A person’s moral judgments can be changed almost instantly by delivering a magnetic pulse to an area of the brain near the right ear…

That is a finding reported in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. The study, by neuroscientist Liane Young and colleagues, showed that manipulating a specific part of the brain (the right temporoparietal junction) with a magnet can change how someone morally judges a situation. Mature humans have the inborn sense to “know” that a person who intends harm, even when no harm is done, is more “bad” than someone who accidentally causes harm without intention. In this experiment, the pulse literally switched this mechanism in normal human participants, so that when judging a story, they found greater fault with the person who did unintentional harm.

Harvard psychologist Joshua Greene told NPR, “Moral judgment is just a brain process… That’s precisely why it’s possible for these researchers to influence it using electromagnetic pulses on the surface of the brain… If something as complex as morality has a mechanical explanation, it will be hard to argue that people have, or need, a soul.”

This is quite an astounding thing. It certainly puts a large dent in the claim that morality derives from a non-brain source, such as God or a soul. Of course, evolutionary psychology is making great strides in explaining how morality developed via natural selection, but it is this kind of experiment that illustrates evolutionary theories so vividly. As with every other branch of study, science continues to naturalize the brain and human functioning; we are moral creatures because we have evolved to be.

This is also a bit frightening. The study suggests that our moral reasoning is something not completely under our conscious control. This makes perfect sense, since it can be reasonably argued that nothing about being human is completely under conscious control. But there is something about moral judgment that strikes deeper. Our ability to think in terms of right and wrong, and then to act on those judgments even when it involves self-sacrifice, is one of our core traits that allows us to think of ourselves as noble. As being more than “mere animals”. Our brains have developed the useful cognitive illusion that everything we think and do is grounded in free choice. Obviously this is not the case, even when it comes to fundamental ideas about morality.

None of this lessens our obligation to act as moral agents. What it does do is demand that we inquire further in order to gain more insight into how we work. It also means that we will be well-served to think clearly and critically about our own personal ethics, and not to take any moral assumption as a given. And, you know, not to stand too close to big magnets…

Shermer writes:

What I want to believe based on emotions and what I should believe based on evidence does not always coincide… I conclude that I’m a skeptic not because I do not want to believe but because I want to know. I believe that the truth is out there. But how can we tell the difference between what we would like to be true and what is actually true? The answer is science.

Science is a method, not a set of dogmatic beliefs. As Shermer explains, “Science begins with the null hypothesis, which assumes that the claim under investigation is not true until demonstrated otherwise. [...] The null hypothesis means that the burden of proof is on the person asserting a positive claim, not on the skeptics to disprove it.” Of course, as he points out above, many people choose to see evidence where none exist because they have an emotional drive to believe. Or they wedge the supernatural into scientific gaps, assuming that “if science cannot explain X, then [the supernatural] explanation for X is necessarily true.”

This is where the understanding of science gets a little murky. Shermer continues:

To be fair, not all claims are subject to laboratory experiments and statistical tests. Many historical and inferential sciences require nuanced analyses of data and a convergence of evidence from multiple lines of inquiry that point to an unmistakable conclusion. Just as detectives employ the convergence of evidence technique to deduce who most likely committed a crime, scientists employ the method to determine the likeliest explanation for a particular phenomenon. Cosmologists reconstruct the history of the universe by integrating data from cosmology, astronomy, astrophysics, spectroscopy, general relativity and quantum mechanics. [...] Once an inferential or historical science is well established through the accumulation of positive evidence, however, it is just as sound as a laboratory or experimental science.

This is why the Theory of Evolution is so compelling…although we cannot observe all the mechanics of evolution happening in real time, the mountain of positive, harmonized evidence over multiple domains of study allows for a high degree of confidence, especially since the theory allows for testable predictions. And yet, the null hypothesis is still out there, waiting…the moment we find a reliable fossil of a dinosaur with the remains of a homo sapiens in its belly, science will admit that it’s time to go back to the drawing board. But—and this is where many theists get lost—it is not up to science to disprove that that fossil exists, or that God exists in our knowledge gaps, or that invisible pink unicorns roam the forests. Until positive evidence is given, there is no reason, other than emotional desire, to consider them to be true.

Shermer sums it up nicely:

Which one you choose depends on your tolerance for ambiguity and how much you want to believe. For me, I remain in sublime awe of the great Unknown.

Science constructs theories, and then compares them to empirically-collected data, and decides which theories provide better fits to the data. The definition of “better” is notoriously slippery in this case, but one thing is clear: if two theories make the same kinds of predictions for observable phenomena, but one is much simpler, we’re always going to prefer the simpler one. The definition of theory is also occasionally troublesome, but the humble language shouldn’t obscure the potential reach of the idea: whether we call them theories, models, hypotheses, or what have you, science passes judgment on ideas about how the world works.

