On a recent Dennis Prager hour (hour 3 on November 15th), Dennis spoke with Daniel Bennett about his book Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon.  Many of Dennis's questions and comments got me to thinking, and are worthy of discussion here. 

In some cases, I would argue that Mr. Bennett did not argue well for secularism, but in many cases he spoke well.  Given my extra six days to think about a response, I can't fault Bennett for any of his answers during the dialog.  Here is how I would respond to some of Prager's comments:

Dennis Prager: "How do you apply a scientific method to what I fully acknowledge is a statement of faith?"
The Secular Conservative: While this question is clearly aimed at Bennett based on the content of his book, I would simply answer that I would not apply science to disprove a statement of faith.  There are a couple of paths to take from this argument, however.

First, I would argue that science and faith are separate disciplines and should not intertwine.  The most common example is between evolution and creationism.  The science and theory of evolution is not intended to refute the biblical accounts of creation history, and it is reasonable to accept one as a scientific study and the other as an article of faith.  As such, I would not dream of trying to prove or disprove a statement of faith using science.

Second, we could take a different approach and use some scientific method to understand the human act of faith.  For example, the field of neurobiology includes an area of research that examines how the brain behaves during religious experiences, suggesting that the human perception of a religious experience is entirely natural and explainable through scientific methods. 

Similarly, as detailed in his book Religion Explained, Pascal Boyer discusses the cultural and biological need for humans to identify with a supernatural force in order to explain the unexplainable.  It is easy to envision a societal process whereby early cultures explained natural phenomenon using a supernatural entity, evolving that concept into a set of societal rules that helped to maintain order (Leviticus anyone?), and eventually a group of men keen on maintaining power developing an entire theology that kept the masses in line (priesthood).


DP: "Without God behind 'Thou shalt not murder,' murder is not objectively wrong... because if there isn't a transcendent source for morality, morality is a matter of personal opinion... If [moral principles] are just made up by men, then they are no more binding than anything else made by men."
TSC: I'll admit, this is an area that I still struggle with (as some of my early postings suggest).  I wasn't convinced by Bennett's rebuttal about "communal" rules, because often the community is wrong.  Perhaps some day I'll find the definitive answer, but until then, I'll take this in a different direction.

I firmly believe that it's possible for mankind to develop its own morality and does not need some higher authority to first decree one.  My evidence is my own article of faith: that our current moral code was created by man, because god did not create man, man created god.  The human brain is complex and, if you don't begin from a position of faith, it's reasonable to see an early society attributing natural phenomenon to a supernatural entity.   Is it so hard to imagine an early society also creating a mythology around this entity that accounts for creation and develops societal and cultural guidelines.  Therefore, man created god.  Which also means man created the morality supposedly imparted by God.

I know this argument isn't convincing to you, but consider it my own article of faith.  If I can't refute your article of faith, how can you refute mine? ;-)


DP: "Aren't you then afraid that if people abandon faith that chaos and selfishness will prevail?"
TSC: This is one of the key areas where I differ from most secularists.  I believe that religion is an important component of any culture.  Just because I choose not to partake doesn't mean I don't see the value in religious observance, particularly in the area of family, morality, education, and personal fulfillment.


DP: "Imagine your pet that you love and a stranger are both drowning.  Which would you try to save first?  ...Give me a non-religious-based response on why the stranger should be saved before the [pet].  I don't think there is any."
TSC: I think Bennett responded well, but I'll voice my agreement (and my shock that Prager doesn't understand the answer).  The human being is self aware.  Is that enough?  We're special because of our minds; our ability to reason; to define right and wrong let alone understand the difference; and the presence of a conscience.  This uniqueness is reason enough to choose the stranger.

In addition, as a secularist, I have to honor life above all else (naturally I don't believe in an afterlife).  If human life is most precious, then it's an obvious choice to choose the stranger.  For Prager to miss this simple logic reveals an obvious blind spot when it comes to understanding secularism.


Incidentally, I like Prager and frequently agree with him.  I'm not making this entry to disagree with him or to suggest that Bennett was somehow incorrect in his statements.  I just thought they provided a good jumping-off point to discuss some secular topics.

-tsc