Morality in the Absence of Religion
A path to a happier, healthier, and more balanced life.
Anyone who wants to understand the world should be open to new facts and new arguments, even on subjects where his or her views are very well established. Similarly, anyone truly interested in morality — in the principles of behavior that allow people to flourish — should be open to new evidence and new arguments that bear upon questions of happiness and suffering. Clearly, the chief enemy of open conversation is dogmatism in all its forms. Dogmatism. — Sam Harris
Psychological Time
P (person) lives in the mode of psychological time — through memory and anticipation — with mostly ambivalence to any other way of living. It is possible, though, that there might be some part of P that doubts his reality. Well, from here, it seems rational, then, that we could entertain a position — although probably a very narrow one at best — in a way that conveys an urgency to set P free from despair.
In the first part of this series, I argued that psychological time is just an illusion of reality. But perhaps there are a few spectators that would disagree. Or maybe there are some that observed the picture painted beforehand with some misconceptions on the details presented. Well, I will certainly try to clear up those misconceptions here.
In light of this, it is important that we use terms that are appropriate for an ego-conscious experience. When describing such experience as “spiritual”, we must be careful in the way in which we coin it. Other terms might include: contemplative, transcendent, or mystical — but the etymology of these words has, unfortunately, made such an unnecessary barrier for this discussion. I mean there really isn’t any other way to describe an experience as such. Therefore, the use of Spiritual will just have to do for now.
And if there is any doubt in my reader pertaining to the validity of such a view, it will be a little harder than attempting to convince me that a “desire” to be P — at any point in time — is, or at least could be, a rational position to hold. In defense of my view, I certainly hope our attempt to be isn’t prevailed by a lower state of consciousness to want (unauthentic desire).
Moreover, if you identify as being religious, spiritual (in the traditional sense), or what have you, it would be safe to say that you arrived to the conclusion that faith is necessary in order to be a moral, rational agent. I will argue, however, that this is not, in the slightest bit, a rational or moral position to hold. And given my position on the matter of morality, in order to progress towards change of any kind, we must utilize the process of sound questioning.
Therefore, in accordance with this examination, it is my belief that sound questioning arises when we challenge what we think to be true to sound evidence that could prove it otherwise. As a result of this process, we become more than just a capable moral agent — we become that which is a moral agent.
Morality
The answer to the question, ‘What should I believe, and why should I believe it?’ is generally a scientific one. Believe a proposition because it is well supported by theory and evidence; believe it because it has been experimentally verified; believe it because a generation of smart people have tried their best to falsify it and failed; believe it because it is true (or seems so). This is a norm of cognition as well as the core of any scientific mission statement. As far as our understanding of the world is concerned — there are no facts without values. — Sam Harris
Given our tight position, we would be better off arguing from a position of what reality is rather than what reality seems to be. But in telling P what reality is we must prescribe what is to the reality in which it will manifest itself. It is only in this way that we can understand the moral landscape. Therefore, the facts and logic pertaining to sentient beings (extraterrestrial included) will, at the very least, explain a particular kind of view through which morality can and, more strongly, must manifest itself.
If there are objective truths to be known about human well-being — if kindness, for instance, is generally more conductive to happiness than cruelty is — then science should one day be able to make very precise claims about which of our behaviors and uses of attention are morally good, which are neutral, and which are worth abandoning. — Sam Harris
Without a doubt, the process of scientific flourishment gives us hope that we are looking at the world in an accurate way. This is what we know to be true, fundamentally. In light of this, we will look at the views set forth by Michael Shermer and Sam Harris, in hopes of dissolving the is and ought divide (or the separation of facts from values and science from God). In doing so, we must conclude how to think about the universe; more specifically, how we must think about reality, that’s.
What we know to be true about the mind, human behavior, and the survival and flourishing of a species eventually boils down to what we have discovered through the edge of scientific exploration.
Natural selection is anything but random…. Today the theory of evolution is about as much open for doubt as the theory that the earth goes around the sun.— Richard Dawkins
We are the representatives of the cosmos; we are an example of what hydrogen atoms can do, given 15 billion years of cosmic evolution. — Carl Sagan
It is incontrovertibly true that all individual sentient life has a natural instinct to survive and flourish. And it is by this adaptation that we have the ability to have rights at all. But the only way to know that we are right or wrong in possession of these rights is due in large by result of using logic to think through problems, and backing such conclusions on the basis of empirical evidence.
Pretending to know things one doesn’t know is a betrayal of science — and yet it is the lifeblood of religion.
