Faith Fails, Science Saves

It is apparently controversial to say that science will be able to tell us what is important in life. Science, as paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould said, tells us how the heavens go, while religion tells us how to go to heaven. And for the most consequential things, it seems that science must yield to faith when considering what it means to have a good life.

But there is something gravely wrong with this kind of thinking. What it says is that reason cannot be used to distinguish right from wrong, happiness from suffering. But, even if reason, evidence, and methodical thought fail to illuminate our understanding of what constitutes a life worth living, what are our alternatives?

The mere suggestion that science can determine how we ought to behave understandably irks religious conservatives. For the faithful, this is an act of war against religion, which has always claimed for itself the realm of ethics and human values. That this assumption of moral authority still holds sway, when religions have failed in accurately representing practically anything in the world, is baffling. If religious traditions have been completely wrong about what goes on in the universe, why would they suddenly be unquestionably correct about what goes on in the mind?

A morality that is not based on authoritarian precepts is merely the acceptance that the world is not black and white and actions can have unforeseen consequences. And a science of morality would have to agree with what religious demagogues have been saying all along: there are moral truths to be found and there are objectively wrong ways to act. It seems especially strange then that, while they decry moral relativism, conservatives try to explain away the disgusting depravities in the Bible by calling for them to be placed in “context.” This precisely argues for a relativist morality—justifying mass murders (by Yahweh himself), rapes, and social outlooks by the culture at the time.

Saying that there are objectively good acts means only that there is a difference between an action that can bring about happiness and another that results in suffering. We can be right or wrong on whether homophobia is conducive to well-being. We can be right or wrong on whether misogyny is a good principle on which we should run our society. Our beliefs regarding these matters are, essentially, claims about conscious experience—how the brain responds to stimuli and how well-being is realized in the brain. And in this realm of facts, as in all others, there is no reason to put religious claims on a pedestal.

As we study more about the brain, our opinions on ethics will become increasingly constrained by psychological research and neuroscience. Findings such as those on the effect of corporal punishment on children and on the structural differences between the brains of normal and psychopathic human beings will change how we relate to each other and how we organize our societies. Our traditional views on parental roles and on how responsible people are for their actions may be altered as we continue to investigate how the evolved mind interacts with its surroundings. We might find that our justice system is not conducive to a peaceful society. We might find that our economic system inevitably leads to abuse and suffering. We might find possibilities for moral awareness that were never available to our pre-scientific ancestors or contemporary religious leaders.

There is public trust in science for many things that we’d never look to religion for answers, such as in believing in corrective glasses over faith healing. But, why is it that when the stakes are highest, when we are considering lives and the happiness of conscious human beings, science, reason, and logic take a back seat? The question on what makes a life worth living is, to say the least, hard to solve, but there are answers: based on facts and not on the musings of men who thought that all animals used to be herbivores.

Not only is science considered impotent when contemplating the deeper questions in life, it is generally believed that rationality ruins romance.

Consider the classic challenge against atheists. When questioning the existence of God, atheists are invariably asked to compare God with love. That is, love is said to be intangible and it admits of no rational inquiry, but we know it’s there. We can just feel it. While the analogy is false (love is realized in the brain as the sum total of specific neural activity and, thus, exists in the natural world), it reveals a common perception that scientific scrutiny is incompatible with an awareness for wonder in this world.

But that is clearly not true. The chemical process that results in feelings of love is itself a thing to behold and appreciate. That there is something material underlying our affection for others or art takes nothing away from our experience. And here we can expand our moral circle beyond even just humans.

Since our capacity for love and moral action evolved (not to say that morality should reflect the cruelty of Darwinian natural selection), it necessarily implies that other animals have similar, if not identical, capacities for compassion and cooperation. And here is where Christianity, in particular, is extremely impoverished. That humans (and specific kinds of men) are set apart by God is nothing short of speciesism and bigotry. Though there are cognitive differences between humans and other animals, that is what differentiates our moral responsibility to each other and not the entitlement assumed to be bestowed by a creator.

