It's when Wright starts talking about ethics that I have a real problem. He acknowledges that our moral sense and intuitions come from biological as well as cultural evolution. He uses game theory to show how in most situations ethics is not a zero-sum game, and cooperation can help everyone. I agree with these points. Wright goes on to say that our evolved moral senses are not perfect, which I also agree with. Then Wright delivers the surprise: belief in a personal god can help our moral development - we're better off with faith than without.
After all the good sense he was making before, I'm not sure why he chooses this moment to jump off the wagon. All of the great moral advancements of the past two centuries have been made not because of religion but over the loud objections of religion. The end of slavery, the expansions of voting rights, the civil rights movement all had prominent clergy quoting the bible trying to stand in the way of progress. Certainly some of the the people involved in these positive developments happened to be religious, but they often took their inspiration from outside their faith and brought the new understanding inside, reinterpreting the bible or other source of dogma through a new perspective.
'Weeds' are what we make of them - they're any plant that the gardener is not interested in growing in a particular spot, a completely constructed idea. It took Wright ten hours of meditation a day to realize that some of them are pretty, and that you might at some point change your definition of what a weed is? It took him ten hours of meditation a day to be less judgmental to strangers?ROBERT WRIGHT: One of my own closer contacts with, I would say, a form of consciousness that's closer to the truth than everyday consciousness, came at a Buddhist meditation center. These were essentially secular Buddhists and that was the context of the experience.
But through the meditative practice performed intensively for a week. No contact with the outside world. No speaking. Five and a half hours of sitting meditation a day. Five and a half hours of walking meditation a day. I reached a state of consciousness that I think is closer to the truth about things than the form of consciousness that is kind of natural for human beings.BILL MOYERS: Was it a consciousness that had an ethical and moral issue in it or was it a state of being? A state of simple acceptance?
ROBERT WRIGHT: Well, it absolutely had ethical implications because it involved much broader acceptance of other beings and it involved being less judgmental of other beings. I mean it reached almost ridiculous extremes. Look looking down at weeds and thinking, "I can't believe I've been killing those things. They're actually as pretty as the grass. Prettier."
But in the realm of humanity, I mean I was just by the end being very much less judgmental about just people I would see on the street.
I hardly see this as a great triumph of religious moral reasoning. If anything the environment Wright describes is the near lack of any culture whatsoever. Simply being absent from his judgmental patriarchial religious context for a short while allowed Wright to decompress a bit and refine his moral understanding. Did the Buddha do this? No, he did it himself. Kudos to Wright for the tentative advancements, but I'm not sure how he credits religion for this.
At the end of the clip I'm scratching my head and wondering why it came so highly recommended.
Posts
I can't speak to Wright's experiences, but I think you're confusing social behaviors and religious behaviors. I would argue that the opponents to the end of slavery, expansion of voting rights, and the civil rights movement were driven by vested interest in the social status quo rather than religious beliefs.
ReplyDeleteThose opposing social reform may have used their religious beliefs as part of their argument, but that does not mean that they were motivated by said beliefs. These same people also used the biological differences among races and between the genders to support their claims.
The motivation behind resistance to social change is not biological or religious; it is political. Any group with authority will resist change that could threatens their position. It makes no difference whether the group is a church, government, race, gender, or social club.
The fact that opponents to social reform used religion to suppor their arguments does not implicate the belief system as a cause of the opposition. It simply indicates that people will wield whatever weapons at their disposal to defend their position of power.
"Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property." Leviticus 44-45 NIV
ReplyDelete"If you buy a Hebrew servant, he is to serve you for six years. But in the seventh year, he shall go free, without paying anything." Exodus 21:2 NIV
"A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must first be silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner." 1 Timothy 2:11-14
I could go on with the Bible quotes for a long time. Views like this were recorded in the scriptures, maintained and elevated to doctrine by theologians, and defended by church leadership as well as membership down through the millenia. It's impossible to argue that social practice is separate from religious practice. The dominant club in Westers society has always been the religious club. Aside from those founding fathers who were deists or secularists, the source of our laws traces back to religious laws and traditions.