Comment (85)
Email
Print
del.icio.us
TechnoratiWhy are they throwing brickbats at God?
A campaign by eminent atheist Richard Dawkins to discredit religion makes little sense, says a Canadian ethicist.
Richard Dawkins has done more than all religious people together to put God on the current public agenda. He is on a highly publicised, international campaign to convince the world that "religion is the root of all evil". I think he’s seriously misguided, at best, and that his campaign is dangerous. Here are just a few of the reasons I think that.
Terry Eagleton, an eminent literary scholar, reviewing Dawkins’ book, The God Delusion, in the London Review of Books, says that Dawkins’ writing on theology and philosophy is equivalent to someone writing on science whose sole familiarity with science is The Book of British Birds. That’s also an apt description of Dawkins’ limited discussion of ethics in his book. His ethical analysis is simplistic and unsophisticated.
Dawkins confuses religion and the use of religion – I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt intellectually and assume he does so deliberately -- in order to promote his thesis that religion is evil. Religion itself is not evil – just as science is not evil – but it can be used for evil purposes, just as science can.
Using religion to convince the 9/11 terrorists to commit mass murder by knocking down the World Trade Towers was a profoundly evil use of religion. Using airplanes to carry out that evil was a profoundly evil use of aeronautical science. However, Dawkins looks only at the evil uses of religion – never the good it effects -- and only the good uses of science – never the harms it does. A balanced ethical approach requires us to recognise both the goods and harms of both religion and science, and to try to stop the evil uses and to promote the good ones of each.
We should stop automatically associating having liberal values with being open minded and having conservative values with being closed minded – liberal people can be very close minded (as we can see with some uses of political correctness) and conservative people open minded.
The primary "way of knowing" in science is reason and reason is fundamental to the scientific method that produces scientific knowledge. Dawkins’ mistake is that he sees reason (and probably science) as the only valid way of human knowing and, consequently, as the only appropriate tool to explore non-scientific questions, such as profound ethical issues.
We have multiple ways of human knowing in addition to reason, all of which are essential to ethics. They include history (human memory) -- this is beautifully encapsulated in aboriginal people’s practice in making ethical decisions of looking back seven generations. Imagination and creativity – looking forward seven generations to try to assess the ethical acceptability of the impact of what we plan to do on future generations. Intuition -- especially moral intuition. Common sense. Experiential knowledge – including what we can know, as the gym teachers tell us, by listening to our bodies. And "examined" emotions, to name just some.
I believe that, in combination, these other ways of knowing constitute our primary decision making mechanism (what we describe as our "gut reaction") and that reason is an immensely important, but secondary in terms of its use, verification mechanism of those decisions. We use reason to make sure our gut reactions are on track, whether ethically, legally, spiritually, emotionally or in some other relevant way.
Indeed, research published in the last three weeks in Nature, one of the world’s leading scientific journals backs this up. In an article entitled, "The Moral Brain", researchers reported that people with the reasoning parts of their brains intact, but who had damage to the emotional centres, could not make good ethical decisions.
Basic presumptions are of great importance in decision making, although often they are unidentified. They allocate the burden of proof. When there is equal doubt about an issue the basic presumption prevails. Richard Dawkins’ basic presumption is that there is no God and, therefore, that those who believe there is must prove it. But the equally valid basic presumption is that there is a God and those who don’t believe that must prove it. Because both are tenable basic presumptions, both must be accommodated in a secular society. In contrast, and, ironically, where Dawkins and religious fundamentalists are ad idem, is that each wants to impose their choice between these basic presumptions on everyone else. Where they differ is only with respect to their choice of basic presumption, which are, of course, of opposite content.
In short Dawkins – who is a fundamentalist atheist (atheism is a secular religion) and religious fundamentalists are similar in an important respect: They take an either/or approach to everything: my beliefs or yours; religion or science; reason or Faith; and so on. They then seek to reconcile what they see as the conflicts between the two elements that make up each of these pairings, by dropping one or the other of them. Dawkins’ call for the elimination of religion demonstrates such a choice on his part. But it is an extremely dangerous proposal and likely to escalate the culture clashes and "religious wars" we are seeing.
I propose that what we need to do is search for a shared ethics that can accommodate as many people of goodwill as possible. We will never find a universal ethics and we will never be able to accommodate fanatics at either end of the spectrum of human beliefs, but we can articulate and develop an approach that will accommodate many more people in a big ethical tent than is presently the case.
To achieve that will require us to change in some ways. Instead of starting from and focussing on our differences, we should start from where we agree. Starting from agreement and then moving to our disagreements, as we must, sets a different overall ethical tone than starting from disagreement.
We should stop automatically associating having liberal values with being open minded and having conservative values with being closed minded – liberal people can be very close minded (as we can see with some uses of political correctness) and conservative people open minded.
