Um, sorry, but did John Haught just imply that Jesus is a vampire?

No, no, writerdd, vampires are invisible in mirrors. Gods can only be seen with mirrors...and smoke.

Haught's got it backward. It's not that we're looking for "scientific evidence," it's that evidence that's testable--"provable"--is what we call "scientific." If the word "scientific" rubs him the wrong way, he can just leave it out. It remains that we need evidence of the same kind and quality that he would accept to justify belief in something he considers doubtful.

Hey don't make fun of the cargo cults! They've only been waiting for their savior for 70 years. Christians have been waiting for 2,000.

The Pacific Islanders have some 6,000 years of animism as the basis for their thinking. No continuous culture that undergoes an Enlightenment has any excuse for promulgating the same kind of magical thinking.

Christian theology, j'accuse!

http://crookedtimber.org/2003/07/27/bright-morals/

So you're dismissing what we're learning in psychology right now a little too much, especially behavioral science. It doesn't just tell us about what "mental states" exist and how they "feel" inside a brain. It tells us a lot more than that. For example, behavioral science is showing us ever more that some people are just naturally predisposed with a sense of altruism while others with a sense of self interest. What does this say about Humanist or Objectivist ethics, which ignore the empirical evidence and say that there is only one "ought" way to be irregardless of what "is." Any number of variations of ethical naturalism would simply say hey, deal with the facts buddy.

The distinction between what is and what ought to be is in and of itself an ethical statement belonging to certain ethics but not others. So I really have a hard time seeing how it's supposed to be used when a proponent of an ethics that makes this distinction uses it as a critique of another system that doesn't. But that said, Utilitarianism definitely isn't the only option, in fact there are so many variations of natural ethics that it's hard to even talk about them as any one thing. But the idea of natural ethics in general is to try to make the ethics as transparent as possible and rely on empirical evidence to the greatest possible extent.

I'm not sure it's an assumption. In practice it's hard to argue that people aren't motivated largely by a desire to be happy, or to be the least unhappy. Moral systems that make at least some people happy tend to obtain a wide following. Moral systems that result in suffering for all fall by the wayside. It's not an assumption to propose that the purpose of a moral system is to make people happy; people want to be happy, by definition.

Again, only if you assume ethics as always-already utilitarian

"Utilitarianism" is simply philosophy's attempt to appropriate the reasoning that defeats the purpose of the whole field, in the same way that philosophers attempt to appropriate all other successful knowledge systems, like math and science.

That's your political opinion, not fact

No, the way he sets it up it's true by definition. If science shows that two political systems are the same, then its insupportable to assert that one is much better than the other.

This is your personal bias against Marxism surfacing

LOL! I doubt anybody here is particularly biased against Marxism, except in for far as it's failed every time it's been employed on any serious scale. But I think we can probably see how this is going to work - any attempt to disagree with you constitutes a revelation of "bias."

It turns out that the empirical "is" is the greater part of "ought" no matter what your system of ethics are. I hope this clears up how 3 follows from 1 and 2.

Again, only if you assume ethics as always-already utilitarian, which is not a supportable assunmption, but simply your choice of a system of ethics.

bbk:

If science says that they both work equally in making us happy, then the Marxist would be mistaken because he believes that one is better than the other.

That's your political opinion, not fact and it is as well simply a utilitarian metric again (measure by happiness). You're good at making assertion look like conclusion, but it's still just your political/ethical preferences that forms the basis for your argument, not science. The first "If" in your sentence is a huge one in any case, and even if it were true, the Marxist would still not be mistaken - he isn't basing his preference on happiness but social justice.

bbk:

If he brought his personal bias in line with scientific findings then he would not have any issues.

This is your personal bias against Marxism surfacing - I wondered whether my example earlier would be too controversial for a largely American blog.

bbk:

But let's get this straight: his unhappiness as a Marxist only comes from his opinion that Marxism is better, not because it really is better. So this has nothing to do with scientific findings that tell us that one is better than the other or equal. His unhappiness is caused by him holding unscientific beliefs.

I've outlined above why politics isn't reducible to science in this way. I'm actually surprised by how dogmatic you're being - I doubt many scientists would sanction the colonisation of politics by science which your argument has as its logical conlcusion.

Arkhitekt re bbk:

Even if psychology could tell us just what mental states a person would approve of or desire and just how these states could be achieved - it is all still perfectly open for debate which of these states, if any, constitute happiness, whether we should pursue happiness, and if so, whose happiness should be pursued and what means are appropriate for obtaining it and so on and so forth.

Indeed - and more damning for utilitarianism as a supposed a priori choice (though not a fatal criticism in and of itself) is that above a measurement of happiness itself, utilitarianism would need to measure happiness against happiness - assuming each type is reducible to each other in order to treat them as comparible units.

You seem to assume that morality is about making people happy and that moral systems are attempts at codifying what we should do to maximise happiness.

Whether this is true or not, this is a seriously contentious claim! Even if psychology could tell us just what mental states a person would approve of or desire and just how these states could be achieved - it is all still perfectly open for debate which of these states, if any, constitute happiness, whether we should pursue happiness, and if so, whose happiness should be pursued and what means are appropriate for obtaining it and so on and so forth.

Psychology, and the same goes for any science, gives us no action guidance until it is supplemented by philosophical views and as Brit-nontheist suggests, you are adopting the philosophical position of utilitarianism for this purpose.

I love cargo cults! When I'm at work (software engineering) and my manager is talking to me about development process, I fantasize about living on one of these little islands. And I'm a former Marine, so I've got the tattoos and the uniforms... hey maybe I could be their savior!