The traditional source of moral values has been religion, this paper does not intend to challenge their origin, only to suggest the potential for science to investigate morals. The question of the existence of absolute natural laws of moral behavior is raised. And if science is to investigate the existence and the nature of these laws, then a new theology, which can provide the philosophical framework to unite science and religion in this endeavor, is needed. This theology must explain clearly and rationally, the relationships between God and man, man and man, and man and nature.
Several noted theologians throughout history have alluded to the existence of such natural laws of moral behavior. Four centuries ago Martin Luther stated that "if the natural law had not been inscribed and placed by God into the heart, one would have to preach a long time before the consciences are touched." And about two thousand years earlier, Confucius (551-479 B. C.) said that the "subdual of self, and reversion to natural laws governing conduct..., is true goodness. Also, Thomas Aquinas recognized that "the natural law dates from the creation of the rational creature. It does not vary according to time, but remains unchangeable."
In modern times scientists have raised serious doubts about such natural laws. Darwinian scientists have assumed that human nature is constantly changing and when On the Origin of the Species, was published in 1859, it provided the scientific basis for the abandonment of natural law. Darwin’s theory was in direct opposition to the traditional concept of natural law. According to Darwin, moral principles were not enduring but constantly changing and they were the result of accident rather than divine purpose. (Goble 1975) We must find a theology, which can solve the problems, brought forth by Darwin’s theory and provide a rational description of God’s creation. In the words of a distinguished theologian, "intellectual objections to Christianity nowadays, and the fact that there are at present no convincing answers to them, in my judgment, both grow out of one root. This is that there is no general or widely accepted natural theology. I know that many theologians rejoice that it is so, and seem to think it leaves them free to recommend Christianity as divine revelation. They know not what they do, for if the immeasurably vast and mysterious creation reveals nothing of its’ originator, or of His attributes and nature, there is no ground for supposing that any events recorded in an ancient and partly mythopoeic literature and deductions from it can do so. The only possible basis for a reasonably grounded natural theology is what we call scientific". (Thorpe 1966)
For many people the idea of science making a comment on moral values is objectionable, i.e. "It should be recognized that no amount of scientific comparison can be substituted for personal value judgments of good versus bad or wrong versus right". (Truitt 1975) It has often been said that to comment on moral values is beyond the limits of science, for example: "thus we conclude that the whole area of moral judgments lies outside science". (Hodgson 1975)
What is the source of this concern regarding science and morals? Certainly we consider it good for science to study and discover the laws and principles, which govern the behavior of inanimate particles, and we find it beneficial to understand the principles governing the behavior of plants and animals. It seems that we humans want to be free of any moral laws, we want to be apart from the rest of the world. Ecologist Lieslie Reid understood this so clearly when he said: "We find difficulty in giving weight at the same time to both the parts and the whole. Nevertheless, it is of capital importance that an attempt in this direction be made for only then may we hope to grasp that attribute of fundamental unity, which is the very essence of the natural world. Only then can we begin to apprehend the fact that each single phenomenon has no meaning, except by virtue of its relationship with all other phenomena....".(Reid 1958) We must find a theology that will guide us in discovering man’s true relationship to God and to the natural world.
What actually is science and why should it have difficulty studying moral laws? A good definition of science was recently given by P. E. Hodgson: "Science cannot be neatly defined by a simple formula. It is a vast and heterogeneous adventure of the human mind, continually bursting through the neat definitions of the philosophers. Any phenomena is potentially a suitable subject for science, but it is only accepted as such when regularities become evident, preferably measurable and fitting into some theoretical framework. Other phenomena exhibit such erratic behavior that they only become part of science when detecting and measuring apparatus have been so refined that the regularities appear". (Hodgson 1975) And Webster defines moral values simply as behavioral guides, principles of right and wrong behavior. Therefore, what is the source of these principles of behavior and is that source different from the source of the principles governing the behavior of inanimate particles? According to a unified view of the universe they should both have the same origin. In order to study the principles of right and wrong behavior, it is necessary to find the relationship between the behavior and the effect of the behavior. And here is the difficulty, finding some measurable effect.
For example, in the study of the growth of some microorganism science finds certain factors, which effect the growth, such as nutrients, pH, atmosphere, temperature and etc. If all these factors are within an optimal range, then the organisms will grow according to specific principles, at a measurable rate and reach a certain density. If the growth factors are varied, the growth rate and/or the population size will vary accordingly. The rate of growth is governed by the same principles that govern inorganic chemical reaction as well as certain principles unique to biological systems such as enzymatic reaction control and the principles of binary fission which govern bacterial reproduction. By studying the relationships between various environmental conditions and the bacterial growth principles are discovered which govern the behavior of the bacteria. Once means were developed which allowed observation and measurement of the effect (the growing bacteria), then the principles governing bacterial growth could be investigated by science.
