Thoughts on Australia Day

It seems that every Australia day, I hear rather left wing writers talking about what a terrible thing Australia day is, given it in reality was the start of British colonisation in Australia, and the start of a tragic period for the Aboriginal peoples who lived on the continent for at least 40,000 years previously. My take on the issue is that yes, they indeed do have a point. We have a very sad history in that respect. But that is no reason to be sad and sour on Australia day. Part of being a member of a country is to look squarely at the past, learn from it, and so, make things better.

The location where one happens to live is, in most cases, purely accidental. We do not choose where we end up, or the people we live with. To be a patriot, with this in mind, is rather similar to being a part of a family. It is loving the country you are from, not so much because you chose it, but because you are part of it. And this love, this patriotic love, necessarily means doing what is necessary to make life better and happier for all the other people you are with in the country. And this means learning from the past, and addressing ugly issues, those that may be more comfortable just to forget. In a similar way that it is an act of love to point out to someone when they are being horrible to others so they can have the opportunity to change their behavior and become better people, I think it fair to think that it is hardly unpatriotic to have a fair sense of sadness as to the consequences of British colonisation in Australia. It does not have to be hatred of the country. But more calling all Australians to a higher moral standard - to be fair to the people that lived here for so long, to help address the injustices of the past.

What I am saying is that it is impossible to change the past. It is possible to say that "I am lucky to be Australian", but at the same time, be sad over the tragedy of how this period of Australian history began. For this sadness is the demonstration of a true patriotism, love for the people in the country you live in, the country you did not choose - to a large extent, a larger family. We are lucky to be Australians. I see Australia day as a way of celebrating being part of a larger family, the nation. The fact that the day happens to mark the start of a rather brutal occupation should be a reason to stop and think about how we can be better members of this national family - to learn from the past, and so, make Australia more a country to be admired. To love ones country is to admit the faults of the past - and to make the country better by learning those lessons. Be proud of being Australian - and remember that that pride means living as the best member one can be of the nation. We rise or fall together.

How Harris Killed His Own Case

It interests me the fact that Sam Harris in “The Moral Landscape” makes it very explicit that he is not arguing that we can base all our ethics on a purely Darwinian biological framework. If I understand him correctly, he basically stated that we have transcended this whole process of evolution and its crass “physics” of selfish genes. This strikes me as inconsistent on two basic pieces of evidence – how he attempts to follow mechanistic neuroscience down the rabbit hole to its logical conclusions of no free will, and also in the fact that he and other New Atheists consistently blast Christians for being inconsistent with the science. But, in this case, he himself makes an unwarranted leap of faith. Let me explain.

If we follow pure mechanistic science on its own terms, the idea that the universe works on laws and causality alone, and we trust the workings of Darwinistic biology, that organisms exist to keep on existing and passing on their genes to the next generations, then it appears that all ethics are simply a product of this ruling process… Ethics should evolve to fit this model, if we are indeed a part of this process. Funny thing is, Harris claims we have reached a point where we transcend the system that we are apparently locked in. It certainly appears we do. But that is beside the point. If Harris is really is so committed to following the science wherever it leads, then why does he make this assertion that we transcend the process? What evidence does he have for this? Indeed, he seems to be playing the “free miracle card”…. Doing something like that would get Christians laughed at. Talk about a double standard.

Indeed, there are good reasons to claim we have reached a point of transcending Darwinian process. To truly follow the system of ethics in terms of ethics would be antithetical to the idea of human flourishing that Harris bases his whole book on…. Namely, the idea that we should all be as happy and fulfilled as possible, and avoid the worst possible misery for everyone. This is quite common to both virtue ethics and utilitarianism. In this, he seems to be talking sense. But that’s beside the point. If we are to follow the Darwinian process and derive ethics from it, love would be very conditional. I have written on this before in another essay. We have eugenics and the forced sterilisations of Margaret Sanger to thank for applying Darwinian logic to ethics. Supposing that a consistent Darwinian ethic would be cold and savage, it appears that to solve this problem, Harris has chosen to be inconsistent. If he was consistent, his whole theory would not stand. However, it is ironic that he has not also chosen to be inconsistent with the materialism that inescapably (so it seems), destroys any notion of free will, so crucial for ethics.

