The New York Times’s resident conservative, David Brooks, is clearly intrigued by a neuroscience explanation of morality. In a column this week he sketched the conclusions of a conference organised by The Edge about “the new science of morality”. The conference featured some of the leading figures in the movement, including Roy Baumeister, Jonathan Haidt, Sam Harris, and Marc D. Hauser.

The conference organiser, John Brockman, summarised the theme: “For the first time, we have the tools and the will to undertake the scientific study of human nature… In 1975, [biologist E.O.] Wilson… predicted that ethics would someday be taken out of the hands of philosophers and incorporated into the ‘new synthesis’ of evolutionary and biological thinking. He was right.”

Even David Brooks appeared taken aback by the revolutionary implications. For instance, Harvard’s Marc D. Hauser is particularly interested in an evolutionary explanation of evil. Up to now, he claims, science has shunned the study of evil. But he has an explanation: “evil evolved, and emerges in daily life, as an accident of our brain's engineering”.

Brooks pointed out that the speakers “barely mentioned the yearning for transcendence and the sacred, which plays such a major role in every human society”. This was made explicit by neuroscientist Sam Harris, who is better known as one of the “new atheists”. He says that developing scientific reasons for doing the right thing is an urgent task. “The failure of science to address questions of meaning, morality, and values has become the primary justification for religious faith.” ~ New York Times, July 22