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.
Jeffrey and Tim,
My most recent comment that came after both of your extended comments was actually posted before I saw yours. So if the content does not reflect any response to your comments, it was not deliberate.
I will read your comments and respond, but I think I’ll give the “pipeline” time to settle down: I’m used to posting to a blog with an on-line porn filter, that will let most reasonable stuff through immediately so it’s more like IM. I have to get used to the delays here.
I think there are some mutual semantic difficulties here in use of terms, particularly on the meaning of the word “moral”. I’ll read both of your posts, but again, I think I’ll let the pipeline “clear out” before my next post.
For reference, in case this happens again, my post at 3:32 am on 7 June was the last item on the comments as of when I posted this, and I had not yet read your most recent comments.
Thanks for your patience.
Jeffrey, Tim, and anyone else who may have read my comments:
First, I feel I do owe a bit of an apology regarding the “tone” of some of my comments - I stand corrected on manner of delivery regarding the “straw man” issue in particular. I have read Richard Dawkins’ comments such as the one suggesting that those who teach their children about God should be arrested for child abuse, a statement that is as absurd as it is inflammatory. I may have projected this absurd and inflammatory behavior onto atheists in general. That would be unfair and so I do apologize for that.
On the topics at hand, I would like to respond to a few items on “knowing” that Jeffrey brought up.
As far as empirical knowledge goes, I do think your explanation appears to place more faith in its reliability than it warrants. The history of science shows us that human beings, being who they are, can make serious errors for a variety of reasons. While we can talk about measurement error, poor experiment design and the like, the simple fact of the matter is that it is virtually impossible to interpret the data (the “facts") without the appearance of an agenda. Scientists design experiments that will support their theory, and will interpret the data accordingly. (I’m not picking on scientists: I’m an engineer and in our own context, we do it too). This is a fact of human weakness and limitations. The overall process works because physical reality in conjunction with societal good intentions do filter out the good from the bad. But any individual piece of empirical evidence or theories around it can be suspect.
The other item is faith: your definition seems to be unduly narrow. The traditional definition is “accepting something as true on the word of another”. The “authority” word you used is one that is semantically loaded and could narrow the definition of faith to the attitude of irrational sheep.
(Pause: before going further, I am a Roman Catholic and so I will stick with what I know which is Roman Catholic beliefs including the Catholic view of the phenomenon of other belief systems… now to continue...)
The reality is that the human act of faith must always be a rational act and in the sense of the above definition it is essential to the operation of society and its progress. No one can rely entirely on one’s own empirical knowledge. I make an act of faith every time I pick up the phone and expect a dial tone. Even the engineers among us that know how the internet and the phone system operates have to put our faith in the maintenance strategies and so on that have been put in place by their telephone supplier. And even when it empirically works in most contexts it can be wrong: in the 1970s, a fellow student at MIT was studying aeronautics reminded me that the same highly reliable theories of aerodynamics that we put our faith in every time we step in an air plane could prove beyond a shadow of a theoretical doubt that bumblebees were incapable of flight (hope things have improved since then...)
The process of faith at both this natural level and at the level of life’s bigger questions ultimately involves determining who to put one’s faith in. This will be influenced by all kinds of things such as apparent consistency between what they say and one’s personal experience of reality, general acceptance of their honesty, integrity and knowledge of the field and so forth. It can be more gut level as well: I can let my belief in God be positively influenced by negative gut reactions to Richard Dawkins’ behavior, just as an atheist can be influenced by negative reactions to opinionated Catholics like myself.
The key point I want to make is that no one can function without faith of some kind, and while such acts of faith are (or should be) highly rational acts involving all of one’s reasoning power, they must, even at the natural level go beyond what can be personally or empirically verifiable.
My intent here was not to rail at atheists or try to immediately convert them to Catholicism. I am simply trying to respond to a couple of points that appear to be in the common thread of what it means to be an atheist (I use the word “appear” because I admit I may have it wrong and am willing to stand corrected):
1. The discussion has implied that atheists think they are not making an act of faith by choosing not to believe in God. Or put another way, I think you are saying that the non-existence of God is empirically verifiable and therefore, atheists are more rational than absolutely anyone who believes in God (I had to qualify that since I know some seriously irrational believers...). I am simply arguing that belief in the non-existence of God is AT LEAST as much of an act of faith (NOT EMPIRICAL KNOWLEDGE) as belief in God. In particular, Richard Dawkins-esque attitudes of outright contempt and disrespect towards any and all believers are, simply put, intellectually indefensible and unacceptable in any civilized society. (NO I don’t accuse all atheists of behaving in this manner).
