Ideological Whiplash: De Waal Says No Human Exceptionalism—Then Admits HE—but Science Can’t Tell Us Right From Wrong

An interesting essay in the on-line NYT, by the primatologist Frans de Waal, gave me a bit of ideological whiplash.  In “Morals Without God?” he attacks both human exceptionalism and the idea that science can produce morality.  He is right about the latter assertion and wrong about the former.  And ironically, in the essay, he actually admits that only humans have moral agency, which is one of the ways in which we are exceptional.  Go figure.

First, let’s deal with the issue of science and morality.  De Waal criticizes the bitter proselytizers of atheism such as Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens— a matter of no concern to SHS—and makes some very good points.  From his column:

While I do consider religious institutions and their representatives — popes, bishops, mega-preachers, ayatollahs, and rabbis — fair game for criticism, what good could come from insulting individuals who find value in religion? And more pertinently, what alternative does science have to offer? Science is not in the business of spelling out the meaning of life and even less in telling us how to live our lives. We, scientists, are good at finding out why things are the way they are, or how things work, and I do believe that biology can help us understand what kind of animals we are and why our morality looks the way it does. But to go from there to offering moral guidance seems a stretch.

Even the staunchest atheist growing up in Western society cannot avoid having absorbed the basic tenets of Christian morality. Our societies are steeped in it: everything we have accomplished over the centuries, even science, developed either hand in hand with or in opposition to religion, but never separately. It is impossible to know what morality would look like without religion. It would require a visit to a human culture that is not now and never was religious. That such cultures do not exist should give us pause.

Yes. It—seeking meaning—is part of what makes us exceptional.  But let’s not go there quite yet.

De Waal concludes his piece by creating a big stre-e-e-etch between female chimps trying to stop males from fighting and full blown human morality, from which he concludes we don’t need God (I think). But what we would create would just be another form of religion:

On the other hand, what would happen if we were able to excise religion from society? I doubt that science and the naturalistic worldview could fill the void and become an inspiration for the good. Any framework we develop to advocate a certain moral outlook is bound to produce its own list of principles, its own prophets, and attract its own devoted followers, so that it will soon look like any old religion.

Exactly.  Scientism, transhumanism, radical environmentalism, even Darwinism when misused, have become quasi religions. But that’s because we are exceptional. Other species don’t “believe” at all.  In contrast, we cannot not believe—all human societies as far back as we can find into the caves, apparently had some sense of belief, faith, philosophy, principles, and/or values that were derived through distinctly human rational processes.

That seems so elementary that it is rather startling that de Wal needlessly attacks human exceptionalism by name—missing the point that only we would or could create “principles,” have “prophets,” and create philosophies and religions. Whatever the chimps are doing, it is instinctual, not reasoned out in the way humans do.

But don’t take my word for it. De  Waal admits we are exceptional (without using the term) based on—ta da!—MORAL AGENCY:

At the same time, however, I am reluctant to call a chimpanzee a “moral being.” This is because sentiments do not suffice. We strive for a logically coherent system, and have debates about how the death penalty fits arguments for the sanctity of life, or whether an unchosen sexual orientation can be wrong. These debates are uniquely human. We have no evidence that other animals judge the appropriateness of actions that do not affect themselves. The great pioneer of morality research, the Finn Edward Westermarck, explained what makes the moral emotions special: “Moral emotions are disconnected from one’s immediate situation: they deal with good and bad at a more abstract, disinterested level.” This is what sets human morality apart: a move towards universal standards combined with an elaborate system of justification, monitoring and punishment.

Exactly And it means we are exceptional! Sheesh.

I think scientists may be embarrassed by HE because it smacks (to them) of theism and the soul.  But it really is undeniable—even as scientists like de Waal admit it as they work very hard to pretend it isn’t so.