This is connected with what will be a later post. Dawkins does speak about the biblical witness to morality in his book, but that’s so badly handled that I want that to have its own post. For now, I want to concentrate on Dawkins’s idea that we don’t need God in order to be moral.
Dawkins begins by talking about mail received by non-Christian organizations from Christian writers. The language is terrible as are the threats of physical violence. I see no reason to think Dawkins is making these up for some who are skeptical. I sadly do believe some could write such things and believe they are doing God a service. Dawkins condemns these letters.
On this, we agree.
Here’s the distinction though as we’ll see when we get to the parts on Scripture. This is in direct contradiction to the claims of Christ. I don’t believe Christ would condone what these people are doing. Now don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying Christ is pleased with the other side either. However, let us not do evil that good may result. (Romans 3:8)
Now Dawkins’s basis for morality is what we would expect. Natural selection. The problem though is that an is does not imply an ought. What happens when I learn there’s nothing outside of myself I am accountable to? Heck. What happens when I learn good does not exist outside of me? What happens when I learn that good and evil are just subjective?
Dawkins goes into moral dilemmas. Please be clear on this people. Moral dilemmas do not destroy absolute morality. If there is no absolute morality, there is no such thing as a moral dilemma. Moral absolutism does not claim that we know the best and right thing to do in every situation. It just claims that there is one.
Dawkins speaks of a study of Hauser and Singer that shows that atheists and religious believers seem to make the same judgments when predicted with these dilemmas. Dawkins proudly says that this seems to be compatible with the view that he and many others hold that you do not need God in order to be good – or evil.
At this point, D’Souza would say “This is what happens when you let the biologist out of the lab.”
I read this and thought “It’s no shock to me.” Here’s why. As a Christian, I believe in the natural law which is rooted in God and is in all of us as we bear his image. You do not need to hold to a religious worldview to know that murder is evil. God places that knowledge in you innately. As soon as you understand what life is and what murder is, you know that murder is evil.
Now Dawkins asks if we really need moral surveillance to be good, and while he’s skeptical, he tells a story of how in Montreal the police went on strike. Chaos had come about by the end of the day. Dawkins simply asks why the fear of God did not stop most people? I would answer it’s because most people don’t have it.
Dawkins later makes the claim that absolute morality is driven by religion. This is not the claim of a natural law believer though. It can be revealed in religion, but the source is God and one does not need a religion to know what is good and what is evil. Dawkins seems to think that until the Ten Commandments were spoken, no one knew murder was wrong.
And in the end, Dawkins never gives one thing. He never gives an objective basis for good and evil. He simply says that we know what actions are good and what are evil. By what criteria? How does he differentiate? Without an absolute standard of good and evil, we cannot say. The actions are either good in themselves or not good. It’s interesting Dawkins says this while saying that it’s fortunate that morals do not have to be absolute.
Again, this is what happens when you let the biologist out of the lab.
We will be writing more on Dawkins’s book over the next few days, but needless to say, I am not impressed. A poster on a forum I belong to said that with him apparently retiring, that leaves more time for writing books so look out creationists.
Unfortunately, I have yet to see the threat. If books like this keep coming out, my faith will definitely be increased.
Deeper Waters 
February 15, 2008 at 10:12 -04:00Feb |
That reminds me a lot of what C.S. Lewis wrote about in his first chapter “The Abolition of Man.” Dawkin’s theory is really making “Men without Chests.”
April 9, 2008 at 10:12 -04:00Apr |
“Now Dawkins’s basis for morality is what we would expect. Natural selection.”
Please attempt *some* research before making claims like this.
3 minutes in.
July 30, 2008 at 10:12 -04:00Jul |
“I don’t believe that there is hanging out there, anywhere, something called good and something called evil” – Richard Dawkins Time Magazine
Yet in this video Dawkins clearly calls Hitler and Stalin evil
April 15, 2009 at 10:12 -04:00Apr |
This topic is quite hot on the Internet at the moment. What do you pay attention to while choosing what to write ?
April 15, 2009 at 10:12 -04:00Apr |
It can vary. If a story is really popular and I think relevant enough, I’ll write on it. This happened though with my doing a research paper on Dawkins and wanting to record findings here.
December 2, 2013 at 10:12 -04:00Dec |
“And in the end, Dawkins never gives one thing. He never gives an objective basis for good and evil. He simply says that we know what actions are good and what are evil. By what criteria? How does he differentiate? Without an absolute standard of good and evil, we cannot say. The actions are either good in themselves or not good. It’s interesting Dawkins says this while saying that it’s fortunate that morals do not have to be absolute.”
What would be “an objective basis for good and evil”? Whatever is good or evil is a matter for (subjective) judgement, in relation to the prevailing conventions of morality. A hundred years ago, in conventional terms, it was generally regarded as a matter of fact that homosexuality was a manifestation of evil. Today the situation has become vastly different, and there is little doubt that the progressive, modern, civilised view is that homosexuality is completely legitimate. Even if still deemed immoral by some (mainly religious) people, it has nevertheless moved a long way from being innately evil. Nowadays it is those who would put homosexuals to death who are more likely to be regarded as evil.