— Sam Harris
To be clear, it’s not that there is some perfect state of Being, or utopia of some sort that we are looking to achieve. What we are looking for, however, is the certainty that comes with moving into the future. And I believe science to be the only way to find such certainty. Furthermore, the facts gained by science — pertaining to the state of our reality — ensures the reliability of what it is that we are trying to manifest: and more importantly, if it is at all delusional to see a future in the way we might envision it to be. The neologism protopia proposes the best outlook in my view: “… incremental progress in steps toward improvement, not perfection.” (Michael Shermer). At the very least, we can count on the future being better than it was before.
At this point, I hope it is obvious how unauthentic attachments (desires, denial, religion, etc.) translate into more troubling matters later on, e.g., acts of violence, obsession, sinister, envy, bigotry, and so on. But before moving the ball any further, I assume that we have concluded that when aiming on behalf of the ego, we never really have the upper hand in any given situation.
Defeat is a state of mind; no one is ever defeated until defeat has been accepted as reality.
— Bruce Lee
And given that this conclusion is accurate, it is absolutely imperative that we forgo any attempt at jeopardizing our state of awareness. But to aim at all, we need a solid foundation. And what’s more secure than a foundation built on the conscious Being that we are?
This mindful state establishes order by creating peace in the midst of inner-conflict. Similarly, the values that we represent in this state form external order by creating boundaries in the midst of immorality. And finally, the facts from scientific processes elucidate order by discarding the illusions held through ill-informed human observation.
Escaping the illusion of psychological time…
You can’t deduce an ought from an is. But we’re not — or shouldn’t be — trying to deduce; we should be trying to explain.
— David Deutsch.
Respectfully, science is meant to do the explaining, not religion.
By moral progress of any kind, there must be right and wrong answers on what constitutes a reach in any given direction. After all, to be aimless is to be demolished by chaos. But despite all the chaos, we accept that there is, in fact, meaning in life.
Needless to say, any and all unauthentic aims that we might possibly have will surely result an attachment to the egoic mind. As we’ve concluded, any attachment to the egoic mind is bad, and will always be bad in relation to the well-being of any sentient experience.
On the other hand, authentic aims that we happen to manifest will, without a doubt, prove to be the right direction towards that which would be good for human experience. It must follow then that the duty of a Being, as it pertains to morality, is to reach for that which is good for the well-being of the individual.
As Harris would say, “Where lack of evidence is normally a bug, it remains a feature for religion.” Similarly, it would certainly seem odd for me to explain to you why I hold a valid position if I’m not at all even able to appeal to you, or anyone else for that matter, with solid reasons and evidence to support such views. Therefore, our foundation, as it appears to me, must be on grounds of solid evidence and nothing else to the contrary.
Water is two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen. What if someone says, ‘Well, that’s not how I choose to think about water.’ All we can do is appeal to scientific values. And if he doesn’t share those values, the conversation is over. If someone doesn’t value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide to prove that they should value it? If someone doesn’t value logic, what logical argument could you provide to show the importance of logic? — Sam Harris
Of course, this understanding has led us to believe that suffering is inevitable. But be careful here: this doesn’t invalidate the validity of an ego-conscious state. If anything it fortifies a case to argue that Spiritual experience proves to be imperative, especially under the duress of suffering. This mindful state establishes order by creating peace in the midst of inner-conflict. The values that we represent in this state form external order by creating boundaries in the midst of immorality. And facts from scientific processes elucidate order by discarding the illusions held through ill-informed human observation.
How we pay attention to the present moment largely determines the character of our experience and, therefore, the quality of our lives. Mystics and contemplatives have made this claim for ages — but a growing body of scientific research now bears it out.
— Sam Harris
With that being said, this doesn’t at all mean that faith in a supernatural deity is necessary. Whether we end up carrying the weight of well-being or maintaining the conditions of the mind, we are inclined to accept that life has meaning, regardless of its apparent chaotic and lethal nature. If we decide not to, however, the residue of existential despair becomes that meaning; and it doesn’t take long for us to realize the utility of nihilism, or perhaps optimistic nihilism, if it so happens to be.
In retrospect, it is clear why some end up in such a predicament. Dogmatism has and continues to be a disservice to those that are reasonably coherent and sensible. If I may, there is another way….
The truth is that many who claim to be transformed by Christ’s love are deeply, even murderously intolerant of criticism. While we may want to ascribe this to human nature, it is clear that such hatred draws considerable support from the bible. How do I know this? The most disturbed of my correspondents always cite chapter and verse. — Sam Harris
This non-theistic approach to moral truth provides a foundation for which we can scrutinize and establish order, even in the light of discovering the meaning of life. Yes, at the very least, we know that human experience can’t be negated.