I am not going to restate the argument against free will from neuroscience. I’m tired, and pretty tipsy. Let’s start from the point that if it is true, then it opens up a massive can of worms regarding ethics. How can one possibly develop prescriptions on how one is to live one’s life if it is metaphysically impossible to follow them in one way or another? Indeed, the person does not exist in this account – they are reduced to an indifferent process of chemical reactions in the brain. If one cannot really make a choice, what is the point of developing moral laws and values by the use of scientific method? And if the processes in the brain are themselves irrational, how can we even trust our thoughts on science (I am borrowing Lewis’ idea)… Our thoughts seem infinitely more likely to be mistaken, given an infinite amount of ways to be wrong, and one way to be right.  It is possible to ignore these problems, but it still makes ethics, in reality, completely pointless. Also, why do we not hold dogs, prawns, mud crabs and babies morally accountable? Because they do not have the reason to consciously choose their actions one way or another. Not only does lack of free will cut out any notion of choice from any party, rational or not, it also undercuts the reliable of rationality, if we are perfectly consistent. This creates at least as many problems for Harris than the logical conclusions of Darwinism does! It is strange that he does not take the step of evasion in this case as well. Why?

My answer to this question is, of course, a theory. I cannot know his mind. But it appears that he is desperate not to give Christianity even an inch. Christianity stresses the importance of free will… And so, Harris appears to not want to give the idea any credit… At any cost, although it seems he refuses to see the horrible cost of expunging free will has on ethics. The metaphysics is poison, as I have argued for briefly. The claim of hostility to Christianity seems quite well justified. He had written “Letter to a Christian Nation” and “The End of Faith” – both polemically atheistic books…. And in “The Moral Landscape”, he goes out of way to attack the “immorality of Christianity” (on a superficial level he had a point, but that’s for another essay)…. If he really wanted to save his case, he really should have sidestepped the free will issue! It is an odd, but perhaps explainable anomaly.

This writing does not in any way prove we have free will…. Simply that Harris has been inconsistent in his writing of “The Moral Landscape”. The issue of free will is critical, to put it lightly. I will probably spend my life trying to solve it, if it does not drive me as mad as Nietzsche in the process…

Aaron Carlin 1/12/2014

Gender is a Construct. So What?

The feminists thinkers despise the idea of gender, supposing that it is simply a "repressive social construct". But what does it mean to be a social construct? As I have reflected on it, gender being a social construct is irrelevant to its worth or grounding in reality. Indeed, most things are "socially constructed". The question to ask the concepts we are given is how well they reflect the way things are.

I see two senses of the idea of a social construct. First sense is the idea of a thing given to us by society - by such things as direct teaching, books, advertising etc. One can argue that this is a categorically bad thing as per the fashionable enlightenment ideal of knowing things for yourself, but I argue that is not the case. The enlightenment ideal is critical thinking - hardly a bad thing. But to critically think supposes knowledge. And given that our minds are to a large extent tabula rasa(blank slates) at birth, we learn not in isolation, but communally, socially. And so, it follows that most of our knowledge is socially constructed. This hardly means that all our knowledge is automatically false. We are taught proper use of our senses and reason, and so, language, to be able to think clearly about what is. The point is that all of our knowledge is initially socially constructed. Indeed, it depends on this construction for its existence. A baby untaught, unhelped by by other people, will not learn very much. We cannot exist as islands. It is only after the "social construction" of knowledge and understanding takes place that we can apply the enlightenment ideal of "knowing thyself".

This is a second sense of social construct, one which I think is closer to understanding the feminist claim that gender is simply socially constructed. As discussed before, most of our knowledge is socially constructed. It comes from various means of social input. We cannot easily learn in isolation. The first sense of social construction concerns the understanding of what is. The second sense is teleological, or goal based, concerning what ought to be. A social construct as a teleology is a recommended or demanded way of thinking or behaving which is conducive to a specific goal. In this way, social constructs in this sense is not arbitrary. They depend on the purpose that brings them into existence. Law is socially constructed in this sense. We follow it to be able to live harmoniously together in society. The value of the goals these constructs exist in service of are what are critical to always evaluate. Some examples: The social construct is the law to drive on the left side of the road in Australia. This is aligned to the telos of safety and order on the roads. This, arguably is a good goal, and so, is a reasonable social construct. Another example: the social construct is the custom of hitting every black woman one meets. The telos of this is to "punish inferiors". Are they inferior? I would argue at great lengths that of course they are not inferior. Hence, the telos is unreasonable, and so the socially constructed custom is also unreasonable. Gender behavior seems to be within this second category I have been analysing. As I have been trying to establish , social constructs are not inherently a bad thing. In the second sense of the word, they are teleological. To evaluate any socially constructed behavior , the telos that gives it form must be analysed. If it is a good telos , then the construct is at least reasonable.

