NOMA: Science, Religion & Morality
In November of last year, in NOMA: Science and Religion, we outlined Stephen Jay Gould’s attempt to counter the charge that science and religion are at odds, and how he instead suggests that each oversees a domain where tools necessary for meaningful discourse and resolution are possessed. Science, Gould charges, is meant to document the factual character of the natural world, while religion possesses "the equally important, but utterly different realm of human purpose, meaning and values."
While I appreciate Gould’s attempt (however flawed NOMA is, it is preferred to the perceived conflict between religion and science) Richard Dawkings naturally views it as a "very empty idea."
Dawkins suggests that the notion that religion holds some special expertise in the questions of morality, a notion that even many nonreligious accept, is nothing more than "a civilized bending over backwards," to concede the best point your opponent has to offer—however weak that best point might be. Dawkins states that while science cannot answer ‘What is right and what is wrong?’ and while absolute moral principles do come from elsewhere, his message differs from Gould’s in that Dawkins suggests that to believe religion is able to offer answers to such queries is a ‘forlorn hope.’ This is because the answers of the religious would come from authority, revelation, tradition, or even scripture, and that even with such aid, individuals are still quite selective in what they choose to demand application for. Because the God of the OT, for example, is seen by some as jealous, racist, sexist, bloodthirsty, and because we today believe that it is not charitable to judge the past by our present standards, Dawkins sees this as evidence that "we must have some alternative source of ultimate moral conviction which overrides scripture when it suits us." The ethical realm that Gould places under the domain of religion, Dawkins sees as not belonging there.
Thoughts?
K.
I think Dawkins’ concept that ultimate moral conviction can even exist without some God or god or creator or something along those lines is flawed, if he thinks this conviction can be universal. Concepts like majority rule might result in certain convictions being very widespread, but ultimately there is no way to go from the proposition “This is what most people feel is right” to “This is what everyone must do in order to be right.” Someone who subscribes to enlightened despotism might instead argue “This is what the enlightened leadership feels is right” might also lead to “This is what everyone must do in order to be right” while subverting the feelings of the majority. For example, we feel today that it is immoral to treat people as property, but there are no denunciations of slavery as an institution until the common era. Even Plato’s enlightened “Republic” includes slavery. If there is to be a universal morality, there must be some authority to provide this morality. A strict atheist cannot accept this, and so is rationally bound to reject the notion of universal moral standards.
I also think Dawkins et al. who believe that the OT god is “jealous, racist, sexist, [and] bloodthirsty” aren’t too familiar with the integration of social context in criticism of ancient texts. The god of the Old Testament is remarkably progressive in the realms of race and sex relations, as well as demands of death, compared to the alternatives of the period, and the “jealousy” has more to do with teaching monotheism than God actually feeling threatened by people’s worship of other deities, so its drive isn’t actually jealousy as we normally experience it. If Dawkins et al. want religious folk to educate themselves regarding evolution before criticizing it, it would seem fair that they would become familiar with pertinent issues in theology and Biblical criticism before making these sorts of comments specifically about the god of Judaism and Christianity.
Comment by Theophilus — June 20, 2008 @ 11:15 pm
Will Dawkins ever give it a rest? Methinks he doth protest too much.
Atheists have no basis for their morality and if you adopt that position you might as well just get what you can while you can. Who cares about anyone else?
Fortunately as for Sodom in the Old Testament the Lord is gracious and will spare many of us because of the faithful few. What the atheists would never acknowledge is that they have to at least appear moral while there are Christians about. But when the Christians are gone….
Comment by Jeff — June 21, 2008 @ 2:04 am
Dawkins happens to be exactly right. To base one’s morality on religious edict, one must show why that religious edict is correct. Thus far, none have adequately answered this. If one bases it on scripture, as most in American culture do, one can go beyond the mere Old Testament problems cited in this blog. The New Testament offers similar moral problems for the Almighty. For example, the Beattitudes, a.k.a. the “Sermon on the Mount.” Everyone loves them, or claims to. Except, conveniently, for that part where Jesus tells people, if their hand causes them to sin, to “cut if off and throw it away.” Or if their eye causes them to sin, they should “gouge it out and throw it away.” Because it’s better to enter heaven maimed than to have two eyes or two hands to burn in hell. Now putting aside the issue of why this doesn’t teach “real-body resurrection” and not resurrection with a “renewed, perfect body,” it remains to be asked, where are the one-eyed, one-armed Christians? There isn’t a Christian alive today who TRULY takes his/her scripture as a serious standard of morality!