We also have to stop assuming that all change in values is progress and to be welcomed, and re-value wise ethical restraint. That can require having the courage to say "no" -- which often takes more courage than saying "yes".
Dawkins’ approach of wanting to eliminate religion is also dangerous because it is an impossible goal. Probably the vast majority of people will not accept that religion should be eliminated and conflict will be exacerbated as a result. In short, in ethics and searching for values (a task which encompasses religion), impossible goals are not neutral; they cause harm. In contrast finding as much shared ethics as we can is a realisable goal and likely to reduce conflict This is not a "gently, gently" approach as Dawkins described it. It is a principled, pragmatic, ethical one.
The correct question is not whether religion can be used for evil purposes – it can. And the correct response to religion being used in evil ways is not to eliminate religion as Dawkins proposes. The correct question is: How can we best reduce, to the minimum possible, the likelihood that religion will be used for evil purposes and prevent its evil use? As an aside, as a person working on how to prevent bioterrorism, I’d add that this is the same question we are rightly asking in relation to science.
I believe that spirituality is innate to being human -- possibly new epigenetic research will show us in the future that the capacity for spirituality has a genetic base, although spirituality, itself, is not just a genetic phenomenon. Religion is one way – but not the only way -- people experience their spirituality and it’s very important they have access to that experience.
The search for meaning and the desire to belong to something larger than ourselves – the longing for transcendence – is of the essence of being human. And humans have also always searched for morality. Religion is one way – but I agree with Dawkins there are other ways -- that over vast periods of time, across all kinds of societies and cultures, humans have sought meaning, belonging and morality. Who knows, might Richard Dawkins and I agree on that, even though we strongly disagree about the role and value of religion in our contemporary societies?
Margaret Somerville is founding director of the Centre for Medicine, Ethics and Law at McGill University in Montreal. Her latest book is The Ethical Imagination: Journeys of the Human Spirit.
Hi All,
Thankyou for your contribution. I have tried to be as balanced as possible, where possible.
Please continue to read and comment on MercatorNet as we dish up more hot-button issues.
Kind Regards,
Moderator :-)
One last post script comment:
The stories I told about myself on this website were all true. I really was a priest for over 10 years. I did see some terrible things while I was involved in the church, and I did end up losing my faith completely and leaving. (It was the only way I could maintain my self respect)
I did not and will not, however, forget the wonderful people who were faithful to me. Kind, gentle, persuasive, and caring.
Here is what I learned about both the Christians and the Atheists that have come to be my freinds over the years:
Both are charitable, and prone to self sacrfice.
Both care about each other more than they are willing to admit.
Both want the world to be a better place and have surprisingly similar visions of a society that is open and free.
Both want scientific, and medical research to continue, and want to look for answers to diease, social ills, poverty.
I could go on, but will leave with this one last point.
4 years ago I was at the scene of a terrible car/semi truck accident on highway 6 in Manitoba, Canada where 3 adults died almost immediately, I did the best triage I could, remembering my ambulance training from well over ten years prior, and proceeded to try to save one little boy who had been ejected from the car. His head was split open and I feared spinal cord damage.
As I knelt there holding the boy a wonderful from one of cars, stopped further back on the highway and came to offer his leather winter coat. The (hundreds of dollars)custom leather coat became completely covered in blood and ruined as I wrapped it under and around the boy. The got back in his car to avoid the extreme Manitoba cold. I was dressed properly and could stay with the boy, where he was now safe.
The ambulance came and the boy (and his brother) survived, but they had lost their aunt and grandparents. Weeks later I felt I had to inquire and when I phoned I learned from the police that they had lost their parents the year before in another car accident.
It didn’t matter what we beleived about God that day! I was already a non beleiver, The man who gave up his coat was a christian, as the leather work on the back of his custom coat was quite religious in nature.
We can look for long drawn out explanations of why people are good, or bad, beleivers or non beleivers, but when we do this we must never forget that they are people first. All of us are on a journey. (as ptt pointed out so appropriately) We must never forget that “THEY” (whoever they are) have hopes aspirations and families just like mine and yours.
You’d be surprised how many atheists secretly wish there was a God (but just can’t see how), and how many Christians secretly wish he’d show up a little more often (it would be nice, and would settle a lot of conflict). I’ve been on both sides of this fence.
For now, I think we may need to help each other out a little more often.
This is my last post, for real this time…
really
I mean it
Jeffrey Olsson
Murray also wrote: “In case you use the tired approach of asking me to prove he/she/it doesn’t exist...one word. Cancer.”
Why cancer? Recall what I wrote earlier about information theory. The Second Law of Thermodynamics, in fact, predicts that cancer is all but inevitable, and the amazing thing is why it isn’t more prevalent. When DNA runs amok, it produces aberrant cells that overwhelm the naturally occurring self-regulatory mechanisms in biological organisms. This is really a failure to accurately transcribe genetic information.