In writing what I have, it means I in part agree with the feminist claims. Gender in terms of behavior is a social construct - a "second sense" social construct. It is teleological. And people can choose whether or not to conform. But, as I have been writing to establish, this does not automatically mean that traditional ideas of gender are therefore a bad thing. The purpose gender behavior serves as a social construct is what must be analysed. The feminists tend to attack the feminists tend to attack the very idea of gender, as they see it as a curtailment of freedom. To some extent this is true. But to subordinate oneself to any goal is to sacrifice some freedom. One's freedom is given to the goal in question. So, gender being a curtailment of freedom is is in this aspect an irrelevant point as to whether it has any degree of value in terms of human flourishing. But one may also object that gender is an attack on freedom , as it is a set of proscribed behaviors that one must conform to. Fair enough. Coercion is not fair. But is it coercion? People can choose one way or another. There is no law that one must be masculine or feminine. One may argue that it is, in a Millsian sense, a tyranny of the majority. But, the fact remains that one is still free to choose one way or another. And part of being a rational adult means providing sound reasons for ones behavior. One can do whatever one likes. To cry that one is a prisoner of the majority is Sartrean bad faith. In summary of this section of the essay, gender may limit freedom. But all actions towards a goal do that. The question is whether the goal is worthy enough to limit ones freedom for it, to give it as currency so to speak in a currency of freedom and action. And the idea that people are forced to act in these confines is mistaken. One is free to choose. Now the question is: is the social construct of gender good or bad? Does it have a worthy goal to give ones freedom to or not? Is it, therefore, something of societal value?

As an axiom, I observe that men and women are clearly different.  It has become fashionable to deny this. But I find it difficult to believe that one can be completely wrong  about what one sees in the people one meets everyday. That is not to say all men are all the same, and all women are completely the same. But there are aspects that set the sexes apart. There are clear biological differences, some very important ones psychological. Why do they exist? Although it is politically incorrect to point this out, these differences are ordered to the procreation of the species. We depend on each other for such a thing to happen. And we also critically depend on the continued love and relationship between our parents to be able to flourish. We do not last on our own. We humans take a long time to mature. The point is, our differences are ordered towards a particular good - the survival and flourishing of our species. Without this good being actualised, we cannot possibly enjoy any other goods. Where are we without life?

This may sound as if I am simply defining gender as as the physical differences between men and women. Not so. I am using these differences as a foundation for the goal of gender. Gender behavior itself arises from these differences. I think they are a two way process of acting out the defining features of ones gender as stamped into the body, and playing the game of attraction with the opposite sex, which makes the reason for gender in the first place actual. The behavior is the manifestation of ones sex in the world.

I will give an example. Again, this is politicall incorrect - in writing this, I am challenging an entire system. Let's take the example of strength. Men, most of the time are built physically stronger than women. It sets them apart, and so gives them a way to be attractive. I think, by and large, we respond to those differences. And so, a bloke my volunteer to take the bins out for the girls he works with, and so, maintains his honour as a potential husband. A man who whinges and whines, by contrast, will not be attractive. My point is that behavior affects the differences, differences that draw men and women together.

So there are a class of behaviors that reflect the differences between men and women. They are not as such bad things, given they are conducive to the foundations of families. Without attraction, there is no sex, and certainly no family. Sex without bonding is either an empty hook up or rape, neither good for the flourishing of human beings. However, one could object that this is all just a generalisation - and it is wrong to generalise. I think this is mistaken. Generalisation is a way of finding out about people, what they do, how they behave typically. It is finding the mean of human behaviors, to so be able to understand people better. That there are exceptions does not prove that there are no general behaviors that the sexes exhibit to play the game of attraction. Rather, that there are some people that differ a little. And that's OK. That does not diminish the purpose gender behavior has. It is, as I am arguing, healthy if not forced.

