Of Mice and (Scientific) Men

A friend of mine shared some thoughtful comments in response to my last blog, where I tried to advance the case that when scientists behave immorally while doing science, their immoral behaviour can't be "in the name of science". This charge is incoherent and therefore misleading. The commenter was unconvinced. I’m grateful for those comments because they show that I didn’t do a good enough job of clarifying my argument. I’ll try to do that today.

Contrary to those comments, I don’t think that a problem for my case arose out of a focus on Mengele specifically and not on more ambiguous cases of immorality in science. The problem, I think, lies in the ambiguity of the phrase “in the name of”, so I’m going to try to make my case again without using it at all.

In my introductory paragraph, I framed the question at hand, and that question was not whether scientists can behave immorally while doing science. I fully conceded that. The question was whether science can cause scientists to behave immorally while doing science. Remember that this question arose in response to a tu quoque that not infrequently pops up whenever faith-based religion is criticized for causing immoral behaviour. That tu quoque entails the claim that science causes immoral behaviour, too. Moreover, the question of causality is the important one if we are interested in curbing that immoral behavior by criticizing or condemning the underlying cause. Accordingly, I’m going to try to make the case that it is incoherent to claim that science causes scientists to behave immorally while doing science. (On the other hand, the coherence and truth of the claim that faith-based religions can - and regularly do - cause people to behave immorally during their practice is not even contested.)

Consider a cancer researcher who is experimenting on and therefore killing mice. Such a program is indisputably a "legitimate" scientific enterprise even though the researcher knows full well that mice will be harmed by the process*.

What determines whether a researcher thinks that killing mice is acceptable is how that researcher values the lives of mice versus the lives of the people her research efforts hope to ultimately help. Science has nothing to do with that consideration. Science doesn’t inform the researcher that she should value human life, or a cure for cancer, or the lives of mice, or how to weigh the whole shebang. She brings her values into a moral consideration upon which science is silent. It’s a moral consideration because morality is about the well-being of conscious creatures, and it is precisely the well-being of mice and men that is in question. If a researcher is prepared to sacrifice the lives of mice, then the scientific method advises on ways to obtain reliable, true information from the experiments. That is all.

If the lives of mice are not well valued, we should not be surprised that the lives of mice will be lost whether they are the victims of scientific experimentation or of mouse traps behind the furniture. If we find it morally abhorrent that mice are dying, criticizing science won’t save their lives, but addressing why the well-being of mice is undervalued by mouse-killers may.

Perhaps scientific projects like this one are morally abhorrent and the low value we place on the lives of mice is an example of speciesism run amok. All that my argument requires is that you recognize that the scientific method has nothing to say on that matter.

Now imagine a society that values the lives of mice on par with those of humans, and that a mouse researcher is identified, captured, and tried for "crimes against conscious creatures". In her defence, she claims that her work was done "in the name of science". I hope that it's now obvious that this is a lame excuse to try to deflect blame and place it squarely on something greater than herself and something that is otherwise held in high esteem: the scientific method. The problem is that it doesn't make sense. She failed to properly value the lives of mice, and the scientific method played no role in that consideration.

Perhaps she's a psychopath who lacks the empathy required to value mouse life. Perhaps she hates mice because they spread a disease that claimed the lives of her parents when she was an impressionable child. Or perhaps she was raised in a religious tradition that included an ancient scripture saying, "For I am the Lord, your God, and I am holy. You shall regard every mouse after its kind an abomination and do with them as you wish." Whatever her reasons, they can't have anything to do with the scientific method.

I rest my case.

So why is the notion that the Nazi researchers acted "in the name of science" seemingly widespread and appealing despite being incoherent and misleading? Because it's a deepity.

A deepity is a phrase that balances precariously between two interpretations. On one reading, the phrase is true, but trivially so. On the second reading, the phrase would be profound if it were true, but that second interpretation is actually false. Somehow, the truth of the first reading seems to rub off on the second one, making it seem profound and true. Deepities are common and beguiling, but fallacious.

It's trivially true that the Nazi researchers did some things that were motivated by science and could, in that sense, have been done "in the name of science". But those things are standard scientific moves like choosing objective outcome measures, repeating experiments to understand the influence of normal biologic variability on outcomes, etc. But when people hear that the Nazis acted "in the name of science", the second interpretation that takes hold of the imagination is that the heinous evils they committed during their experiments were motivated by science. That would be profound if it were true, but alas, it is false. Somehow, the truth of the first interpretation rubs off on the second one, making it seem profound and true. As I've shown, though, that second reading is incoherent and misleading.