That of course is but one of countless examples of how conventional morality changes and develops over time. It was once deemed moral for a husband to chastise his wife so long as the stick used was no thicker than his thumb. It was, at one time, perfectly moral to keep slaves. And so on. These facts completely undermine the whole idea of there being some some kind of “objective” or absolute morality.
So, “by what criteria” do “we know what actions are good and what are evil”? That is easy. We know by the example of those around us. It is a form of learned behaviour. Just look at the way very young children behave towards each other, the way that siblings interact, young children in the school playground, etc, and it is obvious that morality is learned, just as everything else is (including religion!). And, of course, some learn better than others, which explains why some behave in what is generally deemed a more “moral” way than do others.
It is very often claimed that religion is a force towards good behaviour, but from where I stand it all too often serves to justify behaviour that is very, very bad. In the end, however, it is simply a matter of (entirely subjective) opinion.
December 2, 2013 at 10:12 -04:00Dec |
If morality is just the public opinion of people, how can we say we are progressing? We cannot. We can only say opinion is changing. It’s not that the objective status of homosexual behavior changed or not. It’s just that opinion changes. If we change our mind on adultery, that will be fine. If we change it on theft and murder, that will be fine as well.
Also, by your standard, religion cannot indeed be a force towards good behavior, but it also cannot be used to justify very very bad behavior. Why? Because there is just behavior. It is not good or evil. It just is. There is no need to justify anything because there is nothing wrong. There is nothing good or bad but thinking makes it so.
What’s my own criteria? It’s a natural law approach rooted in Aristotlean ethics and metaphysics.
December 3, 2013 at 10:12 -04:00Dec |
I don’t know anything about Aristotlean ethics and metaphysics. My view is based solely upon my experience of life and common sense.
I’m not sure what you mean by “progressing”. If you believe that humanity is in some way progressing towards a predefined destination, such as for instance some notion of perfection, then I would disagree, for there is no reason to suppose so.
Of course we can “only” say that opinion is changing! It is indeed the collective opinion of humanity which determines current morality. Morality after all is merely the exercise of behavioural restraint in order to sustain social stability.
Take your example of “adultery”. The institution of marriage arose no doubt as a means for social cohesion, in particular the protection of children and (towards that end) their mothers and, since it served that purpose reasonably well, has been sustained throughout the ages. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with adultery, which in any case is practised extremely widely throughout society, but the restraining effect of its moral status continues to serve social cohesion. In evolutionary terms, it is pretty obvious that a society which protects its offspring is better equipped for long term survival than one which does not. Suppression of adultery is probably also useful as a means of reducing sexually transmitted diseases.
Similarly with theft and murder, for which the taboo remains even stronger, for the the obvious reason of necessity in order to preserve social stability.
I do not deny the effectiveness of religious belief as a social force, whether for good or bad. Indeed I would regard anyone who did so as a fool, for evidence of it’s power is manifested everywhere. But to recognise religion as a powerful social force does not render it true.
That very power poses an extremely real problem for an atheist such as myself, who wishes Humanity to set itself upon a true path of discovery and into a future that is free from superstition and which embraces reality as it actually is found to be, rather than as perceived through a filter of religious-based illusion.
December 3, 2013 at 10:12 -04:00Dec |
Bernie: I don’t know anything about Aristotlean ethics and metaphysics. My view is based solely upon my experience of life and common sense.
Reply: Only common sense if you can find people commonly thinking morality is relative. They don’t. Furthermore, if you don’t know anything about the position, the wise stance to say would be “Oh thank you. That’s interesting. Can you recommend any resources so I can study this and reply?” It’s not to just keep right on going. We know what is done where angels fear to tread.
Bernie: I’m not sure what you mean by “progressing”. If you believe that humanity is in some way progressing towards a predefined destination, such as for instance some notion of perfection, then I would disagree, for there is no reason to suppose so.
Reply: You used the root word first.
“Today the situation has become vastly different, and there is little doubt that the progressive, modern, civilised view is that homosexuality is completely legitimate”
I figured a progressive man was progressing. Perhaps you didn’t mean that.
Bernie: Of course we can “only” say that opinion is changing! It is indeed the collective opinion of humanity which determines current morality. Morality after all is merely the exercise of behavioural restraint in order to sustain social stability.
Reply: Why should I believe that?
Bernie: Take your example of “adultery”. The institution of marriage arose no doubt as a means for social cohesion, in particular the protection of children and (towards that end) their mothers and, since it served that purpose reasonably well, has been sustained throughout the ages. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with adultery, which in any case is practised extremely widely throughout society, but the restraining effect of its moral status continues to serve social cohesion. In evolutionary terms, it is pretty obvious that a society which protects its offspring is better equipped for long term survival than one which does not. Suppression of adultery is probably also useful as a means of reducing sexually transmitted diseases.
Reply: I really hope you’re not married or never plan on getting married. Nothing would speak romance to a woman like saying “There’s nothing intrinsically wrong with adultery.”
Bernie: Similarly with theft and murder, for which the taboo remains even stronger, for the the obvious reason of necessity in order to preserve social stability.
Reply: If there is nothing good or bad but thinking makes it so, why should I care about those?
