The Unwilling Agnostic- Part Two
In my previous blog, I explained why The God Delusion helped me begin to differentiate between the classic concept of God and my spiritual beliefs. As I began to question my faith in faith, so to speak, this naturally led me to my second issue with atheism: its lack of absolute morality. Like many theists, I felt that a belief in some supernatural force provides many people with grounds for morality. I attributed my own ethics to my spirituality- my belief in the connections between all things.
First, Dawkins argues- and rightly so- that organized religion is often very poor grounds for morality. The best example is the Bible- taken literally by some believers, figuratively by others- which not only contradicts its own moral codes (unsurprisingly, given that it was written and edited by so many people) but also promotes values that are certainly not acceptable by today's standards (being executed for disrepecting one's parents or not upholding the Sabbath, for example). Dawkins argues that some of these values certainly have a place in society, but just as many of them don't. By whose authority do theists pick and choose which are "applicable" to society today? Few religious people believe in the Bible as absolute, literal truth, or at least that's what I can presume based on how most people live their lives. Therefore, there is already some moral shakiness to religion. If it is expected that we pick and choose, that is hardly absolute.
It also goes without saying that the morals of different religions often contradict each other. It is certainly not an objective truth that we follow the directions of just one religion, considering there is no objective evidence preferring one over another (which is why faith is such a virtue in organized religion- otherwise it wouldn't work!). That being the case, absolute morality as provided by organized religion is just an illusion, claimed by each religion in turn to be its own.
Dawkins further argues that simple fear of God (retribution or going to Hell) is not necessarily correlated with morality, either. In Letter to a Christian Nation, Sam Harris provides some compelling statistics that suggest quite the opposite. Several measures of social health (murder rates, crime rates, violent crime) are notably lower in more religious, conservative states. Whether this is a general trend or not, however, there is no proof that more religious areas have trends of high social conscientiousness. While this is not definitive proof, in turn, that religious areas have trends of lower social conscientiousness, it does refute the claim that morality is a global consequence of religiousness (for further proof of this, one needs to look no further than Islamic nations).
That said, Dawkins gets to (what I felt was) the crux of his argument: the possibility that human morality evolved, alongside our physical characteristics as human beings, as beneficial and even essential to our survival as a species. In support of this notion, studies on morality by Harvard professor Marc Hauser suggest universal human moral intuition. Religious people show no difference in their choices when faced by hypotherical moral dilemmas as compared to irreligious people.
Furthermore, studies in anthropology strongly suggest that the evolution of what Dawkins calls altruism to have been essential to our development as a species. The first way this is manifested is in simply displaying altruism toward members of the same species in order to ensure the survival of the species, which I found to be a very logical and likely explanation. Another source is symbiosis, or benefiting others in some way in order to lead to better circumstances for oneself. In the human world, this may be called cooperation, which is most definitely a beneficial trait for species survival. In fact, some linguists theorize that the reason human beings became a dominant species on Earth is because of our ability for complex communication- and thus extraordinarily complex cooperation (think money and government)- with members of our own species. Finally, Dawkins introduces evidence from biology suggesting that members of other species exhibit behaviors in which reciprocity does not appear to be a goal. Rather, they seem to be establishing themselves as having a reputation for being "kind" or "generous," which ends up leading others to be more likely to cooperate with them.
In other words, scientific evidence points directly to altruism as being an important evolutionary step for our species. The roots of morality are harder to explain and defend, but upon examination of Dawkins' argument, I realized that holding an illusion of absolute morality is irrelevant when explaining human ethics. Absolute morals really don't seem to exist in any universal context. In fact, the values promoted as "absolute" seem to me to be anything but that. For example, one is forbidden from killing except under certain circumstances, different ones according to different texts. As I said in previously, when we are already picking and choosing what to believe out of religious texts, there is no stand-alone, absolute truth that applies to all believers universally. Therefore, absolute morality exists only in the human mind- and in distressingly different versions, may I add. (Note: some atheists concede that some basic morals that form the foundation of human civilization can't be explained by evolutionary theory, but they emphasize that this concession does not point to a supernatural god as the source.)
Happily, I realized that this is beside the point. The point is that even without God in the picture, human morals are far from arbitrary and relative. We have an inherent vested interest in ensuring the well-being of our fellow human beings, which, in light of human beings' undeniably stubborn insistence to survive, more than explains why we share certain universal values. This most basic value- to survive in cooperation with others- is openly contradicted only (to my knowledge) by some of those promoted by religion. These are often completely faith-based and lacking in any demonstrable promotion of human good, other than the propogation of said religion.
