A Christian Response to the “New Science of Morality” – Part III

To speak specifically of human beings for the moment: any change that can affect a change in human consciousness would lead to a translation across the moral landscape. So changes to our genome, and changes to our economic systems — and changes occurring on any level in between that can affect human well-being for good or for ill — would translate into movements within this hypothetical space of possible human experience.

Sam Harris continues to argue for an “objective” kind of morality while clearly admitting its subjective nature. I’m not sure I can think of a more vague and unstable system of morality than the following (or, to put it in Frank Peretti’s terms, I can’t think of a chair with more wheels):

A few interesting things drop out of this model: Clearly, it is possible, or even likely, that there are many peaks on the moral landscape. To speak specifically of human communities: perhaps there is a way to maximize human flourishing in which we follow Peter Singer as far as we can go, and somehow train ourselves to be truly dispassionate to friends and family, without weighting our children’s welfare more than the welfare of other children, and perhaps there’s another peak where we remain biased toward our own children, within certain limits, while correcting for this bias by creating a social system which is, in fact, fair. Perhaps there are a thousand different ways to tune the variable of selfishness versus altruism, to land us on a peak on the moral landscape.

However, there will be many more ways to not be on a peak. And it is clearly possible to be wrong about how to move from our present position to the nearest available peak. This follows directly from the observation that whatever conscious experiences are possible for us are a product of the way the universe is. Our conscious experience arises out of the laws of nature, the states of our brain, and our entanglement with the world. Therefore, there are right and wrong answers to the question of how to maximize human flourishing in any moment.

This becomes incredibly easy to see when we imagine there being only two people on earth: we can call them Adam and Eve. Ask yourself, are there right and wrong answers to the question of how Adam and Eve might maximize their well-being? Clearly there are. Wrong answer number one: they can smash each other in the face with a large rock. This will not be the best strategy to maximize their well-being.

Again, as it was observed in the last post in this series, “maximizing well being” can mean almost anything under the sun, whether killing 6 million Jews or recycling tin cans. As far as “our conscious experience arises out of the laws of nature,” it is unclear what laws Harris is referring to (i.e. universal abstract laws of nature?)

…The truth is, science is not value-free. Good science is the product of our valuing evidence, logical consistency, parsimony, and other intellectual virtues. And if you don’t value those things, you can’t participate in the scientific conversation. I’m saying we need not worry about the people who don’t value human flourishing, or who say they don’t. We need not listen to people who come to the table saying, “You know, we want to the cut heads off adulterers at half-time at our soccer games because we have a book dictated by the Creator of the universe which says we should.” In response, we are free to say, “Well, you appear to be confused about everything. Your “physics” isn’t physics, and your “morality” isn’t morality.” These are equivalent moves, intellectually speaking. They are borne of the same entanglement with real facts about the way the universe is. In terms of morality, our conversation can proceed with reference to facts about the changing experiences of conscious creatures. It seems to me to be just as legitimate, scientifically, to define “morality” in this way as it is to define “physics” in terms of the behavior of matter and energy. But most people engaged in of the scientific study of morality don’t seem to realize this.

That’s because most people engaged in the scientific study of morality realize that if a Creator exists, then the creatures are accountable to Him for how they behave. If a Person created everything, everything has to be viewed differently.

The number of internal inconsistencies in this one paragraph are almost uncountable. There are obviously a few questions that need to be asked (from a presuppositionalist perspective):

The truth is, science is not value-free. Wait a minute, whose “truth”? Whence did this “truth” emerge? Is this a universal statement or not? If so, how can that be justified, let alone be known to conscious creatures? And, what is this “value”? Is “value” determined by the same source of this “truth”? If not, why not? Are there two norms – one for truth and another for values? And who determines the difference between something that is a “truth” and something that is a “value” – and upon what criteria?

Good science is the product of our valuing evidence. Wait a minute, “good” science? Since when can science have the attribute of “good”? What is “good”? Who defines it and how can it be known? Is good science the criteria to determine the difference between good science and bad science? If not, then what – and why? And, what if someone values some evidence differently than others? Does this not completely subjectivize “good science”?

Good science is the product of our valuing evidence, logical consistency, parsimony, and other intellectual virtues. Wait a minute, “logical consistency”? Whence came the laws of logic? Are there laws of logic, and if so, are they universal? Abstract entities or concrete objects? Material or immaterial? Are they subjective to human consciousness, or established in creation regardless of consciousness? And, how does one determine the grounds for “intellectual virtues” and nonintellectual virtues (“good science” perhaps?)

And if you don’t value those things, you can’t participate in the scientific conversation. Wait a minute. If Sam Harris is the one who is determining what is “truth,” “value,” “good science,” “logical consistency” and “intellectual virtues,” then how can anyone who disagrees with Harris’ position “participate in scientific conversation” in any circumstance? I mean, if Harris is defining what “scientific conversation” is, isn’t Harris determining beforehand who will be engaging in discussion in the first place? For example, if “scientific conservation” means “not Christianity,” then are not all Christians automatically disqualified from participating in any kind of “scientific conservation” whatsoever?

In terms of morality, our conversation can proceed with reference to facts about the changing experiences of conscious creatures. It seems to me to be just as legitimate, scientifically, to define “morality” in this way as it is to define “physics” in terms of the behavior of matter and energy. OK, but, how do you get the “facts” about “changing experience of conscious creatures” if the very means of obtaining those facts is that same “human consciousness” (as Harris earlier declared)? If Harris is correct, then naturalistic empiricism is destroyed because the purely subjective (“changing”!) experience of creatures is the entire foundation through which “scientific” “facts” of “morality” emerge. And, this will create some problems, especially with regard to what is “scientific” and “legitimate” and what isn’t. I mean, what if the scientific method coupled with empiricism produces “facts” about morality (i.e. “produce as many humans as you can; run around and have as much sex with as many women as possible”) that differs from the New Science of Morality of Harris (i.e. “today, monogamy is our community standard”)? Does not Harris realize that his entire theory of morality will inherently be at conflict with the rest of mainstream science in addition to biblical Christianity?

In conclusion, Harris wants objective standards without an objective standard. He wants to say “this is wrong” without a moral norm. Hopefully Christians and others will be able to cut through the fog and evaluate the New Science of Morality accurately. It is, indeed, not a “science” at all, but a complex and opinionated outworking of unbelieving presuppositions in the moral, religious, and societal spheres.