Comment by Eric — June 21, 2008 @ 2:09 am
I agree with Dawkins on this as well. NOMA is a “very empty idea.” Physicists’, Victor Steinger, in his book “God the failed hypostasis states, “God is often viewed as a supreme, transcendent being beyond matter, space, and time and yet the foundation of all that meets our senses that is described in terms of matter, space, and time.” Therefore, many claims that are made about God can be scientifically tested. Many religious claims fail under scrutiny. Many of these claims can be tested and has been shown to be fallacious.
As far as what Jeff posted, “Atheists have no basis for their morality and if you adopt that position you might as well just get what you can while you can. Who cares about anyone else?” is also a “very empty idea.” Morality does not rest in a supreme being, and his ideas. Morality cannot be grounded in this way. What happens when you hold this idea is you fall into Euthyphro’s dilemma. Morality is purely evolutionary. Society would not and could not exist if persons lived as you claimed. Besides, the bible makes some pretty nasty ideas about morality. The golden rule, even though, mentioned in the bible is not grounded by the bible. It is a purely universal rule that existed long before.
Comment by Bradley — June 21, 2008 @ 7:23 am
Clearly he (as usual) has it wrong. Just look at the solely atheist regimes that have been in place and their extremely unethical track record. There is nothing inherently persistently ethical about humans when religion is completely rejected. Pointing to the residual standards from a Judeo-Christian heritage does not slice it.
Comment by Michael Bates — June 21, 2008 @ 4:05 pm
Neither Jeff nor Michael address Dawkins’ premise that while the religion might claim to gain ethical insight from authority, revelation, tradition, scripture, ultimately, ultimately when any of these appear to be out of step, we redirect ourselves to some “alternative source of ultimate moral conviction,” which allow us to override any of these sources when it suits us.
It’s not that the ethical realm does not/cannot lie under the religious magisterium, it’s just that this intuitive decision to override previously valued sources when it suits us, is not a gift limited to those religious.
As to Jeff’s claim about atheists having “to at least appear moral while there are Christians about,” and what they would do when Christians are gone, am I the only one that finds this ridiculous? If you really believe that athiests have no basis for morality you show ignorance of both Kant, and he who wrote of the “law written on our hearts.”
I agree that there is nothing inherently persistently ethical about rejecting religion, but your citation (is it ‘cite’ or ‘site’) of atheistic regimes with very unethical track records, seems irrelevant to me, since I can name just as many Christian regimes equally unethical.
K.
Comment by K. — June 21, 2008 @ 4:50 pm
So what if there is a ‘law written on my heart’? If I am an atheist why should I take any notice of it? Who is going to call me to account if I choose to disobey it?
Christians believe that there is indeed a ‘law written on the heart’ but they also believe that there are other evidences of a law that comes from a transcendent authority.
The reason we cite atheistic regimes and their brutality is not to suggest that these regimes are brutal because they are atheistic, per se. It is rather to challenge the arrogant assertions by the anti-Christians that Christianity and religion is somehow an evil that needs to be discarded.
However that may be the current crop of atheists do not leave me with any great confidence that they can lead humanity ‘forward’ when you consider the language of some atheists who want to see the teaching of religious faith to our children as something akin to child abuse.
How long before we have the ‘midnight knock on the door’ to arrest us for teaching our kids to ‘love their neighbour as themselves’?
Comment by Jeff — June 21, 2008 @ 10:51 pm
What you assert about atheists is to them I imagine very offensive.
Example:
-that athiests are just trying to appear moral but when Christians are gone…
You strike me as a person who has never known an athiest, and if you have (I would have thought we all have) you aren’t being clear in what you think about them, because I don’t really think you could hold to such a view.
There is truth in the claim “where there is no God, everything is permissible” but your small evaluation of the potential goodness in atheist people supposes that simply because they don’t believe in a God, they won’t be moral. Perhaps we can argue that there basis for being moral is confused, but to suppose that they won’t even be moral is just too much for me.
Am I being unfair?
K.