First, Dawkins argues- and rightly so- that organized religion is often very poor grounds for morality. The best example is the Bible- taken literally by some believers, figuratively by others- which not only contradicts its own moral codes (unsurprisingly, given that it was written and edited by so many people) but also promotes values that are certainly not acceptable by today's standards (being executed for disrepecting one's parents or not upholding the Sabbath, for example). Dawkins argues that some of these values certainly have a place in society, but just as many of them don't. By whose authority do theists pick and choose which are "applicable" to society today? Few religious people believe in the Bible as absolute, literal truth, or at least that's what I can presume based on how most people live their lives. Therefore, there is already some moral shakiness to religion. If it is expected that we pick and choose, that is hardly absolute.
It also goes without saying that the morals of different religions often contradict each other. It is certainly not an objective truth that we follow the directions of just one religion, considering there is no objective evidence preferring one over another (which is why faith is such a virtue in organized religion- otherwise it wouldn't work!). That being the case, absolute morality as provided by organized religion is just an illusion, claimed by each religion in turn to be its own.
Dawkins further argues that simple fear of God (retribution or going to Hell) is not necessarily correlated with morality, either. In Letter to a Christian Nation, Sam Harris provides some compelling statistics that suggest quite the opposite. Several measures of social health (murder rates, crime rates, violent crime) are notably lower in more religious, conservative states. Whether this is a general trend or not, however, there is no proof that more religious areas have trends of high social conscientiousness. While this is not definitive proof, in turn, that religious areas have trends of lower social conscientiousness, it does refute the claim that morality is a global consequence of religiousness (for further proof of this, one needs to look no further than Islamic nations).
That said, Dawkins gets to (what I felt was) the crux of his argument: the possibility that human morality evolved, alongside our physical characteristics as human beings, as beneficial and even essential to our survival as a species. In support of this notion, studies on morality by Harvard professor Marc Hauser suggest universal human moral intuition. Religious people show no difference in their choices when faced by hypotherical moral dilemmas as compared to irreligious people.
Furthermore, studies in anthropology strongly suggest that the evolution of what Dawkins calls altruism to have been essential to our development as a species. The first way this is manifested is in simply displaying altruism toward members of the same species in order to ensure the survival of the species, which I found to be a very logical and likely explanation. Another source is symbiosis, or benefiting others in some way in order to lead to better circumstances for oneself. In the human world, this may be called cooperation, which is most definitely a beneficial trait for species survival. In fact, some linguists theorize that the reason human beings became a dominant species on Earth is because of our ability for complex communication- and thus extraordinarily complex cooperation (think money and government)- with members of our own species. Finally, Dawkins introduces evidence from biology suggesting that members of other species exhibit behaviors in which reciprocity does not appear to be a goal. Rather, they seem to be establishing themselves as having a reputation for being "kind" or "generous," which ends up leading others to be more likely to cooperate with them.
In other words, scientific evidence points directly to altruism as being an important evolutionary step for our species. The roots of morality are harder to explain and defend, but upon examination of Dawkins' argument, I realized that holding an illusion of absolute morality is irrelevant when explaining human ethics. Absolute morals really don't seem to exist in any universal context. In fact, the values promoted as "absolute" seem to me to be anything but that. For example, one is forbidden from killing except under certain circumstances, different ones according to different texts. As I said in previously, when we are already picking and choosing what to believe out of religious texts, there is no stand-alone, absolute truth that applies to all believers universally. Therefore, absolute morality exists only in the human mind- and in distressingly different versions, may I add. (Note: some atheists concede that some basic morals that form the foundation of human civilization can't be explained by evolutionary theory, but they emphasize that this concession does not point to a supernatural god as the source.)
Happily, I realized that this is beside the point. The point is that even without God in the picture, human morals are far from arbitrary and relative. We have an inherent vested interest in ensuring the well-being of our fellow human beings, which, in light of human beings' undeniably stubborn insistence to survive, more than explains why we share certain universal values. This most basic value- to survive in cooperation with others- is openly contradicted only (to my knowledge) by some of those promoted by religion. These are often completely faith-based and lacking in any demonstrable promotion of human good, other than the propogation of said religion.