Why is it that philosophy, psychology, anthropology, sociology, and religious studies have been of such limited value in helping individuals and societies make choices between better and worse answers? The answer to this question explains why post-modernism has captured the imagination first of philosophers and now of those involved in the speculative sciences, especially anthropology, sociology, andd religious studies.

.

The below material indicates the role that post-modernism is playing in the current academic community. It is presented here to contrast this with the way that a science of ethics looks at these issues. For additional material that helps clarify the role of anthropology, sociology, and psychology in a science of ethics click here

.

.

As a Ph.D. student in anthropological archaeology I am interested in the comparative study of human belief systems and how these affect human behavior. As an incurable academic, I find debate on issues of philosophy, religion, and the nature of humans infinitely satisfying.

I find your ideas, in general, well referenced and organized, but I am personally concerned by your reliance on empiricism. It seems that you have developed a system for interacting with the universe that you find satisfying. That effort is commendable, and an effort to share that set of ideas with a variety of others is also commendable.

However, the essentially subjective nature of the universe should be clear. Regardless of how well you define your initial assumptions for developing hypotheses from empirical observation, you always end up with some assumptions that can not be stated in ways to be proved or (possibly more importantly) falsified.

As such, an infinite variety of interpretations (developed from explicit or implicit starting assumptions) lead to an infinite variety of worldviews and behaviors. Subjective judgements can be made about the "value" of these systems. But, if these systems provide functionally equivalent methods for interacting with the universe for their participants, then each system is equally valid. The choice to participate in any given belief system is based on any number of personal factors, but as long as people find their system consistently satisfying, there is no reason for them to question or change.

My suggestion would be to appreciate the infinite variety of belief systems adopted by humans. Put your ideas out for others to comment on if that is something that you enjoy and value. Attempt to look at the universal similarities of belief systems if that interests you. Appreciate the vast differences in belief systems that lead to all types of behaviors ranging from worship to warfare.

But, always question how you know what you know. Never take your assumptions for granted. This is especially true if you try to universally apply empirical observation. An experience of the unobservable is often a key facet of religion and this is a subjective experience. This is not really a subject that can even be approached with a rigidly empiricist framework in mind.

Please feel free to use any of the ideas in this e-mail in whatever form you wish. These are not ideas that I have developed in any sense, as you should know well from whatever reading and research you have engaged in. They are simply ideas that I use in my work and in the formulation of my system for intereacting with the universe in a way that is meaningful to me.

Enjoy your journey.

Harry Starr............... 6500hes0@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu
Department of Anthropology
University of California
Santa Barbara, CA 93106

Mr. Starr,

Thanks for your message.

You say, "As an anthropological archaeologist I am interested in the comparative study of human belief systems and how these affect human behavior."

From the standpoint of a science of ethics your anthropological interest has the potential to be very important if it is properly focused. I'll say more about this after discussing your current post-modernist perspective.

I realize that anthropology has marched away from traditional science in the company of the other conjectural sciences (Sociology and Religious Studies) along with Philosophy all of which have bought the subjectivist view of cultural relativity promoted by modern philosophers. Obviously, there is deep thought involved here. Unfortunately, it just isn't deep enough.

Early science adopted two bad assumptions: 1) True knowledge of objective reality can be achieved. 2) The goal of science is to discover Truth and the nature of objective reality.

Modern philosophy has pointed out the errors of the first assumption and in the process spawned post-modernism. Unfortunately, the second bad assumption has not yet been recognized so there is no clear antidote for post-modernism.

Traditional science -- even physics (mostly) -- has escaped the ravages of post-modernism. Ruled by the inertia of past triumphs the natural sciences continue merrily doing what they have always done (with fantastic success)! The speculative sciences coming from a different tradition were vulnerable to the disease of post-modernism and are suffering a severe case of it. They lack a unifying principle to focus their research and analysis so that one person's effort builds on the results of those who have gone before and provides guidance for the future. Rather each individual's efforts have little joint value outside a coterie of fellow believers.

A science of ethics rejects the two bad assumptions of traditional science and in the process makes clear what the essential goal is that folk religions have always pursued. A science of ethics was developed out of the same concerns that gave birth to post-modernism. But it took a different path by rejecting the second assumption, also. And although there was no conscious goal to correct the errors of post-modernism such as you express in your letter, it just does that automatically. It, therefore, exposes the shortcomings inherent in statements such as: 1) "essentially subjective nature of the universe," 2) "infinite variety of interpretations," 3) "functionally equivalent methods for interacting with the universe," 4) "each system is equally valid," 5) "appreciate the infinite variety of belief systems," 6) etc.

In addition a science of ethics provides a foundation to turn the speculative sciences (anthropology, sociology, religious studies) into empirical sciences and to provide the appropriate focus for the physical sciences. When this is done all of science and all of life fits together into one magnificent, totally congruent whole.

As you point out, it's true that there are an infinite variety of interpretations all of which are equally valid if one lacks an appropriate reference system. However, a science of ethics makes clear what our reference system must be to avoid the foregoing situation. It provides the constraints to get from "one society's views are as valid as any other's" to "these views are better than those."

And the way the foregoing would be accomplished would be by properly using empirical studies such as those that interest you: "As an anthropological archaeologist I am interested in the comparative study of human belief systems and how these affect human behavior."

The fundamental assumption of a science of ethics is that those behaviors are "better" that lead toward a sustainable feeling that one's life has meaning; i.e., lead to the perpetuation of our species in a way that develops and utilizes each person's "Wisdom" potential. It takes a book to explain and describe these terms properly. And that is the essence of what my book, "UTOPIA NOW: A User's Guide for Modern Humans," does. (It can be found on my web site -- click here.)

Warmest Regards,
Arthur

Dear Mr. Jackson:

As an Anthropology of Religion instructor I deal with the social implications of belief systems; e.g., ancestor reverence in China means you can do without a probate court system because nobody is going to question the eldest male inheriting everything; the sacred cow of India is a practical prohibition against craving a resource the overstressed environment cannot produce; etc.

Cultural relativism is the prerequisite mindset of anthropology. Specifically with regard to religion, there are no ultimate truths, no one reality, just different approaches to solving the problems all human beings share. Every solution or attempt at explanation is more or less satisfactory, measured against its efficacy in diminishing human pain, fear, or anxiety. I do not address the relative merits of various belief systems, nor do I endorse any one system in particular.

Good Luck in your project.

-------------------------------------------------

Dear Professor:

Thank you so much for your message.

You present cultural relativism as though it were a truth of the universe. I would like to address this issue more specifically here than I have elsewhere. Since I'm now re-reading Edward O. Wilson's new book, CONSILIENCE, this is ideal timing.

What are the implications of a science of ethics for anthropology, sociology, and religious studies? A science of ethics rejects the validity of cultural relativity. Although I've thought of this question in general I hadn't attempted to apply it specifically to anthropology, sociology, religious studies, and psychology.

A science of ethics provides a way to study the beliefs necessary for every individual to achieve a sustainable feeling that their life has meaning. As I see it Anthropology's role in these studies would be to deal with the social implications of belief systems. It would work to clarify if a given belief leads toward or away from a sustainable feeling that one's life has meaning. Sociology would address this issue in more complex, modern societies, and psychology would focus more specifically on understanding the effects of the individual's beliefs and which ones lead toward and which away from achieving a sustainable feelinng that their life has meaning which translates directly into good mental health.

Thanks again for your helpful response.

Warmest Regards,
Arthur

.

.