I forsee another objection. There is a problem with gender behavior, given that some of it is detrimental to the people involved. Is it really right for women to dress half naked to please men? Is it really right for men to punch eachother to a pulp in pursuit of women? This is a reasonable objection, and highlights that although gender behavior in principle is a good thing, ordered towards love, in practice it can be warped. Instead of expressing the good differences, sometimes such behavior can be perverted, either warping the differences in one way or another, or being harmful to other goods. Men, being mostly stronger than women, are attractive if they can defend their families. But fighting and brawling is a perverse exaggeration of this. It is wrong given it harms other goods such as health and social cohesion. In the example of women dressing half naked to please men, , this is a case of taking the male attraction to the female body to an extreme, in this case, encouraging lust, which is not conducive to the love that gender behavior should help promote. My point is that gender behaviors can and should be critiqued. Indeed some are not consistent with the goal of gender behaviors, but instead cause great harm. One should never do evil, even if it is socially acceptable.

One may also object on these grounds: that gender behavior is oppressive and unjust as it means people must suppress some aspects of their behavior and fit a specific model to be attractive. My response is yes, that is true. And so what? We must conform to certain specific standards all the time in order to achieve the good goals we set ourselves. As discussed, to do anything, freedom is the currency. To be a great philosopher, one must study and philosophise. Those are the conditions. To be attractive, one must play the social game, and do what it takes, within reason and without evil, to encourage attractiveness. One must conform to reality to achieve goals. It is narcissistic and futile to expect the world to change for ones desires. It is a hard reality that one must work at attraction. But it must be done. Reality will not change because one wants it to change.

In summary, it is true that gender is a social construct - but it is a rational one ordered to the good of marriage and family by helping to facilitate attraction between men and women. It can be distorted, so it is critical to critique gender behavior to ensure it is consistent with its end and the flourishing of other goods.  Not all socially acceptable actions are good. Yes, it means a certain curtailment of freedom. But all actions towards a goal mean that to some extent. And yes, the reality that gender behavior means the need for behavioral adaptation in order to facilitate attraction means one has to conform and limit ones individuality. But, we do that in achieving any goal. To seek something means to subordinate ones abilities and inclinations towards that end. Like an Olympic athlete giving themselves to their sport in order to win a medal. Gender is a social construct. But it is hardly a bad one if attraction marriage and family are a good thing. It is fair enough to choose not to live the behaviors. But it is another thing again to complain of lack of attraction when one scorns how and why people are attracted.

Aaron Carlin, January 2015.

The Partnership Between Faith and Reason

Oftentimes I have heard faith as being understood as “Believing things without a shred of evidence”, or, “throwing reason out the window”…. Fair enough, if one is a fideist, working on blind faith. With this in mind though, I contend that it is a grave mistake, indeed a caricature, to represent all faith as having this non- intellectual quality. By contrast, in Catholicism at least, faith and reason are partners. As the recent Pope Benedict XVI put it, faith and reason serve like two wings, which together take us towards truth. This essay will present the case to support this claim.

The best way to show how faith and reason are in no ways in conflict is to present some examples in everyday life which illustrate the concept, before moving on to show how Catholicism in particular does not fit into the fideist, “faith alone” bracket. One rather funny case which serves as an example was the exchange between mathematician John Lennox and biologist Richard Dawkins, when they discussed questions of faith. To paraphrase Dawkins, he stated that “You wouldn’t need to have faith if there were any evidence”. Lennox replied: “You have faith that your wife loves you Mr. Dawkins, is there any evidence for that?” The wife case – an example of faith and reason not being in conflict, but reason grounding that faith. In this case, one can see all kinds of evidence to make it seem reasonable to suggest somebody loves you – always kind to you, patient with you even on a grumpy day, the daily kiss, moving countries for you etc. But, with this in mind, one cannot know for absolute certain – as one cannot know the heart. But, with that in mind, that does not make it unreasonable to believe that the person loves you. In this way, in this example, reason is what grounds the faith. If the evidence were to suggest lack of love – not returning calls, staring into space when with you, flirting with every other person in sight, then it would be unreasonable, indeed downright folly to have any sort of faith that the other person loves. . In this way, in this example, reason is what grounds the faith.  Here is one case study. Another case will further illuminate the idea that faith and reason do not necessarily contradict each other.