2. It appears that atheism must lead to the logical conclusion that there is not nothing beyond the measurable, material universe: a “person” is nothing beyond some set of chemical properties determined by some accident of DNA. Yes, this is a marvelous set of chemical properties, but still, a person can be nothing more. Therefore, I sincerely repeat the question I asked earlier on “morals”: how can atheism (without going outside of or counter to its own assumptions) provide a framework for a single “ought”? And without a framework for a single “ought” how can atheism provide a compelling (meaning something like “intellectually obligatory") set of moral principles?
Again, I hope my prior tone has not alienated anyone. I look forward to further dialog.
Respectfully,
ptt (note to Jeffrey, ... which is a nick name made of my initials that I always use out of respect to the dear and deceased friend who gave it to me).
ptt,
Finally we are making some ground, we are breaking through the barriers of preconception, and talking about the roots of the issue;
What is it that enables any person to be a moral person?
My own morality can be defined as my ability to adhere to ethical and moral principles; “it seems ethical and right”; “followed the only honorable course of action”; “had the moral courage to stand alone” (these are just examples, but good ones)
For you to understand how it is possible for an Atheist to be moral we need to move from the world of tenacity into the world of rationalism and, yes, empiricism. Start with “WHAT DO ATHEISTS SAY ATHEISM IS?” Is it strict empiricism? (no) Is it strict Rationalism? (no) Does it require faith? (no) Finally, what do Atheists behave like? (Apparently there are lots of doctors and scientists in the atheist demographic, while we remain under-represented in all of the worlds prisons)
You said, “atheism cannot, of itself, support the notion of morals and so to be “moral” in the strict sense means to compromise one’s atheism.” Nice try, I strongly suggest you have missed the mark on this Assumption. I suggest you either prove it logically, philosophically or drop it. I sense that your statement comes from a notion about “Natural Law” as scripture defines it, but that is an assumption, and would rather not chase that tiger.
Meanwhile here we are,(atheists),in your face telling you that you are more than just a piece of “material matter”, (you are conscious material matter!) and that you belong to a community that actually cares if you hurt, cry, laugh, lose hope or become lonely. We believe in the Humane treatment of every person and every animal, for that matter.
Have you actually read Dawkins book? I seriously wondered if Margaret had, when I read her article.
One can be moral and be an atheist all at the same time since morals, and ethical behaviour come from WITHIN each individual, even though we have often created external rules to help define these internal values.
Let me explain…
If you are a Christian or a Jew you will likely remember the scripture that states:
(Hebrews 10:16)
“I will put my laws in their hearts,
and I will write them on their minds”.
Personally, I don’t believe God did the writing, but I certainly see how moralistic attributes in and individuals psyche gives them at an evolutionary advantage. I cannot begin to explain this as well as Dawkins does, but he does explain it well. He has written many pages in other books about altruism and morality, essentially from an evolutionary perspective. I also suggest you read Daniel Dennett’s,"Breaking the Spell religion as a natural phenomenon”
Have you read any of the Atheistic philosophies?
You indicate that my “ape” example is interesting, but have you followed the scientific research in mammalian behaviour? I don’t/won’t make this stuff up. Altruism is being studied in many species, and has been studied for many decades. When you see altruistic behaviour in animals, gives them an evolutionary advantage you quickly see how moralistic behaviour is a completely natural phenomenon, with no need for any supernatural influence. Incidentally, I have talked with many Christians who believe that the word “moral” is a word owned by the Abrahamic religions, but it is not. Human have been altruistic and hence “moral” for millennia before Abrahamic Law come to exist.
The definition of Altruism is: (al·tru·ism) unselfish concern for the needs or interests of others, providing gratification vicariously or from their responses.
Oddly, most of the advances in understanding animal behaviour have come from the behavioral sciences. (once again… empiricism!) Because of these studies I can say things like “Pigeons are altruistic” (just an example) and you would be very hard pressed to disagree, infact one would be laughed at by virtually everyone in the scientific community if you dared to disagree with such a statement as it is back up by decades of hard research done in many locations.
