One of the things I love most about Tufts is the excitement that so many people have about seeking the answers to difficult questions about politics, religion and life itself. Freethought Week, which brought us a colorful smorgasbord of brilliant thinkers who challenge accepted norms, was a fascinating chance to sit down and talk about the basics of the universe without the shouting or name-calling that often deters people from such conversations.
For many, the climax of the week was the visit by noted philosopher-skeptic Sam Harris, who on Thursday spoke about his "moral landscape" theory and discussed his belief that humans can use science to inform their moral values.
As a Christian, I really appreciated Dr. Harris' engaging presentation, and furthermore, I was thrilled to see how closely his worldview and mine coincide. Some might find it odd — even Dr. Harris himself appeared a little surprised when I told him — that a student who firmly believes in spending one's life following a mighty and loving God would find common ground with one of the most stalwart critics of religion. But, listening to Dr. Harris with an open mind, I found that his basic vision of morality contributes greatly to an enlightened understanding of the monotheistic worldview.
In his theory of morality, Harris argues that science and morality should not be relegated to separate spheres in our thoughts about the universe. Those who believe in the power of empirical investigation and reasoning do not need to cede the right to make moral judgments; rather, the opposite is true. The sciences that inform us about the world that we live in — physics, biology and psychology, for example — can help us make morally correct choices. And what defines "morally correct"? Those choices that lead to the better well-being of humanity.
Harris posits that there are many states of existence for humanity, and of these, some are obviously better than others. A map of these states would look like a series of peaks and valleys corresponding to good conditions of a well-off humanity and bad situations with more pain and suffering representing the valleys — thus, his image of the "moral landscape." According to Dr. Harris' theory, science and reasoning inform us and enable us to work toward one of those peaks. Harris takes issue with other systems of thinking, such as religion, which he claims won't necessarily lead to a peak of well-being.
The bridging of the gap between scientific knowledge and moral values is a significant stride in thought that helps to paint a more coherent picture of the universe. In Harris' model, we find an absolute truth, a rationale for moral imperatives and a way to embrace modernity as a road to a better future. At the same time, this model leaves something to be desired. As a friend of mine described afterward, "Dr. Harris gave us a great description of a car and how it works, but he forgot that it needs a driver." The single burning question that Harris leaves unanswered is a simple one: Why is the collective good of humanity something that should be worked toward?
What if there were a God, a God who was all-loving and all-knowing, a God who only desired the well-being of humanity? One whose only reason for creating people was to bring them into His love so that they could be complete and prosper? If this were true, then wouldn't working toward the will of God be the same as working toward the collective good of humanity? Assuming that science gives us truth, wouldn't that same truth lead us to this vision of a collective good, since, as Pope John Paul II was fond of saying, truth cannot contradict truth?
I asked Dr. Harris that question after getting his autograph: "If such a God existed, would that fit in with your model of morality?" From what I understood from his response, the idea of reason-based morality is indeed completely consistent with a monotheistic worldview.
What does it mean that Dr. Harris and I have compatible views on morality? Some might say that it makes them more credible. Although he doesn't agree with my conviction that there is a loving God who gives our world a purpose, I'm happy to see that we could acknowledge our common ground and shared logic, for this is what successful dialogue is about. After talking and finding our common ground, we came away affirmed in those beliefs and ready to take our explorations further.
Thank you, Tufts, for being a school where we can find these commonalities. I hope that if this world has a truth, as Sam Harris and I believe, we will all come a little closer to finding it as we engage each other with love.
--
Mark Rafferty is a sophomore who has not yet declared a major.
