Wilson uses the words transcendentalism and empiricism to describe the manners by which humanity obtains its sense of morality. Transcendentalism describes morals as being innate in every being of higher intelligence. Hence, this theory is very popular amongst the religious group because it requires a bit of faith. Empiricism is the acquisition of moral standards through objective thought process. This idea is closely associated with those who put their faith in science because its origin can be catalogued and gives an explanation for ambiguity between the moral conscious between two different people. According to Wilson, the predominant theory is that of transcendentalism, but the move toward empiricism is manifesting itself with the rise in the number of people who choose science as their religion.
I agree with his statement of science and religion not being factually compatible. When facing a universal question, such as the origin of man, each belief has its own explanation and therefore cannot possibly coincide with one another. Granted, there are some aspects about the universe that both systems agree upon, but they are few. As Wilson said, “those who hunger for both intellectual and religious truth face disquieting choices.” In the case of transcendentalism versus empiricism, it depends on which belief you most closely identify with. I feel that those who are religious, tend to side with the transcendentalist view because it fits well with the creationist theory of man, that we were created by a being and instilled with all of these inherent properties. As Wilson indirectly points out, those that think scientifically tend to have the empirical view because of their analytical skills. This is also attributed to the fact that they tend to have a materialistic view on the world and transcendentalism requires a bit of faith. There is no one place of origin so the feel more comfortable saying that people develop their own moral standards. However, I will admit that they are similar in the fact that each one requires a bit of blind faith just applied in different manners. While one asks you to believe in a supreme being, the other asks you to consider theories as truths. As a result of this ambiguity, even if they were factually compatible, they could not be simultaneously believed.

In Edward O. Wilson’s “The Biological Basis of Morality”, Wilson uses transcendentalism vs. empiricism to compare the ideas of the origins of morality. Transcendentalism focuses on “natural law as a set of principles so powerful…as to be self-evident to any rational person.” Whereas, empiricism focus on the biological roots of moral behavior. The empiricist view emphasizes its “objective knowledge.” Wilson continues to explain how the set of mind we currently are in as a whole is generally tilted towards transcendentalism, but with the coming scientific research being done, we are shifting more and more towards a “science-based material analysis.”
On page 84 of the course reader, Wilson says that “the uncomfortable truth is that the two beliefs [God and science] are not factually compatible.” It’s hard to say whether I agree completely with him or not. In a sense I can see where he is coming from because to believe in either one truly and wholly it would require surrender of the opposite’s beliefs. However, that would be very hypocritical of me, because I myself believe in science and can consider myself an empiricist in a way. But I also believe in a God, and do carry transcendentalist beliefs. I guess to say if you are strongly for either science or God, then the other is incompatible. However, I think the exception can be people, like myself, who are indifferent enough to say that they’d rather wait for further influence before strongly supporting one of the ideas. In order to assume that they are not “factually compatible”, on must assume that the belief in science holds to the extreme that everything and everyone just appeared, whereas to believe in strongly God, one must assume that a supreme being created everything, and that we descended from Adam and Eve. Perhaps we need to assume which beginning one chooses to believe before saying they are incompatible. Not having thought about it prior to this reading, Wilson’s article definitely leaves a lot left for me to ponder before saying anything for certain about my beliefs on either subject or where the origin of morality sprung from.

