Tuesday, March 25, 2008 | Reason : Commentary | print version

Austin Dacey - The Secular Conscience

CFI

Audio requires QuickTime Player 7. Download the free player here.
12.33 MB : 38:46
This file is available for download here.
Ctrl-Click and 'Download Linked File' (Mac)
or Rt-Click and 'Save Target As' (PC) the link above.

Thanks to Lizzy Cats for the link.

http://www.pointofinquiry.org/austin_dacey_the_secular_conscience/

Austin Dacey serves as a representative to the United Nations for CFI, and is also on the editorial staff of Skeptical Inquirer and Free Inquiry magazines. His writings have appeared in numerous publications including the New York Times. His new book is The Secular Conscience: Why Belief Belongs in Public Life.

In this discussion with D.J. Grothe, Austin Dacey argues that secularism has lost its sense of moral direction, ceding ground to religious positions it never should have. He explores the impact this has on the secular left's criticism of the New Atheists, and its approach to radical Islam. He discusses the reasons secular liberalism doesn't ally itself with the secularizing elements in the Islamic world, and why he thinks it should, also addressing "Islamophobia" and the "American Taliban." He explains why questions of conscience and morality, whether religious or secular in origin, should not be excluded from public discourse -- contrary to prevailing secular liberal opinion -- and also in what sense they should (and should not) merely be matters of private belief and freedom of conscience.

Add to del.icio.us Posted: Tuesday, March 25, 2008 | Permalink

Comments 1 - 20 of 20 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #149399 by eno on March 25, 2008 at 2:54 pm

The CFI's regular podcast, Point of Inquiry is an incredible series. They'll all available on iTunes and I recommend everyone subscribes to it.

The wonderful DJ Grothe is a great host as he really will challenge his guests even if he shares their views.

Probably the best podcast series around.

Other Comments by eno

2. Comment #149407 by robotaholic on March 25, 2008 at 3:06 pm

eno I totally love pointofinquiry.org too! - I totally blackberry it all the time-

Other Comments by robotaholic

3. Comment #149434 by yogibear on March 25, 2008 at 3:44 pm

eno

I agree as well, DJ Groeth plays devils advocate very well and gets the best out of his guests as a result.

And its all free!

Other Comments by yogibear

4. Comment #149519 by Robert Maynard on March 25, 2008 at 8:03 pm

Fantastic PoI podcast as usual. This is actually the first time I've immediately ordered a book after hearing the interview. I was enticed by the article(s) about it that were posted here, but this sealed the deal. :D

Other Comments by Robert Maynard

5. Comment #149539 by Janus on March 25, 2008 at 9:50 pm

That was great. Ordering!

Other Comments by Janus

6. Comment #149546 by corruptmemory on March 25, 2008 at 10:13 pm

So, I listened, and enjoyed, but...

I am at a loss as to what is meant by the "secular conscience" or "secular morals". More importantly, Mr. Dacey begins with mentioning the importance of individual rights relative to group rights, given this what are "secular morals"? That is to say: a secularist's primary unit of currency is the individual. This individual (a secular one for this discussion) will have any number of opinions and views on the world. Certainly, all of these views are open to discussion and criticism, but what defines the overlap of that individual's views with some set of (not defined in the interview, perhaps in the book) "secular morals"?

The examples given include things like abortion: there are secularists on both sides. I can certainly agree that all of the sides *should* be openly discussing the issue, but then there is mention during the interview that the distinguishing characteristic of "secular morals" has to do something with "testability" or "objectivity". If we have secularists on both sides of the abortion issue and both sides have established "testable" and "objective" basis for their views then how can we be talking about "secular morals" when for a giving issue no well-defined "secular morality" can be articulated?

Certainly, all the stuff about holding religious thinking up to the same standards as all other types of thinking is fine, Sam Harris and others have been saying that. But the whole "moral high ground" thing seems, well... not there. Various theists can converge onto one of several distinct moral positions on a given topic because they can point to things in their little black book (several positions result because different sub groups point to different parts of their little black books), but it would seem to me that "secularists" would, in general, be all over the map. If anything, the "secularist" contribution would be to spread the "moral spectrum", as it were.

Perhaps the book may say more, honestly, he seems to talk nice, but I'm feeling a bit unsatisfied. Thoughts?

