Truth Is True
I am finally back to Nashville after being away a week (in Vegas and then La Jolla). So this post may be a bit chaotic.
In the hotel in La Jolla I opened up the Bible conveniently placed in the drawers near the bed to find what is currently my favorite passage in the whole book (Job 28: 28): “And to man He said, ‘Behold, the fear of the Lord, that is wisdom, and to depart from evil is understanding.'”
I have mentioned this passage in the past. It strikes me as utterly profound, for it links knowledge with morality. Although Hume’s fact/value dichotomy seemed obvious to me for more than a decade after I first heard it, I no longer think it’s correct–in fact I think “it comes from the devil” literally. (I’m not saying Hume was trying to deceive anybody, just saying that I think it is a pernicious doctrine.)
What’s really ironic about the alleged fact/value dichotomy is that it’s a mere assertion; the way you “blow it up” is simply to ask, “Says who?” (I am pretty sure David Gordon gets into all this stuff in his review of Philippa Foot, but I can’t find it now.) It’s akin to the falsifiability criterion for “scientific” statements. It sounds very plausible, but it’s an assertion.
I don’t have this fully fleshed out yet, but I think this ties in with the recent controversy over Stephen Hawking’s new book. The more I think about it, the more I really like what he (and his co-author) claim. It is really “neat” if the laws of physics themselves can’t help but birth the physical universe as we know it. That sounds very consistent with the notion that God spoke the universe into existence, and that the Word of the Lord is itself Truth.
The difference between my view and that of Hawking, is that Hawking thinks that these particular rules of quantum mechanics are one of an infinite set. The only reason we are standing around pondering, is that this is one possible universe out of an infinity, where the laws happen to be such as to allow the evolution of intelligent beings.
In contrast, I think that our universe is “fine-tuned” to support human life, because God designed it to support human life. On this score, both world views have the same explanatory power, and I’m not sure how to judge them vis-a-vis Occam’s Razor. Yes, it’s assuming a lot to say, “Suppose there is an omniscient, omnipotent, intelligent Being.” But by the same token, it’s assuming a lot to say, “Suppose there are an infinity of alternate realities with every conceivable set of laws of nature, even though in principle we can never observe any of them.”
But I think my theory has more explanatory power. Even if we just so happen to live in one of the infinity of universes that supports intelligent life, why is it that people think “there’s something out there that’s bigger than me”? Plenty of the wisest–note that I didn’t say smartest–humans who have ever lived, have been very spiritual.
In the conventional, rationalist atheist tradition, that seems like an anomaly. It’s like C.S. Lewis observed in his book Surprised By Joy. I’m paraphrasing from memory, but I am pretty sure Lewis said something to the effect that when he was an atheist, he found himself drawn to the great thinkers who had all been Christian. He loved everything about them, except of course for their “irrational” Christianity.
So I want to make a similar point about, say, novelists and film makers. Whether it’s Lord of the Rings or Star Wars, the author is trying to get something across–and the “something” is that there are powerful forces of good and evil that are above us, working through us. Evil is very seductive and on the surface appears stronger, but ultimately it is both moral and wise to side with good, for in the end it will triumph.
As I write this, I can imagine some explanations coming from the rationalist camp. You could say, for example, that this all makes perfect sense–“good” is simply defined as that which brings long-run satisfaction, and it’s more entertaining to embed this definition into a story involving orcs and magic, even though these aren’t real. Fair enough.
Still, there is no instrinsic reason that we should even have a concept of morality. Yet we all perceive it. And most of us at least perceive that there was something very special about Jesus and Buddha and Confucius. I think it is easier for the God hypothesis to explain that than the Hawking story. (And by all means in the comments feel free to argue that Confucianism is a reflection of humanism more than deism.)
I’m with you.
“Still, there is no intrinsic reason that we should even have a concept of morality.”
I would have to disagree with this statement. I think that human morality can be explained around the notion of empathy, which is intrinsic in humans. The “Golden Rule” is a representation of this, (commonly Mathew, 7:12). A person can know or can imagine what it feels like to be on the wrong side of a bad event. They could know or imagine this from direct personal experience or through awareness of bad events happening to someone else. I can see something awful/evil happening to someone else and imagine what they are experiencing.
I’m using all negative terms to describe this but I could just as easily use positive; that a person can know or imagine what it feels like to have something good happen to them.