Now, let us take the example of going on a voyage. Before one travels, one must have a reasonable faith that the ship will be able to make the trip without sinking. One cannot know for absolute sure that the ship won’t sink – hence there is an element of trust involved. But, reason is what grounds the faith. In this case, one assesses the evidence, to then make a judgment which has an element of faith involved…. Are there any holes in the deck? Is the engine working? Is the captain sober? Is the ship strong enough to make its way through the Northwest Passage? If the evidence seems to suggest yes, then one can put ones faith in the reliability of the ship, and so set sail. In this way, there is an element of faith involved, but it is faith anchored in reason. In this way, it is a “Trust in things not seen”, in this case, that she ship will survive the voyage. It is indeed faith. But it is by no means the throw your brain out the window, believe without evidence sort of faith that some militant atheists like to caricature faith as.  This serves as a second example of how faith and reason do not necessarily contradict.

A third and final example of faith being trust in things unseen, while supported by reason, is the case of quantum mechanics in physics. This really captures the aspect of mystery which faith can lead to – even when supported by reason. Physicists, using reason and looking carefully at experimental and mathematical evidence, came to some shocking conclusions as to the nature of matter at the atomic and sub atomic level – a strange world where matter can be waves and waves can be matter, matter can be in many places at once, and this matter-energy duality can even interfere with itself. The results of quantum mechanics are very strange and unusual, to put it very mildly. But, scientists accept quantum mechanics with faith, due to trusting the reason that they applied to even come up with this way of understanding the nature of reality on the micro scale – even if the results of this are confusing, seemingly absurd. As Richard Feynman so aptly put it “If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don’t understand quantum mechanics”. In this way, reason underpins faith, which can take one to a level over and above reason. Not for lack of reason. But more lack of understanding for the human mind.

With part one of this short piece finished, giving life to some real examples of faith and reason working together, reason grounding faith, part two will defend the case that Catholicism at least is not in any ways blind faith. I confess, this will seem fairly weak. This is because, to really make the case for the faith in all its subtlety, answering possible objections, that would take a book in itself – probably multiple books.

What makes Catholicism different to other world religions is that it is centred not so much on a philosophy or a set of ideas, but on a person – Jesus, called The Christ. As Professor John Dixon of Maquarie University put it, Christianity bases itself on precise historical claims, claims that can be checked. For centuries, the faith has been one for scrutiny, ready for anybody to “take a swing”. The faith makes a seemingly absurd claim – that God became one of us, lived among us, died to redeem us of our sins, and to validate his claims to divinity, rose from the dead. Take Jesus out of the picture, and Christianity does not exist. St Paul put it very well, in 1 Cor 15:14, when he said “If Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain, and your faith also in vain”. The faith bases itself on the life and actions of a person. Hence, the evidence to ground a reasonable faith, comes from history. I want to make a very brief summary of why I think it reasonable to put ones faith in Jesus. He claimed that he was God incarnate. The key event that I argue validates this seemingly absurd claim at first glance is that of the resurrection, and linked to that, the behaviour of the Apostles before and after the Resurrection.  If this indeed occurred, then it at least is reasonable to trust Jesus as far more than simply a wise teacher – and so this opens up a whole world of other aspects of faith, which again can be at least fairly deduced. That is where theology comes in.

Firs thing to note: Jesus indeed was dead, so the idea that the disciples just happened to think he was gloriously resurrected due to him surviving the cross just is not credible. The evidence for this can be seen in John’s Gospel, which records he being stabbed in the side, and blood and water gushing out. This, firstly, would have killed him. But the blood and water serves as secondary circumstantial evidence. Death by crucifixion is caused by asphyxiation. As this process happens, and the lungs collapse, water gathers at the bottom of the lungs. So, the blood and water described fits the medical state of affairs of a man killed by crucifixion. In short? He was indeed dead. But that alone does not in any way prove he was resurrected.