Now—and this is only my idioscyncratic speculation—it is possible that any initial perturbation in information flow can result in cancer. The perturbation may be ionizing radiation from cosmic rays, defective microwave ovens, malfunctioning radio transmitters, miscalibrated X-ray machines, and unshielded radioisotopes—even the glow-in-the-dark numerals from an alarm clock face (btw, Marie Curie died from radiation poisoning because she worked without radiation safety measures).
Now recall “sensitive dependence on initial conditions”—and reflect on the statistical improbability of our very existence, given the number of species that never made it. :-)
murray theunissen wrote: “In this world, you have to be able to demonstrate proof.”
We take a lot of things on faith. For example, when we board a commercial airliner, we usually assume that the pilot is competent and able to safely fly the plane, and that the aircraft mechanics have serviced it properly. Do we ask to take a blood or breath test of the pilot? Do we ask to see his or her flight school diploma? No, we just board the plane. If that doesn’t qualify as faith, what does?
Kurt Godel demonstrated that one cannot even use mathematics to prove itself. Less well known is the fact that he attempted to reformulate Anselm’s Ontological Argument. This anecdote illustrates the stature of Godel’s intellect (from the Wikipedia entry):
Einstein and Gödel had a legendary friendship, shared in the walks they took together to and from the Institute for Advanced Studies. The nature of their conversations was a mystery to the other Institute members. Economist Oskar Morgenstern recounts that toward the end of his life Einstein confided that his “own work no longer meant much, that he came to the Institute merely…to have the privilege of walking home with Gödel.
Tim,
Since the discussion is folding down, let me just point out that in your reply you have not answered any of my questions.
Jeffrey,
Ditto.
Murray Theunissen wrote:
“In this world, you have to be able to demonstrate proof.”
Precisely. But religion is not of this world. This is the basic fact which atheists are simply unable to understand.
Best regards,
Mariusz Wesolowski
Tim wrote: “most will agree that the biggest danger to the human species is overpopulation”
Go to http://www.ted.com and watch Stewart Brand’s presentation.
Also, Google for “demographic winter”
Tim wrote: “you cannot argue that homosexuality is unnatural and, therefore, wrong!”
I never said it was unnatural. However, I asserted that it is genetically maladaptive—because it fails to transmit genetic information forward and because it puts the larger population at risk.
Tim also wrote:
I dont believe that there is any good ethical justification for treating homosexuality like something which needs to be eliminated.
There’s a good case to be made for treating SSA. For one thing, incidence of STD transmission is significantly higher among homosexual men than in the general population. For example—I’ve donated blood, and one of the donor interview questions asked by Canadian Blood Services is “Have you ever had anal sex with a man?” You see, they’re not at all interested in political correctness; they’re concerned with protecting the emergency blood supply.
Google “HIV transmission rate among gay men” and see.
Hey Everyone!
I agree with Victor Panlilio, this was a lot of fun!
Beleive me when I say that I have grown as a result of this exercise, and will share my knowledge with my fellow Humanists, atheists, and deists from all over the world.
While we have come a long way in our understanding of ourselves and the world around us it is important to remember that we all agree on a lot more than we disagree on.
Have a great day, and don’t forget to hug your kids!
Jeffrey Olsson
Tim clarified: “im NOT totally convinced that there is such a thing as a gay gene”
And so? Even if there is such a thing, it does not change the fact SSA is a genetic dead-end. So the “gay gene” is self-contradictory.
Let’s look at this from an evolutionary point of view—if SSA prevents the transmission of part of the human genome, then those who abhor SSA should conceivably welcome this fact, since persons with SSA essentially select themselves out of the human gene pool. However, if persons with SSA are treated and achieve successful heterosexual relationships with offspring, their contribution to the human gene pool continues.
It seems to me that a compassionate society would try to treat persons with SSA so that they might overcome their aberrant sexual orientation. It’s the exact same principle as trying to dissuade people with SSA from engaging in high-risk sexual behaviour, which leads to serious physical and emotional consequences for everyone, not just persons with SSA.
On the other hand, a “politically correct” society will regard SSA as just another “lifestyle choice” and leave persons with SSA to wallow in their genetic dead-end. Does this maximize human evolutionary fitness?
Fascinating discussion...completely insane, but fascinating none the less.
I find this debate ranges from the sublime to the ridiculous...the comment “atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby” is both spot-on and hilarious as is the comment about ‘believing in one less god’.
Athiests will get the “creative use of humour award” every time if this string of posts is any indication.
In this world, you have to be able to demonstrate proof. From diet claims to law cases. God-fearing Christians have never been able to do prove the existence of their most feared god. Even Herod, in the movie “Jesus Christ Superstar” demanded proof of the purported miracles by singing “prove to me that you’re no fool, walk across my swimming pool”. No, you must ‘have faith’ and ‘believe’! This kind of blind faith has been and is dangerous. For instance, an athiest will never become a suicide bomber. How could he? But a believer...we see the proof of that in the news every day.
