociological, psychological, educational, economic, political, etc. When those things changed, religion changed with it. And then often given the credit for getting things right.

Yet religions frequently resist the progress to “getting things right.” They will act as a conservative force, putting a brake on societal change. Consider the Catholic Church’s stance on contraceptives. Religion, in this case, is stupidly clinging to values out of place in today’s world.

The second reason why I disagree that religion is the special realm of values and morality is that this claim rests on two bogus premises. One, that preachers and practitioners can magically know something (what is right) without a potentially measurable (within the ream of science) input of information. How does religion know what is right? It just does. Or because a god said so. Kindof.

Bullocks. If you take a closer look at religion you will find fully natural elements responsible for the values it promotes: social, psychological, economic, political, etc. What’s more, science can best help us expose and understand those elements.

Bogus premise number two is that science is the domain of static facts, thus it is mute about morals. As the saying goes, you can’t get from an is to an ought. But science is not just about facts. Doing science entails formulating hypotheses, testing hypotheses, developing theories, discussing and evaluating theories, etc. In essence, science is about working towards a more accurate understanding of the universe. Yes, this understanding is firmly tethered to facts, but there is more to it than mute facts.

In the least, scientists are capable of testing the hypotheses (or call them propositions, if you like) that lie hidden beneath moral codes and values. For instance, consider this ought: Though shalt not commit adultery.

To say that the commandment merely reflects the will of a god is naive to the extreme. Rather, it reflects the universal human concern over sexual fidelity and its consequences on child rearing. So why shouldn’t a person commit adultery? Because of the harm it could cause individuals and their social groups. That’s the hypothesis hidden behind the “ought.” And it can be analyzed and tested. By science. What happens when there is adultery? Are there any measurable psychological, social, etc., consequences? What about when there is no adultery, what can we measure then and confidently know?

By the content of my above statements, it is no mystery that I received a copy of Sam Harris’ latest book, The Moral Landscape, with happy anticipation. The subtitle boldly reads, “How Science Can Determine Human values.” Wow. Not just evaluate and test, but determine. Can it really? I have thoughts about that.

Now that I have completed a full read of the book I can say I have many good things to say about it. And yes, I have a few criticisms as well. But overall, the book is a welcome addition to any library. Harris is again at the vanguard, boldly elbowing into new territory. And I applaud him for it.

Stay tuned for upcoming posts on his book and the subject of morality.

[This article simultaneously posted at my home blog, 360 Degree Skeptic.]

Related posts:

1. Sam Harris on Science & Morality
2. Are Religion and Science Reconciling?

Does religion exert a positive influence on people’s lives? The answer to this question likely depends on how we define the variables. Yet is it truly religion exerting the influence, when we get right down to it, or something more mundane: social values, adopting a meaningful life narrative, community involvement, pleasing rituals, what? A huge problem with the bulk of the studies into the influence of religion is the lack of adequate secular controls. It is assumed that there is religion and then there is nothing. But are there no secular social values, no non-religious community involvement, no god-free pleasing rituals?

Of course there are. To overlook the fact is to practice incomplete science and to perhaps mislead yourself and others.

A recent study purporting to demonstrate a positive influence of religion (religiosity) got me thinking about the topic. Or maybe “stewing” is the more accurate word.

In, Greater religiosity during adolescence may protect against developing problem alcohol use, we learn -

[P]eople with a religious background may be less likely to express alcohol-related phenotypes than those from nonreligious backgrounds.

Sounds quite science-y. But what is meant by religious background? Belief in a god and the strength of that belief? Church attendance? Engaging in religious behaviors such as prayer and Bible reading? Self-reported importance of religion to one’s worldview? What?

Religiosity was measured using the Value on Religion Scale

Aha! I guess. A quick Google search led me to a .pdf that contained details about that scale (in the very same semi-bogus study I critiqued in a Skeptic magazine article a few years back). Subjects rated their strength of agreement with these items:

“To believe in God,” “To be able to rely on religious teachings when you have a problem,” “To be able to turn to prayer when you’re facing a personal problem,” and “To rely on your religious beliefs as a guide for day-to-day living.” [source]

That’s quite a range of thoughts. Total strength of agreement with these statements produced the religiosity measure.

An author of the study went on record with this:

“Our study showed that genetic factors could influence problem alcohol use more in nonreligious adolescents than adolescents with a greater religious outlook,” said Button. “This attenuation in religious participants indicates that religiosity exerted a strong enough influence over the behavior of religious individuals to override any genetic predisposition. [all bolds mine]

Wow! With religion you can overcome any genetic predisposition . . . for alcohol use, anyway. Or at least make it less-likely you succumb to genetic predisposition. As was the actual study finding. (How much less likely is a very good question.) But hey, why quibble?

But then there was this curious element:

The same was not true for young adults, however, for whom the genetic influence was consistent across levels of religiosity.”

Button noted that she and her colleagues had expected to find a similar pattern of effects in adolescents and young adults.

Hmm. Seems to me the religiosity measured was more situational than committed, more environmental than integral to the individual.

My guess is that the researchers actually indirectly measured some effect of parenting or family/home life. Thus, once out of the house — as most individuals experience in the transition from adolescence to adulthood — the effect disappeared. Would a real religious influence evaporate like that between neighboring age groups? I wonder.

Now it’s your turn to exercise your critical thinking skills. See what flaws you can spot in this final article paragraph (and how it relates to the claimed results).

“These findings provide evidence that problem alcohol use in adolescents is subject to controlling influences associated with religiosity, even when genetic risks are present,” said Button. “Thus, adolescents who are raised to value religious concepts are less likely to develop problems with alcohol use, even in the presence of a genetic predisposition for doing so.” [bolds mine]

(Hint: think of a shell game in which a ball is hidden beneath one cup and then, with slight of hand, moved to beneath another.)

Ready, set, think.

—

[simultaneously posted at my home blog: 360 Degree Skeptic]

Related posts:

1. Are Religion and Science Reconciling?

No related posts.