So what next?

In the past few years, with numerous books dedicated to discussion of the godless condition, there has been a lot of talk about science, the recognition of science and its popularity. Political attacks on science have been well discussed. The issue of the (in)compatibility of science and religion has been done to death it feels, but there is still a great deal to be said on that front.

Science versus Woo and the cognitive skills to tell between the two have emerged (or re-emerged?) from this dialogue. The Baloney Detection kit (named in honor of Carl Sagan), hosted by Michael Shermer and being the first production by RDF (Richard Dawkins Foundation) TV, reinforces the values of critical thinking.

With all this critical thinking having so far been applied to a lot of people’s cherished ideas, you may be forgiven for asking “well that’s all fine, but what about something really important? How does this effect people lives? What about the poor? How will criticising the things people hold dear improve people’s welfare?”

There are very practical examples where science and/or reason still, in today’s modern society, need to be applied with very real implications for people’s wellbeing. Some such incidents and ongoing social phenomena are:

• The British Chiropractic Association suing a science journalist for publishing and article raising serious doubts about claims being made about the practice. More here.
• The nightmarish practice of alternative “medicine” being prescribed to HIV positive patients in Africa, while discouraging them from taking their science-based medicine, has similarly sought to use libel laws in the UK to silence criticism. You can download the missing chapter, ‘The Doctor Will Sue You Now’, from Ben Goldacre’s book, Bad Science, here as a .pdf file.
• Attempts to draw causal relationships from mere correlation (and dodgy statistics in general), between homosexuality and a host of other ills.
• Dodgy, faux-secular “help” for vulnerable women, pushed with false claims and obscured by spin-doctoring in the case of Mercy Ministries. Follow Sean’s excellent coverage here.

These and more examples have three things in common – a roll for critical thought, the criticism of cherished ideas (some religious, some not) and ultimately they all have consequences for people’s well-being (in all cases I would argue, justifying the application of critical thinking upon cherished ideas.)

Not that critical thought needs to have such obvious applications in improving people’s lot in order to be justified, the afore mentioned health affairs and the roll in each for critical thought, lend a great deal of justification to what the Richard Dawkins Foundation has set out to teach.

But that’s not where it ends. Not all welfare decisions are scientific in nature. They can be underscored by science in that X policy will have Y effect, the effect justifying or disqualifying the policy, but the valuation placed upon alternative outcomes isn’t scientific per se.

If I told you that X will kill a child, I’d rather be making a scientific statement. If I was telling you that the child’s death was unacceptable, and that an alternative to X was needed, I’d be making an ethical statement.

Which is where I think atheist publications and discussions in the past few years have fallen short. Not that they have been at odds with a sensible ethic, they just haven’t been pushing for it the way that science, has been pushed for. The ethic has been there, but not articulated as well as it could have been.

We’ve had Dawkins and Dennett telling us how we can be moral – how the evolution of altruism and reason has given us the faculty. But that doesn’t tell us what is ethical. Hitchens stated the categorical imperative as being an example of how atheists can be moral, without an analysis of the problems of the categorical imperative or its alternative, secular replacements.

Dawkins touched on consequentialism in The God Delusion, but while perhaps the best that I’ve read in one of the various atheist books of the past few years, it wasn’t comprehensive. Hitchens is too prone to bare assertion of the moral status of things, probably more-so in debate than in text.

Sam Harris, well… His “rational mysticism”, the closer I get to finishing reading through it, the less I like it – I fear that the kind of selflessness Harris appropriates may very well lead to subjecting one’s self to authoritarianism – neutering one’s status as a meaningful moral agent.

Don’t take me the wrong way. I’m not damning any of these authors. It’s just there’s a whole school of thought - secular ethics – that follows from reason that isn’t being explored nearly enough. How we can be moral beings*, while a very important empirical question, isn’t enough.

At the very least, the relative silence allows the opponents of Dawkins et. al. the further opportunity to draw caricatures. But it’s more than just real politik, secular ethics deserves to be advanced. We live in a world where superstition, prejudice and logically inconsistent religious absolutism wields a heavy hand in public affairs.

Stem-cell research bans. Prejudice against GLBTs. Xenophobia. Blame-the-victim ideology towards those suffering in poverty. The list goes on.

Science and critical thinking is wonderful in debunking the pseudo-science that is often deployed to gain faux-secular acceptance for the often religious justifications behind these positions. It can stop them from gaining the preference of government if church and state are kept separate. But in the broader culture, these positions need to be combated even when government isn’t involved, and science is ill-equipped to tell us why these prejudices are wrong. Science can only underscore one’s ethics.

A reasoned ethical philosophy should be a part of the call to reason, perhaps even more-so than science. What’s the point of knowing empirically that people are suffering unnecessarily if your ethics tells you that suffering isn’t something to worry about?

I really am glad that Dawkins has taken to Peter Singer’s thinking and has been pushing the point. His uncut interview with Singer, I think was brilliant and well worth watching so I’m going to plug it again. At 43:16, it’s a long video and in HQ, it can be a strain on one’s bandwidth – all the same, if you don’t have dial-up or your bandwidth isn’t being shaped, I really strongly suggest you watch it. It is worth it.

While I am glad at this (can’t you tell?), I don’t think that it’s enough. It’s merely promising.

It’s not “New Atheist” (ahem?) standard faire, if there is such a thing, but I’ve recently acquired a copy of Singer’s How are we to live? (1993). I’ve only read articles he’s written up until now, so I’m not sure how his preference utilitarianism will pan out in popular literature form. I’m looking forward to it all the same. The Life You Can Save (2009) has been added to my wish-list as well, and perhaps A Darwinian Left (1999), which I suspect would compliment Dennett’s Freedom Evolves nicely, needs adding as well.

Based on what of Singer’s work I am familiar with, and with what he’s cited for justification that I’ve also read, I’d recommend reading his work to any atheist curious about secular ethics. Or indeed, to anyone with an interest in secular ethics, atheist or otherwise.

So that’s what I think needs to be next: secular ethics in addition to reason and science. And more of it.

~ Bruce

* See Dawkins’ Nice Guys Finish First, the second part of The Genius of Charles Darwin and Daniel Dennett’s Freedom Evolves for good coverage of the topic. And for those alleging social Darwinism, or genetic determinism, I suggest you read Dennett’s Freedom Evolves.