A non-supernatural outlook emphasizes the importance of our relationships in the here and now. We should thank doctors for healing us; we should thank farmers for providing for us food; we should thank our friends and families for comfort and companionship. These are the people who should matter to us, and attributing our happiness to something that isn’t there steals away from what other people rightly deserve.

Many believe that one day the world will end and that this would be the greatest thing that could ever possibly happen. Every action we do here in life is meaningless outside the goal of eternal paradise. This nihilism is why we must rid ourselves of religion wholesale. How could we ever endeavor to build a lasting society when our neighbors secretly yearn for doom and destruction, leaving all us suckers who never bought into religion to burn in perpetual torment. These are beliefs that are not conducive to mental health, let alone peace and human flourishing.

Science allows us to comprehend the world around us in a way our ancestors never could. Still, many choose to bind themselves to the follies of the past, relying not on evidence but on the servile desire to let other men think for themselves. It is a shame, when available to us now are methods and insights that will allow us to not only have greater knowledge, but a deeper and more meaningful understanding of what it means to be alive and how we must act.

The acceptance that all that there is is this natural world requires from us the understanding that there is no delaying justice to an afterlife. There is no point in deferring mercy and charity to a final judgement. If we yearn for anything that would resemble heaven, our only choice is to create it here.

22 comments

  1. Can I join the learning experience?

    //If there is no morality based on an supreme objective standard of behavior, then whose standard of moral behavior do we use to judge right from wrong?//

    How about we follow yours as a human being. Remove the fact that you have religion to back up your stand on morality will not push you to do evil things. Human experience on morality have sustained life for centuries and it would be a shame to say that it would have not happened if everyone during those times were human beings without proper guidance of morality. As a human being you know this to be true. Killing, stealing, raping, torturing, abusing, etc. does not need morality on a supreme objective standard of behavior to know that such acts are wrong. Morality on a supreme objective standard of behavior borrowed them from human experience.

    It is you, the human being, is the standard of moral behavior which have been taught by experience.

    The good life is one inspired by love and guided by knowledge. – B. Russell

  2. No I didn't say anything about the Catholic brand of morality. My simple question to you was: If there is no morality based on an supreme objective standard of behavior, then whose standard of moral behavior do we use to judge right from wrong?
    You didn't answer it. You never do!

  3. Your title is highly inappropriate, science is neutral it can be beneficial and it can be disastrous. It's the people behind them that cause the benefit.

    • //Your title is highly inappropriate, science is neutral it can be beneficial and it can be disastrous.//

      Let me put it this way: Science put people on the moon. Religion sent a plane into a building. See the difference?

      • Nope science didn't put people on the moon, SCIENTISTS did and among those scientists, even among those astronauts, were many Christians and even Catholics. Science is neutral. it is a tool that both atheists and believers use to make this world a better place to live in (usually). While indeed some faiths do have the propensity to make their believers want to drive planes into buildings, again, it is the individual and his faulty interpretation of what that faith teaches that does that. This can be said of science too …eugenics for example, was pertinent in forming the genocide of the Nazi's and yet you do not hear Christians saying that "science is bad". A neutral thing can neither be bad nor good. i hope you understand this.

        • //This can be said of science too …eugenics for example, was pertinent in forming the genocide of the Nazi's and yet you do not hear Christians saying that "science is bad".//

          The eugenics card raised by the Nazis in WWII has been long considered pseudo-science that was driven more by racist ideology than any real facts.

          • It was real science to them wasn't it. You are merely looking at it from the perspective of today. Bloodletting was considered mainstream medical treatment before and so was moving TB patients to humid places. The science of before may be pseudo today which makes my point which you have not tackled that science is neutral as far as saving and goodness is concerned.

          • //It was real science to them wasn't it.//

            It wasn't to the rest of the scientific community. Since when did the likes of Himmler take precedence over the opinions of real scientists and researchers?

            //You are merely looking at it from the perspective of today.//

            Hundreds of thousands of Jewish-Americans, British, and French soldiers who went to war over the Nazi menace mindset back in the 40s would beg to differ.

            Unless you're insinuating they time-travelled to our time, realized that Nazis are truly evil, and decided that they should follow our perspective.

