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?

Related posts:

1. What Science Says about Morality

Most people don’t have to think very hard to come up with organizations they believe are compassionate and moral. Churches and faith-based organizations usually come to mind. It’s a misconception, however, that “religion” is the only measure of morality and that only religious people do good work.

There are also many secular/atheist charitable organizations in the United States and around the world made up of caring, compassionate, moral, ethical, intelligent people doing tireless work to ease pain and suffering and educate and promote peace. Think of Doctors Without Borders, Amnesty International , Oxfam International, The American Red Cross, and The Union for Concerned Scientists, to name a few. Many secular, atheist, agnostic, nonreligious individuals also quietly contribute to charities of their choice and to their communities.

It’s not surprising, however, that nonbelievers have not been acknowledged as participants in charity. Historically, our communities have been structured so that churches are the main means for large numbers of people to gather to promote and implement charitable work. The following quote from the web site Beingism.org makes this point:

It may be that nonreligious individuals are less likely to form communities than their religious counterparts. Certainly, the lack of a preexisting community (such as an established church) is a relative hindrance to community-building. No doubt also willingness to question pervasive social norms, particularly when they are part of belief systems from which most people derive emotional, social, and/or financial support, probably tends to accompany an individualistic (rather than community-oriented) approach to life. In addition, social stigma reduces the community resources available to nonreligious people, both financially (e.g., nonreligious institutions are not given the same financial benefits as faith-based organizations) and socially (e.g., fear of discrimination leads to increased difficulty in reaching out to find others with similar values). Unfortunately, these factors have fractured communities of nonreligious people, making it extremely difficult for them to agree upon or articulate a positive vision for the future or to create change. This lack of community also leads religious communities to conclude that nonreligious people are without ethics.

One of the biggest myths still being perpetrated is that atheists/nonbelievers are selfish, immoral heretics. The very word ‘atheist’ conjures up images of Hitler, Pol Pot, and Stalin. Take Bill O’Reilly’s Fox News interview with Richard Dawkins. O’Reilly implied that it was ‘atheism’ that led these heinous men to commit crimes against humanity. Mr. Dawkins was given little time to rebut this stupidity.

Religion is everywhere. We are inundated with religious television programming seven days a week. Religious pundits regularly demonize and dismiss secular humanists, atheists, agnostics, and those who are nonreligious, leaving no room for further dialogue or understanding.  The Internet has many sites educating the public about nonbelief, but I doubt that many Christians or other religious folks visit these sites. If they do, it’s to excoriate what is said there, not to understand it.

Few religious people have any grasp of the challenges that atheists must deal wth. People risk losing their jobs, family, friends, and their standing in their community when they go public about their nonbelief. They’re left to feel that they exist in a secret, underground, fringe community whose freedoms are in jeopardy if they speak their truth. I think most religious people would be shocked to learn how many nonbelievers there are in the US. Some are probably sitting in pews on most Saturdays or Sundays, right next to believers.

Nonbelievers come from every walk of life. We’re teachers, lawyers, doctors, nurses, technicians, engineers, gardeners, janitors, soldiers, homemakers, florist, bankers (good ones), politicians (also good ones), you name it. What distinguishes us is that we have learned to THINK FOR OURSELVES; we are free thinkers. We don’t need religious dogma to tell us how to do good work or what it means to be a moral, compassionate human being.

Most atheists who donate their time, money, and energy to charity are not motivated by the wrath of a supernatural entity, by institutionalized pressures to do good work, or by expected Earthly or Heavenly rewards. Yes, there are atheists/nonbelievers who are hateful, inhumane, and mean spirited, just as there religious people who are hateful, inhumane and mean spirited too. These negative descriptors are not synonymous only with atheism.

It must be frightening to religious believers to realize that the number of nonbelievers is growing. Due to the prevailing ignorance perpetuated by believers with a vested interest in maintaining the status quo, it’s time for organizations of nonreligious freethinkers to do whatever they can to educate the public and dispel the age-old myth that atheists/nonbelievers are immoral, selfish, and not charitable. Atheists need to become more vocal and visible in numbers, not just as lone activists doing anonymous good works, not for recognition per se, but for educational purposes so that anyone now and in the future can be free to choose not to believe.

Related posts:

1. FL Governor Crist Assaults Atheist; Apology Demanded