I started this post in hopes of making it more substantial but, alas, it is late where I am. I hope my point isn’t to vague for its brevity.
P.S. – Great blog! I love your work Dr. M.
It could be argued that morality and superstition are things people evolved either culturally or genetically in order to promote law and order. Take this post by Peter T. Leeson on Gypsy superstition as an example:
http://aidwatchers.com/2010/08/superstition-and-development/
It may be then that these physical laws of the universe that just-so-happened to allow for intelligent also necessitated that if intelligent life were to emerge it would need superstition and morality to survive. Or perhaps there were many routes intelligent life could have taken and it is more or less an accident that we evolved morality and superstition instead of some other mechanism that could achieve similar effects. Frankly I have no idea–this is way beyond me. However, it seems to me that both a God-based theory and a Hawking-based theory can both explain morality, and if one theory finds it easier to explain than the other, that probably more reflects the peculiar makeup of the human brain than relative merit (which of course can be taken as evidence for both sides of the argument).
I’d be inclined to agree with Tim: I can conceive of a very naturalistic, evolution-based path to a morally-aware species, based on the advantageous developments of emotion (a critical development for all higher animals, especially the strongly social ones) and imagination (the first, and still greatest, simulation program on Earth.) A mind that produces emotion and imagination, it seems to me, would naturally be capable of empathy. From there, you can run with Tim’s discussion.
Note that I’m not ruling out anything, with this thought. I’m at an odd, but interesting place with regards to “faith”, as I retreat further and further from a hardline atheism and move closer and closer to… um, well, if I knew the destination, I guess I’d already be there. The arguments in favor of both God and atheism sound plausible to me, although paradoxically, not mutually exclusive. Meanwhile the arguments AGAINST both sound pathetically closed-minded and silly. (Even the ones I used to spout.)
Bob thinks that the universe is “fine-tuned” to support human life, on a cosmological scale. Following the same line of thinking, I also find it plausible that a supreme being could have rigged the game so that a concept of morality inevitably grew from our brains, for whatever purpose. (A more harmonious human civilization… an easier path to find Him…. take your pick.)
Thanks for these Sunday posts, Dr. Murphy. Despite coming here originally to follow your economics writing, I’ve come to anticipate the religion posts even more. My wife — a born-again — does too: she enjoys the conversations that come about from my ponderings on your Sunday posts.
“The more I think about it, the more I really like what he (and his co-author) claim. It is really “neat” if the laws of physics themselves can’t help but birth the physical universe as we know it. That sounds very consistent with the notion that God spoke the universe into existence, and that the Word of the Lord is itself Truth.”
There’s something very interesting that just happened here. You are very perceptive that these views are almost a slight of hand. One main dividing point in terms of the philosophical ramifications is that Hawking’s view defines God (the supreme being) as an entity synonymous with the perfect and complete ” laws of physics”, and the other view defines the perfect laws of physical reality as a quantity existing exclusively within the mind of God (the Supreme Being). Of course, Hawking’s supreme being is not a personal God.
As I tried to point out in your other post on Hawking, these competing views are very ancient (although admittedly that point proves nothing about which is correct), and although they share some similarities (several of the Jesus Seminar folks even claim that Jesus was a first-rate Stoic philosopher and magician), the Apostle Paul unarguably does not view them as compatible, and seems to lump all philosophies that fail to recognize the God of the Bible as idolatry.-“They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.” Romans 1:25 (NIV)
Nice post! Morality isn’t the only victim of materialism. As the late great Francis Schaeffer pointed out, mankind is the real victim. Love, rationality, truth, meaning, everything that it means to be a human instead of an animal, die with a materialistic view of mankind. Of course, atheists can’t live like that, so they claim one thing and act as if it’s not true. Only traditional Christians can be whole people in that our lives don’t contradict our philosophy.
“I have mentioned this passage in the past. It strikes me as utterly profound, for it links knowledge with morality. Although Hume’s fact/value dichotomy seemed obvious to me for more than a decade after I first heard it, I no longer think it’s correct–in fact I think “it comes from the devil” literally. (I’m not saying Hume was trying to deceive anybody, just saying that I think it is a pernicious doctrine.) What’s really ironic about the alleged fact/value dichotomy is that it’s a mere assertion; the way you “blow it up” is simply to ask, “Says who?”