That’s enough for now…
p.s. Your earlier statement that morality comes from culture is quite acceptable to me, but I certainly don’t think that 2 Millenia of Judeo Christian culture has done much to change the eons of evolutionary influence that has shaped us into the humanisn we are today. (I think that morality can be taught conceptually, but is most often learned by experience during the formative years of our development, there is plenty of evidence to prove this point, if you care to read the journals.)
ptt,
I wish i had time to respond a little more systematically, however, the following will have to suffice.
Your argument about the limits of empiricism is quite valid. I wholly agree that empiricism cannot disprove the arguments of Aquinas. However, what you fail to realize is that this does not mean that Aquinas’ arguments are not refutable. They are refutable and i will outline how:
1) Aquinas’ arguments are intended to be proofs of God’s existence.
2) In order to dispose of his arguments one must either (a) prove that God does not exist, or (b) prove that Aquinas’ arguments do not prove that God does exist.
++ before we continue, we must pause to clarify what kind of God Aquinas’ arguments do argue for. NOTE: that in this discussion i refer only to his first three arguments (i.e. the ones which all conflate to the cosmological argument). IN essence, the God Aquinas’ arguments attempt to prove is a deistic God - as you said he is “a transcendent source of its [the universe’s ]origin”.
3) we cannot prove that a deistic (wholly transcendent) God does not exist, therefore
4)we can only ask: do Aquinas’s arguments prove that he does exist?
5) the short answer is no: As I said in a previous post, what caused God. If nothing, why does the universe have to have a cause. As ‘proofs’ his arguments are weak - and there are more sophisticated refutes of them.
In summary, Aquinas can be easily disposed without having to prove that God does not exist (something I think you failed to realize in you post).
If all theists were deists, I suspect there would be no atheists, just Agnostics. But as you should be well aware, all theists believe that God intervenes in the world via miracles, creation(ism), or simple revelation of himself. It is this God, the God who is active in the same sphere that humans can experience, that atheists don’t believe in because of lack of empirical evidence.
Importantly, very few atheists ‘believe that there is no God’ (AKA Strong Atheism). Atheism (AKA Reasonable Atheism) is simply a choice ‘not to believe in a god’ (for good reason). There is a significant distinction between the two which you fail to realize. And I stress, most atheists come under the later, including Dawkins.
Now, re the whole ‘atheism has no basis for morality, or meaning for life’ rubbish, i would encourage you to read. However, I would like to point out, that even if (and its a very tenuous ‘if’), even if morality and meaning for life rely upon God’s existence, this would not be an argument against the truth claim of atheism, it would simply be an argument for belief in God for practical reasons. However, i think those who take the line of practical reason to support their belief in God are mistaken.
Jeffrey
I never said atheists weren’t moral people. That would be judging an individual person which is something I cannot do. And I know some atheists whose chosen life style is quite admirable by any reasonable yardstick.
What I said is that atheism cannot, of itself, support the notion of morals and so to be “moral” in the strict sense means to compromise one’s atheism. Again, one can feel more comfortable with a lifestyle that happens to coincide with what many would call “moral”, but one cannot, as an atheist, have morals in the strict meaning of the word. Your “ape” example is interesting, but as people have the power to act rationally and exercise their will, choices have to be driven by rational principle and not mere collective animal instinct.
“Morals” compell me to behave in a certain way toward others because of who I am and who I am in relation to them. There has to be a principle which endows the other with rights and therefore compels me, based on my very essence, to fulfil my duties implicit in the other’s rights.
I have no question of the influence of centuries of Judeo Christian ethics on the culture which has helped maintain a certain moral sense regardless of one’s belief. And I certainly accept that the personal subjective “taste” in life style and the recognition of some expedient advantages may lead individual atheists to adopt what could be called “moral behavior”. But I challenge you to explain the compelling moral principle that would oblige me by my very nature, and regardless of my personal preferences or someone else’s definition of expedience, to behave morally if I accepted atheist beliefs.
Yonatan,
Hitler and Stalin did not commit their crimes in the name of their moustaches or in the name of atheism, as you correctly noted. Whether Hitler was a Catholic or not does not matter because he certainly did not act like one, or attempt to attribute any of his actions to his being Catholic. However, neither do I do everything I do (be it right or wrong) under the banner of Catholicism. The practice of my religion is based on a personal relationship with the God that you don’t believe in, and it is by no means a public affair (neither is it a secret). However, this does influence my actions, just as Hitler and Stalin’s not believing in God influenced their actions. They did not act in the name of atheism, but as my Faith influences my actions, their lack of faith influences their actions. To say otherwise is absurd because we all live according to our beliefs, but some are thoroughly misguided.