A Hitler Youth Book Burning

Unlike science, people do get their values and morals from religion and religious apologists tell us that they damn well should. It should be no surprise then, that the Nazi devaluation of Jewish life had its roots in centuries strong Christian influences. Nazism was its own crazy religion following its own charismatic prophet ("dear leader") and which spread through the systematic cultivation of fear and the suppression of free speech, skepticism, and reason. If we want to prevent the next Holocaust, one thing we can do is maintain a critical stance on the many faces of dogma and the methods people employ for its dissemination, protection, and exaltation.

Once again, I'd like to thank my thoughtful commenter for the opportunity to clarify my thoughts. I hope that this does indeed clear things up.

*Notice that the legitimacy of mouse based scientific research actually refers to the moral legitimacy of experimenting on mice. The scientific legitimacy is assumed.

Did Josef Mengele act in the name of science?

In the wake of the Charlie Hebdo massacre, religious apologists have been reminding us that faith & religion are not alone in causing people to do evil things. This much is, of course, true. But apologists for faith sometimes say something more than the obvious on this subject. Here's how a friend of mine put it:

"Bad things are done by religious people in the name of religion just as bad things are done by scientific people in the name of science (e.g., Mengele)."

This tu quoque is meant to deflect criticism of faith by those who, like me, consider it epistemically inadequate, irresponsible, and dangerous. But the problem posed by theologically defensible religious doctrines causing people to act in horrible ways must still be addressed, and on that matter, apologists are often quite silent except to say that their theologically defensible interpretation is the right one. With no principled way to adjudicate among the many interpretations of God's mysterious will, this defence of faith simply falls short.

But does science need a defence against this tu quoque? I think not.

Let me explain.

Behaving "in the name of" someone means having the authority to act according to his/her instructions which are, in turn, in keeping with his/her values. For example, if you buy a house in the name of someone, as you might do if you have been given power of attorney, they get the house - not you.  Similarly, if you're instructed to sell someone's shares at a lower price than paid, you aren't to blame for the loss. Acting in someone else's name implies the authority to do so, and relieves one so doing of blame. Already, we can begin to see a motivation for why one might want to claim to be acting in the name of someone else.

Acting in the name of science similarly means behaving according to the instructions of the scientific method, which are, in turn, in keeping with the values upon which science is built. One who doesn't value testability, evidence, objectivity, and parsimony can hardly call herself a scientist and can hardly act in the name of science. This is important: just because someone says that s/he is acting in the name of science doesn't make it true. There is a fact of that matter that is independent of mere opinion.

Examples of widely recognized scientific instructions include minimizing bias, making precise measurements, performing careful experimentation that tests falsifiable predictions or retrodictions, open reporting of methods, and ensuring that results are reproducible.

Josef Mengele MD, PhD, one of history's most notorious villains, did many of those things. An SS Nazi officer, he is also responsible for the murder of thousands in the gas chambers. But he is best known for the vile experiments he performed on prisoners, especially children, prior to their murder in concentration camps where he worked. It has been claimed, apparently, by Mengele himself and others, that he did what he did "in the name of science". For the record, I have not been able to identify a source indicating that Mengele made this claim. If you know of one, please share a link in the comments below. Nevertheless, the notion that he did, and that he said as much, is widespread enough that it deserves attention.

What exactly did Mengele do that was noteworthy? Was it that he chose subjects for genetic investigations who shared identical genes (twins)? Was it that he kept detailed records? Was it that he made careful observations? Those things, we could coherently say he did in the name of science because science, as a method of acquiring knowledge, prescribes them. But none of these things are noteworthy. If that was all that Mengele did, nobody would have any reason to talk about him. What he did that was noteworthy was torture and murder his victims in unspeakable ways without a care for their well-being, and on that behaviour, science is completely silent. Science doesn't tell us that we should care for the well-being of research subjects; ethics does. This is why universities have Ethics Review Boards (ERB's) that ensure that scientific experimentation is carried out according to the highest ethical standards. They aren't called Scientific Review Boards because the question of whether research is carried out ethically is not a scientific one; it's a moral one.

If an amoral psychopath like Mengele undertakes unethical experimentation, his claim that his immoral behaviour is entailed by the demands of science is incoherent - it doesn't make sense. It's just  a lame attempt to deflect blame by trying to suggest that the authority and instructions to have so acted came from something larger than oneself: in Mengele's case, science.