Other Comments by corruptmemory

7. Comment #149554 by Robert Maynard on March 25, 2008 at 11:06 pm

corruptmemory

I don't think he is necessarily referring to 'secular morals' as a cohesive, codified moral law embraced by all secularists, let alone secular liberals. His references to secular 'morals' throughout the interview could often be interchangeable with words like 'values', or 'principles', from which individual morals might be derived.
There are certain non-religious (ie. secular) precepts of liberalism that I think can be agreed upon as a 'bare minimum' for calling yourself a liberal, and we can derive moral arguments from these principles. There is no mention that our conclusions need be in agreement from the start - what is important is that we appeal to evidence and can hash these arguments out openly, and we can change each others minds.
What is especially important to Dacey here is that as secularists we aggressively argue for the superiority of discourse in producing moral arguments. The argument might be summed up as 'Honest uncertainty is better than dishonest certainty.'
Off the topic of morals, he also seems to be saying that ideas like postmodernism and relativism have poisoned our willingness to argue that liberalism is better than competing political and cultural ideologies that oppress liberty, when it comes to yielding human happiness. That when someone like George W. Bush argues for promoting freedom and democracy, some liberals have decided to say "No, freedom might be good for someone like me, but totalitarianism is better for some other people" rather than say "Absolutely, but I think incompetently invading two borderline third-world countries was one of the worst possible ways of doing it."

If we have secularists on both sides of the abortion issue and both sides have established "testable" and "objective" basis for their views then how can we be talking about "secular morals" when for a given issue no well-defined "secular morality" can be articulated?

The fact that secularists are on both sides of an issue, and both appeal to evidence, doesn't mean the dispute is at an impasse. That would be like saying that two contradictory scientific theories are on level footing because they both include data. Bring on the sudden death round, the penalty shootouts.
Simply, one is more right than the other, one synthesises all the available data better than the other - at least one of them is wrong.

Other Comments by Robert Maynard

8. Comment #149560 by Janus on March 25, 2008 at 11:32 pm

I take a different view. It seems obvious to me that the notion of objective morality is nonsensical. I assumed Dacey was merely talking about the moral values that people who call themselves secular liberals tend to share.

Other Comments by Janus

9. Comment #149564 by Robert Maynard on March 25, 2008 at 11:51 pm

Well, I suppose it depends on how you wish to define 'objective'. I think we can use our brains as a pretty useful starting point for talking about morality in as 'objective' a sense as we require.
Sam Harris has put this more lucidly than I could hope to, in Letter to a Christian Nation (p.23-24)

"For there to be objective moral truths worth knowing, there need only be better and worse ways to seek happiness in this world. If there are psychological laws that govern human well-being, knowledge of these laws would provide an enduring basis for an objective morality. While we do not have anything like a final, scientific understanding of human morality, it seems safe to say that raping and killing our neighbors is not one of its primary constituents. Everything about human experience suggests that love is more conducive to happiness than hate is. This is an objective claim about the human mind, about the dynamics of social relations, and about the moral order of our world."

In a very indirect but real sense, our genetic trajectory has prescribed our morality. There is no use arguing with the organ responsible for all your thoughts, whose evolved cognition devotes energy to generating empathy for other moral agents, and a distaste for their suffering along with yours.

"Hey brain, is oppressing people bad?"
"Do you like it when people oppress you?"
"No."
"Oh gee. Wow. I don't know what to think."
"..."
"It's bad, stupid."

Other Comments by Robert Maynard

10. Comment #149566 by EnlightenedBlasphemy on March 25, 2008 at 11:56 pm

I think Dacey's points are well made, and I particularly agree with him that many (if not most) liberals are too full of a form of guilt that makes them believe that they (the liberals or the left whatever you wish to call it) could be wrong so when push comes to shove we end up in the muck.

I agree that we need to stand up and be willing to put our reasons for our concepts of moral rectitude on the table, and state openly that those whom we disagree with are wrong and state our reasons for believing this. We should also continue to be open to letting our opponents give their own reasons.

Personally in such a discussion if my opponent pulled out a holy book, I would have a hard time not simply laughing at them. But thats just me, and I am far from perfect.

Other Comments by EnlightenedBlasphemy

11. Comment #149567 by Robert Maynard on March 26, 2008 at 12:00 am

O/T, but that's a great photo, EnlightenedBlasphemy. :D

Other Comments by Robert Maynard

12. Comment #149576 by jwdink on March 26, 2008 at 12:25 am

Link isn't working.

Other Comments by jwdink

13. Comment #149710 by suffolkthinker on March 26, 2008 at 6:55 am

In 7. Comment #149554 by Robert Maynard on March 25, 2008 at 11:06 pm

The fact that secularists are on both sides of an issue, and both appeal to evidence, doesn't mean the dispute is at an impasse. That would be like saying that two contradictory scientific theories are on level footing because they both include data. Bring on the sudden death round, the penalty shootouts.
Simply, one is more right than the other, one synthesises all the available data better than the other - at least one of them is wrong.

