Why are they throwing brickbats at God?A campaign by eminent atheist Richard Dawkins to discredit religion makes little sense, says a Canadian ethicist.
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.
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. |
related articlesmorebythisauthorfree updates |
Home | SiteMap | 
RSS | Atom | 
del.icio.us | Privacy Policy |
MercatorNet - New Media Foundation Ltd © 2004 - 2008 All rights reserved
Comment (85)
Email
Print
Technorati
digg
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.
Comments (85)
Mariusz Wesolowski said...Once again, as in the case of the homosexual “marriage”, Dr. Margaret Somerville takes the only reasonable stance - which, of course, is not going to be widely accepted, precisely because of its reasonableness. It is to me a source of unceasing astonishment that so many supposedly intelligent people don’t see the difference between religion and religious praxis (and that a much greater number of other people support them in this delusion) but here it is. After the “Da Vinci Code” hoopla the “new(?!) atheism” gibberish - is there really a hope for humanity?
Canada | Saturday, 2 June 2007 at 10:30 am
Fr. Walter Macken said...Why have we to put up those Dawking like dogmatists? There is no room for philosophical reflection in their dogmatic statements. After all, Socrates, Plato and Aristotle, to mention but three of the great thinkers of history, all had reached a realisation that God was real. Only dreamers can accept a world that is meaningless. And if it is meaningful it has to lead somewhere. There has to be an ultimate purpose. So way before religion there is need of a ground of being, as Voegelin points out. Anyone who does not accept the Ground of Being lives in a “groundless” world, a world empty of meaning. A Universe without an ultimate Reality underpinning it is a myth and a contradiction. Why be afraid of the source of Being? It can even be impersonal, as Einstein’s certainly is. To get to a Personal God is another question, that requires the leap of faith. Galway, June 2nd, 2007
Ireland | Saturday, 2 June 2007 at 9:52 pm
Brian Westley said...Atheism is not a religion, just as theism is not a religion. Many religions have theism as a tenet, and a few religions have atheism as a tenet, but atheism per se simply isn’t a religion. You can be a Buddhist, for example, and also be an atheist.
United States | Sunday, 3 June 2007 at 10:49 am
Jeffrey Olsson said...This commentary is typical of people who do not understand basic scientific study, and that Indeed those who claim that there is a God (or a teapot circling the sun) are the ones responsible to prove their point. When you consider that Margaret is an ethicist it is particularly disturbing that she is not familiar with the basic philosophies of scientific inquiry.
Margaret, there is such a thing as the ethics of scientific inquiry. Is it ethical to first take a position of faith (unproven fact) and then use the tenets of that same faith to discriminate against others? What then has the entire debate about homosexuality, or homosexual marriage been about? The fact remains that those who claim God is upset with others for not following his will are long overdue in proving that God, or his will, even exist. And yet they persist in persecution. The worst part is that they do not need to abuse religion in any way at all to come to the conclusion to that it is Gods will to abuse the rights of others. Especially since the Bible clearly lays out how such abuse should take place.
Margaret, this article is a disappointment…
Canada | Sunday, 3 June 2007 at 2:33 pm
Peter McDonald said...I largely agree with this very good piece, but am a little uncomfortable with saying that ‘We have multiple ways of human knowing in addition to reason’. Might not the problem with Dawkins and his like be not so much that they see reason as the only way of knowing, but that they employ too narrow and reductionist an understanding of reason - which in turn leads to an inadequate and reductionist ethics? I would suggest that it is eminently reasonable to take into account the factors beyond scientific deduction that Professor Sommerville mentions.
Australia | Sunday, 3 June 2007 at 4:20 pm
Yonatan Hershfield said...This is ridicules. I’m sorry, but since I’m not a native English speaker i couldn’t find any other way to say it.
religion is a horrible place to get your morality from.. by any standards of the 21 century, the bible is a very barbaric book.
in addition, people don’t get their morality from the bible. they pick and choose which moral codes to accept, and which not, thus proving that they get their moral codes from a different place, not the bible. for example, you wouldn’t imagine stoning someone to death just because he violated shabas right?
there is no need for religion then, when it comes to morality.
in addition atheism is a religion, just like “not collecting stamps” is a hobby.
spirituality, is another way to say: “i accept things that can’t be provable.” and with all due respect, anyone that his own logic is so flawed, can believe whatever nonsense he wants.
i understand the need to be a part of something bigger.. religion brings you comfort. so does drinking.
yet, i do not believe that people are supposed to be drunk all day long just because the world is a hard place.
i wish i had better English to express myself.. my apologies for any grammar or spelling mistakes.
i encourage you to read “the god delusion” if you haven’t did it already… he is very angry, i agree, but he is not dogmatic i couldn’t find any logical flaw, in any of the arguments he made over there.