I hope that you are beginning to see how inadequate an excuse this really is. Those who advance the notion that Mengele acted in the name of science are suggesting that what he did that was noteworthy, that was evil, was done in the name of science, and that's just misleading because it's completely incoherent. Perhaps Mengele did those experiments in the name of the German cause, or in the name of selecting the supreme race, but neither of these motivations can be said to be scientific. There's nothing about science that tells us that we should try to dominate the world, or purify a particular race or species. Ironically, Nazi antisemitism had its roots in centuries old Christian influences.

Now, I'm not arguing that scientists can't be bad people who do bad things even while doing science; in every bunch, there will be rotten apples. To be perfectly clear, I am arguing that the claim that scientists can do bad things in the name of science is incoherent, and to it, an end should be put.

But what of religious people who do bad things in the name of religion? Should we stop making this claim because it's incoherent, too? Well, if, like science, religion provided no moral instructions and completely lacked authority on moral matters, then yes, we ought not make it. But the very people who make the incoherent claim about evil done in the name of science are also the ones quick to emphatically argue that without God and religion, there can be no morality. As Christian philosopher, William Lane Craig puts it:

"In a world without God, who’s to say whose values are right and whose are wrong? There can be no objective right and wrong, only our culturally and personally relative, subjective judgments. Think of what that means! It means it’s impossible to condemn war, oppression, or crime as evil. Nor can you praise generosity, self-sacrifice, and love as good. To kill someone or to love someone is morally equivalent. For in a universe without God, good and evil do not exist—there is only the bare, valueless fact of existence, and there is no one to say you are right and I am wrong."

But now watch how this backfires as Craig argues how with God, one can justify and praise war, oppression, and crime as good with frightening ease. Here he is again on God commanding the Canaanite genocide:

“So whom does God wrong in commanding the destruction of the Canaanites? Not the Canaanite adults, for they were corrupt and deserving of judgment. Not the children, for they inherit eternal life. So who is wronged? Ironically, I think the most difficult part of this whole debate is the apparent wrong done to the Israeli soldiers themselves. Can you imagine what it would be like to have to break into some house and kill a terrified woman and her children? The brutalising effect on these Israeli soldiers is disturbing.”

"By setting such strong, harsh dichotomies God taught Israel that any assimilation to pagan idolatry is intolerable. It was His way of preserving Israel’s spiritual health and posterity. God knew that if these Canaanite children were allowed to live, they would spell the undoing of Israel. The killing of the Canaanite children not only served to prevent assimilation to Canaanite identity but also served as a shattering, tangible illustration of Israel’s being set exclusively apart for God."

Is it possible to imagine a moral compass more poorly calibrated (but internally coherent!) than that of perhaps the most formidable Christian apologist of our time? That, it seems, is where acts coherently done in the name of religion - with the authority and by the instructions of God, in keeping with God's values - can and do regularly get us. Last year, the Institute for Economics and Peace found that religion played a significant causal role in one third of the world's violent conflicts and was the main cause in almost half of those*. Consider the horrific but hardly covered genocide undertaken by Boko Haram in Nigeria at this very moment.

The idea that evil can be done in the name of religion is completely coherent because religion is entirely in the moral business of telling us what God values, what we should value, what God wants us to do, and what we should do. Religion defines the good and the bad as well as our moral obligations, or so its adherents believe and regularly inform. What people believe really does matter and really can motivate good people to behave very badly.

It's worth pointing out that not all religions endorse evil behaviour equally well. I'm not the first person to recognize that it would be completely incoherent for a team of Jain assassins to have stormed the Paris offices of Charlie Hebdo and murdered innocent cartoonists while this heinous act makes perfect sense in light of the Islamic doctrines of Jihad and martyrdom.

Today is the 70th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz and people around the world are contemplating how it came to pass that humans could be so cruel to their fellow humans. My contribution to this effort is to note that Nazism had much too much in common with religion:

"People of faith often claim that the crimes of Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot were the inevitable product of unbelief. The problem with fascism and communism, however, is not that they are too critical of religion; the problem is that they are too much like religions. Such regimes are dogmatic to the core and generally give rise to personality cults that are indistinguishable from cults of religious hero worship. Auschwitz, the gulag and the killing fields were not examples of what happens when human beings reject religious dogma; they are examples of political, racial and nationalistic dogma run amok. There is no society in human history that ever suffered because its people became too reasonable." - Sam Harris

And while admittedly incomplete, the words of Stephen Weinberg are also worth remembering on this occasion:

Frederick Douglass told in his Narrative how his condition as a slave became worse when his master underwent a religious conversion that allowed him to justify slavery as the punishment of the children of Ham. Mark Twain described his mother as a genuinely good person, whose soft heart pitied even Satan, but who had no doubt about the legitimacy of slavery, because in years of living in antebellum Missouri she had never heard any sermon opposing slavery, but only countless sermons preaching that slavery was God's will. With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil — that takes religion.