In case you use the tired approach of asking me to prove he/she/it doesn’t exist...one word. Cancer.
All of you should also read “god is not Great” by Hitchens. His views come from his life’s work and experience in the religious and secular world. Oh, by the way...it’s in his own words by his own hand from his own experiences. Not fabricated from folk tales and a mash of events that may or may not have happened, passed down, revised, editted and reconstitued over centuries and then published under some dead king’s name.
The God of Your Understanding just might not look favourable towards you.
Jeffrey Olson wrote:
“I have correctly pointed out the fact Hitler referred to Arius in the creation and passing along of his twisted his Ayran philosophies.”
Could you, please, be more specific by giving us pertinent quotes, etc.?
Mariusz and Victor,
By appealing to the occurrence of homosexuality in animals, the only point I (and im sure the same goes for Jeffrey) was trying to make is that you cannot argue that homosexuality is unnatural and, therefore, wrong!
The difference between homosexuality and other “aberrations” such as cancer, is that cancer kills - we thus have very good ethical justification for wanting to eliminate cancer. However, I dont believe that there is any good ethical justification for treating homosexuality like something which needs to be eliminated.
To argue that Homosexuality doesnt produce children and therefore is a danger to the human species is, im sorry to say, quite laughable. I assure you that the human species is not on the endangered list. In fact, most will agree that the biggest danger to the human species is overpopulation.
Moreover, if you are truly arguing against homosexuality for these reasons (and not the just the bible, as I suspect), then I ask you why you target homosexuality? Why dont you target the significant portion of heterosexuals that dont wish to have children? Perhaps you would like to see a law forcing them to get married and reproduce. Why isnt there Christian demonstrations against China’s one child policy - surely that is great aberration of nature and therefore sinful!
Victor, you said;
“1. The Second Law of Thermodynamics.
2. Godel’s Incompleteness Theorems.
Each one, by itself, has been enough to convince me. Refute them, and perhaps you can persuade me that atheism is intellectually defensible”
Jeffrey has made the point why the Second Law of Thermodynamics cannot be used to argue for Theism.
Why do you believe that the second Law of thermodynamics applies before the big bang? It is a pretty significant belief to come out with.
Now, you may very well be correct in you belief that the Second Law applies before the big bang - such is the nature of the unknown, you can never be proven wrong. HOwever, doesnt the God hypothesis then also contravene the Law? Or do you simply believe that God is not subject the Second Law.
As for Godel, I am unfamiliar with his work, however, being a atheistic theologian, I do try to make it my business to know all the best arguments against God, and I have never come across his work. Im not totally sure, but I think its likely that you are misusing his theory to argue for God (just as with the Second Law).
you also said,
“I realized that a non-theistic explanation for the observable universe would contravene Occam’s Razor”
Now this is an argument which some have made upon the basis on the anthropic principle - which says that the universe appears to finely tuned for biological life which requires an explanation. Now some have argued for multi-verse explanation and some have argued for God, and others have simply (and wisely) said that we just dont have an explanation yet.
However, we can say that the God hypothesis is an absolutely unsatisfying explanation because it leaves God’s existence unexplained. And God would have to be at least more complex and unlikely to come into existence than the universe he is said to have created (Dawkins, p.143; you should really read the book).
Thanks to everybody involved in this discussion i have enjoyed it a lot. Its a shame the mods are shutting us down.
Tim
In my last post I was quite rushed an said that
“but im totally convinced that there is such a thing as a gay gene”
What i intended to say was
“but im NOT totally convinced that there is such a thing as a gay gene”
I look foward to reading through and providing further comments on this discussion soon. But no time now.
Tim
To all who’ve joined the discussion—thank you, it’s been fun. I’m not foolish enough to believe that we’ve managed to persuade one another of a viewpoint quite different from our own, but all the same, I tend to agree with Margo Somerville’s assessment that Dawkins is not doing any of us any favours with his brand of militant atheism, and fundamentalists (of any religion) are not likely to persuade atheists and agnostics about the truth-claims of their belief systems either. I consider myself to be a theistic evolutionist, so I agree with much of what Francis Collins says.
Jeffrey—this is from the first article you referred to above, from Googling “incidence of homosexuality in primates”
“In modern times Kinsey et al. reported that in North America the incidence of homosexuality was 4% in men and 2% in women… the sample studied might not have been truly representative of the population as a whole; it contained a substantial number of prison inmates...”
I could go on, and really the first link makes for fascinating reading, but it does nothing to refute the conclusion that homosexual behaviour is an aberration, statistically speaking. And this is in fact good for the human genome—assuming we want it to continue.
Page 1 of 6 : 1 2 3 > Last »