wCHAP.18b

(9/12/98)

CHAPTER XVIII. B.

B. WHAT FUZZY LOGIC CAN TEACH US ABOUT ETHICS, MORALITY, AND A SCIENCE OF RELIGION

The issues that concern traditional ethics are matters that need to be addressed and dealt with. Partially this is because they missed the point so much. They didn't understand HBAURS (Human Beings Are the Ultimate Reference System). They were looking for Ultimate Reference Systems outside of humanity. Bart Kosko[1] provides some ideas useful for examining these past ideas about ethics. It is important to address these issues so we can clarify how ethical ideas for a Science of Religion and a Religion of Wisdom are different from traditional ways of looking at ethics and morality.

Kosko says, "Science is the measure of all things. It measures the universe and its pieces with telescopes, microscopes, speedometers, spectrometers, barometers, electrocardiograms, breathalizers."(p. 255)

RESPONSE: Of course without a Science of Religion, science would not be the measure all things. Up to this point science has left out religious considerations which are of vital importance to every person. However, a Science of Religion truly does measure all things because it incorporates every element of traditional science. Then it adds everything else. A Science of Religion measures "meaning of human life" by collecting data on how people act under all circumstances that can be observed or inferred, and then examining the effects of that behavior. The taking, analyzing, assembling of these measurements is even more complex than the human genome project, but even more rewarding.

Kosko writes, "In a sense that I will explain science has disposed of ethics. We have no final argument but force against the young men who run through Dostoevsky novels and shout 'Everything is permitted!'....Up close the social contract shades into gray and frays into whatever you want it to be."(p. 256)

RESPONSE: But in the sense that a Science of Religion deals with ethics behavior becomes very narrowly proscribed. And, certainly, a Science of Religion has much to say to those who think, "Everything is permitted." Any person who desires to become their own best self must learn and understand the behaviors that will help them do so, and the behaviors that will prevent or at least delay doing so. They immediately learn that not everything is permitted.

But helpful and unhelpful behaviors must be learned by observation, study, projection, and analysis. They cannot be pulled from the brain of wise persons, thin air, or mountain tops. They are open to revision as more is learned. And constant study is essential so that more and more persons can be helped to become Wise Persons. And this help means that in a Wise Community there are shared efforts to apply the wisdom available to every choice the individual makes.

"Science undercuts ethics because we have made science the measure of all things. Truth means truth of science. Truth means logical truth or factual truth. Truth means math proof or data test. The truth can be a matter of degree. But that does not help ethics."(p. 256)

RESPONSE: But as Kosko knows there are no "Truths" in science any more than there are "Truths" in religion. (See Chapter X, "Science and the Search for Truth," and Chapter XVII, ""Fuzzy Logic and a Science of Religion.")

Science has allowed humanity to advance to the point where the creation of a Science of Religion and a Religion of Wisdom is possible. But science is not the measure of all things. HBAURS is the measure of all things. Science provides the data to find the harmony between HBAURS and the universe. Science provides the knowledge to utilize the infinite wealth and power of the universe to maintain and advance human well-being.

A Science of Religion and a Religion of Wisdom that defines right and wrong in ways that permit them to be studied scientifically adds a new dimension to science. That is the goal of A NEW FOUNDATION FOR CIVILIZATION. If this succeeds ethics can be redeemed and become part of the scientific effort.

KOSKO: "The argument starts like this. Are ethical statements true? Are they false? Look at the ethical statement 'Murder is wrong.' Is it true?" (p. 256)

RESPONSE: Obviously, when Kosko considers whether or not murder is wrong, the issue boils down to what we take "wrong" to mean and our related assumptions. If we think there is some Absolute Reference System independent of humanity that we can use to determine right and wrong we are pursuing a dead end path. But if we recognize that right and wrong relate to HBAURS we then have a way to evaluate such sentences. Ethical statements are expressions of opinion. They are opinions that can in principle be substantiated/disproven. Current science is developing tools that could be helpful for the preceding effort. How does one validate an opinion? By testing it against data just like scientists test any other opinion (which they call hypotheses, theories, laws). When we say a given choice is right if it leads toward achievement of a SFLIHM (a Sustainable Feeling that one's LIfe Has Meaning) and wrong if it leads away from it, we have a criteria that can be used to evaluate choices and determine their truth value.

When we focus on SFLIHM then we have a criteria that permits direct empirical study. Does a person who has achieved a SFLIHM murder (or for that matter do they lie, cheat, steal, intimidate, abuse, mistreat, strive for power over others, etc.)? We can't say for sure because there are currently no persons who have achieved a SFLIHM. But suppose we look at the issue from the other end. Who commits murder, etc.? Is it persons who are moving toward a SFLIHM or those moving away from it? Does murder, etc. promote a SFLIHM or interfere with its achievement?

I'm sure everyone has opinions on these things, but the point is this issue like any other can be studied to remove the more subjective aspects of opinions. Data can be accumulated, analyzed, and conclusions drawn. Like any conclusion in science these are not final answers which cannot change, but they are answers to be used. When properly used these answers can help people make better choices in their lives.