Bob, the way I understand the fact-value dichotomy is by labeling it another way – the is-ought dichotomy. The knowledge of a condition does not necessarily imply that one must engage in an action. Sam Kinison pointed out in his bit on African famine that when the commercial rolls and the voice over comes on asking for aid to famine victims he is pretty sure there is a director and cameraman about five feet away with a sandwich. My knowledge of African famine does not necessarily mean I have to do something about it. I might not be in a position to give aid – that might cause my own family to go hungry. I might have knowledge that the government will intercept the food before it arrives where needed and go to feed the army oppressing those people. I may desire to have a more direct impact and give to local charities where I can more effectively monitor the aid. The fact that a moral question exists doesn’t imply that I have an obligation to answer that question. I think that is what Hume was after. In an age when Bush says “where people hurt, the government must act” we should all take pause at the brilliance of Hume. Some problems are intractable and knowledge of the problem does not mean that the problem is less intractable.
It is interesting to note that you mentioned Star Wars and good/evil mythology and archetypes. After all, as George Lucas repeatedly says, Joseph Campbell’s work on myth informed the writing of Star Wars. After all, Anakin Skywalker/Darth Vader appears to have been “born of a virgin” or, at least, born without copulation. Kind of reminds us of Jesus, Dionysius, et al.
If a person in the world today said that they “derived their morality from the teachings of Poseidon” we would all, justifiably, think they were odd, if not insane. Why do we not react the same way when we hear people say that about Joseph Smith, Muhammad or Jesus? It all is of a piece, men explaining the seemingly unexplainable by resorting to common and worn out mythemes.
“Still, there is no instrinsic reason that we should even have a concept of morality”
I have to disagree with this. Evolution explains perfectly why morality could exist… it leads to a greater Darwinian fitness of the individual if we all have similar morals and are cooperating to uphold them.
The fact that we punish “immorality” speaks loudly to this… we incur a cost on individuals without the morals as the rest of us.
This fits in perfectly with models of evolution.
Knox, so what are you saying, that there is no morality, just personal preferences?
PS, the “is-ought” problem was an invention of Hume. It never existed before him because classical natural law theory used a completely different approach to morality based on “final cause”. Hume couldn’t understand classical moral philosophy (or else he was dishonest), so he simply dismissed it as unsound and invented his own, at the same time inventing all of the problems of modern philosophy. Clearly, Hume wanted to destroy the concept of morality so he invented a philosophy that did so.
“Hume couldn’t understand classical moral philosophy (or else he was dishonest), so he simply dismissed it as unsound and invented his own, at the same time inventing all of the problems of modern philosophy. Clearly, Hume wanted to destroy the concept of morality so he invented a philosophy that did so.”
Clearly? Really? Hume couldn’t understand? Massive assumptions there fundamentalist.
I am not saying there objective moral statements aren’t possible. If I had extra food and there is a starving person in my vicinity I would be morally obliged to share. What I am saying is that a person half-way around the world doesn’t necessarily require an action on my part because there may be contextual elements that preclude my action or actively discourages my action. The brute fact of a starving person doesn’t overcome doesn’t imply that I must stop working for my own family’s needs.
I think you and I differ as to the source of objective morality – not that there is one.
Sorry for the typos there.
“If I had extra food and there is a starving person in my vicinity I would be morally obliged to share.”
Why?
Because if I were similarly situated I would wanted to be treated in that fashion, for starters.
That’s a religious principle. What is the logical reason that I should care about others? You have merely adopted religious morality as your own, but that’s an arbitrary decision.
I hate to be the bearer of bad news but just because a principle has been enunciated by a religion doesn’t necessarily make it a religious principle. The Golden Rule is common amongst many religions. The ubiquity of the rule argues for it being a human response rather than a mystical one.
The “adoption” of a rule by a religious group may be nothing more than codifying commonly held moral intuitions which are then elevated to the status of law. For example, the injunction against eating pork (not necessarily a moral intuition but it is funny and proves the point). Before the advent of scientific understanding of the germ theory of disease, etc. people made the connection between pork and fatal disease. Rather than trying to argue to someone about causality the religious authority took the next best step which is to say “don’t eat pork because God said so.” Many religious practices and edicts are short hand ways of explaining both common and uncommon phenomena to the stupid.