In his essay “The Biological Basis of Morality”, Edward Wilson used the terms transcendentalism and empiricism to debate the origin of morality. Transcendentalism refers to something beyond empirical and rational thought, and something that can be realized through intuition. In this case, Wilson uses transcendentalism as the idea that ethics and morality are something the exist naturally within humans, whether put their by God or not. The term empiricism refers to determining the nature of the world through sense, i.e. science, reason, and logic. Wilson uses empiricism to discuss the idea that the human code of ethics is determined in order to preserve society, and that morality merely exists so that humans can live together without chaos.
Wilson argues that science and religion cannot be consolidated in this essay when he claims that there is no way to “resolve the contradictions between the transcendentalist and empiricist world views”. I don’t believe that’s necessarily true. I agree with him that there will never be a solid answer about which philosophy is right, but that doesn’t mean that you can only be strictly religious or strictly scientific. A person doesn’t have to believe that science is flawed and that God is the only answer, nor do they have to believe that God is dead and the science is the truth. It is possible to find a compromise between the two. Science can be looked at as the rules God set down to govern the universe he created. Wilson might be right that morality will probably never be determined to follow either the rules of transcendentalism or the rules of empiricism for sure. That specific question can only have one correct answer, and it is unlikely that mankind will ever know if it is one way or the other for sure, but that doesn’t mean that there can only be religion or there can only be science. Science seems to have a place in our world view that is increasing, and I don’t see religion disappearing anytime soon. Since it is unlikely that the answer can ever be determined concretely, we can only trust in what we ourselves choose to believe. However, it is not impossible, almost even easy, to believe in them both as not competing forces but answers to the same question.

As Wilson uses them, the argument between transcendentalism and empiricism debates whether moral standards come from some outside force and are somehow universal or whether these same moral standards are merely products of the human mind and could therefore be relative in that they might vary from culture to culture. The two ideas merely put the locus of control on two different sources. One puts it on some outside source, whether it is God or some other being/source, the other puts it on our shoulders alone. Though it is not stated in their literal definitions, it seems to imply that transcendentalists favor a religious approach to morality and ethics whereas empiricists approach ethics with a secular or humanistic point of view.
Wilson’s assert that science and religion are incompatible is one which I strongly disagree. First of all, one who asserts that would seem to have no sense of history in that it disregards the fact that religion nurtured science for hundreds of years. Next, it makes the assumption that religion, and religious people are willing to believe anything as long as a clerical figure says it is so and that they do not take evidence or proof of any kind into consideration. As for the scientific side, someone who truly knows science would know that science does not disregard religious principles and theories, for example creationism. All science says is that we cannot prove for sure God, or a god, created the universe because we cannot put the universe as a whole, or God for that matter, through the scientific process. The truth is that on issues such as evolution or creationism, science has never truly been able to say that the religious, or rather Christian, argument was wrong, all science has been able to say is that the evidence is leading us in a different direction. More often than not, it is those on the fundamentalist side of Christianity that makes it seem that science and religion are incompatible. The fact that there are people on this side of the argument that would actually have scientists stop researching entirely simply because they may actually find out that Biblical explanations are wrong or misguided. It is a mistake to think that science completely disregards religious explanations, science merely states that religious explanations are one of many more physical explanations out there. Notice that people will still use the word “theory” to describe scientific principles that are generally considered facts. The “theory” of gravity, relativity…etc. The reason is because there is really no way to say beyond a reasonable doubt that these principles are true, you can only say this is the most likely explanation give the evidence.

Wilson uses words such as “think that moral guidelines exist outside the human mind” to describe transcendentalists. Where he believes that transcendentalists are those people who are to believe that God does exist and can be believed in, Wilson also states that transcendentalists are those people who believe “in the independence of moral values.” These people according to Wilson can not believe that science has anything to do with moral issues of today’s time. The brain does not function in the department of making moral and ethical decisions. Wilson goes on to say that empiricists are those who “think them contrivances of the mind” or that “moral values come from human beings alone” that there is no outside help on deciding matters of the heart. Empiricists would believe that the human makes all decisions, moral and ethical, on their own, without the guidance or disturbance from outside forces. Empiricism and transcendentalism also differ in the aspect that empiricists will rely not on an outer force or person to make an independent decision where as the later will rely on someone or something to help them make a decision.
With Wilson’s debate on whether it is possible to believe in both, I must disagree that it is possible. There are many instances when they are complimentary to each other. With science, it is imperative that something must be tested, approved and written down. With religion one must rely on the fact that even though you can not be stimulated by a higher being, you can be moved by it, with no real sense of it. It is believing in this higher being that science makes sense. The way that scientists have found intricacies in beings and objects of the earth, one can only resort to believing in a higher power. We must first assume that science can be proven by fact, and we must assume that religion can be proved by matters of the heart. Will the world ever find peace between the two regions for belief and life, most likely not, but it can be understood that for the time being, they completely rely on each other and do not rely on each other at the same time.

