Introduction: Extending the Debate Beyond Free Will
In our first post, we explored the divergence between scientific understanding and phenomenological experience concerning free will. It became evident that our phenomenological experience—our subjective feeling that we possess free will—stands in stark contrast to the scientific interpretation that suggests free will is an illusion, a byproduct of deterministic processes. This paradox creates cognitive dissonance, as it is challenging for us to reconcile these two opposing truths simultaneously. This post extends that examination to other realms such as conscience, the meaning of life, and human identity, revealing a broader pattern where scientific and experiential perspectives often create conflicting interpretations of reality.
Conscience: The Inner Moral Compass
The conscience is a daily experience that guides our moral decisions, often perceived as an inner voice judging right from wrong. This internal moral compass appears deeply ingrained and universally recognizable, suggesting an inherent part of human nature. For instance, when we face moral dilemmas, it is our conscience that provokes feelings of guilt or righteousness, guiding us towards actions that align with our moral values. This phenomenon is not something we consciously control; it emerges spontaneously, often with significant emotional weight, reinforcing its perceived authority.
Science does not deny the existence of conscience but scrutinizes its reliability. Studies show that what we perceive as moral intuition can vary widely across cultures and individuals. Furthermore, the scientific approach highlights that our conscience can be flawed, subject to biases and external influences, thereby questioning its role as a reliable guide to moral truth.
For example, consider how different societies have distinct moral codes—what one culture deems acceptable might be morally repugnant to another. This variability suggests that conscience is shaped by external factors rather than being an infallible moral authority.
If scientific inquiry concludes that the conscience is unreliable in guiding moral behavior, similar to the challenges faced by the concept of free will, it creates a paradox between our phenomenological experience of conscience and the rational, scientific understanding of it. This conflict underscores the broader tension between our subjective experiences and objective scientific knowledge.
The Meaning of Life: Existential Reflections
Humans naturally seek purpose and meaning in life. This quest is a core part of our existence, driving us to find our place and significance in the universe. The inability to find meaning can lead to existential crises and profound dissatisfaction.
From a strict scientific standpoint, the universe operates according to physical laws without inherent purpose. Life, including human life, is viewed as a product of evolutionary processes, with meaning being a subjective construct rather than an objective reality.
Albert Camus famously highlighted this absurdity: humans search for meaning in a universe indifferent to their existence. This conflict between our existential drive and the scientific narrative creates a profound paradox, pushing us to construct personal or collective meanings to navigate life.
Human Reason: Perception vs. Reality
We rely on our cognitive abilities to understand and interact with the world, trusting our perceptions and judgments as accurate reflections of reality. This confidence in human reason forms the basis of our knowledge and decision-making.
However, science demonstrates that our cognitive processes are prone to errors and biases. The brain constructs a version of reality based on sensory input, which can be misleading or incomplete. Instances like optical illusions or cognitive biases reveal that our perception of reality is not always reliable.
For example, the phenomenon of “confirmation bias” shows how we tend to favor information that confirms our preconceptions, leading to skewed interpretations of evidence.
The Existence of God: Faith vs. Empiricism
Throughout history, humanity has shown an enduring tendency towards belief in a higher power or the divine. This inclination manifests in various religious systems and spiritual practices, deeply embedded in cultural and personal identities.
In contrast, the scientific worldview often excludes the divine, focusing on empirical evidence and natural explanations. Figures like Nietzsche have proclaimed the “death of God,” arguing that modern enlightenment and scientific progress render the concept of God obsolete.
This shift challenges traditional religious beliefs, framing them as psychological or cultural constructs rather than empirical truths. Yet, the persistent nature of faith suggests a deep-rooted human need that scientific reasoning alone cannot fully address.
Objective Values: Morality and Relativism
Humans inherently experience moral values, feeling strong convictions about right and wrong. These values often seem self-evident and universal, guiding personal and societal behavior.
However, from a scientific and evolutionary perspective, moral values can be seen as adaptive behaviors rather than objective truths. This view posits that what we consider “good” or “bad” may be relative, shaped by evolutionary pressures and social conditioning.
For instance, the moral principle of altruism can be explained as a strategy for enhancing group survival rather than a universal moral truth.
The relativization of good and evil also undermines the legitimacy of conscience. Since conscience operates within the framework of moral right and wrong, if these concepts are deemed illusory, then the functioning of conscience itself becomes based on an illusion. Consequently, this diminishes the philosophical credibility of conscience, as it would be guiding us based on notions that are not objectively grounded.
Human Identity: Exceptionalism vs. Evolution
Humans perceive themselves as distinct from other animals, endowed with unique qualities such as rationality, creativity, and moral sense. This belief in human exceptionalism influences how we view our place in the natural world.
Scientific understanding places humans within the continuum of evolution, emphasizing our genetic and behavioral similarities with other species. This perspective challenges the notion of human uniqueness, suggesting that our traits are variations of those found throughout the animal kingdom.
For example, traits like tool use, social structures, and communication are observed in various animal species, indicating a shared evolutionary heritage.
Peter Singer, a prominent bioethicist, argues against human exceptionalism in his work. He states that many qualities we attribute exclusively to humans are also present in other species, challenging the notion of human uniqueness.
Conclusion: Diverging Paths of Understanding
A clear pattern emerges from these discussions: rational scientific understanding and the deepest phenomenological experiences of humans systematically diverge. From the scientific perspective, the concept of illusion frequently appears as the explanation for these differences. When considering phenomena such as free will, conscience, and the meaning of life, science often reveals them as constructs rather than objective truths.
However, for those open to realities beyond the empirical world, this divergence suggests that science has limitations in its capacity to fully comprehend the universe. This openness to the transcendent posits the existence of a reality beyond scientific reach, one that encompasses experiences and truths that empirical methods alone cannot fully explain.