Richard Weikart, author of The Death of Humanity And the Case for Life, reviews James Davison Hunter and Paul Nedelisky’s new book, Science and the Good: The Tragic Quest for the Foundations of Morality
There are many scientific problems with this project. Hunter and Nedelisky, however, only rarely point out the empirical difficulties. (They do point out the problems with Paul Zak’s claims about a “moral molecule.”) This is likely for the sake of argument. However, their critique would have been stronger if they had asked more questions about the scientific evidence. Instead, for the most part they accept the descriptive claims.
However, they still point out a glaring problem. Many of these “moral scientists” overreach by making prescriptive claims. They express moral approval or disapproval for certain behaviors. This misleads many people into thinking they are making real moral claims. However, they have redefined morality by rejecting moral realism.
Why all this confusion? Part of the reason, I think, is that the “moral scientists” are themselves conflicted. Their naturalistic approach tells them one thing: Morality has no objective reality. However, their conscience and experiences tell them something else: Some moral positions really are superior to others.
In my book, The Death of Humanity, I provide many examples of intellectuals who dismiss morality as non-objective. However, in their real life they are fanatically committed to moral positions. Richard Weikart, “Science and the Good: Can Science Help Us Learn How to Live?” at The Stream
Actually, rejecting moral realism makes a lot of sense if people plan simply to impose morality by rigid rules and constant surveillance. Then, they can’t be questioned even if the system is suddenly reprogrammed at the drop of a hat.
Follow UD News at Twitter!
See also: Richard Weikart on the anti-Semitic burst in evolutionary psychology
and
The Subjectivists Are Good at Emoting; Arguing, Not So Much (Barry Arrington)
One wonders why a nat/mat would even bother to seek a basis for morality unless its felt that one is needed for public relations purposes.
There is no conflict. It is perfectly possible to deny that morality has any objective basis while feeling strongly about one’s own moral beliefs.
Besides, what other basis can there be but feelings? Theists argue that their morality is handed down to them by their preferred deity but what is that but just another opinion? Were they the product of reason or just a divine coin-toss? We’re never told. God does not deign to provide us with a detailed account of the reasoning behind His edicts – assuming there was any.
As for the notion that morality is somehow woven into the fabric of the Universe, when was that done – at the Big Bang? Moral guidance for humanity was set in stone over 14 billion years before the beings for whom it is intended came into existence? It sounds like just another attempt to justify human exceptionalism. It also sounds absurd.
as to:
To which Seversky responds:
Actually the claim that morality is illusory, and yet the Atheistic Materialist inability to live his life as if morality were actually illusory, as he adamantly claims, is a direct conflict between the atheist’s claim and how he actually lives his life.
As the following article states: Nobody thinks his daughter is just molecules in motion and nothing but; nobody thinks the Holocaust was evil, but only in a relative, provisional sense. A materialist who lived his life according to his professed convictions—understanding himself to have no moral agency at all, seeing his friends and enemies and family as genetically determined robots—wouldn’t just be a materialist: He’d be a psychopath.
Contrary to whatever inaccuracies and/or lies that you are currently telling yourself Seversky (so as to hide from God I might add), this impossibility for Atheists to live consistently within their stated worldview directly undermines their claim that Atheism is true
Specifically, as the following article points out, if it is impossible for you to live your life consistently as if atheistic materialism were actually true, then atheistic materialism cannot possibly reflect reality as it really is but atheistic materialism must instead be based on a delusion.
Moreover Seversky it is not only morality that becomes illusory within the Atheist’s Materialistic worldview, you yourself, as a real person, become illusory as well.
Here are a few quotes to get this point across:
Please tell me Seversky, if you really exist, why in blue blazes should I trust anything an illusion has to say about reality?
Moreover, besides our sense of self, along with our sense of morality, becoming illusions, there are many other things that also become illusory in the Atheist’s materialistic worldview:
In fact, although the Darwinist firmly believes he is on the terra firma of science, the fact of the matter is that Darwinists are adrift in an ocean of fantasy and imagination with no discernible anchor for reality to grab on to:
Thus, although the Darwinian Atheist firmly believes he is on the terra firma of science (in his appeal, even demand, for methodological naturalism), the fact of the matter is that, when examining the details of his materialistic/naturalistic worldview, it is found that Darwinists/Atheists are adrift in an ocean of fantasy and imagination with no discernible anchor for reality to grab on to.
It would be hard to fathom a worldview more antagonistic to modern science than Atheistic materialism and/or methodological naturalism have turned out to be.
Of supplemental note: In the following article, which is an excellent read, (and which I just read this morning), it is pointed out that even our concept of humanity itself becomes illusory within the Atheistic Materialist’s worldview:
One final note, every time I ponder the abject failure of Atheistic Materialism to provide any objective basis for discerning what is real from what is illusory, I am reminded of Poe’s poem, “A Dream within a Dream”
Verse:
Sev
The conflict he was talking about was not whether people can have their own moral beliefs. He said …
If so, why such vehemence in their moral condemnations of those who dare to disagree?
There should be no condemnation of other people’s views. That’s the conflict. In the subjectivist view, one’s morals are “right for that individual”. They cannot be projected on society because any other subjective view is just as valid. You cannot insist that your personal view has to be accepted by everyone else.
That’s the difference with objective morals – all people must (and do) accept them.
At the very least, a teaching that comes from prophet for example, can be evaluated, as the prophet himself can be. In Catholicism, for example, a system of morals can be studied and analyzed. Reasons are given for each of the moral statements. Values are fixed. That’s a lot different than just having feelings about something, or than someone’s personal, uninformed opinion.
As explained in detail elsewhere – natural, objective moral principles are part of rational, human nature. Other moral norms are developed by reasoning from those first principles. After that, theological teachings from God give more detail and refinement.
In the subjectivist view, it is as you say – just feelings. The individual can change opinions. There is no accountability. The individual is the lawmaker, defendant, prosecutor and judge in all moral issues. If a certain moral rule is constantly disobeyed, the rule can be changed. What was considered evil yesterday could be considered good today. There is no reason why not.
You’re wondering what the precise day and time was when God had the idea for the creation and design of human life?
Ok, think about it.
God is the First Cause – without beginning.
Understood?
NYU professor Jonathan Haidt, who is anything but a dyed-in-the-wool conservative, makes a valiant but misguided attempt find a naturalistic basis for morality in an article that was republished last year in the National Review. Does he succeed? I think he falls short. Here are a few excerpts from his article:
Haidt is alarmed by the way illiberal tribalism has begun to take over our democratic institutions– the media, higher education and government. Can a diverse multi-ethnic culture like we find in the United States survive a resurrected form of tribalism? If the trends continue the way they have been going for the last the last 50 years, the answer, in my opinion, is NO.
It appears to me that the secular progressive left have gone all in with tribal identity politics. Despite claims to the contrary, they really don’t have arguments based on reason, facts, evidence, logic and truth; rather it’s a commitment to group-think– “we are reasonable and right because of who we are.” Again that kind of group-think was/is also typical of Marxists and Fascists. That should be no surprise much of the secular-progressive left is made up of cultural Marxists. Haidt appears to agree with me:
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/.....ge-outrage
(*Emphasis added.)