Mirror Neurons and Morality

Knowledge is power. We all know it; it is in our core. If we know more, we can manipulate more. If we want to ride a horse, there are some basic facts we need to know: How to sit on a horse, how to direct a horse, how to remain on the horse when the horse makes a sudden movement. And this knowledge is not simply head knowledge. We could read five books on horse riding, but we will not really “know” how to ride a horse until we actually do it.

However, there is something we can do that accomplishes more than reading manuals about horse riding, still short of getting on the horse, and that is watching someone ride a horse. We can watch a person who is a little more skilled than we are ride a horse and learn most of what we need to actually get on the horse and try it ourselves. This doesn’t work as well if we watch a jockey racing—someone who is too advanced over us feeds us too much information and the wrong kind of information for us to try it ourselves. Besides, if we have never ridden a horse, we would rather know how to ride a horse walking than a horse at full speed.

The question is, how can we do this? There is so much information about riding a horse that it cannot be successfully communicated with words. But all we have to do is see it and suddenly we have enough information to try it ourselves. All of this is because of mirror neurons.

The mirror neuron is a recent discovery of neurology. They are parts of the brain in which we internally imitate what we see. In mirror neurons we “experience” things just by seeing them. We can watch someone playing a simple tune on a piano and even if we’ve never played before, we can sit down and try it out ourselves, with reasonable success. A savant can focus so well on this that they can accomplish great feats of skill without ever doing it before. But the basic ability to repeat what we have experienced second hand is something we all have.

And not just us. Most mammals have some level of mirror neurons. We can see this by who catches a yawn. If we see a yawn, our mind experiences it as our yawn and so replicates the act. Not only can we “catch” a yawn from a dog or a cat, but our dog or cat can “catch” a yawn from us. This means that they have some kind of mirror neuron.

However, the most successful mirror neurons are those developed by humans. There was an experiment done by an animal researcher where he allowed a chimp to hang out 24 hours a day with his son. His idea is that his son would teach the chimp how to be a human. This worked well at first, where they were creating their own games and the chimp did pick up on some pretty human traits. In the end, however, the researcher’s son became much more like the chimp than the chimp became like a human. This is because human mirror neurons are stronger, more able to pick up on others’ experiences than any other mammal. This also explains why humans have been a more successful species than other animals. Humans can draw on the experience of other humans, other animals and even insects and inanimate objects, while animals are more limited in their ability to fully know others’ activity.

Why do we have mirror neurons, let alone successful ones? Because mirror neurons have proven to be more effective in creating a successful species than any other physical apparatus. Chimps have opposable thumbs. Gorillas have the ability to learn language. And most species are more successful at obtaining food that is nutritious for them than modern humans. But humans are able to obtain and replicate more knowledge than any other species, and thus are more successful. And, because of mirror neurons, humans are able to create an ever growing store of knowledge. As a species, it only takes one person to learn something from an apple or a preying mantis or a horse, and we can all learn it. This knowledge passes on and the most successful of knowledge ends up in the permanent store of the collective human psyche.

Someone at this point will say that I am making an evolutionary argument. Not at all. God desired for humans to be more successful than other species, despite human weakness. And God created humans to be in His image. Mirror neurons are simply the apparatus by which God make human beings successful

Is Atheism Too Simple?

“Atheism is too simple,” Lewis says. How does he come to this conclusion? Because we all have a sense of right and wrong, and we all make moral arguments. If there was no Christian God—or someone like Him—then where does a sense of morality come from?

But really, Lewis isn’t saying that all atheism is too simple, but only his sort. Lewis, when he was an atheist, felt that the world was too unjust for there to be a just God, and that the arguments of the Christians were just too complicated. But that just argues the point that there is an idea of justice, and that it had to come from somewhere.

What Lewis is actually saying, without explicitly stating it, is that pantheism makes more sense than his sort of atheism. That God is in everything, and thus everything—even cancer or child pornographers—is just as much a part of God as a saint. In other words, justice and morality is just an illusion. If the atheist continues to hold to morality, it makes no sense. But the nihilist, who admits that there really is not cause for any morality, can keep a simple atheism. The problem, Lewis seems to indicate, is not atheism, but morality.