In reference to your country, Israel, I disagree that it is religion that is tearing your country apart. Rather, it is fanaticism, and misguided people committing criminal acts and jusitifying them through religion, and I do not have to live there to know that. It did use to be a Holy Land, however, things have changed now.
Further, to conclude that religion is not good because of what it has done to your country, is very poor logic. It may be the case in your country at the current time that there are problems which are seen as the result of religion. But think outside the square, there are 6 billion people on this planet and a couple of hundred other countries. In these countries religion has done a lot of good. In Israel, it has also done a lot of good in the past. The world has existed outside of your life time.
Also, I would like to add to the relevant atheists who believe that they have everything that Christianity has to offer and more, that you are missing one essential thing, which is a huge positive. God.
ptt and JOE, You sure have it backwards.
There are a number of ways in which Humans can know something and acquire knowledge.
1. The method of tenacity, where information is accepted as true because it has always been believed or because superstition supports it. (I don’t think I need to explain the pitfalls associated with this method; however it does not immediately mean all knowledge acquired in this fashion is incorrect, even if it is highly suspect)
2. The method of intuition, where Knowledge is accepted as true because it “feels right”. (Again, has huge pitfalls, but not always incorrect)
3. The method of authority relies on information or answers from an expert in a particular subject area (It can be highly accurate, but leaves one open to manipulation)
4. The method of faith is a variant of the method of authority in which people have an unquestioning trust in the authority figure and, therefore accept the information without doubt or challenge.
5. The rational method seeks answers by the use of logical reasoning. (Logic alone, without verifiable facts can have many pitfalls, as the history of philosophy and ethics shows us.)
6. Empiricism uses observation or direct sensory experience to obtain knowledge; it often contradicts the other forms of “knowing”, and is often criticized because it relies only on the direct sense to obtain knowledge.
Having said this:
A. By direct observation, science has shown us that Humans are “moral”, (in the truest sense of the word) without belief in a higher power or authority. The beginnings of this ability has also been observed in Monkeys (Bonobo), apes, and other species of mammals. we appear to have evolved along a “moral pathway”.
B. While the notion of “I” or personhood may beyond empiricism’s grasp at the moment; you fail to account for Dawkins highly developed “rational"(method 5) arguments for “I” or personhood. You appear to have built a straw man out of empiricism. In fact ptt, most of your last post simply failed the grade because of this.
C. You and a few others here have built a rather sad “straw man” out of Atheists in General. We gladly use every single method of “knowing” described above. We are just like you! I just happen to believe in one less God than most Christians.
D. You seem to assume (along with a few of the others posting here) that we atheists Just don’t understand Christianity/religion/Jesus.
I am a humanist and a former Anglican Priest (10 years in the trenches) who, even today, studies scripture regularly, and I have degrees and certificates from institutions of higher learning. I unquestionably DO know my bible better than the average Christian. I also DO understand what Christianity means by morality, and am aware of how most Christians simply “walk on by” what scripture actually says.
Ptt, you 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.” Obviously you do not understand atheism, or atheistsic philosophy.
The fact remains that just because an Atheist does not believe in a god, (presumably your God) it does not mean that they cannot have faith, use tenacity, intuition beckon to authority, use rational logic, and rely on empirical observation.
We atheists are just as moral as you are DAMMIT! Some of us post using our full names…
Tim,
The notion of “natural law” that you describe as illogical is indeed illogical. But it is also an extremely impoverished notion of what is implied by “nature”. And the logic of your “disposal” of Aquinas’ betrays an approach to logic and reason that is as incomplete as it is wrong.
The implicit assumption I see here is that “reason” is equated with strictly empiricism as associated with the “scientific method”. Unfortunately, the author of this original post indirectly falls into the same trap when she states that there are other ways of “knowing” besides reason. In her discussion, she inadvertently gives an implicit endorsement the narrow views that empiricism encompasses all of reason.
The reality is that empiricism represents a very small subset of the scope of reason. It can talk about a subset of what “is” with reasonable authority, but it cannot comprehend “why” or notions of “good”, “should”, “ought”, “ought not”, etc. The notion of “I” (person hood) in particular is beyond empiricism’s grasp. Finally, the scientific method depends on an important assumption that must be accepted without any possibility of proof: that the empirically measured and measurable universe actually behaves in a “reasonable” manner in all cases, enabling it to “submit” to the scientific method.