He also sums up beautifully the reason so many scientists are non-theistic (see this study):

There’s no obstacle in principle to imagining that the normal progress of science could one day conclude that the invocation of a supernatural component was the best way of understanding the universe. Indeed, this scenario is basically the hope of most proponents of Intelligent Design. The point is not that this couldn’t possibly happen — it’s that it hasn’t happened in our actual world. In the real world, by far the most compelling theoretical framework consistent with the data is one in which everything that happens is perfectly accounted for by natural phenomena.

I would add that the more we do find out about the workings of the universe and the gaps in our knowledge shrink, the less likely it becomes that supernatural forces will be found to play a role. Ultimately, ideas like god, spirits, and occult forces simply aren’t very useful in helping us understand how the world actually works.

As a matter of  speculation, I posit that as science continues to naturalize the universe, many people more firmly cling to faith because of two things: anxiety and identity. (I’ll talk about the first for now, saving the latter for another post). The existence of a beneficent god and the promise of eternal life are powerful balms to existential angst. While it is easy to throw snark at beliefs in the supernatural, we would do well to recognize the very real anxiety that being alive entails. If people have been raised with faith as a way of coping with it, it is unreasonable to expect people to simply give that up.

Here is my wheelchair analogy (and please know that I have nothing but respect for our wheelchair-bound brothers and sisters): take a hypothetical group of people who were raised in wheelchairs from the day they are born. There is nothing inherently wrong with their legs, but this group believed it best to get around via wheelchair; they simply stopped questioning the practice and relied upon the Wheelchair Scripture to justify and guide them. By a certain age, the idea of not being in a wheelchair becomes a frightening thought…walking, running, and dancing seem intolerably difficult and dangerous. Eventually, their legs become atrophied and it would take a great deal of effort even to stand upright; considering the (apparent) comfort and safety of the wheelchair, learning to walk appears ludicrous and incomprehensible.

Non-theists have learned to “walk” and often look at the “Wheelchairists” with bewilderment…”Why can’t they they just get up on their feet like we do? Look, it’s great to walk and run and dance!” But looking at the world without the existence of their supernatural models is anxiety-provoking, and their innate ability to see nature alone with wonder and gratitude has been atrophied. Science is, in essence, killing their all-powerful Caretaker and taking away their eternity of bliss. While it is important to challenge those beliefs, it is equally important to have compassion for the anxiety that provokes.

In their desperation to hold on to their wheelchairs, many theists refuse to understand the nature of science. This is why pieces by Sean are so important, because they give non-theists a way of explaining science using relatively accessible language. But more than that, being able to talk about the magnificence of nature as informed by science can act as “walking lessons”, at least for those who would like to get out of the chair but can’t get past the fear of the loss of the support.

The first was his mention of “non-believers”. Considering that about 13% of Americans are non-theists, it is about time that we were acknowledged. It will be a long time before being non-theistic will no longer be a political liability. But that journey starts with the understanding that we exist and that, unlike popular misconception, we are not minions of Satan, we are not morally rudderless, we are not withering in existential misery (at least not more than anyone else), and we vote.

The second was his statement that science will be restored to its proper place. It has been painful to watch the last administration treat science as an inconvenience at best, tossed aside whenever it conflicted with conservative ideology. But as many are now finally realizing, ignoring scientific data doesn’t make reality go away. Having a president who actually respects science is a huge breath of fresh air, indicated by Obama’s excellent appointment of Steven Chu as Secretary of Energy. Let’s hope that this is but the start of a grand revival of science in America.

Our understanding of the world is informed by Science—we express our relationship with the world through Art. This is the matrix of knowledge and imagination, of empiricism and inspiration, of curiosity and creativity. This marriage of Science and Art lies at the heart of Sacred River.

What used to be “occultists” are now called “scientists”. The essential shift happened with the humanistic discovery that gods and spirits are not necessary to explain the workings of the world. Similarly, the examination of humans moved away from souls and towards biology, sociology, and psychology. And as the scientific method improved, it was discovered that the universe was a vastly more complex and amazing place than any occultist could have predicted. And as science started peering into the very large, the very distant, and the very small, humans were truly exploring hidden domains utterly beyond the reach of normal modes of perception.

There is another element to this. Starting especially with the advent of books, all the various domains of technology and science became highly specialized, requiring a unique language for explaining things in shorthand for other experts. This has progressed to the point where not only are the concepts and skills in science incredibly complex, but even the scientific jargon itself lies far outside of everyday language. A casual glance at the language of neurology, genetics, biochemistry, or astrophysics leaves one baffled. It’s amazing that as much information as is openly available to the general public, so little of it is really understandable to the average person.

As I have mentioned, the desire to know—or more specifically, to experience a feeling of knowing—is an inherent human trait. As such, curiosity and an attraction for the novel is ever-present in us. But since science has become so, well, occult, many people look to simpler systems to help them try to grasp the workings of the world. And those systems, more often than not, are religious.

The mainstream religions are the most common, obviously. For those who are inspired to reject the mainstream—for whatever reason—there are plenty of alternatives, such as the numerous Neo-Pagan, New Age, and magick-based systems. But virtually all of them have at least one thing in common—they provide a relatively simplistic and static model of the world that is based on things other than physical, observable, or testable evidence (Buddhism and Taoism offer some interesting exceptions). This is a perfectly understandable thing to do; if all the various domains of science are too numerous and complex for anyone to grasp (which is undeniably true), then religion can act as an acceptable, even if non-veridical substitute. Easing existential anxiety does not strictly require knowing much, it only asks for the feeling of knowing, and nearly all religions are custom made for this.

