The God Truthiness IV: Morality Play

dr clam finds The God Delusion's Chapter 6 “The Roots of Morality: Why are we Good?” to be “not very satisfying”. For me it couldn't be further from the truth. I will admit that it is a slightly weaker chapter because the last couple of pages stray from its intended purpose. Its final paragraph begins, “The springboard for this discussion of moral philosophy was a hypothetical religious claim that, without a God, morals are relative and arbitrary” (267). If Dawkins had stuck to disproving this hypothetical religious claim it would have been OK, but at the end of the chapter he drifts into the shoals where the voracious dr clam lays in wait. Otherwise though it does a great job of taking God out of morality.

After a foray into the kind of hate mail he gets from Christians, there is the section 'Does our Moral Sense have a Darwinian Origin?' in which he details a Darwinian explanation for altruism. This quote is the meat of it:

First, there is the special case of genetic kinship. Second, there is reciprocation: the payment of favours given, and the giving of favours in 'anticipation' of payback. Following on from this there is, third, the Darwinian benefit of acquiring a reputation for generosity and kindness. And fourth, if Zahavi is right, there is the particular additional benefit of conspicuous generosity as a way of buying unfakeably authentic advertising. (251)

This is followed up with 'A Case Study in the Roots of Morality' which showed studies by first Hauser and then Hauser and Singer which tracked the answers given by people to moral dilemmas. The studies included a tribe that had little organized religion, and believers and non-believers of religion. It was concluded that, “there is no statistically significant difference between atheists and religious believers in making these judgements” (258).

So armed with a Darwinian explanation for altruism plus Hauser's and Singer's studies Dawkins is on solid ground to declare, “This seems compatible with the view, which I and many others hold, that we do no need God in order to be good – or evil” (258).

dr clam says, “Richard's chapter six is about the roots of morality... He seems to be aware of the problem, but he never addresses it.” And in the comments to the post previous to this he says “The problem, which Dawkins' doesn't seem to get, is how to achieve an 'absolute morality' (as defined by theologians, philosophers, Wikipedia etc.) without God. I don't say this can't be done without God-in fact, I tried to work out how to do it without God myself once. I would love to see a serious atheistic attempt to address this problem. Dawkins' chapter is not it.”

As to the claim that “he never address” the roots of morality Chapter 6 does demonstrate that across belief and culture evolution has provided us with a guidebook to morality. And in life a guidebook is infinitely more useful than rulebook. As dr clam also wants “a serious atheistic attempt to address the problem” then I'd suggest a study of this guidebook. Conducting studies similar to Hauser's and Singer's, then looking for trends of the kinds of answers people make to particular kinds of dilemmas. From that a set of moral principles could be designed.

And Dawkins does mention Kant's "act only on the maxim whereby thou canst at the same time will it should become a universal law" (266) as one such example of a non-religious morality, although he does qualify that “it is no so easy to see how to broaden it to morality generally” (266).

We might not have all the answers to morality, but thanks to evolution we are equiped to find them.

The God Truthiness III: Abortion

dr clam has kindly put his Dawkins' posts into the one place. Thanks dr clam.

I'll look at dr clam's last post first. It's about abortion, the murder of abortion practicing doctors and suffering. dr clam's 3 points (1. Suffering of the Victim, 2. Suffering of the Victim's Friends and 3. Loss of Potential) are spot on.

dr clam begins with, "Given the historical preoccupations of this blog, I can’t very well leave Richard’s book without discussing what he has to say about abortion." But dr clam has missed that this section titled 'Faith and the Sanctity of Human Life' is used, like the preceding section 'Faith and Homosexuality', as an example to illustrate the difference in thinking between absolutionists and consequentialists. It is not intended as a defense of abortion. That said I'm left with no doubt that 'Faith and the Sanctity of Human Life' also elucidates Dawkins' personal views on and defenses of abortion. 'Faith and the Sanctity of Human Life' should instead be viewed in the context of the whole chapter "What's Wrong with Religion? Why be so Hostile?" as examples of the problems with absolutionism. The confusion of purpose may be because Dawkins doesn't illustrate these differences until spending two pages talking about the supposed differences between embryos and adults as viewed by the American Taliban.

Let's unravel the chapter's road map about absolutism and consequentialism. Of the two Dawkins approaches absolutism first by looking at the rise of the American Taliban in the 'The Dark Side of Absolutism' which is the section previous to 'Faith and Homosexuality'. 'Faith and Homosexuality' continues with absolutism but finishes with, "Attitudes to homosexuality reveal much about the sort of morality that is inspired by religious faith. An equally instructive example is abortion and the sanctity of human life" (329 italics mine). Dawkins then explores the 2nd kind of morality he's interested in - consequentialism. "A consequentialist or utilitarian is likely to approach the abortion question in a very different way, by trying to weigh up suffering" (331).