Comment by K. — June 21, 2008 @ 11:40 pm
Dawkins reflects the moral confusion of the Christian world. Of course scripture isn’t enough. Scripture can be interpreted in so many ways. And yet, there is no authoritative and consistent moral tradition in the west. This is illustrated by Humanae Vitae. It forbids contraception in the most uncompromising way without examining the history of the traditional prohibition, without explaining its foundation, without reviewing the different reasons that may have been given in support of it in the past, without addressing the arguments of those in favor, and without even a single citation of the Bible in support of the position it advocates. It ignores the tradition as though it were irrelevant. What does it offer? An argument based on reason. An appeal to natural law. But that is tantamount to declaring that the moral teachings of the Church are not based—or are based in only the loosest way–on an authoritative moral tradition! And while the theologians are trying to figure out just what his argument really is, the Catholic faithful have largely ignored his teachings. Studies I have seen indicate that only the smallest minority of Catholics do not use some kind of contraception.
The moral tradition of the West rarely descends into the nitty gritty of concrete questions of right and wrong. It is largely philosophical, leaving the Christian with principles so broad that they are hardly more than rules of thumb. The Christian emphasis on freedom, love and liberation from Law—and, perhaps, also, an often unrealistic ideal of perfection, has frustrated the development of a casuistic moral literature that would generate a true tradition of practical moral judgment. That, combined with a fear of reverting to the purported legalism of Judaism (a product of the Christian imagination), has prevented the Church from developing a moral tradition that has the intellectual muscle of law. The sad result is that the Christian either applies general principles across the board, leading to excessive stringency, or falls back on his own judgment, generally uneducated, to make exceptions (about which he may not feel entirely comfortable). The absence of a concrete tradition of moral judgment also diminishes the moral authority of the clergy, for his counsel can be all too easily dismissed as his personal judgment.
Dawson also has another problem. He has confused notion of religion. He wants to know the Good and how to decide what is good. Does he really think that he can figure it out? Or that, if he did, he would be able to convince mankind that he did? Does he really think that he could reason with those who don’t care about being good, and turn them around? What he feels and desires is the very universal longing for knowledge of the Good which is the foundation of all religion.
He might also have another problem. Until only a few hundred years ago, there was no such thing as an exact science (with the exception of mathematics). Nearly all human knowledge was based on judgments for which there was no decisive proof, and perhaps not even a clear and universal standard (corresponding to scientific method) for what constituted a decisive proof. For better or for worse, in our technological culture, the educated man has come to expect the precision and proof of the natural sciences from spokesmen for religious and moral truth. When he doesn’t get it—and he never does—he is left with the feeling that all he has heard is another opinion, an opinion which is no doubted contradicted by other authorities. He does not know how to cope with the inevitable possibility of doubting statements that address issues of ultimate concern, such as the purpose of life, the nature of the good and the ultimate foundation of existence. Our culture no longer instructs us in the art of overcoming the possibility of doubt and consolidating such “opinions” into a firm sense of personal conviction. He wants irrefutable proof, and there is none. So he is left feeling that anything goes and, with a certain disappointment and perhaps even a note of despair, falls into skepticism.
Richard
Comment by Richard — June 22, 2008 @ 12:21 am
FYI I do know and have known atheists. I live with one, my own son who has rejected Christianity. Just hours ago we were having a discussion concerning his teaching practice for his teacher training when it came up that he would pretend something when in fact he would be doing something else in relation to his supervising teacher.
I told him that I did not think that he should engage in such deception and quoted, ‘Let your yay be yay and your nay nay.’
Knowing where that quote came from he immediately made reference to his newly discovered and adopted utilitarianism declaring such deception was okay if it ‘presumably’ (my word) led to greater good.
I could refer to several other attitudes and behaviours that I as his father have detected and which I am certain he would not engage in if he were a convinced Christian.
This is not to say that he does not have many positive qualities and that he does not behave morally.
I should stress here that it is indeed possible for atheists to act in a highly moral fashion. And it is possible, in fact probable, that many of those who do claim to be Christian from time to time act very immorally. However it is my contention that in the long term there is going to be less of a desire and motivation to be moral, particularly when there is not going to be any accounting.
How we could ever go about proving that I do not know. However that does not indicate that my contention is invalid.
Comment by Jeff — June 22, 2008 @ 2:22 am