So the question is, can anyone actually set aside morality? Can we live a life without a sense of morality? Or, even more so, is it possible to have a rational, God-absent, basis for morality? Although I believe that God is the source of human morality, yet still I think there is an argument to be mace for godless morality, and one that looks similar to Christianity, especially the popular form.

All Truth Is God's Truth

It is very important for all Christians to note Lewis’ point at the beginning of “What Christians Believe”: that Christians do not necessarily think that other conceptions of God or truth are all wrong just because they consider themselves right. This is something Christians seem to misunderstand, especially when they see another particular worldview as “the enemy”.

For instance, many Christians want to claim that the Muslim Allah is a different God than the one they worship, even after they have studied Allah in Islamic texts. Does this mean that they have to deny that their God is merciful, beneficent, all-powerful and creator? Because we don’t have the right to tell other religions or worldviews what they believe. We can only explore what they believe. We can, however, determine what we personally believe. So if we see that another religion believes that God is omniscient, wise and all powerful, we can’t change their belief. All we can do is change our own. So if those outside of Christianity believe what we believe, must we change our own belief to keep their status as enemies?

The fact of the matter is, worldviews overlap a lot. We need to agree when we can agree and disagree when we must. And just because we disagree doesn’t make us enemies. However, if we see each other as enemies due to a different belief, then the enmity is created, not by the different belief, but because of the attitude of enmity.

Christian Ethics are Human Ethics

Previously I spent some time arguing against Lewis’ conclusion that a moral law in humanity necessarily means that there is some kind of Director of moral reasoning. My friend heard me present this argument and he asked me, “So where do you think the Moral Law came from?” I replied, “It was created by God within us. I am arguing against the necessity of that conclusion being true because of the existence of Moral Law. Human reasoning can come up with more conclusions than just one.”

Now, in Lewis’ fifth chapter of Mere Christianity, he tells us that his point was not to have us believe that there is a God. Even if he could draw that conclusion, he says, he wouldn’t have come close to the God of Christianity. The God of Christianity is the God of Jesus Christ, and even if you could possibly connect the creation of the universe and the placing of the Moral Law into human hearts, that is still distant from the God of Jesus, who caused the Old Testament to be written, who interacts with humans in the real-time universe, who heals and has mercy.

Rather, Lewis says that his point of this whole section is to prove to us that Christianity’s formulation of morality is correct. First of all, that there IS a standard by which we all can agree. It is not as specific as any given lawbook, nor is this morality agreed upon in all points, but there is a standard.

Secondly, we all must agree that we have all failed the very moral standard we agree upon. We have all screwed up and hurt people when we should have helped. In Christianity this is called “sin” but it could just as much been called a moral failing.

Next, the Moral Law shows us that these failings must be “repented” of. This doesn’t necessarily mean doing some penance, or some other dramatic ritual, but it does mean that we need to change our failings into successes. We cannot continue to live with our moral failings, but we need to act in accord with the moral law.

Finally, because we (almost) all have guilt due to our failings, we need to have a sense of forgiveness, of resolution of our guilty feelings.

Thus, Lewis says, the Moral Law shows that every single human deals with the outline of Christian truth. There is a moral standard, we have sinned, we need to be forgiven and we must repent. Even if you don’t agree with the Christian God, Lewis says, we must agree that this outline is a significant part of human life. So Christianity, even if it could be proven wrong, at least it deals with real human experience in an effective way.

Is the One Who Gets All He Wants Happy?

Talking about Plato's Republic and the character Thrasymachus' statement that "might makes right".

“We need to distinguish between two of Thrasymachus’ claims. The first is his connection of justice with power. That is not popular today because it seems too similar to crass totalitarianism. But his second conclusion is very popular. That morality is man-made. It happens by human social contract or by social consensus. It is not some universal, timeless objective truth that we discover as we discover the laws of physics or the truths of mathematics. Justice is an art, like building bridges. Or a game, like baseball. We make the rules, therefore we can change them. And we can cheat and sometimes cheating wins. That’s Thrasymachus.” -Peter Kreeft

Thrasymachus also says that the reason we have law is the attempt by the weak to control the strong. The weak band together to create government—a false, unnatural equality-- so the strong cannot have their will. “If this is the case, then there is no reason to be moral except fear of punishment. If you could get what you want by force—whether mental force or physical force—and if you could get away with it, why not? This is a question I ask my students in Ethics class. They think that we shouldn’t do anything morally wrong, so I ask them, ‘Why not?’ ‘Well, because you’ll be punished.’ Well, suppose you won’t, suppose you can get away with it? ‘Well, because people will hate you.’ Well, suppose they won’t. Suppose you can con them. Suppose your power includes propaganda, power over their minds. Or suppose you don’t care what other people think. Why not do evil if you can get away with it and get what you want?”