However, a society so poorly structured, with such inadequately educated people they can think of murder, etc. as a satisfactory way to solve problems is in such bad shape that its future is in grave doubt to begin with.

"We want to derive ought from is. Philosophers have tried to do that for thousands of years. No one has derived it. You get no more out of an argument than you put into it. You assume premises and derive conclusions."

"This is half of what [William Van Orman] Quine [means] when he [says] that 'coherence theory [of truth] is the lot of ethics'....The moral statements cohere. They do not contradict one another and each comes from others except the axiom root, and that comes from assumption. To cohere is just to be 'internally consistent.' A fairy tale coheres." (Kosko, p. 256)

RESPONSE: And the goal of science is coherence. On a good year it achieves that goal. But this is not a bad thing. HBAURS indicates that this is all we can expect.

"In sum a factual claim is a testable claim." (Kosko, p. 259)

"Moral claims seem to be neither logical truisms nor testable claims of fact. They seem untestable in principle. And they are fuzzy to boot." (Kosko, p. 260)

RESPONSE: I am convinced that a Science of Religion makes testable claims as truly as does physics, chemistry, astronomy, or any other area of science. The fact that they are fuzzy is no valid criticism of ethical claims. Every test in science is fuzzy.

"How do you match a fact to a statement?"

"You match a fact to a claim with a test. You test the claim. You hold an 'experiment.' You find data or 'experience' that goes for or against the claim. You open the door to the world and let the flux of experience or events pour in....So to match is to test."

"But words and chunks differ in kind. The missing link in every claim of science is how we tie the words or math of the claim to the chunk of space-time that tests it....To tie words to chunks is to tie fuzzy sets to fuzzy blobs." (Kosko, p. 258)

RESPONSE: True. We are always comparing fuzzy sets to fuzzy blobs. And this is no less true for ethical claims than any other claims. But as indicated earlier there is a different way to look at the issue of ethical claims that Kosko raises. Moral claims can properly be seen as hypotheses comparable to all other scientific guesses. A Science of Religion claims they can also be tested against reality. When this is done we could then derive ought from is as long as we properly focus each term. We can say murder, etc. interferes with the achievement of a SFLIHM (and then we must present the evidence). That is the reformulation of the, "Murder, etc. is wrong," statement. We could also say that if one wants to achieve a SFLIHM they ought not to murder, etc.

But in the real world it is not the ought from is problem that most vitally concerns individuals. The actual problem every person regularly faces is how to solve problems that appear to be overwhelming because of our current social models: The starving of thousands, perhaps, millions of people in the world in spite of the existence of adequate food to feed them. The existence of poverty and the ignorance that supports it. The relentless increase of population due to current religious teachings. The heart wrenching experience of driving by a person holding up a sign, "Hungry. Will work for food." The awareness that many children are raised in a state of hunger, physical or mental abuse, and general lack of nurturing. The existence of penal institutions based on the idea that punishment will keep people from doing bad things. Individuals who cannot read or write. Batterers, criminals, and countless others living a pointless, mis-directed life. New models are necessary and it is the task of a Religion of Wisdom drawing from the findings of a Science of Religion to discover and promote these models.

"Reason ends in doubt. Science disposes of ethics. It strips moral claims of logic and fact and reduces them to feeling in words." (Kosko, p. 262)

RESPONSE: Up to the current time Kosko is right. Reason does end in doubt. This is not just the doubt of realizing that TRUTH cannot be attained, but the doubt of not knowing what is the proper way to live a life. What is it about human life and human living that is important? How should we be living our life? What is the goal of life? How can we achieve it?

Western society has been guided by the current concepts and models of philosophy, religion, and science to their obvious limits/conclusions. We have found that these concepts and models lead into an abyss. We can stand at the edge of this abyss and wail and moan or we can start over.

I want to start over. For me starting over means utilizing the best thinking and experience from all of humanity to get clearly in mind the most fundamental issues. I think that "the meaning of human life," deals with these ultimate questions. When we properly define and utilize this concept we see that the path leads not to doubt, but to clarity -- to clarity in choices, life goals, behavior, and how to achieve joy, excitement, creativity, enthusiasm: the Wise Community made up of Wise Persons.

But to achieve the foregoing requires serious action. We must re-define religion and the goal of science. Instead of being only the search for knowledge, truth, and understanding, the goal of science must include the application of whatever knowledge and understanding we achieve to the improvement of the quality of human living.

The goal of religion also must be clarified. It must be recognized as the institution that binds people together so all can achieve a SFLIHM. A Science of Religion must give birth to a Religion of Wisdom based on science aimed at binding all people together. At the foregoing point science and religion become the same. Empiricism provides the feedback to a science-based religion to guide each person to become a Wise Person.

"There is only one Good -- Knowledge. There is only one Evil -- Ignorance." Socrates.

If we accept the guidance Socrates gives above, and that is what I recommend, then achieving knowledge becomes our most important goal since it is the tool we must use for everything else. It provides our guidance in making ethical choices, choices that move us and every other person toward achieving a SFLIHM.

.

.

.