So, we have established that Jesus indeed did die on the cross. So the swoon theory is thus not credible. Some have claimed that the disciples stole the body. But, the question is of motives: why would they do that? And why would they then go around preaching that their dead master has come back to life and is Lord? A likely story…. Even so, the evidence suggests strongly against this theory. The Gospels record the Apostles as being deeply upset, fearful, indeed crushed when Jesus was killed on the cross. With this in mind, it thus seems highly unlikely that they would have any reason to possibly be preaching that Jesus was alive…. They, as any normal people would, thought him to be dead, and so, their hope had died with him.

Some have postulated that the Apostles were simply hallucinating when they claimed that Jesus rose from the dead. This is unlikely to be the case for a couple of reasons. Number one, hallucinations are private experiences. People do not have the same hallucinations, much less at the same time. Even more effective as evidence, is the way the Apostles reacted to Jesus’ death – they were crushed, deeply upset. This is not likely to be the state of someone expecting resurrection, or being in a state of wishful thinking. Indeed, when the women came to see the Apostles, shocked and amazed at the resurrection, the Apostles downplayed their words as hysteria. In short, the circumstances suggest that nobody, especially the Apostles, were expecting any sort of supernatural resurrection. Instead, as any normal person would on any normal day (or in this case, tragic set of days), they expected what is normal: the dead stay dead.

But, with this in mind, the Apostles transformed in their outlook after the resurrection… Especially after Pentecost, they became radical, inflamed with passion, unafraid of announcing the Good News – that Jesus is Lord, that he rose from the dead. St Peter, the first Pope, gave a fiery speech, preaching this very message - which ended up converting about 3000 people. There was no political or social gain to be attained by such actions. Indeed they were in time thrown out of the synagogue , and persecuted by Jews and Romans alike – Saul of Tarsus, later to be called Paul, being one example of the killers of the Christians. These people were in a position to know for sure whether or not Jesus rose from the dead. It is extremely unlikely that people would knowingly and willingly die for something they know for sure to be untrue. Hence, I think the circumstantial evidence suggests that something amazing actually did happen that Easter, approximately 2000 years ago. The best explanation of the facts is that Jesus indeed did rise from the dead, and he is who he claims he is. If this is so, then it is also reasonable to have faith in the other aspects of Christianity. If Jesus is indeed Lord, then faith in him is indeed reasonable. And that, in very short, is why I am a Christian.

This is a very short, very abridged summary of the reasons for my faith. There are much more aspects that need to be covered, much more objections. But, that will take an entire book. The purpose of this paper is to show why faith is not necessarily irrational – indeed, reason grounds faith, and then give a quick summary as to why faith is Jesus as a Christian is also supported by reason. As demonstrated, faith is by no means believing without a single shred of evidence. Rather, faith, at least in the Catholic Christian sense, is trusting where the evidence takes you, even if the results of this are out of this world and seemingly crazy at first glance. Faith, in this sense, is supported by reason. But reason alone is not enough, in the same way that faith alone is not enough. The heart and the will must take that step in trusting – and so, living the life of faith. Faith with reason – that is a motto I live by.

Aaron Carlin, October 2014

Critique of the Limits of Science

John Lennox had a point in observing that one can know every fact about the words on a page from a scientific perspective - from chemistry and physics - but this knowledge tells us nothing about the meaning of the words themselves. Indeed, meaning is non physical, transcending physical systems. This is just one of the key limits of science. In a culture that has a habit of portraying science as the only source of real knowledge, I see it as critical that the limits of science be known just as well as all of its achievements... Not to attack science, but to ensure that this field of endeavour does not go outside of its scope.

Reductionism is fair enough in the sense of trying to narrow the scope of enquiry into a thing: to be able to understand certain aspects of it while not being distracted by other aspects. Indeed the way science is done is by reducing the world to what is empirical and able to be measured, as a way of better understanding physical reality. The problem is when one takes things an unwarranted step further, claiming that just because something cannot be reduced to the purely empirical, it therefore does not exist. I can understand to some level Richard Feynman's interlocutor, asking if scientific enquiry destroys the beauty of say, flowers.  If one takes the fallacious eliminative reductionism, which attempts to claim that that the non empirical aspects of the flower do not exist - its sheer beauty and the thoughts of romance that come with it, then yes, the question seems reasonable. But if there very clearly exists reality beyond the empirical, it is unjustified to claim it does not exist, as eliminative materialism tries to do. The more realistic way to apply reductionist thinking is as a way to better understand the physical components of reality i.e the flower. This does not take away the beauty. By contrast, as Feynman appears to see at a deep level, it adds to the beauty. The reductionism of scientific enquiry is a useful way to see the physical aspects of reality more clearly. It is not a bad thing in this context. But it is folly to wear sunglasses for so long to forget the world isn't dark!