Israel | Sunday, 3 June 2007 at 9:26 pm
Neil Digmends said...Single-mindedness is just a phrase used for people who have made up their mind. Many people ask questions to implicitly deem themselves immune of such titles, others don’t bother with such pretentious and awkward rituals. After reading the article and the responses, is anyone open to Dawkin’s opinion? (henceforth I deem myself free against all future charges of single-mindedness)
Walter you ask “Why be afraid of the source of being?”
Would you be afraid of a ‘person’ who had the choice to let you through the pearly gates or drop you into fiery hell.
Most people would do exactly as this ‘person’ says. Since rules and commandments set down by religions are usually based on what God deems ‘right and proper’, any deviation from these rules will send you into a blazing pile of barbecued sinners. Taking this view I see religion as typically fear based and a highly restrictive way of life. I would much prefer to enjoy life by experiencing it rather than obediently submitting to some book that people insist on calling the King James Edition but would more appropriately be titled “The 300th edition of some ancient texts that’s been translated and interpreted several times over” ...
Is God a delusion? I guess we’ll all find out at some stage. Meanwhile I’ll keep listening to my Andrew Lloyd Webber and keep my fingers crossed with a distant hope.
United States | Monday, 4 June 2007 at 1:11 am
Marc Mielhausen said...As Margaret Somerville eloquently put it, atheists always accentuate the negative and, yes, people have always used religion as an excuse to do evil. That’s why Jesus came to abolish religion as Dawkins knows it. As soon as you listen to Richard Dawkins speak, you can tell he has no real understanding of Christianity. Being a Christian, I can only speak intelligently of what it means to be Christian. A fully devoted follower of Jesus Christ isn’t interested in religion (as in ritual and routines). Following Jesus means making the choice to enter into a relationship with God through Jesus. Jesus didn’t say “follow rules” He said “follow me” because He set the example for us. Dawkins has to acknowledge that someone, at some time, wrote the Sermon on the Mount. I think making the choice to follow the person who spoke the Sermon on the Mount is an easy one to make. The greatest human potential has always been achieved by serving and sacrificing for others and that was the core of Jesus’ teachings and example. Does atheism offer anything similar?
Canada | Monday, 4 June 2007 at 9:02 am
jon connore said...Margaret, Dawkins confuses religion with the use of religion, wow what a crock. I guess religion wasn’t to blame for all the suicide bombers and 9/11, not to mention the thousands of other atrocities religion is responsible for. Show some intellectual integrity and quit advocating dangerous superstitious beliefs. I’m quite tired of religion getting a free ride…
United States | Monday, 4 June 2007 at 10:23 am
Marc Mielhausen said...Jon Connore stands corrected...people are to blame for suicide bombing and the 9/11 attacks. What about the atrocities communism, fascism, liberalism and secularism are responsible for? Communism and fascism are responsible for hundreds of millions of deaths (Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot). Liberalism is creating a hyper-sexual society that is wasting human life with sexual disease and depression. Secularism is man trying to foolishly play God with the world. This is producing whole new breeds of extremists bent on squashing the inalienable rights of people who choose to have faith. I’m tired of atheists trying to cloak themselves in self-righteousness when their goals are more nefarious.
Canada | Monday, 4 June 2007 at 9:24 pm
Tim said...Margaret wrote “We have multiple ways of human knowing in addition to reason”.
Margaret Somerville’s writing on epistemology is equivalent to someone writing on ethics whose sole familiarity with ethics is the Bible.
Margaret wrote “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…”
Theism is only an equally valid argument if you believe in a wholly transcendent God, i.e. a God who has nothing to do with the realm that we inhabit and examine through the scientific method. However, I have never met a theist who believes in such a God. All theists I know believe in God at least as a creator, and often as an intervening creator, therefore the God question is open to scientific scrutiny. It is in response to the lack of evidence of the supernaturalist’s claims, and the evidence against their claims, that Dawkins and most atheists correctly make atheism their basic presumption.
“atheism is a secular religion”
No its not. Not by any definition of ‘religion’.
Australia | Tuesday, 5 June 2007 at 12:30 am
Jeffrey Olsson said...Margaret the ethicist fails to see that Dawkins comes from a life experience that is not only valid, but is based in an immense bed of factual knowledge. Most of it is from the highest level of learning that exists in the world today. Dawkins criticism of religion is based on the most current science of biology and psychology, philosophy and evolution. She has failed to do her homework in writing this article, and therefore reverts to defending long lost arguments.
In reality…
Atheism offers everything the Christianity offers and more. I can read the teachings of Jesus and be deeply moved by what he has done and said. I can learn many of the spiritual concepts of any religion and benefit from those learnings. I simply choose not to beleive that they are anything more than a manufactured reality, as current science clearly shows us.
