Henke 2022ay

Where do Morality and the Universally Valid Rules of Reason Come From? Not Where Lundahl (2022j) and Lewis (1960) Claim

Kevin R. Henke

September 15, 2022

In Henke (2022b), I made the following comments about consciousness:

“Lundahl (2022a) also makes the following statement to me about nature and our consciousness:

“Other takeaway in CSL's [C.S. Lewis’] Miracles, you carry around yourself two very clear indications that nature is not all there is - neither reason nor morality can be reduced to matter and energy affected by each other in accordance with laws of physics and chemistry. The ‘hard problem of consciousness’ - to take it from a somewhat different angle - remains hard. We don't just need an intelligent designer who arranged our brains for optimal consciousness, we need (for purposes we take for granted, like refuting or like blaming) something other than just brain arrangements in our consciousness.”

I fully admit that I’m no expert on consciousness. Contrary to what Lundahl (2022a) and Lewis (1960, his chapter 3, etc.) indicate in this quotation, our thoughts are electrical and our brains are matter. Lewis (1960, chapter 3, etc.) questioned the ability of humans to rationally understand our surroundings through naturalism and he argued that we should seriously consider that miracles occur. However, Lewis (1960) had the burden of evidence to demonstrate his claims for miracles and he failed to do so. Now, investigators are still looking for miracles at revival meetings, among psychics, at supposedly haunted houses, and elsewhere, and not finding any evidence for them.

Who we are, including our reason and moral values, arise from interactions between our brains and our surroundings. We observe, test and confirm with the help of others our conclusions about events in nature. Our brains, thoughts and surroundings are all ultimately controlled by the laws of chemistry and physics. That is, we can imagine what it would be like to be able to magically levitate objects only using our thoughts, but the laws of chemistry and physics don’t actually allow us to do it. Nevertheless, there is a danger that when we recognize that our brains are nothing but matter and energy that we might be tempted to trivialize this electrical activity and think that it has no serious consequences. That is, considering how much damage the electrical activity in Putin’s brain is doing to millions of people in the Ukraine, we cannot underestimate the power of a single human brain to manipulate other humans and weapons in his/her environment. This is why millions of people hope that Putin’s brain soon ceases to function and that more rational and empathetic brains will replace him.

Our morals and reasoning abilities arise in response to our surroundings, including how we interact with other humans. By getting confirmation from our fellow humans and doing experimental testing, we can make reliable discoveries about our environment. We can send spacecraft to Moon, understand why severe earthquakes occur in certain areas and not others, and we understand what causes influenza, etc. The supernatural is not needed to explain these discoveries. Because of the power of the human brain and our ability to adequately understand what’s going on in our surroundings, we can have a huge impact on our surroundings. Unfortunately, humans can also do extensive damage to our environment.

No gods, angels, demons or a Bible are also needed to figure out how people should try to function in our environments. We should develop rules (morality) through reason and not Biblical dogma so that we can live peacefully with each other and our environment. No sane person wants to live in poverty, misery and violence. Ukrainian soldiers are the only sane individuals wanting to move to eastern Ukraine.

We should also recognize that not all brains function well. Mental illness and deficiency are real. As rational research shows, chemicals, traumatic experiences and genetics can certainly cause mental illness. Demons aren’t required.” [my emphasis]

Lundahl (2022j) makes the following reply to the first bolded statement of my comments:

“Kevin R. Henke: ‘No gods, angels, demons or a Bible are also needed to figure out how people should try to function in our environments. We should develop rules (morality) through reason and not Biblical dogma so that we can live peacefully with each other and our environment.’

The morality is here said to be rooted in reason. Now, the question is not whether an agency external to our reason is needed to enlighten it - it may be the case, and as Christians, both Lewis and I believe after the fall each has some kind of need of that. The questions are rather:

· where do universally valid rules of reason come from?

· does reason deal with any moral rules prior to its own developing of moral rules?

The point of chapters 3 and (I think) 4 is, the laws of chemistry and electronics and physics and the constraints of evolution do not put us into the reach of discovering what is universally valid. For our reason to do this, we need to be more than that. The sentence "[o]ur brains, thoughts and surroundings are all ultimately controlled by the laws of chemistry and physics," needs to be false, at least if implying "and nothing else."

The “universally valid rules of reason” that Lundahl (2022j) references are solely human discoveries. There’s no need for anything beyond human reason (Dennett 2006). The rules are “universal” because they happen to work in a variety of circumstances from generation to generation. In ancient times, humans learned to develop morals so that members of the tribe could get along with each other. Otherwise, the tribe would fall apart. People needed to cooperate with each other to survive. They also learned how to make spears, avoid the berries that were poisonous, develop strategies for hunting, etc. Both of their technological and socialization (moral) skills came from reasoning and they passed that knowledge onto their children. Their children added to the knowledge and passed that onto their children, etc. In other words, ancient people discovered morality in the same way that they discovered how to make a spear – through reason and trial and error.

