SOUL or BRAIN and THE LAWS OF PHYSICS (morals & ethics have their roots in Evolutionary Instinct)
groups.yahoo.com
Theists are seen to jump almost instinctively to the
conclusion that atheism leads to lack of morality, to a lack
of an absolute reason to utter a "Thou Shalt/Thou shalt
not..". In a sense they are correct, but not in the sense
they purport to convey through their apologetics. It is true
that without the possibility of the existence of a divine
or higher entity or the permanence of the self in whatever
sense, there remains no compelling basis for asserting a
"Should" in any matter of life. A strict belief in
materialism, or a lack in the belief in spirituality, where
no higher reality is allowed, necessarily leads to an
existential state of meaninglessness from a pure rational
perspective, i.e there remains no basis of rationally
justifying a "Should" on any matter or to find a meaningful
purpose of life itself, ultimately leading to nihilism.
After all, if our life is transient, purely material, and
nothing remains after our death, why SHOULD the "SHOULDS"
really matter to us at all? Obviously the "SHOULD" must have
to be based on some underlying moral axioms. Take away the
axioms, and the "Thou Shall/ Shall not.." falls apart. Axiology
as a branch of philosophy loses its raison d' etre. How and
why do these moral axiom emerge? What is the basis of the field
of axiology in ethics?
Lets look at it carefully. Take the case of any principled position of a human rights activist
on a social or political issue. We can try to analyze the
basis of this principle by a series of "why" and "because".
We can start by asking why should we believe in principle
"A"? Immediately the why-A would be explained by "because-A".
Then we can ask why because-A? Because-A would also be
explained by a because-B. Ultimately we will arrive at
"because-Z", which cannot be explained away reductively any
further without becoming circular. Because-Z has to be
accepted as an axiom. For some "whys", the moral axioms at
the end of the why chain can be justified only from an
evolutionary consideration, to prevent extinction of human
species.
Although some individual may even question, why
should it matter to him if humanity becomes extinct after
his death, if lives a fulfilled and happy life? Well, it
may not matter to him, but it matters to evolution (Laws of
Physics), thats why evolution hardwires that instinct (The
instinct to preserve human race) in MOST humans. But for
many other moral axioms such evolutionary justification
does not exist. Even with those moral axioms whose
existence are rooted in the evolutionary imperative of
preventing extinction, modern biotechnological innovation
having almost eliminated the threat of extinction(barring
a catastrophic act like global nuclear conflagration),
nevertheless makes that explanation no longer justifiable
from an evolutionary consideration anymore. We cannot for
example by pure reason alone justify why we should help the
freedom fighters of a nation struggling against its occupying
forces, or help and petition for the release of a prisoner or
victim of religious or political persecution etc.
We accept all these as moral axioms originally rooted in evolutionary
instincts. These axioms form the primitives on which axiology
of ethics is founded. Even a strict atheist and materialist,
who may have no rational basis for morality or virtues as
claimed by theists, still feel a strong intuitive sense of
moral and ethical values, thanks to evolutionary hardwiring.
They cannot force themself to commit a crime, even though
they are convinced that there is no judgement day hereafter,
or even if they are granted immunity here on earth.
Evolutionary instincts are powerful enough to deter many
atheists from committing acts that are generally agreed to
as immoral. Those instincts are also present in many
theists, and for them the external religious imperatives
merely reinforce their instinctive moral sense, the moral
sense is not created anew by religion, nor does religion
add anything extra either. But the fact still remains that
there is no rational basis of believing or adhering to a
moral principle. No apriori "reason" in the true sense can
be put forward to explain why an axiom should be accepted
We may instinctively find the axiom appealing and natural.
But that intuitive appeal is due to evolutionary effect, not
due to any non-material independent entity outside of the
brain speaking to "us" in the heart. The "I", the "us" are
just an illusionary perception of an entity beyond the brain.
The brain is all there is to it, if one does not believe in
an invisible soul independently affecting the brain and
controlling the thoughts. Thoughts are one-to-one mappings
of a complex series of neuronal activities in the brain in
interaction with the environemnt using feedback mechanism
of the brain's memory. The moral axioms are really a product
of evolution. Evolution instills those values and emotions
that maximize the odds of survival and propagation of a
species. We can, if we wish, say that moral axioms are
created by the activities in the pre-frontal cortex of
human brain, often called the executive brain ("The
Executive Brain" - Goldberg) But what created the
pre-frontal cortex? Evolution. All human values and emotions
(in other words human mind, with all its facets) are
evolutionary products(via the brain).