I have the comfort of community as a humanist (and it’s non-judgemental, which is more than I have ever experienced at any church!)
I have the comfort of many close personal relationships, based on trust and common interest
I have the comfort of following moral codes, both secular and religious, as I see fit. Frankly I am more moral than most christians I know, according to their own codes of conduct.
Margaret, the argument is over, you are required to defend your position regarding faith. Fewer and fewer people beleive the “undefended” arguments you make, and they should.
Canada | Tuesday, 5 June 2007 at 1:34 am
Janet Chin Fatt said...I thank Margaret Sommerville for speaking out on issues such as these. It’s good to remember where Dawkins is coming from. He is a prominent Secular Humanist, and by definition, is atheistic, naturalist (human beings are just matter), and a moral relativist. How to promote atheism? By popularizing scientific issues such as evolution.
God-bashing is now new. It’s just that Dawkins is using a scientific cover to make it easier to swallow. His “God Delusion” lacks complete credibility and cannot be taken seriously.
Janet Chin Fatt
Written below talk59
Canada | Tuesday, 5 June 2007 at 4:59 am
Joe said...The source of ethics and morality is ‘Natural Law’. Morality is not based upon religion or faith, and the natural law is not found in the bible or neither is it a dogma of the Catholic Church. It’s existence has been affirmed by some of the philosophers mentioned above, such as Aristotle. If you want to debate the issue you have begun an argument with the great man himself. Christians believe in its existence, and so do many who are not Christians.
A comment on Dawkins book ‘The God Delusion’. In a book attempting to disprove the existence of God, what person in his right mind only dedicates two pages to St Thomas Aquinas? Need I say more.
I have never heard anyone say that atheism offers everything Christianity does and more. I doubt I will hear such a claim from anyone else as well. I, as a Christian, am a free person. I am not tied down by any commands of God, but use my intellect and my will to live a free life trying to do what God wants. I am not enslaved by my passions as many ‘normal’ people are.
If Christianity is viewed by anyone as a ‘restrictive way of life’ they have been severely misinformed, and have evidently not been there or experienced it. Instead of holding narrow views informed only by the perspective of an outsider and/or those who agree with this view, why not venture to the source itself?
If you are an atheist and consider yourself more moral than most Christians you meet, there is one of three possible problems. Either someone’s morals have been misjudged, yourself or the Christian, or the Christian is not living according to proper morals, or you need to get out more.
Australia | Tuesday, 5 June 2007 at 9:13 am
ptt said...I must say that I am completely mystified by the so called atheists who speak of notions of rights, morals and so forth. These notions are simply not supportable by any atheistic premise.
If a person is nothing more then an accidental chemical property of the particular molecular arrangements of a human (a premise that has no basis in any science we know today - very unscientific to believe that), as such a person has no particular “value” whatsoever. A person “can read the teachings of Jesus and be deeply moved by what he has done and said” but they cannot say they are “good”, “true”, “moral”, or “wrong” or “evil” for that matter. They can only say that “I have a positive subjective reaction to them”. Terms pertaining to notions of “value” can have no objective meaning for an atheist. In summary, an atheist cannot rationally entertain any notion of morality or human rights whatsoever without compromising their atheism.
In dealing with interpersonal relationships (the place in which notions of ethics, morals, “right”, and “wrong” are situated), an atheist cannot believe in any objective value to another person. If I were an atheist, you, the reader, will only have the value I choose to assign you just as, relative to you, I would only have the value you assign me. Whether I choose to value you and respect you, or devalue you and kill you is up to me and both choices must be considered equally valid: one might be pragmatically more expedient than the other (killing get get me killed) but neither is, of itself, more right than the other. In fact, relative to me (the hypothetical atheist), the entire universe ends when I die: it’s continuation, or the protection of its natural environment have no relevance beyond what I choose to give it.
Many crimes have been committed in the name of religion. But, speaking as a Christian, it is clear that “Christians” cannot commit such crimes without going against the very essence of their religious beliefs. However, the Stalins, Hitlers and other atheistic leaders of their ilk were living in a manner that was true to their belief system and every atheist should admire them (except that, for an atheist, “should” is a word with no meaning).
It’s amazing to me that atheists like Dawkins can offer up their beliefs without any rational defense or proof and expect us accept them without question. But to throw out the very notion of “rights”, “morals” and every other concept that makes human society possible without rational justification is insanity, an insanity that Dawkins may delight in, but an an insanity he is welcome to keep to himself, thank you.
United States | Tuesday, 5 June 2007 at 10:54 am
Page 1 of 6 : 1 2 3 > Last »