A meaningful life isn’t a result by matter of belief: it is fundamentally a matter of experience. In this way, we move from thinking about what reality seems to be to what reality really is. In other words, we begin to realize the unknowns in the world (as it is) rather than fabricating it to appear to be known (as it is not).
We should be exploring consciousness at the neural level and higher, where the arrow of causal analysis points up toward such principles as emergence and self-organization.— Michael Shermer
Religion, as useful as it may be, does not need to assert itself in order to fulfill the meaning in life. And it certainly doesn’t make any sense for us to know the meaning of life in order to have meaning in life. It should be clear by now that a meaningful life — in reference to an attachment to a divine God of some sort — has nothing to do with faith or doubt, being religious or secular, finding happiness, or anything else for that matter. The meaning of life (as far as we know) is to accept meaning in life. The direction we aim to manifest this understanding is evident in the way we navigate as a Being. It is through our presence of conscious awareness and rationality that prescribes human experience to be of something worth having. But in order for values to have any purpose at all, there must be an appeal to reason: God, philosophy, science, and so on. Therefore, it is extremely important that we actually know the right thing to reason on behalf of.
Given all that we know about religion in general, it would be foolish to associate Spiritual experience to evidence of God. After all, what is there to prevent anyone from believing in false gods and false morality, if this isn’t so? But this might not seal the case against religion, at least not yet.
This, to me, is the true horror of religion: It allows perfectly decent and sane people to believe, by the billions, what only lunatics could believe on their own.
— Sam Harris
We’re an agent, a being — a human being in fact. We agree that human beings need an explanation for our origin. So why does this causal reasoning not apply to God as agent and being?
— Michael Shermer
Religious dogmatism and moral relativism pose some of the greatest threats to the well being of society. But through facts of human well-being, we come to understand the vast difference of any one nature of experience to another. It is in this foundation that we can provide a parameter to which human fallibility is corrected. It would only seem reasonable then to propose that the direction we aim must have some, if not all pertinence to the meaning in life — that’s, all the things that grant us a better conscious experience. And, of course, it is evident that a bottomless pit of suffering is something to be avoided, as this is not good for the progress of a flourishing sentient experience.
I mean wouldn’t the reasonable moral position here argue for the genuine concern for human well-being, rather than for the concern of right and wrong ways to be faithful?
It is important to realize that we avoid this pit of misery not because it is just a bad experience — but because it would be wrong to lay around in it. It is wrong not because it just bad for human well-being, but because it would be wrong, or stand as rather trivial, at the fundamental level of existence. After all, it is fundamentally true that the meaning of life does not exist — at least it doesn’t exist until a later event in time (or maybe not). In other words, existence itself doesn’t have a right and wrong nature to it; we exist so there is something to be experienced, regardless of it being right or wrong. It is in this experience — the Now — that we optimize our Being to the greatest extent possible.
There is nothing passive about mindfulness. One might even say that it expresses a specific kind of passion — a passion for discerning what is subjectively real in every moment. It is a mode of cognition that is, above all, undistracted, accepting, and (ultimately) non-conceptual. Being mindful is not a matter of thinking more clearly about experience; it is the act of experiencing more clearly, including the arising of thoughts themselves. Mindfulness is a vivid awareness of whatever is appearing in one’s mind or body — thoughts, sensations, moods — without grasping at the pleasant or recoiling from the unpleasant. — Sam Harris
It is evident that only conscious experience allows there to even be a morality. Morality, therefore, must be grounded on the fundamental reality of existence — the survival and flourishing of sentient life. Moreover, the separation of an ought (or all the things that we should value) from an is (or all the things that represent facts) does nothing more than attempt to justify the meaning in suffering. But this is, in my view, immensely deceptive. Whether or not there is a meaning to life, conscious experience is important despite a transcendent God commanding it.
With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil — that takes religion.
— Steven Weinberg
In conclusion, our existence is meaningful because suffering is an inherent factor in well-being, just as it is inherent with so-called faith in God. The only difference is the foundation for which morality is built upon.
We do not rely solely upon science and reason, because these are necessary rather than sufficient factors, but we distrust anything that contradicts science or outrages reason. We may differ on many things, but what we respect is free inquiry, open-mindedness, and the pursuit of ideas for their own sake. — Christopher Hitchens
I only ask that you detach your Being from your beliefs and see for yourself. You might proceed to then ask: “What really makes religion so transcendent?”
Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day; teach a man to fish and he will eat for a lifetime; give a man religion and he will die praying for a fish.
— Benjamin Disraeli
