Platt has completely distorted the author's meaning - once again - by taking comments out of context. The author studies primate behavior and one his main points is that morality is much older than religion. It's older than humanity, he says, and we don't need God to explain how we got to this point. The final section of his editorial provides enough context to make the meaning of both quotes quite clear, which is just about the opposite of what Platt's reading suggests.
The Atheist Dilemma Over the past few years, we have gotten used to a strident atheism arguing that God is not great (Christopher Hitchens) or a delusion (Richard Dawkins). The new atheists call themselves “brights,” thus hinting that believers are not so bright. They urge trust in science, and want to root ethics in a naturalistic worldview. While I do consider religious institutions and their representatives — popes, bishops, mega-preachers, ayatollahs, and rabbis — fair game for criticism, what good could come from insulting individuals who find value in religion? And more pertinently, what alternative does science have to offer? Science is not in the business of spelling out the meaning of life and even less in telling us how to live our lives. We, scientists, are good at finding out why things are the way they are, or how things work, and I do believe that biology can help us understand what kind of animals we are and why our morality looks the way it does. But to go from there to offering moral guidance seems a stretch. Even the staunchest atheist growing up in Western society cannot avoid having absorbed the basic tenets of Christian morality. Our societies are steeped in it: everything we have accomplished over the centuries, even science, developed either hand in hand with or in opposition to religion, but never separately. It is impossible to know what morality would look like without religion. It would require a visit to a human culture that is not now and never was religious. That such cultures do not exist should give us pause. Bosch struggled with the same issue — not with being an atheist, which was not an option — but science’s place in society. The little figures in his paintings with inverted funnels on their heads or the buildings in the form of flasks, distillation bottles, and furnaces reference chemical equipment.[4] Alchemy was gaining ground yet mixed with the occult and full of charlatans and quacks, which Bosch depicted with great humor in front of gullible audiences. Alchemy turned into science when it liberated itself from these influences and developed self-correcting procedures to deal with flawed or fabricated data. But science’s contribution to a moral society, if any, remains a question mark. Other primates have of course none of these problems, but even they strive for a certain kind of society. For example, female chimpanzees have been seen to drag reluctant males towards each other to make up after a fight, removing weapons from their hands, and high-ranking males regularly act as impartial arbiters to settle disputes in the community. I take these hints of community concern as yet another sign that the building blocks of morality are older than humanity, and that we do not need God to explain how we got where we are today. On the other hand, what would happen if we were able to excise religion from society? I doubt that science and the naturalistic worldview could fill the void and become an inspiration for the good. Any framework we develop to advocate a certain moral outlook is bound to produce its own list of principles, its own prophets, and attract its own devoted followers, so that it will soon look like any old religion. > From: [email protected] > To: [email protected] > Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2010 17:21:32 -0400 > Subject: Re: [MD] The Moral Landscape > > Hi Steve and all interested, > > Today's NYTimes has an interesting article entitled, "Morals Without God?" > The > author, a biologist, writes: > > "It is impossible to know what morality would be like without religion. It > would require a visit to a human culture that is not now and never was > religious. That such cultures do not exist should give us pause." > > Some cultures come very close to being "without religion." Their contribution > to human well-being is somewhat less than Harris would approve. North Korea > comes to mind. And looking back at cultures without religion in the 20th > century -- "The horror!" Concentration camps, gulags, the Great Leap Forward > -- > those are just the tip of the human misery from "rational" social policies, > exceeding by far the suffering caused in the name of religion. > > The author concludes with this observation: > > "Any framework we develop to advocate a certain moral outlook is bound to > produce its own list of principles, its own prophets, and attract its own > devoted followers, so it will soon look like any old religion." > > A cautionary note lest our approval of Pirsig, Harris or any other > "rationalist" becomes a cult. > > Best, > Platt > > Moq_Discuss mailing list > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > Archives: > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ > http://moq.org/md/archives.html Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org/md/archives.html