Moral values are principles to govern and guide our behavior, but what is the effect, the observable, the measurable aspect of this behavior? Can we measure happiness, satisfaction or spiritual growth, which are the effects of moral or immoral actions? In order for science to comment on moral values, it must be able to recognize the effects and the regularities between cause and effect. This has always been the problem in scientific endeavor. Once a way is opened to observe and measure the effects, then study of the principles governing the event can proceed. Science has traditionally studied the physical or phenomenological aspect of the world. Moral values are the guiding principles of behavior, which is phenomenological, but the effects of the behavior must be examined not just the behavior itself, and the effect is actually invisible, something spiritual. A view of moral values held by many individuals, recently expressed by Eileen Barker, is that as one moves from physical sciences to biology to social science to morality the laws governing behavior become more and more flexible. (Barker 1976) This increased flexibility may be more apparent than actual, because in physical sciences the time period between cause and effect is so short and the systems are so relatively simple that the principles governing waves and particles can be accurately determined. However, as the systems become more complex the relationships become less clear and then the actual effect is obscure. Since moral behavior effects spiritual development, the result of the behavior is most difficult to see.
Principles governing the behavior of particles and waves are discovered by observation of the effect or phenomenon that occur as the result of some perturbation of the system. Most of the time we never know the actual cause and the principle is actually our description of the guiding force. Because of some principle the change of one set of conditions to another can be predicted. Thus, the principle is a directing or guiding force causing the phenomenon to occur as we see it. The principle is related to, but distinct from the event. The principle is the subject of the manifested event that is the object.
If morals are the principles of right and wrong behavior, then maybe moral principles have the same determining force as the principles of physical sciences. Here the morals are the principles, but man has the choice of whether or not to follow these principles. However, this decision is not disconnected from some consequence. All religions and spiritual paths, which are prime "teachers" of moral values, have given "spiritual growth" as a goal and consequence of these moral ways of life. Therefore, it could be that to follow moral values, that is, to behave in accordance with moral values would lead to "spiritual growth" and not to live in accordance with moral principles leads to less or defective (diseased?) growth.
This would mean that every action willingly taken by the human physical body would have some effect on that person’s spiritual body. If the physical action is “good or moral” it produces a healthy effect on the spiritual body, but if the action is “evil or immoral” it produces an unhealthy effect on the spirit body. It seems likely that some actions would be neutral, having little or no effect on the spirit body. One way that science could comment on the effect(s) of moral behavior would be if a technology were developed which allowed the spirit body to be known to our physical senses. Just as we can study the effects of exercise on the physical body though measurements of the physical body, we would be able study the cause and effect relationship between moral (or immoral) behavior and the health of the spirit body.
If man is God’s substantial object, a direct image created by the development of God’s duality of internal character and external form, then man also consists of the duality of mind and body, he therefore must have dual purposes, a purpose for the whole and a purpose for the individual. The purpose for the whole can be fulfilled only through the purpose for the individual and the significance and value of the purpose for the individual determined only through the purpose for the whole. The purpose must be set by God, but the means (methods and forms) of fulfillment must be up to the individual. If the means are separated from purpose, this can not be the standard of good and evil.
Thus science has the potential to examine moral principles, but not to determine the purpose. This was noted by Radnitzky: "justifying a prescription consists in showing that the knowledge upon which it is based is authentic knowledge (true, high degree of verisimilitude, etc.) and that following the prescription will achieve or help to facilitate the realization of the presupposed goal, which must be clearly stated. Justifying the goal is another problem". (Radnitzky 1975)
Science has not only the potential, but the responsibility to investigate- moral values. At this time in history it is absolutely essential that we develop an understanding of the centrality of absolute value. The respected position of science in the modern world imposes grave responsibility to find a theology that can guide our study of moral values. In conclusion, science must extend its’ range of research to include areas formerly thought to be beyond its’ limits. As stated by a distinguished theologian: "science begins its research on visible and external things. However, science can also assist in understanding the frontiers of invisible or internal things of a spiritual dimension. Finally, the integration of the two realms should occur. Thus, connected to the central point located in the metaphysical world of the highest dimension. Then, with the latter as the unchanging axis, the other will revolve around it for eternity in the action of give and take--giving absolute meaning and value to all things in space and time". (Moon 1975)
REFERENCES
Barker,
Eileen. 1976. Paper read at Roundtable on Modern Science and Traditional
Religion, at London.
Goble, F. G. 1975. Religion, Science and Moral Principles. Paper read at 4th
International Conference on the Unity of Sciences.
Hodgson, P. E. 1975. Limits of Science. Paper read at 4th International
Conference on the Unity of Sciences.
Moon, Sun Myung. 1975. Founder's Address. Paper read at 4th International
Conference on the Unity of Sciences.
Radnitzky, G. A. 1975. Science and the search for values: Motives and Dangers.
Paper read at 4th International Conference on the Unity of Sciences.
Reid, Lieslie 1958. Earth's Company. London: John Murray.
Thorpe, W. H. 1966. Science, Man and Morals. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University
Press.
Truitt, E. B. 1975. The Great Debate: Marijuana vs. Alcohol. Way of the World,
88 - 95.