 This page is an archive from the previous version of The Row Boat, which is why it doesn't look and work the same as the current version. However, these archives are fully functional and integrated with the new system.
Why does this site permit advertising?
Powered by Little Logger |
The Row Boat"Had we but world enough, and time..." *
Toward a Science of Altruism7/16/2007 11:45:45I've spent the morning (for my work at AAAS) going through Stephen Post's Unlimited Love: Altruism, Compassion, and Service, published by the Templeton Press in 2003. Unlike the more recent self-help book Why Good Things Happen to Good People, Post writes this one before any of the research results are in from his Institute for Reseach on Unlimited Love. It is a proposal and a defense of Unlimited Love as a studyable phenomenon. The argument begins with the observation that researchers in a number of fields have spent too much time attending to negative aspects of human behavior, such as mental illness, crime, violence, and the rest, while ignoring the positive. The implication seems to have been that positive behaviors, unlike the negative ones for some reason, cannot be studied under strictly scientific methods. Post is right, it seems to me, to point this out as bogus, and to suggest all the benefit for human progress there might be in understanding better the hows and whys of do-gooding. It then gets metaphysical. Post makes no bones about his intuition that love forms some actual metaphysical reality underpinning the universe. "Unlimited Love," he writes, "is a mysterious point of convergence between all worthwhile religions and is deemed the essential aspect of a presence in the universe that is infinitely higher than our own." From a secular perspective, this assertion seems hardly substantiated by reliable scientific evidence. It depends on the prior religious assumption that Post clearly holds. The theological perspective is much more present than in Good Things. Throughout the book Post refers anecdotally the religious stories and quotations, and there are several chapters devoted entirely to them. This certainly befits his training at Chicago Divinity, and betrays a certain Eliadian influence of religious universalism. Again and again we read of what "all religions" teach at their "core." The later book, which benefits from the outcomes of the various research projects funded by the Institute, has less of a need to draw on Post's theological data and a richer collection of anecdotes from the lives of ordinary contemporary people. Comparing the two books (though they are clearly meant for different audiences) and seeing the shortcomings of Unlimited Love actually makes clear the value of the kind of research Post has been funding. Much of the substance of Unlimited Love reads not too differently from the vast catalog of writings on love in traditional theology, ethics, and philosophy. And as such, it does not represent a strong contribution. Its real value comes in the research proposal, which comes to partial fruition by the time of Good Things. There, predictably, the metaphysical superstructure of Unlimited Love is far less present. It gets revealed for what it is: a half-coherent attempt to trick people into loving each other (do it because it is somehow encoded in the structure of the universe). But its usefulness passes when we find better ways to encourage each other to love (it is good for you and will help you live a longer, happier life, studies show). As such, the difference reveals a broader phenomenon: the parsimoniousness of secular method as opposed to the metaphysical. If you can put forth scientific data and appeal to more basic and good human desires (rather than theological data that appeals to more abstract desires), the case is simply stronger, often shorter, and easier for more people of different metaphysical persuasions to digest. You can take or leave theological arguments after that, but they will probably be icing on the cake for most people (as they very seem relegated to in Good Things). Because of the hope of making more compelling arguments for love that will appeal to more people (rather than for his theological finesse), Post's Insitute for Research on Unlimited Love strikes me as significant. It proposes to investigate love from the perspectives of "human development, epidemiology and health care, neurobiology and neuroscience, positive psychology, sociology, and evolutionary biology, as well as anthropology, political science, economics, and education." From the list of the Institute's awarded research grants in the last chapter, it is clear that Post has succeeded in attracting top-notch people to his project (and his money). Finally, on Post and the Templeton Foundation. Like in Good Things, Post is glowing in appreciation for the investor and philanthropist Sir John Templeton, who bankrolls this entire project. It was Templeton, in fact, who coined the term "Unlimited Love" (always capitalized) in a book he wrote about its presence in the major religions. There is a disconcerting closeness here between scientist and interested financier, which should encourage us to approach Post's work and results with a bit more than the usual dose of skepticism. On the other hand, he makes a good case for the necessity of his project. I would worry most of all that Templeton would insist on a continuing emphasis on dubious juxtapositions of metaphysical intuitions with scientific evidence. But depending on how the research goes, and especially on how well it can be presented to the public, we may be joining post in singing the praises of Sir John's beneficence. |
|
| |
