Quote of the day

Here’s my “fisking” of the Harris article:

It can be difficult to think like a scientist. But few things make thinking like a scientist more difficult than religion.

History isn’t on the side of Harris here. Many scientists in history were overtly religious or even motivated by their religious beliefs. In particular, the idea that the universe has an ordered structure that can be understood through observation and study came out of monotheistic thought. As the philosopher Peter van Inwagen noted, science as we know it came out of “monk-ridden” Europe.

But when challenged with alternative accounts of these phenomena — or with evidence that suggests that God might be unloving, illogical, inconsistent or, indeed, absent — Dr. Collins will say that God stands outside of Nature, and thus science cannot address the question of his existence at all.

Has Collins actually responded this way? Or is Harris speculating that Collins would respond this way when confronted with the problem of evil etc.?

But when our moral intuitions recoil at the casual destruction of innocents by, say, a tidal wave or earthquake, Dr. Collins assures us that our time-bound notions of good and evil can’t be trusted and that God’s will is a mystery.

Again, is this what Collins has said? At any rate, tidal waves etc. are examples of non-moral evil, not moral evil. I’m guessing that Harris is broaching the problem of evil–in this case the problem of why God allows non-moral evil–but the PoE is a philosophical issue, not a scientific one. Science makes descriptive claims about nature, not evaluative claims about God, morality, art etc.

Most scientists who study the human mind are convinced that minds are the products of brains, and brains are the products of evolution. Dr. Collins takes a different approach: he insists that at some moment in the development of our species God inserted crucial components — including an immortal soul, free will, the moral law, spiritual hunger, genuine altruism, etc.

I’m not sure that it’s true that most scientists believe that the mind is the product of the brain; the philosophy of mind is still a hot topic, and there are a variety of views about the nature of mind. Here again, we’re dealing with a philosophical issue, not a scientific one. To be sure, scientific evidence is relevant to the debate, but it must always serve as premises in a philosophical argument–by itself it’s not going to support philosophical materialism.

As someone who believes that our understanding of human nature can be derived from neuroscience, psychology, cognitive science and behavioral economics, among others, I am troubled by Dr. Collins’s line of thinking.

So? You’re dedicated to a materialist philosophy of mind–naturally Collins’s views “troubles” you. But this has little to do with science.

I also believe it would seriously undercut fields like neuroscience and our growing understanding of the human mind.

How? As you say, Collins’s “credentials are impeccable.” What’s he going to do?

If we must look to religion to explain our moral sense, what should we make of the deficits of moral reasoning associated with conditions like frontal lobe syndrome and psychopathy? Are these disorders best addressed by theology?

Those conditions mean that someone has lost the capacity for moral reasoning. That has nothing to do with the ultimate nature of morality. Someone may lose the capacity to hear; that has nothing to do with the nature of sound.

Must we really entrust the future of biomedical research in the United States to a man who sincerely believes that a scientific understanding of human nature is impossible?

Again, you’re a philosophical materialist. All well and good. But you shouldn’t conflate philosophical materialism with science. I have no doubt that science can provide us with evidence relevant to the issue of human nature, but philosophical materialism doesn’t follow from this fact.

Bill Ramey on July 28, 2009 at 1:40 AM

What exactly is the problem with each person having their own belief system? I don’t really get it. Really I don’t, honest!

Spiritk9 on July 28, 2009 at 3:15 AM

OK, suppose that a person believes that people of a certain race are inferior and should be slaves. Do you see a problem with that?

I can’t imagine anyone ever having a problem with my beliefs, because I don’t proselytize them. I keep them private.

I doubt that it’s possible or good to keep all beliefs private. We’re going to have, for example, conflicting beliefs about government–that conflict cannot help but be public.

Perhaps everyone else should as well.

You do realize that this contradicts your whole post, because (a) you’re proselytizing and (b) you’re giving public expression to your beliefs about beliefs.

Bill Ramey on July 28, 2009 at 3:38 AM