*A strong case could be made that this report significantly underestimated the influence of religion and religious ideology in violent conflicts.

The Necessity of Secularism: Why God Can't Tell Us What to Do

Ronald A. Lindsay is president and CEO of the Center for Inquiry and of its affiliates, the Council for Secular Humanism and the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry.

In this short video, he explains a position that I will continue to endorse here at Skepsis: that secularism is necessary in a pluralistic democracy and that God can't be the source of our moral or state laws.

Gordon Gibson Says it all on the Charlie Hebdo Massacre

From time to time, I share an essay I find important or thought-provoking. I couldn't resist sharing Gordon Gibson's op-ed from the Globe and Mail. It says pretty much everything I'd ever want to say about the Charlie Hebdo massacre:

In considering the recent terrorist killings in France it can be useful to employ a constitutional lens. Such an approach can help one rise above the anger and emotion that everyone (on all sides) naturally feels, emotions which almost foreclose productive thought.

“Je suis Charlie!” say some. “Terrible” say some mosques and imams. Fine, but neither is good enough for the very basic question involved.

That question is simple: “What is the source of legitimacy and authority in a society?”

There are two answers. For thousands of years after hunter/gatherers coalesced into settled communities the usual answer was the monarch, or a god, the two often conflated for political reasons. That mystic authority, however named, was above us all and not to be questioned.

Gradually over the past several hundreds of years an alternate response has taken the field, and indeed swept it into the western world. From this point of view the ultimate authority on this earth resides in the individual, being the only natural self-governing unit. Individuals then, recognizing the usefulness of an orderly society, notionally cede some of their authority to a state, with the proviso that in exchange they can choose and remove those exercising the power of the state. That is the description of democracy in its many forms. Granted, we in Canada are still formally ruled by a monarch, but everyone knows that this has long been a legal fiction and that real power is exercised by some combination of first ministers and judges.

The killers who invaded the offices of Charlie Hebdo and a kosher market subscribed to the first definition of proper authority. They did the work of their god as they understood it in attacking threats to that concept. Their god has a billion followers around the world. It is none of the business of the rest of us as to what they believe of morality and the afterlife. It is very much our business, within our own society, as to how believers of any stripe accept our view of civil authority.

There is nothing new about the conflict between religious and secular authorities, nor is there anything new about horrible behaviour. The Christians of the Crusades and the Inquisition and the enslavement of Latin America would be hard to top for cruelty in the name of a god.

What is relatively new in history is the eviction of god from the government, banished to a spiritual existence in the minds of adherents and stripped of temporal power. God is of course an important concept to many, and a source of comfort, inspiration and moral guidance. But the thing is, in our society political power flows from individuals, not from above.

This shift in the source of societal authority is a core value. It is the core value, in a civic and social sense. It is not an optional thing, a take-it-or-leave-it part of the national smorgasbord. We need to absolutely insist on very few things, but this is one of them.

That, to me, is the lesson of the French killings. Of course we (or France, in this case) must do other things as a consequence – after dealing with the killers, beef up intelligence services, work tangibly toward a fairer and most respectful society for all, tackling the so-called “root causes”.

But even more importantly, we must have a clear understanding and an insistence on the underlying principle. It is not enough to have men of any god (and how overwhelmingly are they men) deplore given acts of violence. To be a welcome part of our society, any person, any group must wholeheartedly agree to our basic rules. The secular state and free speech, subject only to the laws of the land, are central parts of those rules.

The killers of Paris rejected that view. That makes them not just criminals but, far more seriously, traitors to the society that housed them.

For some, especially those brought up to believe devoutly in the god-source of authority, this subordination of religion to the rule of law is a very difficult choice. But if anyone wants to be welcome in Canada (or France I am sure), this is a choice they must make. If they seek other rules, there are other countries.

Of course we do not have thought police. Anyone can believe what they want. They can also (within hate speech limits) preach what they want. But when the rest of us hear words against our basic values we should not hide our feelings. On the contrary, we should insist on them.