Aesthetic Senses
Aesthetic sense, passion for love, the universal appeal of the smile of a
child, all these seem so "heavenly", it is hard to accept
them as purely rooted in material basis through the blind
unconscious workings of the laws of nature(Physics). These
are all "Grand Illusions" in the words of evolutionary
biologist Victor Johnston (Why we feel: The Science of
Emotions). The sense of beauty in homo sapiens is known to
have evolutionary root as well dating back to the time our
hominid ancestors roamed the African Savanas (The Artful
Universe - John Barrow). When we enjoy the music of
Beethoven's Fifth Symphony, the haunting cameo performance
Harpo playing harp in the otherwise hilarious Marx brother
comedy, the surrealistic painting of Dali or Magritte, the
velvet sound of George Shearing Quintet, the complex far
out sound of Stan Kenton's progressive jazz orchestra
performing Bob Graettinger's "City of Glass" suite in the
50's, the haunting Bangla poem "Kajla Didi" by Jotindro
Bagchi, or Tagore's "Sonar Tori", all seem too ethereal,
too "other worldly", too meaningful to be accepted as
merely resulting from the blind laws governing matter and
energy.
But are the laws of Physics really blind, inanimate?
Human brain, which is the ultimate seat and provenance of
these beautiful ethereal products, is itself the product of
the Laws of Physics. The laws of Physics has these ethereal
qualities latent in it. The Laws of Physics is very much
alive, conscious. It is the engine driving evolution. It
took millions of years for evolution to craft these
beautiful products guided at each step by the laws of
physics, and shaped by the contingencies that inevitably
accompany a large complex environment.
Thus even rationalism, which I value so much, is also a creation of
evolution. Of course not all human brains are built to be
equal in rational, moral or other senses by evolution.
Gene and environment determine the degree of these senses
in each individual. Thats why Henri Bergson was an
intuitionist, whereas David Hume was a strict empiricist.
Its just that rationalism as an element of human thought
arose out of evolutionary mechanism of the brain over time.
But the point is that it is the brain that is the seat of
and source of all elements of human thoughts and emotions.
In is fascinating book "Sex and the Origin of Death",
microbiologist William Clark invites us to a thought
experiment, where a renowned brain surgeon suffers from a
serious brain diseaas which only he is competent enough to
cure through brain surgery. With the help of his able
assitants and careful rehearsals, he successfully operates
on his own brain and cures himself. He draws wide accolade
from colleagues and general public. Then Clark asks us to
ponder the question, who deserves the kudos, who truly
accomplished the remarkable medical feat? It is the brain
of the brain surgeon! The evolutionary urge to save itself
from dying, the brain caused the hands of the brain surgeon
to perform the meticulous and delicate operation to save
itself, and also convinced other brains (assistants') to
lend a "hand" in this most complex act of self-preservation.
The "I" or "we" refered to in common parlance is nothing
but "our" brain in action (Like a process is a running
program), with all its synaptic connections (The Synaptic
Self - Joseph Ledoux) and the relative concentration of
neurotransmitters. There is no "I" outside the material
substrate of the brain. Many secular liberals, who may even
claim to be atheist may find this insight disturbing and
unpleasing, and thus would argue, that "we" are not just
pre-frontal cortex, "we" are more than just a material
brain, "we" are HUMANS. As humans, "we" are endowed with a
noble human spirit. How often we hear even from even non-
religious people that morality cannot be derived by science
or knowledge, but from metaphysics or philosophy. Any
suggestion of using scientific approach in social issues is
dismissed by them as scientism.
As if science is man made, created in the brain but philsophy or metaphysics is not
man made in the brain, but derived from some sublime from
outside the brain, from some divine, transendent world.
This is where they betray their subconscouss assumption
of an entity beyond the material substrates of humans,
essentially referring to a "soul". The moment one conceives
of some non-material entity independent of the brain,
responsible for "our" thoughts and emotions, morality,
freewill, altruism, patriotism, etc, they are essentially
referring in a cryptic way to soul, or some non-material
external entity, endowed with "freewill", influencing our
thoughts and actions, and breathing life inot our body.