In more modern times, we discovered that slavery was not a good idea from rational debate and empathy for our fellow human beings, and certainly not from prayer and the Bible (Avalos 2011). We also learned that it’s not a good idea to dump toxins into the atmosphere and oceans. Through physics, chemistry and biology, we learned that pollution may not just “go away.” Each generation learns valuable and often painful lessons through reason, trail and error, and debate, and we try to pass that wisdom and knowledge unto the next generation along with our positive technological advances. There’s no evidence that any of our advances in reasoning and technology came from God or something “beyond Nature.”

As for the Fall of Adam and Eve that Lundahl (2022j) and Lewis (1960) mention, there’s not a shred of evidence to support it. The young-Earth creationist version of the Fall is especially silly, where stars in distant galaxies supposedly become supernovae solely because Adam and Eve listened to a Talking Snake in Genesis 3, ate the wrong piece of fruit, and plunged the entire Universe into chaos and destruction.

When humans rationalize, we first observe and identify a problem or a mystery. We then thoroughly confirm our observations with more and independent observations from other humans. Did they really do or say that? Did that really happen? Over time through testing, trial and error, and being empathetic to our fellow humans, we developed “universally valid rules of reason”, which are the products of human activity. We then use the rules we’ve learned to solve additional problems and mysteries. The evidence indicates that we humans have no gods, angels or extraterrestrial intelligences helping us. We are alone and we are most effective in solving mysteries and problems when we work together and engage in science, evaluate historical data for accuracy, develop and use mathematics/logic, and strive to come to a consensus through rational debate and not through prayer, prophecy, astrology or other nonsensical methods.

As an example of humans using reason to solve a problem, Russia recently threatened Finland if they joined NATO. Even if the threat was nothing more than a bluff, because of the invasion of Ukraine, the Finnish government took the threat seriously. So, how did Finland respond? Did the Finnish government call for their people to engage in fasting and prayer to deal with the Russian threat? As far as I know, no. No doubt, there were certainly people in Finland that prayed for God to deliver them from the Soviets in 1939-1940 and 1941-1944. That didn’t work. Finland lost those wars and they lost a lot of lives and territory to the Soviets. So, the majority of Finns were probably smart enough not to try the religious options again. Instead, the history of 1939-1944 told them that their military could not stand up to Russia alone. Joining NATO was the logical option. The Finnish government and people recognized that forming an alliance with the nuclear powers of the USA and United Kingdom, as well as the rest of NATO, and not prayer, would be the best deterrent to Russian aggression. The Finns also recognized that a tyrant like Putin could not be trusted to keep any peace treaty or honor any other diplomatic settlement. There would be no “peace in our time” with Putin. Tyrants, like Putin, see diplomacy and being nice as weaknesses and they exploit agreements. Tyrants only respect their opponents when their opponents have extensive military power and a capability of destroying them. The goal of the Finns is to deter Russia and prevent a war. Finland becoming part of the NATO alliance is the best and most rational alternative for maintaining their peace and security. The Finns recognized what every child on the playground or our ancestors in the caves discovered long ago, it’s rational to have powerful friends if you’re being bullied or threatened.

As I previously stated in Henke (2022ai), as far as cosmologists and astronomers know, the laws of chemistry and physics are universal. They’ve found no exceptions. Newton’s Universal Law of Gravitation is indeed universal and explains the gravitational relationships between even the most distant stars and galaxies. Spectral analyses of stars have the same elements in them as we find on Earth (Delsemme 1998). So, chemistry is also universal. If Lewis (1960) and Mr. Lundahl want to say otherwise, the burden is on them to produce the evidence that the laws of chemistry and physics are not universal.

Humans invented mathematics and logic to quantify and describe how the Universe behaves, and to develop technologies to make our lives better. For example, geometry is essential in architecture. Mathematics did not come from the book of Numbers and there’s no evidence that God gave us mathematics and logic any more than Prometheus gave us fire. Interestingly, we see animals using primitive mathematics. Predators, for example, can tell the difference between a field without any prey and a field with a single prey. That is, they can tell the difference between zero and one. They can also tell the difference between one and many. If a cat in a field sees a single mouse on its left and a group of mice on its right, unless the single mouse is noticeably disabled, the cat is probably going to go after the group thinking it’s more likely to get a meal from one of them rather than trying to track down the mouse on the left and risk having it get away. So, predators going back to Tyrannosaurus rex and the Paleozoic seas were probably primitive counters. People simply expanded and improved mathematics/logic to solve different problems. There’s nothing supernatural here.

Effective morality is also rooted in rational thought and debate. Good moral decisions involve observation, reason, empathy for our fellow humans and debate. There’s no evidence that prayer or prophecy works to solve these problems with the numerous conflicting voices coming from Christian, Jewish, Muslim and other religious leaders that groundlessly proclaim that their particular religion and only their religion has the true solutions to these problems. Those tired and old claims about prayer and religious commandments often do not stand up to rational scrutiny. To be exact, many of them are barbaric. Exodus 21:20-21, for example, allows a sadistic master to torture a slave as long as the slave does not die, but can walk around after a couple of days. Even churches know better than Matthew 6:34. They maintain budgets and plan for tomorrow rather than just trusting this verse. No wonder, more and more people are turning to geology, chemistry, medicine, physics, engineering, and other reliable disciplines rather than the Bible or religious leaders to solve their problems.