This guy sounds like he's trapped in the 1970s. Wilson's vision of "the eventual result of the competition between the two world views," is "the secularization of the human epic and of religion itself." Religion has been secularized since Ayn Rand and Karl Marx squeezed out between them their bouncing baby, Atheism, into its own sort of religion during the rise and fall of communism. More recently, atheistic socialists developed a mainstream secular religion within America itself, with cults like the Veganists, the Unionists, and PETA. The fine line between pop culture and religion is broken by the gods at the ACLU. Political correctness is the new fire and brimstone Puritanism. One misspoken word regarding race around an ACLU worshipper is like kissing a member of the same sex at a gay marriage protest. Wilson defines transcendentalism as belief in an all-encompassing “natural law” or code of ethics. He then glorifies belief in empirical ethics because of their scientific “objectivity.”

Religious and scientific beliefs encompass two different spheres. Wilson falsely asserts that science will someday trump religion. Not only does he suggest the defeat of theism, he suggests that transcendentalism itself will fall to a new empirical religion. However, religion can never become simply empirical. It would be like worshipping the insides of a transistor radio, or going to church in a lawnmower repair shop. There is no moral code or chorus of completeness behind the empirical- except perhaps with Darwinism, which teaches individualism. However, evolutionary Darwinism has become more transcendental than empirical, as discussed by Behe. Materialists expect to see the hand of evolution in all the same places that Evangelical Christians expect to see the hand of God. Transcendentalism will always survive, recognized or not.

As a result, the new secular religions are just as transcendent as the "old" theological ones. One cannot have an empirical "sense of larger purpose, however intellectualized." The sense of larger purpose is derived from a super-conscious knowledge of ourselves, a sudden and unexpected sense of accomplishment, or grace, if you will. An inhabitant of the 21st century looking for an empirical sense of purpose undertakes the same impossible predicament as Christian crusaders searching for the Holy Grail in the Middle Ages, or Eve eating the fruit in Eden.

In Edward O. Wilson’s paper, The Biological Basis of Morality, he defines the terms transcendentalism and empiricism and uses them to argue that religious belief and scientific belief is incompatible. He states that transcendentalism “considers natural law to be an expression of God’s will.” He claims that the natural way of the world exists because a higher being, in this case God, wanted it to be so. The way the world works can be explained by the wished of God. Empiricism, on the other hand, focuses on the material tangible evidence to determine the natural way of the world. “The crux of the empiricist view is its emphasis on objective knowledge.” Empiricism is the way the scientific community conducts its way of doing things, where as religious beliefs focus more on the transcendental way of thought.
Though these two ways of thought can be competing in some aspects, I think they are also complementary. Science and religion have disagreed on multiple topics. Science assumes something is true based on disproving a hypothesis, while religion believes something to be true on pure faith in a higher being. I think they can be compatible with each other. I think a person can believe in both religion and science, or they can believe in a certain religion alone, or science can be a type of religion for them. I think everyone needs to believe in something whether that is science or a religion of their choice. I think a good portion of the population believes in both science and religion. I do not agree with Wilson in his claim that they are incompatible. While they might fight over some topics, I think they are complementary in other topics. It seems the harmony in existence of both transcendentalism and empiricism is an evolution of the thought of the population. In the past, more people have followed a transcendental way of thought. Now, the thoughts are shifting and more people are focusing on a scientific way of thought. It appears that people are moving back and forth in between the two, sometimes being both sides, transcendental, as well as empirical.