We can call them cryptovitalists/cryptodualists. They are
essentially rephrasing the old Cartesian dualism, of a
spiritual mind external to the body or brain.
This crypto-vitalism/dualsim also explains why so many who
otherwise claim to be freethinking liberal atheists are
uneasy accepting the cold fact that life is a result of the
natural laws of physics at work. Accepting that goes
against their grain and their subsconscious assumption or
hope of a divine/sublime entity beyond the material
substrate of the human body. The same explains why many of
them also feel uneasy accepting the idea that Biology is
causally linked to Physics. A belief that biology is not
linked to physics provides a subconscious hope that there
may be some divine/non-material force or entity guiding
the laws of biology, because Physics being a science of
matter and energy, seems to lacks such divine, living driving
force. There is no other reason for insisting on the lack of
a causal link between Physics and biology, when it is self-
evident to all leading scientists and to science literates
that there is such a hierarchical link.
These crypto-vitalists miss one obvious point, the point that there is no
fundamental difference between living and non-living matter,
the difference is due to the complexity and emergent
effects. Non-living matter (including a corpse) are in
thermodynamic equlibrium, living matters are in highly non-
equlibrium thermodynamic state. Laws of Physics do control
the behaviour of all matter, living, or non-living. All
the vital prcesses of a living organism, viz. metabolism,
reproduction etc, involve any mechanism that violates or
does not follow any known laws of Physics, like the law
of conservation of energy, law of entropy etc. The
cryptovitalists need not delink biology from physics for
a hope of a spiritual driver for biology. The driver of
Physics itself being unknown (The ultimate "?" which I
mentioned in my earlier posts), they might as well pin
their hope on a spiritual driver for the laws of physics.
To me, it seems more sensible to seek spirituality in
Physics. Here I am using spirituality to denote the
possibility of an higher inteliigent transendent reality
manifesting itself through the intermediary of the
creative works of the laws of Physics in action.
If the laws of Physics and the emergent laws of
complexity can conspire through evolution to craft the
most complex and amazing object in the universe called the
human brain, which can conceive of and seek spirituality,
moraluty and all that we consider divine, then the laws of
Physics may very well contain the seed of spirituality and
morality. If brain is a creation of the laws of Physics, and
if the created(human brain) can discover its creator (Laws
of Physics) in an intriguing concsiousness loop, as physicist
Paul Davies points out (The Mind of God), then may be
someday, the brain will also discover the reason why, not
just how, the Laws of Physics created the brain with all
its beautiful, reation of arts, morality and spritiuality.
And then we humans can feel a sense of purpose and a reason
to find meaning and permanence of life. Humans may then
even integrate morality with the laws of nature(Physics),
fulfilling the ultimate dream of Auguste Comte, the founder
of sociology and tyhe positivist philosopher who envisaged
a a social science based on natural science, a dream re-
expressed in what evolutionary biologist E.O. Wilson calls
"consilience", the grand synthesis of the social and the
natural sciences. Maybe someday, when the holy grail of
Physics (Theory of Everything, the final Superstring Theory,
.) is found, the reason for our existence may also be
found embedded in that final theory.
Then we will not suffer from the "grand illusion". Of course the ultimate
mystery of existence, i.e why the universe at large exists,
or why the laws of Physics exist at all, will always remain
a mystery, providing a permanent source of pabulum for the
pref-frontal cortex. So that ultimate "?" will always provide
a room and excuse for being spiritually hungry (we all are to
varying extent) for a POSSIBLE higher reality. We will never
be able to logically refute a creationist who may believe
that its not life that is created by God, but the laws of
Physics is, and that evolution (biology) is a consequence
of the laws of Physics created by God, leading to the creation
of life(biogenesis).
- Aparthib
In various debates and discussions, when taking a principled
position on an issue, sometimes the secular humanists and
freethinkers sometimes aver their disbelief in God, soul
and other religious beliefs. But how accurate is this
self-characterization? This is not to doubt the sincerity
of those freethinkers, they truly believe they are atheists
or agnostics and dismiss the idea of soul. But some of the
idealistic positions and views adopted by many secular
humanists (atheists or agnostics) under careful scrutiny
betray an underlying subconscious assumption of a non-material
existence of some (divine/spiritual) entity or reality and
a subconscious reluctance to accept a pure materialistic view
of reality. Hopefully this will became clearer as I tried to
carefully explain the rational basis of this conclusion/
hypothesis above |