When the covid catastrophe arose, there were various “prophets”, pastors and other religious leaders that claimed that they were immune from covid because of their faith. There’s no evidence that that worked. To be exact, several of them died from the disease, which proved that they were either deluded or liars. Rational people relied on science to produce vaccines and, at least, the American vaccines for covid work very well. People debated the effectiveness of the vaccines and whether children should be immunized. The rational people concluded that despite some serious side effects in a small minority of cases, getting the vaccines was worth the risk. Those that chose not to vaccinate their children often did so because of irrational fears or disinformation.

Empathy for our fellow humans is also rational and required for any stable society. All sane people want to live in a nice neighborhood, where your neighbors respect you and your property. Part of living in a nice neighborhood requires that we reciprocate and be good citizens by also respecting our neighbors and their property. If we don’t, there’s a chance that we face prison for theft, assault or other felonies. Few people want to go to prison. However, things could be even worse for criminals that break into American homes to steal and harm people. Many Americans own guns and most US states allow individuals to use lethal force against anyone trying to break into their homes.

Anytime two or more people are living together, whether it was in a Pleistocene cave or in a modern dwelling, they soon realize that rules have to be established to maintain peace and order. No society can be stable and avoid anarchy and chaos, if they tolerate murder, theft and assault. Even tribal societies that share a lot of property in common would still have some personal possessions that would require respect of private ownership. Two or more children on the playground also soon discover that they need rules to play together. The children commonly discover the Golden Rule without a Bible. If you want your playmate to share his toys, you have to share yours. If you don’t want your playmate to throw sand into your face, don’t do it to her. The logic of the Golden Rule dates long before Jesus (Avalos 2011, pp. 96-97). While being nice to others is no guarantee that they will be nice to you, antagonizing your neighbors is not going to bring peace and harmony to you. If you want what is best for your loved ones and your property, the best policy is to do the same for others and their property.

Nature is also not a good model for morality. Nature senselessly kills numerous people and destroys a lot of property through earthquakes, storms and other disasters. That does not mean that humans should behave like nature and meaninglessly kill people and destroy property. To be exact, we spend a lot of time and money to cure diseases, produce storm shelters, and make our property more resistant to earthquakes and storms. That is, rather than just accepting what nature throws at us or trying to pray it away, we actively and rationally work to defeat and avoid diseases and survive other natural disasters.

Lundahl (2022j) stresses that "’[o]ur brains, thoughts and surroundings are all ultimately controlled by the laws of chemistry and physics,’ needs to be false.” No, it does not! If Mr. Lundahl and Lewis (1960) want to believe that there must be something more than our physical Universe, such as God in a heaven, they have to produce the evidence to demonstrate it. So far, they have failed. Rather than relying on scriptures, prayer and other aspects of religion, we humans are better off using the products of our rational thought: science, inventions, logic/mathematics, and constructive debate.

Lundahl (2022j) concludes by replying to the second bolded statement on mental health from Henke (2022b), which is reproduced with his comment:

“Kevin R. Henke: ‘We should also recognize that not all brains function well. Mental illness and deficiency are real. As rational research shows, chemicals, traumatic experiences and genetics can certainly cause mental illness. Demons aren’t required.’

Part of CSL's point. When nature controls our minds, he would also add drunkenness, sleep, we are not considered as being rational. By the way, while mental illness is very probably real, even apart from demons, though rarer than pushed by DSMH V, the Biblical cases of demonic possession cannot be reduced to known mental illnesses, whether real ones or exaggerated claims meant to discourage certain behaviours socially.”

Biologically, we need sleep. Sleep not only feels good, but our brains need it survive. Sleep deprivation can lead to serious health problems and even death.

Yes, people are often irrational. We too often tend to listen to our hedonistic desires for self-indulgence more than rational thought. That’s because of how we are wired. We can learn to ignore another person’s pain, hunger and needs. We can’t so effectively do that with ourselves when our central nervous system is constantly nagging us for something. So, I agree that harmful activities, such as drunkenness and other addictive behaviors, are dangerous and irrational. Unfortunately, people often have the tendency to put pleasure ahead of reason. I’ve seen too many lives destroyed by alcohol and other additive substances. That’s why I abstain from them. If Lundahl (2022j) wants to promote the reality of demonic possession, as usual, he needs to demonstrate it with good scientific evidence. There’s no reason to believe any of the “cases” of demonic possession in the Bible. There’s no evidence that demons exist. Once more, Lundahl (2022j) cites another source, DSMH V, without having the courtesy to give us a reference so that we can judge its validity.

References:

Avalos, H. 2011. Slavery, Abolitionism, and the Ethics of Biblical Scholarship: Sheffield Phoenix Press: Sheffield, UK, 331pp.

Delsemme, A. 1998. Our Cosmic Origins: From the Big Bang to the Emergence of Life and Intelligence: Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 322pp.

Dennett, D.C. 2006. Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon: Viking Penguin: London, UK, 448pp.

Lewis, C.S. 1960. Miracles, 2^nd ed., printed 1974: Harper One: HarperCollinsPublishers, 294pp.