It's not that simple: it depends on the value set being used to evaluate the evidence.

For instance: I am personally 100% opposed to state Capital Punishment while I know other Atheists and Secularists who support it. While we might argue over some of the evidence, most of it is not disputed but we evalute it according to different decision criteria. To me the state taking any life in cold blood is simply one death too many, to others it's an empirical balance resulting in fewist deaths (where factors such as whether x number people are executed incorrectly is balanced by even few people being murdered as a result of deterence/few crimanals reoffending), for others it is simply the "right" punishment for taking anothers life. The "evidence" will do little to change the views of any except those in the middle group.

Other Comments by suffolkthinker

14. Comment #149864 by corruptmemory on March 26, 2008 at 9:58 am

Comment #149710 (13) from suffolkthinker is more along the dilemma I was referring to. There will, inevitably, be cases where neither a singular "secular moral" position can be articulated, nor could be "honed down" from the possible set of "moral" positions.

The problem I guess I'm struggling with is this: I don't see how putting forth "secular morals" is at all meaningful. Perhaps I'm a Luddite, but "morals" belong to individuals, and "ethics" are shared by a group. The basis by which secular people justify their moral convictions (conscience) should obviously be shared, and should contribute vigorously to the discussion, but the idea that there is something like an emergent "secular moral" or "secular value" of particular note given an arbitrary situation to consider seems, at best, a game of dice. If anything, I would hope that secular people would contribute to keeping the dialog and thinking about "morals" very very broad, and that thinking should evolve over time as enlightenment provides us new ways of thinking about issues. The fact that secular individuals can and do hold broad views is a direct result of the lack of the imposition of dogmatic thinking that prohibits it. Although some theists have been successful at stretching the limits of their doctrines to demonstrate plasticity, we (the greater "we" here, you know, atheists and similar minded people) know all too well about the limits that theists have imposed on themselves (and would gladly impose on others). The secular individual derives concern at the limits of theistic thinking because it, by definition, prohibits certain kinds of important analytical thinking that is *required* to fully engage in the "moral" analysis of a given circumstance.

Another way of looking at this is: "secular morals" or "secular values", in an of themselves are not really the "valuable product" that we seek. The injection of a thinking process about "morals" that is unfettered and critical is the "real" value that the secular person contributes. "Selling" "secular morals" as the contribution to "moral" discussion, seems like hucksterism: a cheap way to sneak in something more "palatable" to some arbitrary subset of secular-minded people. This seems more than beside the point, it seems down-right dangerous, because, in a way we are letting theists define the terms of the debate, the terms of importance, but they are "their" terms. It is not at all clear to me that the discussion Mr. Dacey is talking about is worth having. If it is worth having then it is purely a "marketing effort" on the part of secular people to have a presence in a debate created by and for theists in order to both engage in navel gazing and finding new ways to be divisive.

Other Comments by corruptmemory

15. Comment #150286 by GBart on March 26, 2008 at 4:49 pm

Link is dead

http://youtube.com/watch?v=xSlqpsdBQx4

Other Comments by GBart

16. Comment #150391 by Podaar on March 26, 2008 at 8:22 pm

Comment #149519 by Robert Maynard

This is actually the first time I've immediately ordered a book after hearing the interview. I was enticed by the article(s) about it that were posted here, but this sealed the deal. :D

If you liked the interview, you'll enjoy the book. I'm about 3/4 of the way through and I find Mr. Dacey's insight persuasive. It has me questioning my personal relationships with religious family...as he says; I've unwittingly imposed a gag order on myself when dealing with them. They spout religious rhetoric constantly, while I politely remain quiet. I think that must change.

-- Gregg

Other Comments by Podaar

17. Comment #150512 by Harlee on March 27, 2008 at 3:28 am

Con - science = with science!!

Other Comments by Harlee

18. Comment #150891 by babrock on March 27, 2008 at 2:14 pm

My computer freezes up every time I try and get this to play, about 8x now.
I am able to run t Sue Blackmore but not this.
I guesse this is what GBart and Jdwink are stating, tho I am still confused as to how t other 15 or so posters are getting it.

Other Comments by babrock

19. Comment #150928 by Partisan on March 27, 2008 at 4:57 pm

Yeaaa...new link please =]

Other Comments by Partisan

20. Comment #151063 by Enlightenme.. on March 28, 2008 at 5:13 am

This really is worth persisting with;
I finally managed to download it by going to COI
>archive>march08>austindacey, and downloaded successfully from there.

Other Comments by Enlightenme..