What people really believe really does matter

A bullet hole at the offices of French satirical newspaper, Charlie Hebdo, January 7, 2015

In the wake of the massacre at Charlie Hebdo in Paris last week, the notion that bad people will do bad things and use religion merely as an excuse to justify them has been echoing around. The idea is that the evil is within the evil-doers and the cause of that evil does not - no, cannot - include religious beliefs. I cannot disagree more strongly. To be sure, there are other causes for evil behaviour, but religious beliefs are among the causative mix along with rage and other emotions, psychopathy, political beliefs, beliefs about honour, revenge, etc. To illustrate the specific power of religious beliefs to motivate people to do the otherwise unthinkable, allow me to tell you a story.

Herbert and Catherine Schaible were a couple living a quiet life in northeast Pennsylvania. They quit school after 9th grade and, eventually became teachers at the First Century Gospel Church where they were third generation observant members. They had 9 children. I know of nobody with more faith than them.

In 2009, their 2 year old son, Kent, developed trouble breathing, fever, and a cough. Trial evidence including testimony from the Schaibles indicated that he'd been suffering for about two weeks before he ultimately died from bacterial pneumonia. When his condition worsened, they called their pastor. The next call they made was to a funeral home.

The Schaibles did not seek medical attention for Kent's condition at any time though they did pray for him and seek the prayer and support of their pastor and their community. They were ultimately found guilty of involuntary manslaughter and endangering the welfare of a child. Their sentencing included 10 years probation and a promise from them: that they would seek medical care if one of their remaining 8 children became ill.

"We tried to fight the devil, but in the end, the devil won" said Herbert at that time.

Fast forward to last year, when their 7-month old son, Brandon, developed similar symptoms. The Schaibles broke their promise to the state, but held true to their faith, and Brandon succumbed to dehydration and bacterial pneumonia, just like the brother that he never knew.

In both instances, medical experts testified that the children would probably have lived had routine treatments like fluids and antibiotics been administered. By all accounts, the Schaibles were loving parents who were both deeply concerned about their childrens' well-being and saddened by their deaths. So how do we explain their behaviour?

Perhaps we should ask the Schaibles how they explain what they did, twice? Here's what Detective Brian Peters of the Philadelphia Homocide Unit reported that Herbert Schaible explained when he asked him just that: "Healing occurs through God's will. Only God's will could have saved his son. He said this several times, and would repeat it in his statement when he was asked if he regretted not taking Brandon to a doctor. “No, I don’t regret it,” Herbie said, “because we believe that the only way is the right way and that is through God. I would change places with either of my sons. But it’s God’s will. He is the healer of our bodies.”"

Cathy Schaible echoed her husband's comments: “We pray and ask God to heal … the way Jesus did when He was on Earth.”

As devout members of their church, the Schaibles believe that faith in Jesus and prayer to God are the right and only path; they don't wear glasses or seatbelts, avoid vaccinations, and, of course, medical care. Schooling ends at grade 10. They also avoid owning and accumulating wealth, making sure to tithe and give to charity while renting their living accommodations.

Their pastor, Nelson Clark, has said the Schaibles lost their sons because of a "spiritual lack" in their lives and insisted they would not seek medical care even if another child appeared near death.

Earlier this year, they were sentenced to up-to 7 years in prison plus additional probation.

Is there any lens through which to view this tragedy other than the one of their faith? Is there any way to explain their behaviour that doesn't appeal to their beliefs about the healing powers of Jesus?

Well, other parents without those particular beliefs avoid life-saving medical care that threatens or kills their beloved. It's even thought that Steve Jobs rejected best medical advice and put off more aggressive treatments in favour of holistic ones, ultimately contributing to his own premature and perhaps unnecessary death. So while this particular brand of Christianity isn't necessary for these types of poor health decisions, it sure seems sufficient. In fact, the sufficient common denominator seems to be an epistemic failure to reason and weigh evidence properly. As soon as faith enters into the mix as a reasonable justification for belief, anything goes, even behaviour that causes parents to kill their children. If deeply held religious beliefs can motivate people to do that, then they can motivate people to do anything. And they do.

A few months ago, President Obama said that ISIS is "not Islamic" because "no religion condones the killing of innocents". I wonder if he'd also say that the faithful followers of the First Century Gospel Church are similarly "not Christian" because "no religion condones the suffering and death of innocent children." He'd be obviously wrong on both accounts.

Would anybody say that the Schaibles are child killers who use their particular religious beliefs as an excuse to watch their children suffer?

If you think that religion can motivate people to do good things, then you better not employ a double standard and proclaim that it can't motivate people to do bad things. What people believe really does matter. Religious beliefs really do matter. Anything believed on faith really shouldn't.

Let's stop exalting faith and protecting it from the criticism it deserves.