For some folks, religion isn’t used to understand the natural world, but is rather intended as a method for understanding the self. I often wonder what people really mean by this. What kind of knowledge is it that people are seeking? Their traits, talents, values, beliefs, boundaries, strengths, weaknesses, or what? What’s interesting to me is that three hours of psychological testing can say more about individual differences than any religious tool. There are literally hundreds of such instruments, many of which have been shown to have an excellent degree of reliability and validity, that can test nearly every aspect of human activity and interest, and provide a vast array of accurate, detailed, and personalized data about a given individual. For anyone interested, affordable testing can likely be had at a local graduate psychology program.

But I would argue that such knowledge isn’t what spiritual seekers are really looking for. What people really want is to feel special. Understand, this is perfectly normal and natural; everyone wants to feel special, to believe that they have a purpose in life, that they matter. Science tells us that, in the grand scheme of things, we don’t actually matter; the universe does not care about us; we, as individuals, are not needed; there is no Plan for us. What religion can do is provide a way around this, either by inventing transcendent personalities that do care about us or by creating systems that allow one to rise in power and authority. Also, for those who believe that there exist hidden dimensions to reality that can be perceived via spiritual practices, resulting phenomena can produce both a feeling of knowing and a sense of specialness by dint of their profound “discoveries.”

This, then, is the challenge—to find effective ways to reduce existential anxiety, to gain a feeling of knowing about the world, and to have a sense of meaning and fulfillment without sacrificing curiosity, regard, and wonder about the veridical workings of the self and the universe. I strongly maintain that this is indeed possible. And more than possible—outright beneficial. This is what religious naturalism and Sacred River is all about, the development of such a system of spiritual thought and practice. Science might be the new occult, but together it is possible to pool enough knowledge resources to make our shared journey a meaningful, fulfilling, and joyous one.

Kauffman offers a profound observation regarding secular humanism:

On the other side of this vast divide than those who hold to a transcendent God and His authority for meaning and values, are the innumerable secular humanists, children of the enlightenment and contemporary science, who hold firmly to reality as revealed by science, find values in their love for their families and friends, a general sense of fairness and a morality that needs no basis in God’s word. Yet we secular humanists have paid an unspoken price for our firm sense that (reductionist) science tells us what is real. First, we have no well wrought scientific basis for our humanity [....] The two cultures, science and humanities, remain firmly un-united. And equally important, we have been subtly robbed of our deep capacity for spiritualism. We have come to believe that spirituality is inherently co-localized with a belief in God, and that without such a belief, spirituality is inherently foolish, questionable, without foundation, wishful thinking, silly.

I believe he is absolutely right. I would take his observation further by saying that many believe that spirituality is dependent upon supernatural thinking, not just involving a transcendent God, but also spirits, souls, occult forces, super-terrestrial planes, change at a distance, and so on. I have heard arguments claiming that nature-without-the-supernatural is inadequate for a spiritual orientation, that it is too limited, dry, or meaningless. But I would counter by saying that it is not the natural world that is too limited, but our own worldviews.

Kauffman continues by exploring ideas inherent in emergence theory that can extend our views of the world past reductionism while also escaping post modernism. He does this by exploring the origin of life and human agency and consciousness. Kauffman then offers the observation that nature is both creative and unpredictable:

In short, the evolution of the biosphere is radically unknowable, not due to quantum throws of the dice, or deterministic chaos, but because we cannot prestate the macroscopic relevant features of organisms and environments that will lead to the emergence of novel functions in the biosphere with their own causal properties that in turn alter the future evolution of the biosphere. Thus, the evolution of the biosphere is radically creative, ceaselessly creative, in way that cannot be foretold. I find this wonderful.

Kauffman ends with a plea for a radical shift in how we as humans think about nature and our own spirituality:

You see, we can say, here is reality, is it not worthy of stunned wonder? What more could we want of a God? Yes, we give up a God who intervenes on our behalf. We give up heaven and hell. But we gain ourselves, responsibility, and maturity of spirit. I know that saying that ethics derives from evolution undercuts the authority of God as its source. But do we need such a God now? I think not. Nor do we need the spiritual wasteland that post-modernism has brought us. Beyond my admired friend Kenneth Arrow, natural parks are valuable because life is valuable on its own, a wonder of emergence, evolution and creativity. Reality is truly stunning. So if you find this useful, let us go forth, as was said long ago, and invite consideration by others of this new vision of reality. With it, let us recreate spiritual community and membership. Let us go forth. Civilization needs to be changed.

Yes, reality is worthy of stunned wonder. And we deserve a spirituality and ethics that is mature, responsible, and meaningful. I proudly go forth with Dr. Kauffman to spread the Good Word: God is dead! Long live God!