If science functions by using the thinking tool of reductionism, and it is also fair to suppose that
the aspects of reality that scientific enquiry filters out using reductionism still have a real existence, it follows that scientific enquiry, although the best thing we have for understanding the physical universe, is fundamentally limited. We can know everything about the brain chemistry of  a person. But we cannot, as such, tap into a person's consciousness. Consciousness, as one example, although linked to matter, cannot be reduced to purely matter. This is just one thing that cannot be completely captured and explained by science. Instead, we have other fields that help us attain knowledge. Aspects of thinking used in science may indeed be applied: careful reasoning, observation, developing and testing theories. But the reductionism in science cannot be applied, This is like making the very thing to be studied disappear before ones eyes. If a thing cannot be reduced to purely the empirical, it obviously cannot be studied by using a method that only looks at the empirical.

I have been pointing out some of the limits of science. In a similar way that science cannot be the only source of knowledge because as part of its method it necessarily reduces things to the empirically observable and measurable, I challenge the claim that science is the source of real knowledge, as it uses concepts and ideas that are not discovered by the scientific method. Mathematics especially is a case in point. That and the laws of logic. They cannot, as such, be discovered by empirical scientific means. To even do science, the laws of logic are taken as axioms. Science does not discover logic- instead, the very act of doing science uses and presupposes it. Quite similarly, numbers are not physical, and so able to be found by empirical means. One does not find a number by pure observation. Instead, they are more a priori concepts which can then be applied to the study of the physical world. The idea is that science itself rests on more fundamental realities, and so, cannot be the only source of real knowledge. It is certainly a critically important source of knowledge. But hardly the only source.

In applying this thinking, I take issue with Sam Harris' claim in "The Moral Landscape" that science determines moral values. No. One can know everything there is to know about a thing empirically, but that does not, in and of itself, give any values of good and evil. Indeed the very judgment and identification of good and evil precedes any scientific enquiry. Instead it is first experienced in an aspect of the person  not able to be accessed by empirical means: the conscience. Very simply, it is wrong to say that science is the source of moral values. We experience them by way of non scientific means - philosophy, literature, law etc. Science can be applied to ethics, if one believes it is possible to find out more about human nature and what makes us flourish by scientific means. But the standard of human flourishing, and that law written on our hearts precedes any scientific deliberation.

Aaron Carlin 16/1/2015

Directing the Power of Freedom

A fundamental about being human is the fact that we are free to choose our actions, and that we are morally responsible for them. Freedom, such a terrifying power…Humankind, so great and terrible, being free we can create a better world or destroy it. We can use our knowledge and ability to act to feed the hungry all over the world or start nuclear war and destroy the world and our freedom to choose altogether. We have been entrusted with a double edged sword. How do we use it well? What should we use our freedom for? It is urgent that we know how to use our freedom for good and not evil. Freedom is a dangerous thing is those that are free are evil. But that’s the price we pay of being human. Every moment of our lives we have the potential to destroy. But on the flip side we can create.

Virtue it seems is the goal. We want to become human gems. Our capacity for moral goodness and our love of it makes it logical to pursue virtue with our freedom. Not simply doing good for personal gain, but developing virtue. That is, being good with our actions and words. Our freedom should ultimately make us better people and help us to flourish as humans- eudemonia.

The total of eudemonia in the world is dependent on the collective virtue of the people living in it.  If most people are filled with vice and use their freedom selfishly and for evil, the world would become a wreck. If most people are virtuous, the world will be a better place. It seems simple: encourage virtue and thus create a good world where freedom is an ally and not a scourge. Encouraging virtue seems to be the way to “tip the odds” so to speak in our favour, to direct the outcome of human choice.