Yet if a person obtained all power, that person wouldn’t be happy anyway. Why? Because the people around him wouldn’t really be happy. We are not just isolated individuals, but we are connected to others. In the end, we cannot be happy with our own happiness, but we must have others around us be happy as well. Therefore, those who are truly connected to others will sacrifice some of their own happiness in order to create happiness in those around them. In the end, to make others happy increases our own happiness.

So why are we not happy in society, if everyone is connected to others, and some, let’s say, have the power to make others happy? Shouldn’t everyone be happy in that case? Well, no, because of separations and segregations in society. Judges don’t rub elbows with the homeless and Senators aren’t peers with people on welfare. If every president, justice, congressperson, bishop, governor and mayor were required, by law, to spend six month either living on the street or living in a mental health institution or in a nursing home or with a family on welfare, the society would change remarkably. Because then the poor would be real to those in power, they would have relationships with the poor and want to do something about it. Then, at least, the basic needs of those in society would be met.

Theology and Reputation

“It is difficult for me, living in such a secular and prosperous age, to fully comprehend the tremendous impact the juridical understanding of the atonement has had on the West. The view of God as a fierce Judge, angry, vindictive, pouring out His divine wrath on His Son Jesus because of “love” for us sinners appears ludicrous to many non-Christians. It explains in part why so many are repulsed by institutional churches and only admit to admiring Jesus on a strictly private and non-institutional level.” -Rev. A. James Bernstein

It not only seems ludicrous, it is. Love is as love does.

Cause: Unknown, Therefore God?

Let’s look at the moral argument, as Lewis presents it. It is basically the same argument as Aquinas’ proofs of God. We see reality. Reality cannot be formed on its own, but needs a creator. Therefore, there must be a creator. Lewis is just narrowing this argument to moral law. There is a universal moral law. It is inexplicable that such a moral law could exist amidst complex cultures. Therefore there must be a Source of Moral Law outside of humanity.

However, this is not the only possible explanation. For instance, one of the basic premises of this Moral Law is that the Other is equal to the Self, or, “Do to others as you would have them do to you.” But neuroscience has recently discovered “mirror neurons”. These are cells in the brain that observe and then create a facsimile of what is observed in the brain. In other words, we might observe someone jumping off a cliff—in our minds we experience ourselves jumping off that same cliff, without all the messy bits that happen at the bottom of the cliff. This is why, when watching a video of someone jumping off a cliff, we find our heart beating harder, our breath catching, perhaps we might get a little dizzy. This is because our observation of the other is being experienced ourselves. The Other is the equal of our Self because we have actually experienced it. This is a part of our brain, and we have stronger mirror neurons than animals have. Thus, this could very well be a neurological basis for a basic principle of morality.

And all of the arguments about the existence of God typically go this way. Someone takes that which has never been explained and then claimed that it proves a higher reality. Until someone comes along with an explanation for the complexity without the need for a higher reality. Then those who believed in that argument for God looks foolish, because human interpretation has a greater imagination than was ever thought. Then the argument descends into heated philosophical and theological arguments that cannot be won by anyone.

Personally, I think that we should leave behind the “reality proves Gods existence” argument completely. Not because it isn’t true, but because it is terrible proof, and just makes everyone look foolish when an alternative reason is discovered. Ultimately, the argument is a bet against the human imagination. “I bet,” the argument says, “That you can’t find a reason for this mountain, therefore the reason must be God.” And when the human imagination finds a reason apart from God, then the arguer looks like an idiot. “I bet you can’t find a reason for consciousness, therefore it must be God,” says Francis Schaeffer. “I bet you can’t find a reason for all the stars in the sky…” “I bet you can’t find a reason for agreement in human morality…” etc. These bets are always lost. Human imagination is as vast as the universe and the fictions it can create are unlimited. It is best never to bet against it.