Bernie: I do not deny the effectiveness of religious belief as a social force, whether for good or bad. Indeed I would regard anyone who did so as a fool, for evidence of it’s power is manifested everywhere. But to recognise religion as a powerful social force does not render it true.
That very power poses an extremely real problem for an atheist such as myself, who wishes Humanity to set itself upon a true path of discovery and into a future that is free from superstition and which embraces reality as it actually is found to be, rather than as perceived through a filter of religious-based illusion.
Reply: Yes. I would prefer people approach reality as it is instead of through atheism-based illusion. I also have a problem with the power of atheistic ideologies in enforcing their own authority numerous times in the 20th century.
Yet the difference is I can say about that and contrary religious behavior that they are intrinsically wrong and deserve to be judged. It looks like all you can say is “I don’t like it.”
Why should I care about person preference?
December 3, 2013 at 10:12 -04:00Dec |
I don’t need to study the words of Aristotle or anyone else to be confident that angels don’t fear to tread anywhere, because angels do not exist. Just because some people believe they do does not make it so (except of course as a notion, just as I cannot and would not deny the existence of god or gods, as a notion). I am confident you know exactly what I mean by “common sense” (including no doubt the cliché that there is nothing especially “common” about it) and if you need to hide behind pseudo-intellectualism in order to defend your position then that merely demonstrates how shaky it is.
“You used the root word first”. And my use of it apparently differs from your understanding of it. But I believe you are being disingenuous, thereby further undermining your position.
“I really hope you’re not married or never plan on getting married. Nothing would speak romance to a woman like saying “There’s nothing intrinsically wrong with adultery.” I have been married for over forty years and have grandchildren. I know what love is, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with any religion.
“If there is nothing good or bad but thinking makes it so, why should I care about those [theft and murder]?”. Common sense is a good enough reason for me. If it’s OK for me to steal from someone else then it follows that it is OK for anyone to steal from me. I think I learned that lesson aged around 3 or 4 years old. How old are you?
“Yes. I would prefer people approach reality as it is instead of through atheism-based illusion. I also have a problem with the power of atheistic ideologies in enforcing their own authority numerous times in the 20th century.” What is this “atheist-based illusion” to which you refer? What is an “atheist ideology”? (Oh no! – surely you are not going to cite H & S).
I do say “I don’t like it”, because I don’t like any philosophy that is based upon falsehood or misinformation. Which is absolutely the case with every religion.
“Why should I care about person (sic) preference?” Because you are a person and you have preferences!
December 3, 2013 at 10:12 -04:00Dec |
Bernie: I don’t need to study the words of Aristotle or anyone else to be confident that angels don’t fear to tread anywhere, because angels do not exist. Just because some people believe they do does not make it so (except of course as a notion, just as I cannot and would not deny the existence of god or gods, as a notion).
Reply: This would be relevant if my arguments was really about angels. It wasn’t. The existence of angels bears no relevance on the main claim.
Bernie: I am confident you know exactly what I mean by “common sense” (including no doubt the cliché that there is nothing especially “common” about it) and if you need to hide behind pseudo-intellectualism in order to defend your position then that merely demonstrates how shaky it is.
Reply: If your position is not common, then it is not common sense. It’s simply a way of trying to beg the question as if to say “All rational people recognize this.”
Well no they don’t.
Bernie: “You used the root word first”. And my use of it apparently differs from your understanding of it. But I believe you are being disingenuous, thereby further undermining your position.
Reply: We can determine if I’m misusing it if you define it.
Bernie: I have been married for over forty years and have grandchildren. I know what love is, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with any religion.
Reply: Strange how everything seems to be some obsession with religion, especially since I pointed to Aristotle instead of Jesus. Ask your spouse if they think there’s nothing intrinsically wrong with adultery.
Bernie: Common sense is a good enough reason for me. If it’s OK for me to steal from someone else then it follows that it is OK for anyone to steal from me. I think I learned that lesson aged around 3 or 4 years old. How old are you?
Reply: 33. Oh I hold to the lesson indeed, but I wonder why should I if there is nothing good or bad but thinking makes it so. Should we not seek to transcend morality if it is something that has no basis in reality? Nietzsche would agree.
Bernie: What is this “atheist-based illusion” to which you refer? What is an “atheist ideology”? (Oh no! – surely you are not going to cite H & S).
Reply: The belief that the material universe is all that there is for one. As for atheist ideology, Stalin would be an excellent example. Hitler wouldn’t be. Hitler was an advocate of a belief called Positive Christianity that was a cult aberration of true Christianity. He was in no way an orthodox Christian.
Bernie: I do say “I don’t like it”, because I don’t like any philosophy that is based upon falsehood or misinformation. Which is absolutely the case with every religion.
Reply: It would be nice to see an argument with this.
Bernie: Because you are a person and you have preferences!
Reply; So what? That tells me why I should care about my preferences. Why care about another’s?
December 3, 2013 at 10:12 -04:00Dec |
Life is too short to waste on semantic arguments. Of course, you probably don’t care about that since you expect eternal life in the hereafter. As an atheist I feel somewhat impelled to make the most of this one. Be happy.