And indeed the rest of the section examines the way consequentialists might examine the problem of abortion, as various slippery slope arguments about suffering are tested. But these consequentialist arguments are used to highlight the lack of critical thinking in the absolutionist stance, which Dawkins finds to be either contradictory due to IVF, or even morally bankrupt in the case of absolutionists who murder doctors. As I said I think this section is muddied by Dawkins' own views on abortion, but the intention of the section is again made clear when the last paragraph begins, “Suffering is hard to measure, and the details might be disputed. But that doesn't affect my main point, which concerns the difference between secular consequentialists and religiously absolute moral philosophies” (336 italics mine).

The God Truthiness II: Sticks and Stones

Half way through He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Not-Read. Can't write about that, so let's return to Dawkins.

The major complaint I've read leveled at Dawkins is that he's "shrill, strident, intemperate, intolerant, [and] ranting" (Dawkins 16). dr clam says Dawkins has a "style of ridiculing his opponents rather than trying to understand what they are saying". In those same comments another blogger michael krahn directs me to "The Dawkins Defeat", an article about Dawkins failure to lure “dyed-in-the-wool faith-heads” to atheism because "most non-atheist readers will not read 375 pages of valid arguments if they are constantly interspersed with derision".

Now come on people, this is so not an issue. Next non-atheists will be attacking his grammar. As I said I wasn't concerned about his style when I first read the book. I've since reread some parts and found that ridicule is one of the more pointed arrows in his quiver. And I've got to admit that some of them would cut close to the quick if I had any leanings towards belief.

But if you don't like his barbs then remember the reader has all the power with how to engage a book. Or to put it another way - the author has only the power that you abdicate to him or her. Remember this isn't a conversation. Dawkins isn't in the room actually ridiculing you to your face. Put the book down and take a step back. Have a breather. Use the space for milk, cookies and to contemplate the "valid arguments" Dawkins has written.

The complaint that follows from this advice will be that that is all too much trouble. Well that's your choice if you don't want to take responsibilty for how you engage a book. But The God Delusion is the latest criticism of religion by possibly the world's highest profile atheist. To disprove Dawkins' ridicule of believers as being at best indoctrinated innocents or at worst dangerous fanatics then one has to come up with a more persuasive argument than, "He made fun of me so I don't like what he had to say."

To wax speculative Dawkins has made a smart move in writing abrasively. In 2006 Dawkins started The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science. He's mounting a campaign against religion. Campaigns require money and publicity sells books. Dawkins style has really attracted publicity. As michael krahn shows even Christians are writing articles about Dawkins. Negative the article may be, but it's still generating publicity, selling books and putting the word "atheism" on the lips of those who may never have heard it. So in one sense it doesn't really matter if Christians who bought the book finish reading it or not. You can be happy dr clam that you borrowed it free from the library.

And while I'm entertaining flights of fancy, despite Dawkins stating that "if this book works as I intended, religious readers who open it will be atheists when they put it down" (28) this book's intended purpose is not so much to convert believers into non-believers, but to "help people to come out [as atheists]" (27). Dawkins envisages his book fostering a groundswell of support for atheism, and to help put atheists together The God Delusion's Appendix has "a partial list of friendly address, for individuals needing support in escaping from religion." Dawkins himself recognizes that atheists are not organized as a group. If this book empowers atheists to hoist their colors and make a stand with like-minded people, then at this opening salvo of the campaign he's achieved his aim. Dumbledore is building and army, are you going to fight?

Get Ya Geek Out

Risen had its first on-line game last night. When the connection finally got going it was good fun, but there was a kind of frustrating half hour before that where we had no idea why there was no joy. Then suddenly the host was accepting players... and there was joy. Big happy whacking of super-villains joy.

Now have headset AND webcam, so winstoninabox is ready to Skype You. No, Skype Me. Skype Us? Oh, whatever. Let's Skype.

Warning: Objects in webcam may appear closer than they appear.

The God Truthiness I

While waiting to read the book that everyone else is reading, I read a book everyone else has already read.

The God Delusion is Richard Dawkins' arguement against religion. A little while ago Dr. Clam in a series of blogs had not much good to say about it. I thoroughly enjoyed it.

Dr. Clam I read the paperback edition, and in the new Preface to it Mr Dawkins answers some of your complaints. I'm not saying you'll find them satisfying. It's not worth buying the book for them, but if you're interested then spend a few minutes reading it in the bookstore.

I did like his answer to "You can't criticize religion without a detailed analysis of learned books of theology." Mr Dawkins' doesn't believe one iota in religon. Not a one. And his book is written from that perspective. He doesn't want to engage in debate that assumes God is real, for he believes the onus of proof first comes from those who believe in God. Once the mere existence of God is proven, then the debate about angels on pin heads can begin.

And this "Prove it" stance challenges believers. It's very in your face. Personally I don't have a problem with it, but that's because I'm not a believer. And it's one of the reasons I'm not a believer. I just don't see anything there that makes me believe it to be true. At step one Dawkins' isn't concerned with questions about why God exists, where He exists, when He exists, etc. Just, "Does He exist?" God can't be seen, felt, tasted, measured, or weighed so this puts God into Dawkins' "extremely doubtful" basket.

I think it's a pretty important first step. If you can't find it, why do you think it exists?

Cloverfield

If that roar ain't the big G, then I'm a monkey in a man suit.