[MD] The Moral Landscape

[Steven Peterson]

Hi Platt,

> Steve:
> This is a typical Platteral shift. The question was not about whether
> religions have any true moral beliefs. Of course they do, and since
> religions contradict one another's moral teachings they also obviously
> have a lot of false moral beliefs.
>
> Platt
> Likewise the fact that many scientific teachings have been proven false
> indicates that whatever pronouncements science might make about morality may
> also be false. The faith you place in reason is like a Christian's faith in the
> resurrection.

Steve:
What you see as a weakness of science Pirsig sees as its key strength
relative to religion (but that's not surprising since you and Pirsig
don't seem to agree on much):

"...it's science's unique organization for the handling of the Dynamic
that gives it its superiority.  Science superseded old religious
forms, not because what it says is more true in any absolute sense
(whatever that is), but because what it says is more Dynamic. If
scientists had simply said Copernicus was right and Ptolemy was wrong
without any willingness to further investigate the subject, then
science would have simply become another minor religious creed.  But
scientific truth has always contained an overwhelming difference from
theological
truth: it is provisional.  Science always contains an eraser, a
mechanism whereby new Dynamic insight could wipe out old static
patterns without destroying science itself.  Thus science, unlike
orthodox theology, has
been capable of continuous, evolutionary growth.  As Phædrus had
written on one of his slips, "The pencil is mightier than the pen."


> Steve
> If there are any people of faith
> who are not deceived (if one religion actually is true), then there
> are certainly millions who are deceived.
>
> Platt
> Likewise, science has deceived millions again and again. It's latest deception -
> -global warming.

Steve:
Right, and that round earth B.S. too?

>
> Steve
> The question is what is the basis for moral truth? Is it (1) the
> authority of prophets and clerics? Or is it (2) the fact that some
> things are better than others and therefore the distinction between
> good and bad is open to rational inquiry?
>
> Platt
> Rather the questions are 1) Are you going to ignore the lessons of history
> about social relations, or 2) Do you believe neuroscientists like Harris can
> lead us to Utopia?


Steve:
This isn't about achieving Utopia. It is about using the tools of
science to study how we can maximize human  well-being under given
circumstances.


> Platt:
>>Rather I think anyone who thinks they know better than
>> other people about spiritual matters is not only deceiving himself, but
>> poses a danger to others. Certainly history shows that to be the case.
>
> Steve:
> You have just summarized many of my greatest concerns about pretty
> much every religion. I suppose you subscribe to that one religion that
> does not claim to have knowledge of spiritual matters that others
> don't have? If like me, you recognize that history has shown that
> people thinking that they know better than others about spiritual
> matters has been disastrous and criticize this practice, you should
> understand that this is decidedly _not_ a defense of religion. It is a
> criticism of pretty much every organized religion.
>
> Platt
> Yes, and the same applies to science and scientists who may think, rationally,
> that they have superiority about spiritual matters.

Steve:
What spiritual matters are you talking about? Harris embraces a "new
spiritual rationality" that recognizes that science presupposes values
and can apply its reason to study values. This is Pirsig's dream but
apparently your nightmare.


>
> Platt:
>> What I know is that I know little. So I don't condemn an entire group
>> who, by their acts of charity, may have something of value to teach me.
>
> Steve:
> Another Platteral shift. No one is condemning any groups en mass or
> any acts of charity. Your defense of religion here is pure
> condescension given that you don't believe in any religion.
>
> Platt
> If you say so. Likewise, I could charge you with condescension towards those
> who don't put their faith in science and reason as you do. But, what is to be
> gained by launching such personal attacks?

Steve:
I'm not condescending. I'm willing to come out and say that the notion
that bad justifications are just as good as good justifications is
ridiculous.


Platt:
> As for not believing in any religion, you're wrong. I believe in the religion
> of individual liberty to think and act as one wishes (without direct harm to
> others) and to accept responsibility for the consequences of one's choices in
> life  -- the religion of "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
> Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.


Steve:
And what exactly do you think of the claim that Jesus was born of a
virgin? that Muhammad flew to heaven on a winged steed? that God
occasionally decides to heal people if someone prays for it to happen?
that Joseph Smith talked to angels? that Jesus will come back to earth
some day to raise the dead and to decide who is to go to heaven and
who is to go to hell? What do you think Pirsig thinks of such claims?
That it is impossible to apply mere reason to such "spiritual"
questions? Certainly not. Do you think that Pirsig is any less hostile
to such claims as Harris is? Certainly not.