

Science and Religion: an essay by Einstein - bhavin
http://www.laphamsquarterly.org/voices-in-time/albert-einstein-solves-the-equation.php

======
beetmik
Sam Harris offers a great counter argument to the idea that "science can only
ascertain what is, but not what should be" in the Moral Landscape.
Essentially, many aspects of human emotional wellbeing are counter-intuitive
and can be best studied by empirical means (fMRI, psychology studies, etc.).
In that way science offers a better alternative to religion in defining
societal rules and ethical behavior.

~~~
DanielBMarkham
This is making the assumption that emotional well-being is the goal of
morality, or that even global immediate utilitarianism is preferable to long-
term utilitarian values.

Neither of these assumptions appear to be true, at least to me. It may be
better for society to have the individual lead a life in which they find no
emotional value. Or it may be better for the species to have an entire society
live a miserable life. The idea that immediate individual emotional well-being
is a metric for morality is dubious at best.

That's not saying that science can't offer something of value: I'm sure it
can. It's just that many times scientists in various fields have a tendency to
overstate the implications of their research.

~~~
elblanco
> Neither of these assumptions appear to be true, at least to me.

It's been my observation that if you ask most people who espouse a particular
philosophy couched in "morality", that they claim that following their
particular moral code will lead to well being. I've also found that the strong
that belief is, the less likely that those followers have actually spent time
thinking on the ramifications of their moral code towards that goal. They
_think_ they have thought about it a lot, but typically they've just spent
brain cycles thinking about the _code_ and how to follow it most closely --
not what following that code leads to.

I'm not disagreeing, just throwing in an observation -- most moral codes claim
to lead to well being, but in reality many of them do not actually go there.

This phenomenon seems to create a particularly powerful barrier to rational
thought that very few people seem to be able to overcome and can even seem to
defeat some individuals.

I've seen friends, family and colleagues fail repeatedly to come to terms with
this, they think it's because they haven't applied themselves completely to
some arbitrary code so the only solution is to double down again and again.

After decades of doubling down this seems to drive people closer and closer to
a kind of insanity...I've seen a few withdraw into fantasy worlds constructed
of such powerful cognitive dissonance (arising from the inherent
contradictions of their moral code and the observed outcome) that having a
normal conversation about simple things, like the weather, become impossible
-- they can barely complete a sentence without contradicting themselves or
becoming lost and sidetracked about how such and such random topic has some
particularly deep meaning in their hyper acute moralist world.

~~~
DanielBMarkham
_most moral codes claim to lead to well being, but in reality many of them do
not actually go there._

Good points. It's a tough subject and, well, it's open to interpretation.
That's the problem.

As a counter-example, I'd offer up Mother Theresa, who suffered a lot and had
severe doubts both about her faith and her work, yet most outside observers
believed she was a moral person. I would also offer up early Christians, which
surprised the Romans at being more than willing to tend to people stricken by
the plague. To them it was the moral thing to do.

Moving to the stoics, it's a common belief among them that you train yourself
to enjoy life more by purposely taking away things from yourself: sleep on the
floor, or try skipping a couple of meals.

The point is that there is no point. You can look at this short-term, medium-
term, long-term, from the point of view of the individual, community, country,
or species. Or you can imagine some ethereal world in which important things
don't align with any physicality. Good arguments can be made for each of these
viewpoints.

Hell, it may be that the reason things are generally more or less moral than
others is that they promote advancement of the species as a whole, in which
case to truly understand morality you would have to be able to understand the
social, political, and technological dynamics of 4+ billion people interacting
with one another. It could simply be incalculable.

Beats me. I just wanted to provide a counter-example. Your point is as good as
any.

BTW, I've also observed this you notice as well, and it's very sad. Perhaps a
noble goal of science would be to help folks identify these cognitive
dissonances, both in themselves and in their work. I have a feeling it's much
more prevalent than we imagine. Always easy to find the fault with the other
guy -- much tougher to find it in ourselves.

------
cstuder
Single-page view: [http://www.laphamsquarterly.org/voices-in-time/albert-
einste...](http://www.laphamsquarterly.org/voices-in-time/albert-einstein-
solves-the-equation.php?page=all)

------
d99kris
I don't really see how this is relevant at HN.

~~~
olalonde
Einstein was a great hacker (for some definitions of hacker) and this essay
"gratifies one's intellectual curiosity".

~~~
d99kris
Okay, it's always a question of definition when it comes to "one's". :)

I do get your point however, and since you got more up-votes than me here I
wont argue with it. I'm still a newbie at HN. :)