This leads to a second problem. If one believes that only empirical approaches represent valid sources of knowledge, one quickly can fall into the quite arrogant (and incorrect) assumption that, if I can’t know it empirically, then it cannot be PERIOD. Atheists have often stated THEIR INABILITY to design an experiment to measure God as proof that God does not exist. However, they fail to note that they are equally unable to prove that God doesn’t, hence they must “logically” conclude that God simultaneously exists and does not exist. Interesting logic…
This failure to accept the limits of empiricism, and to accept the full scope of rational thought and it’s ability to contemplate the abstract, the possible, the un/immeasurable, and to reason logically and rationally about it leads to the logical error shown in the casual “disposal” of Aquinas’ proof.
The error in this disposal should be pretty obvious. Acquinas’ proof is based on showing that the clear and evident logic of causality within the material universe does not allow for any empirical solution for the universe’s origin and any attempt to do so will lead to a logical contradiction. He concludes that a transcendent source of its origin is logically necessary. The “disposal” fails to understand this move from the empirical to an essentially different order. Properly read, the “disposal” actually reinforces Acquinas’ proof by again demonstrating the contradiction in seeking a strictly empirical solution. Unfortunately, the “disposal” is unable to draw the final logical conclusion because it is trapped by its empirical assumptions as it tries to bring the logically required transcendent back to the illogical material.
Stepping aside, there is a consistent thread of the “straw man” approach to atheist “logic”. God either exists or doesn’t. If any two people disagree on God’s existence, AT MOST one of them is right. If one goes further and say God exists, but what is the nature of God, then the opportunity for AT MOST one of them to be right is multiplied. This clearly holds true in any field, including science: the number of rather absurd theories that have been held by “post-enlightenment” empiricists is pretty evident.
Therefore, to claim that one can “prove” the non-existence of God simply by refuting the most absurd theories about God is exactly the same logic that would say “all science is invalid because I found a theory of that was silly”. This is extremely flawed reasoning.
As I said in my prior comment, atheism is a BELIEF system whose premise depends on unprovable assumptions based on an impoverished notion of “reason”. And, in spite of the casual comments of what positive things atheism has to offer, the reality is much grimmer. Acceptance of atheism requires totally abandoning any notion of transcendence, and therefore, ANY notion of “good”, “evil”, “ought”, “ought not”, “rights”, “duties”, “responsibilities” and all other concepts that make human society possible. Given that the price for accepting the atheist’s belief system is so high, I for one would want to see a level of intellectual rigor at least comparable to that of a Joseph Ratzinger (now Benedict XVI). That, however, would require it to reach far higher than the paltry level exhibited in atheism’s defense that I have seen thus far.
Mark: first of all, Hitler was a catholic christian. so stay to the facts. second, Stalin and Hitler have also had moustaches. but they haven’t made their crimes in the name of moustaches right? nor did they did it in the name of atheism. so claiming that atheism, or secular life, encourages killing is just a silly argument.
i can’t say the same for religion, and the amounts of killing that was made in the name of god, for the sake of god.
and believe me, i live in Israel. this is no holy land, and religion is tearing my country apart.
Joe,
a philosopher called Hume, in the 18th century, showed that ‘natural law’ ethics is illogical. The basic point was that ‘is does not logically imply ought’. I.e. the way nature ‘is’, does not logically imply the way i ‘ought’ to act. For example, your fingernails grow, but this fact does not tell you anything about whether or not you should trim them, or let them grow, or use them to scratch peoples eyes out? no.
The reason Dawkins dedicates THREE pages to St Thomas Aquinas is because that all he needs - Aquinas’ arguments no longer hold any weight. Kant (another 18th century philosopher) disposed of all theoretical arguments for God’s existence long ago. The easiest way to dispose of Aquinas’ arguments is simply to ask, what caused God? If the reply is God needs no cause, then the whole weight of the argument is lost because by the same token one could just say that the universe needs no cause and therefore God unnecessary.
Also, let me be the second person to say that as an atheist I have all the positive things that Christianity has to offer and more.
I am not so naive to think that Christianity is necessarily a restrictive way of life, I study theology at a Christian college with a few very liberated Christians. However, in my experience many of those who claim that Christianity is truly liberating are simply trying to keep up the positive image which they feel they have a duty advertise. In reality, for most Christians their religion is a burden which they feel they must carry.
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.
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.
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
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.
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’.
Page 5 of 6 : « First < 3 4 5 6 >