© 1999 Bud Bromley
© 1999 The Christian Fellowship of Students of The Urantia Book
Raymond B. Cattell
Pergamon Press, Inc., 1972
In Dr. Cattell’s preface he opens to us his personal reasons for being concerned about the many unguided directions in which moral changes seem to be going. He is cogent in his thinking and clear in his explanation of the emotional problems which may sometimes resist the development of new logical ideals, should they appear opposed to long cherished traditions.
This is not a book for careless skimming. Dr. Cattell is that rare combination, a meticulous scientist, and also a liberally educated man, highly literate. He writes with a high density of significant and connected concepts per paragraph. He says that this book is for “readers ready to follow an argument wherever it may lead, yet disciplined enough to be critical in reasoning, and mature enough to consider momentarily unpleasant conclusions.” (Pg. 6) Therefore, plan to “Drink deep or taste not” the Cattellian spring.
He writes, “The concern of every sane and thoughtful man with what life is about boils down to, ‘What am I?’ ‘Where am I?’, and ‘What ought I to do?’” (Pg. 3) He submits (that simple verb covers several pages of tightly knit reasoning) that the first two questions are fairly well answered by science, but frankly recognizes that science’s answers are “given as factual systems that are admittedly incomplete, couched in theories that are recognized as likely to change in structure; and with the understanding that science proceeds by successive approximations.” (Pg. 7) One of the things which I respect in this book is Dr. Cattell’s openness in recognizing, not only opposing arguments, but also possible weaknesses in his own arguments.
Though always scholarly, he is not without his gentle bits of pointed humor. “No increase in the general level of education — still less any rise in the noise level of mass communication — can be a substitute for the patient and creative pursuit of necessary, new, ethical values.” (Pg. 6)
Dr. Cattell’s main thesis is that which is best for us, both as individuals, and as social groups, is that which we ought to do. He has chosen to define “that which is best for us” as “that which is most prosurvival for us.” He offers several criteria for judging what is prosurvival. Obviously, groups which do not survive “are inadequate in some respect compared with those that do.” Given the same terrain, food supply, parasites and predators, the more abundant (be it species, or group of people) is the more prosurvival. More important, the groups more capable of adapting to changes in the environment are more prosurvival. Most important, the groups more capable of understanding and changing their environment are more prosurvival.(Pg. 88) He expects that future thinkers may improve upon these criteria, but he will use them until better appear.
Dr. Cattell suggests three gateways to the understanding of life: religion, the liberal arts, and science. While knowledgeably citing the many contributions of both religion and the arts to human progress, he argues (more pages of skillfully constructed reasoning) that science is best equipped to research various behaviors and their consequences, and thus, their prosurvival values. He is arguing that science is better equipped to discover prosurvival — that is, moral — values than is religion, or the arts.
One of Dr. Cattell’s important concepts is that of cooperative competition. That is, of two groups differing in some moral perception, each should be willing to say to the other, “We will go our way, and we will allow you to go your way, and then let us see if there develops (over a sufficient period of time) some clear indication of which group is more prosurvival.” With modern statistical techniques, this description can be extended to include a number of groups, differing in a number of moral perceptions. The important idea is, “let us see…”
For example (my example, not his), scientists are collecting data which is indicating, more and more clearly, that smoking shortens life, and hence, is contrasurvival. But the competition between smokers and non-smokers is hardly cooperative! Smokers: “You non-smokers have no right to deprive us of our simple little pleasures!” Non-smokers: “You smokers have no right to shroud us in your second hand smoke!” (Plus the legal controversy over paying all the medical bills!) Cooperative or not, the data is accumulating, and Dr. Cattell’s Beyondism would have to say that smoking increasingly appears to be immoral. Note that this kind of research does not require that all smokers be gathered together in one physical location, and all non-smokers in another. It does require the collection of a lot of data over a long period of time, and lengthy statistical analyses of all that data, something at which computers are getting better and better. Note even more importantly that scientists’ solidifying conclusion that smoking is contrasurvival comes not from anyone’s inspiration, nor from any inspired writings, nor from anyone’s emotional feelings about smoking. It comes from the repeatable statistical analyses of verifyable data, the scientific method.
One of Dr. Cattell’s examples: “Of all factors contributing to group survival, preventing cultural breakdown, and avoiding dissolution into scattered primitive brutishness, that morale which goes with the virtues of unselfishness, considerateness, honesty, loyalty, and love of one’s neighbor is probably the most important.” (Pg. 100) This statement comes, not from personal conviction, religious inspiration, or emotional feelings, but rather from correlational research across national cultures; research which has been published, and can be repeated. (Cattell, R. B. and Gorsuch, R. “The Definition and Measurement of National Morale and Morality,” Journal of Social Psychology, 1965)
So modern scientific research finds that Jesus was absolutely right! But I am not surprised, for if God is truly a God of love, then it is reasonable that He would want for us that which is best for us. I find it highly plausible that science, the carefully logical human attempt to ascertain God’s ordained physical laws, might be able to establish intelligent morals, since both come from the same God-ordained laws.
The remainder of the book cites several examples of research which appear to have moral implications, and thoughtfully discusses the techniques and problems of implementing a much broader search for scientifically establishable morals.
Students of The Urantia Book should be particularly interested in what Dr. Cattell has to say, for The Urantia Book, while giving high spiritual insights, carefully avoids telling us what specific morals we should develop. [1] “Jesus would make all men Godlike and then stand by sympathetically while these sons of God solve their own political, social, and economic problems.” (Pg. 1581) “Jesus offered no rules for social advancement…” (Pg.2083) But this is precisely the gap that Dr. Cattell proposes we should answer for ourselves by the methods of science. His book is profoundly thought provoking reading for anyone who cares, “What ought I to do?”
“Mistake not! there is in the teachings of Jesus an eternal nature which will not permit them forever to remain unfruitful in the hearts of thinking men. The kingdom as Jesus conceived it has to a large extent failed on earth; for the time being, an outward church has taken its place; but you should comprehend that this church is only the larval stage of the thwarted spiritual kingdom…The kingdom of the divine brotherhood is still alive and will eventually and certainly come forth from this long submergence, just as surely as the butterfly eventually emerges as the beautiful unfolding of its less attractive creature of metamorphic development.” UB 170:5.21
With one notable exception, the “biologic disfellowshipping (sterilizing?) of your more markedly unfit, defective, degenerate, and antisocial stocks.” (Pg. 585) And the concept is also mentioned elsewhere. ↩︎