In “The Biological Basis of Morality,” Wilson explores the argument of whether moral value comes from an independent entity, whether it be God or nature, or if morality derives itself from human experience. An empiricist is one who believes that “if we explore the biological roots of moral behavior, and explain their marginal origins and biases, we should be able to fashion a wise and enduring ethical consensus.” Thus, an empiricist believes the origin of what we call “objective morality” originated within humans and can be explained with science. Our biological structures denote a specific set of behaviors that benefit us in various ways. Those actions that complement the wants and needs dictated by our genetics make up the body of gestures we label as “moral.” A Transcendentalist, on the other hand, has its roots in religion and philosophy. Transcendentalists believe “the order of nature contains supreme principles, either divine or intrinsic.” Thus, either sets moral standards are set by Holy Decree, or the nature of free will ( and therefore, existence) denote certain moral principles independent from biology. They believe there is a “natural law,” or a law that is “immune to doubt and compromise.” The Natural Law, whether theistic or not, asserts moral conduct that is inherent to existence itself, not to the human condition.

Wilson claims that Empiricism and Transcendentalism can never work in unison. Ironically, about two weeks ago I found myself in a crowd surrounding a man, holding a bible preaching to the students claiming he had irrevocable evidence that God exists, and all those who think otherwise must repent or face eternal damnation. Those students bold enough to challenge his views were condemned as empiricists, people whom he claims only use their five senses to derive truth and live only based on proof. His basic argument was that the concept of evidence could not be proved, and therefore empiricism was a fool’s viewpoint. Such is a perfect example of why I think the two theories cannot coexist peacefully. It’s reasonable to say that everything one experiences or thinks comes from their definition of “T/truth.” To a Transcendentalist, Truth is something beyond the observable capabilities of man. The only way to get closer to this Truth is through faith, and only through faith can one become acquainted with the way of existence. Empiricists believe that truth is what man deems to be true. Truth lies in the messages sent to the empiricist by the five senses, not by a higher order. Therefore, to an empiricist, Man created God, but to a Transcendentalist, God created man. This is why they will never be able to mingle peacefully.

In his “The Biological Basis of Morality” Edward Wilson uses the terms transcendentalism and empiricism to sort out in his mind the religious believers and the secularists. He says transcendentalists are those who “think that moral guidelines exist outside the human mind” while empiricists are those who “think [moral guidelines] are contrivances of the mind.” Wilson in just the first few paragraphs of his writings makes the claim that transcendentalism is the religious believing or the believing in a higher power. He believes transcendentalists look outside of the human mind for morality and their reasoning takes a general form of a chain of causation. This chain of causation comes from the fact that Wilson believes their morals come from what ought to be accepted as an outside source, i.e., God or nature, to what the individual finally accepts as the truth. Wilson also uses the term empiricism to describe secularists. He believes an empiricist will research morality and moral behaviors and will then mold an ethical decision. Empiricism is the opposite of transcendentalism and its chain of causation. Instead of the world around us making the decision as to what is moral, empiricism relies on the individual to decide what is moral.

Concerning Wilson’s assertion that religious belief and scientific belief are incompatible I somewhat agree with his thoughts. We must assume or realize that religion relies a lot on faith and everything that religion entails will not always have hard evidence to back it up. We must assume that the study of science relies upon experimental findings and evidence. In science a hypothesis is not accepted upon someone’s belief it could be true. A hypothesis must be proven before it is accepted as scientific doctrine. This comparison between religion and science leads me back to his beliefs on transcendentalism and empiricism. I believe Wilson is relating religion to transcendentalism because we as religious individuals take what is given to us and the truth and feel no need to have further evidence. A lot of scientists however are empiricists because they see something in nature and do not accept it as truth until they themselves deem it as such. So, while it is true religion relies more upon faith than fact and science relies more upon fact than faith, all is not lost because I would not say that the two are completely incompatible. Science and religion do tie in to one another because scientists who take that leap of faith into religion work hard to come up with hard evidence for those wavering in their faith. For example, scientists have been working for years to find evidence of Noah’s Ark and if I’m not mistaken, a National Geographic recently did an article on a man who was believed to find that evidence. Plus, some scientists do not find the hard evidence they need to back up their claim. Sometimes a scientific thought is not based upon what was found but rather what was not found.