        • //While indeed some faiths do have the propensity to make their believers want to drive planes into buildings, again, it is the individual and his faulty interpretation of what that faith teaches that does that.//

          Now you're resorting to special pleading. Religion is a primary motivator for some of the more detestable acts humanity is responsible for. One classic example being slavery.
          http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/ava358013.sht

          Numbers 31 of the Bible is another example.

          • Nope you're wrong. Slavery was an institution that pre-existed Christianity which means that it could not be Christianity that motivated it and Christianity through the Quakers and Puritans started the abolitionist movement, did you forget that Martin Luther King is THE Reverend MLK? Besides the slavery that was extant in the ancient world was not the same RACIAL slavery was introduced to the west in the 17th century. Spain declared in the 16th century that there was to be no practice slavery in its colonies by virtue of a Papal note. Where were atheists while all these was going on?

          • //Nope you're wrong. Slavery was an institution that pre-existed Christianity which means that it could not be Christianity that motivated it and Christianity through the Quakers and Puritans started the abolitionist movement, did you forget that Martin Luther King is THE Reverend MLK?//

            That doesn't change the fact that the bible itself condones slavery on several counts – and that these abolitionist movements managed to do so with considerable reinterpretation of biblical texts. If the bible has been as upfront on morality, it wouldn't have taken the appearance of the Quakers and Puritans for its followers to realize slavery was wrong now, would it?

            Meanwhile, we also have various groups in the Southern United States trying to justify slavery through the bible.
            http://www.amazon.com/Noahs-Curse-Biblical-Justif

            //Spain declared in the 16th century that there was to be no practice slavery in its colonies by virtue of a Papal note. Where were atheists while all these was going on? //

            We weren't "technically" slaves. We just happened to be second-class citizens that received no representation in Spain, and were treated as the personal playthings of Dominicans, Franciscans, and other local church orders.

            Yeah, a huge difference there. /sarcasm.

            A shame your Filipino history isn't as sharp as your apologetics. May I recommend a Celdran tour of old Intramuros?

          • Study first so you don't have your foot in your mouth: Commercial slavery and racial slavery entered the west through Portuguese and Dutch traders. It's another cop-out to say "well they were Christians, therefor…" show me that Catholicism itself advocates, pushes and actively condones (not only keeps silent) slavery.

  4. If there is no morality based on an supreme objective standard of behavior, then whose standard of moral behavior do we use to judge right from wrong?

      • So the problem is that your confused between what Christian morality teaches and what Christians themselves practice. For you to prove that Christian morality is flawed, you have to examine what it teaches, not what some Christians think it teaches. I have read the link above and the discussion is going to be too long here. Suffice it to say that looking at any ancient historical culture from our perspective will always make that culture look barbaric and wrong. At any rate, how about the Atomic bomb and Japan, what was that? Am i correct to say that science sucks because "look at what a product of science did", no of course not, this is a non sequitur because science itself is neutral.

        • //For you to prove that Christian morality is flawed, you have to examine what it teaches, not what some Christians think it teaches. //

          Fair enough. Let's hear what Jesus says about several matters:

          But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.
          – Jesus, in Luke 19:27

          I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing. If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.
          – Jesus, in John 15:6

          But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
          – Jesus, in Matthew 8:10-12

          The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.
          – Jesus, in Matthew 13:41-42

          Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting
          And that servant [slave], which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.
          – Jesus, in Luke 12:47

          Condemnation of people to hellfire and suffering, condoning of slavery, and at least one count of him ordering his followers to slay non-believers. Straight from the horse's mouth.

          //Suffice it to say that looking at any ancient historical culture from our perspective will always make that culture look barbaric and wrong. //

          And a good deal of what is barbaric and wrong also happens to be religiously motivated. The Crusades. The pogroms. The Inquisition. The Murphy and Cloyne Report. I can keep going.

          • Oh so now parables are meant to be treated literally as advocating violence? Seriously? The parables regarding eternal punishment is condoning violence, not justice, really? LOL xD

Leave a reply

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here