Choice…To some extent it is sort of like a gamble. We can never be entirely sure what any given person will decide…But we can tip the odds in the favour of good decisions. There are many factors that influence a person’s moral choices. Fundamentally, there is personality and the desires. These can be channeled for good or evil.  For example, a person with an angry nature could be dangerous and more likely to attack people than calm, placid people. But this anger can be used to give drive and energy in protecting the weak and working for justice. You could say we can direct a person’s personality towards good. The way one can help influence a person’s free choices towards virtue depends entirely on their personality and how they think. Not all ways work for everyone.

Knowledge and understanding is another significant factor that influences moral choices. Sometimes a person may not be malicious in desire…But they may not clearly understand why an action is morally wrong, or the consequences of their actions. If a person’s moral knowledge is insufficient, they are more likely to make immoral choices. Conversely, if a person can see clearly that an action is morally wrong they are less likely to perform the action. Thus, moral education (not coercion) is critical in helping people to direct their freedom towards the good.

Attachment to worldly pleasure can have a profound influence on a person’s moral decision making. Often, a person can know very well what is good, but are more attracted to the pleasures of the world or the flesh than doing what they know is right. For example, the carnal pleasure of taking ecstasy may tempt a person to just ignore the fact they are harming themselves and putting their children at risk just for the addictive pleasure of the drug. If these temptations are reduced, it becomes easier to do what is known to be good. Reduce attachment to worldly/carnal pleasure for its own sake, and it becomes easier for people to do good. It removes a potent distraction. Pleasure is a good thing of course. But it should be experienced in morally good ways. Pleasure should be a result of virtuous action, not sought selfishly simply for its own sake.

People find it easy to do good when they know there will be good consequences, something of a reward for their actions. Conversely, if the good action is very difficult and involves a lot of suffering and sacrifice, it can become very challenging to perform. So challenging in fact, that the immoral alternative may be chosen instead. A concrete example would be comparing giving a kidney to save a parents life and a raped woman deciding to carry the child full term. The latter would be a much more difficult decision, because of the sacrifice and suffering it entails. Fact of the matter is, many good actions involve suffering and sacrifice. We just need to make it as easy as possible for each other. When life hurts, sometimes all it takes is some solidarity and encouragement to continue bearing suffering. In the same way, to help people do what is morally right, we need to stand by each other. We need to help and encourage virtue, to partly give that little bit of worldly happiness we can’t help but desire. It’s been said that “virtue is its own reward”. But we should make it as easy as possible for us to be virtuous by encouraging virtue actively. We are all in the fight together after all.

To do good repeatedly is to eventually create habits. That is the difference between someone who simply does good and someone who is good (virtuous) as a state of being. Virtue is created when good is done all the time so it becomes effectively automatic. The thing about habits is that they are very well created when one is young. If people can be virtuous when they are young that state of being will be carried into adult life. It is far better for adults to be virtuous from the outset, because of the power they have to act. A greedy child may just eat too much. A greedy adult at the head of a company may steal from people’s wages. Teach virtue from the youngest ages, and create people who have great capacity to do good throughout life. Given this thought, education of children especially is critical to help tip the odds of decisions towards good as opposed to evil.

A good society can only be that way if its people are virtuous. To help cultivate virtue, we need to help people freely make the right decisions. Education and example are they keys, taking advantage of the good that people’s unique personalities can create. We need to make it easier for each other by encouraging each other in solidarity.  After all, goodness is often a difficult sacrifice. It may well be difficult at times, but it becomes far more difficult when people use their freedom for immoral ends. We have all been given a double edged sword. And now in the 21^st century we have unprecedented power to destroy the world we live in. But we also have more knowledge than ever before, and in many ways, more power for good. But our freedom is a dangerous thing if it is not used for good. Thus it is imperative to create good societies, and help all people to use their freedom for what it should be: moral good. Our freedom, if it is used in the right direction will create a better world. And that ultimately is what we dream of.

Aaron Carlin, 2012

Introduction

Hello readers,

I spend a lot of time reading, thinking and writing, and so I thought I would start this blog to share what I do with anyone who is interested. If you like philosophy, theology, history and even a bit of science, I will have something to offer.

The name of the blog comes from a funny nickname I got given when I studied ethics during my first year at Notre Dame. And in one way I am like Aristotle - curious about everything and wanting to think deeply and find out what's true.

Read and enjoy - don't be afraid to comment.

Aaron