by Elizabeth Bjorkman
The Institute for Religion in an Age of Science (IRAS) held its 44th annual Star Island Conference July 26 to Aug. 2. The topic this year continued the theme from last year, "The Epic of Evolution", but zeroed in on "The Evolution of Morality". The result was, for this conferee of four previous conferences, the finest religion/science dialogue yet. Morality addresses the religious question, "what things matter", while science seeks to know "how things are". Perhaps it is easier to have open dialogue when scientific uncertainties are greater than religious uncertainties. No dialogue occurs however unless religion feels that the more we can know about ourselves and our context in the universe the more we can fulfill what it means to be a human being.
The conference opened Sat. evening with the question we would try to answer on Friday: If one looks at different cultures over space and time do we find that moral systems have a common thread of moral understanding? Humans share with animals the basic instincts for fleeing and fighting when threatened, foraging for food and reproduction. To what extent does culture free human beings from or shape these primary instincts thereby allowing us to build solidarity and cooperation among ourselves?
Three talks from a historical perspective addressed nuances in the evolution of Darwin's theory of evolution. Paul Thompson, a professor of philosophy and biology spoke on "Ethics: Its Origins and Some Current Issues". James Gilbert, a historian who spends much of his time teaching American history abroad, described "The Cultural Links of Science and Religion". IRAS members enjoyed learning about the context surrounding IRAS' beginning and IRAS as an expression of an important aspect of American culture. Gilbert sees the interaction between religion and science as one of several universal preoccupations of any society. How different societies look at these universal issues, for him, goes a long way in defining their cultures. Michael Ruse, professor of philosophy and zoology and conference co-chair, further explored the historical aspects first, of the emergence of Darwin's theory and then its close connection with thinking about ethics from just before the time of Darwin to the present. This historical journey has caused Ruse to raise a yellow flag of caution: beware of specific moral dictates on the basis of evolution, i.e. it is wise to be sensitive to what has preceded such dictates. But he is encouraged that there are professional scientists digging deeper into sociobiology, correcting some of the earlier over generalizations and giving us valuable information on how we deal with certain specific problems. Perhaps this will better equip us to articulate some general strategies that social animals use in dealing with each other. Ruse made it clear that the old hope of progress in evolutionary theory is gone, i.e. do not look to biology for justification.
The conversation took an interesting turn when the lone pure scientist, biological anthropologist Bob Sussman, affirmed in one breath the biological basis to human behavior and in the next raised concerns with science twisting data to fit moral theory. He used the example of the hunter/killer myths of man to show how sociobiological conclusions have been made on both insufficient data and some conveniently excluded and selected data. Sussman's caution on the use of science to explore moral theory was challenged by Mary Maxwell, a professor of International Relations who is concerned with human rights. An avowed non-scientist, she values greatly the findings from sociobiology. They have helped her uncover new insights about the evolution of socialitity (the basic human emotions, like maternal love, submissiveness to authority and loyalty to a group triggered by a symbol) which are, for her, the basis for the evolution of morality. After exploring the feelings underlying what we consider moral behavior she suggested that culture most likely builds morality on the Biogram, i.e. the basic biological tendencies of human beings. She speculated on how the feelings of morality lead to justice and why intuition about duty and rightness expands to explanations of the universe, i.e. the worldviews presented by religious systems. She suspects with Sussman that sociobiolgy has perhaps underplayed the importance of sympathy, a topic covered in one of the workshops. In closing she referred to her article in the conference newspaper on group morality (not covered in her presentation) which cautioned that simple factors, i.e. what is in "the air" at a particular time, can change instincts and responses. In other words, a feature of group morality is that it causes us to switch off our standard morality.
Perhaps the highlight of the conference was a series of presentations on some of the major religions in the world, seen now with lenses labeled "worldview" and "group morality". The religions covered were: Confucianism, Buddhism, Hinduism and Christianity. The importance of worldview in each was consistently noted while the complexity grew in noting similarities and differences in their moral structures and contexts.
Karl Peters, conference co-chair and professor of philosophy and religion, wrapped up the various themes and insights of the week answering the lead question with five "concluding" questions:
- Do worldviews matter, and if so do they matter equally?
- What does it mean to be moral, i.e. how do I know right from wrong and why do I try to do what is right even when I don't want to?
- What is the relation between biology and culture, antagonistic, continuous and/or transformative?
- How does a scientific description of how we evolved to be moral fit with our personal quest for fulfillment in life.
- How do we test evolutionary ideas about ethics scientifically?
As one conferee commented after the closing panel question and answer session, "This was the best Q&A session we have ever had!" Perhaps a topic worth revisiting.