This blog follows the Science and Religion dialogue since, particularly of late, a breed of "crusading atheists" has emerged (Dawkins,Harris,Dennett) that argues against religion in the name of science, adding another voice to the multifaith conversation. Of course, there are also scientists who see religion in a more positive light. Until recently, it was the field of PHYSICS that generated most of the scientific writing friendly to religion.
Worth watching are the new developments in the field of MORAL PSYCHOLOGY. When I was in college and interested in moral psychology, the place to go was Harvard to study with Lawrence Kohlberg. His adaptation of Piaget's stages of development had become the dominant paradigm in the field. Like any other kind of cognitive capability, moral reasoning was seen as developing through stages over a lifetime. The focus was on how individuals think about moral dilemmas. In the seventies, Carol Gilligan challenged Kohlberg's system by introducing the idea that women might speak about moral issues "in a different voice."
Today, the Kohlberg/Gilligan debate is becoming a side show in the field of moral psychology as the spotlight shifts to evolutionary biology and neuroscience. Emotion,including ones of which we are barely conscious, turn out to be key elements in determining moral behavior. What we say about our moral reasoning may be no more than post hoc explanations for what our evolved brains tell us is the "right" thing to do.
Religious leaders will want to keep up with this line of research as it has important implications for the relationship of religion to morality. For an excellent review of the field, see Jonathan Haidt, The Happiness Hypothesis or check out his article,"Moral Psychology and the Misunderstanding of Religion" on the Edge website,
http://www.edge.org/discourse/moral_religion.html
No comments:
Post a Comment