In 2006 world renowned atheist professor Richard Dawkins' blessed (or cursed) us with his four-hundred page rant, The God Delusion. However not all of the teachings in this book are wrought with nonsense; for an example, Dawkins proposed one of the oldest assumptions:
Intelligent design suffers from exactly the same objection as chance. It is simply not a plausible solution to the riddle of statistical improbability. And the higher the improbability, the more implausible intelligent design becomes. Seen clearly, intelligent design will turn out to be a redoubling of the problem. Once again, this is because the designer himself ... immediately raises the bigger problem of his own origin.[i]
In sum since the intelligent design proponent insists that the God of their religion is the originator of this universe Dawkins is asking for an answer explaining the origin of their god and at a more basic level the basic claim of *God* in the general sense. And rightfully so as it is the responsibility of everyone to explain their worldview if they proclaim it to be a natural fact of reality. This fact applies to the natural reality that we are living in and also to the question of morality.
Where does morality come from? I was at a pro-life conference one day. And as it was with almost every pro-life conference that I've been to, there was at the street entrance to the church a band of sign-bobbing pro-choice advocates chanting their outdated chants. With me at this conference was a fellow pro-life advocate and a friend of about 15 years; so to protect her identity I'll call her, Sara. However unlike me Sara was an atheist. In the main auditorium she and I engaged into a debate about morality. The debate was of course not on the morality of abortion as we both agreed that it is wrong to kill another human being at any stage of life, but rather the origin of morality. She insisted that morality is originated in realm of subjectivity but inconsistently insisted that the views held by the band of pro-choice advocates regarding abortion is objectively morally wrong. I tried to explain to her that as an atheist she had no right to condemn their views as wrong and stand proud with her views believing them to be objectively correct. This is simply because if her belief that God doesn't exist is true then her pro-life views are, like those of the pro-choice advocates, subjective. Her views are neither right or wrong, but merely right or wrong for her.
Returning our attention to Dr. Richard Dawkins on Facebook I saw a video clipping of Dawkins at a conference. During what seemed to be the Q&A section of the festivities a Muslim man raised his hand and asked this question:
Considering that atheism cannot possibly have any sense of absolute morality, would it not then be an irrational leap of faith ... for an atheist to decide between right and wrong?[ii]
And with a confident smile on his face Dawkins replied:
...the absolute morality that a religious person might profess would include stoning people for adultery, death for apostasy, punishment for breaking Sabbath; these are all things that are religiously based absolute moralities. I don't think I want an absolute morality. I think I want a morality that is thought out, reasoned, argued, discussed and based upon, I could almost say by intelligent design. Can we not design our society which has the sort of morality that we want to live in?[iii]
"Can we not design our society which has the sort of morality that we want to live in?" The answer is of course, yes, but this begs the question: whose design for morality will we use? Dr. Dawkins' is being internally inconsistent with his worldview. On one hand he condemns as logically wrong punishment for adultery, apostasy and breaking the Sabbath; facets of a socially designed morality by people who want to live in that society; but he likewise insists that a morality which rejects slavery and that subscribes to gentleness, the equality for women and the kindness to animals[iv] is logically right. I of course agree with him on the latter as I too wish to live in a society that promotes these as actions as moral values. But who is he to tell a person who believes that punishing adultery is wrong when he doesn't have any vice in his worldview to determine it to be so? If all Dawkins is doing is giving his opinion then he has no right to impose is opinion onto others who hold to different opinions on the same subject matter and wish to live in a society who subscribes to their opinion. If Dawkins doesn't believe in condemnation for adultery then he ought to live by his conviction and not condemn adultery; but since he is merely giving his opinion he should likewise mind his own business and not push his pro-adultery views onto his neighbour who believes he (or she) is justified in condemning their spouse for cheating on them. If however Dawkins is presenting condemnation for adultery as wrong, as a fact then he has the burden of proof to show why he feels justified in shaming his neighbour for condemning their spouse for their adulterous behaviour.
If Dawkins' atheism is true and there is no objective moral measuring facet to life and thus morality is akin to paintings in an art gallery (morality is right or wrong in the heart of the subscriber just a piece of art work is beautiful or ugly in they eyes of the viewer) then there is no difference between the current North American anti-slavery morality and the Old Testament Jewish law regarding homosexual practice (cf. Leviticus 20:13). They are just two types of moral designs that are both reasoned, argued and discussed. Now of course they are reasoned, argued and discussed from different foundations that is, a consensus on preference and subjective opinions vs. a proclaimed to be holy-book, the Bible. And one could believe that the Bible is an unreasonable foundation to determine morality but the same is said by Christians worldwide about secularism as a moral foundation. But neither view negates the fact that the difference in morality of such practices are in both systems intelligently "...thought out, reasoned, argued [and] discussed...".
If Dawkins' atheism is true and there is no objective moral measuring facet to life and thus morality is akin to paintings in an art gallery (morality is right or wrong in the heart of the subscriber just a piece of art work is beautiful or ugly in they eyes of the viewer) then there is no difference between the current North American anti-slavery morality and the Old Testament Jewish law regarding homosexual practice (cf. Leviticus 20:13). They are just two types of moral designs that are both reasoned, argued and discussed. Now of course they are reasoned, argued and discussed from different foundations that is, a consensus on preference and subjective opinions vs. a proclaimed to be holy-book, the Bible. And one could believe that the Bible is an unreasonable foundation to determine morality but the same is said by Christians worldwide about secularism as a moral foundation. But neither view negates the fact that the difference in morality of such practices are in both systems intelligently "...thought out, reasoned, argued [and] discussed...".
Furthermore, Dawkins' desire to not have an objective morality is seemingly inconsistent with his insistent of the usage of the 'scientific method' - a means of determining the truth of a fact of this natural world. We know that earth's gravitational pull is 9.81 m/s squared[v] based on objective facts about this physical planet and not based on someone's opinion. Imagine what the field of the natural sciences would be like if people determined things like earth's gravity based on their opinions; we could have answers ranging from: "a lot" to "who cares" to "I guess it would be around...", etc. Why then should morality be treated any differently?
What might be a parallel standard to the scientific method in determining the morality of something? Since the intelligence of human societies reason through and debate their moral views with each other and ultimately end up with different perspectives human intelligence is not a good candidate for an objective moral standard. What then is left? ANSWER: The intelligent designer, known as God as he is outside of human opinion.
However this begs the question: Who's God? Everyone has a worldview and everyone's worldview has a God, even atheists; see here for details. The answer to this question is: the worldview that is consistent with reality. However everyone believes their worldview is consistent with reality. This is true but just as earth's gravity is determine by facts, not opinions, a persons insisting opinion is irrelevant; their worldview will either be consistent with reality or it won't be. So whose worldview is consistent with logic, science and history?
However this begs the question: Who's God? Everyone has a worldview and everyone's worldview has a God, even atheists; see here for details. The answer to this question is: the worldview that is consistent with reality. However everyone believes their worldview is consistent with reality. This is true but just as earth's gravity is determine by facts, not opinions, a persons insisting opinion is irrelevant; their worldview will either be consistent with reality or it won't be. So whose worldview is consistent with logic, science and history?
________________
[i] - Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion. (Great Britain: Bantam Press, a division of Transworld Publishers,2006), 145-146.
[ii] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4w_8Z8SE_4 - accessed June, 16, 2014
[iii] - Ibid., - accessed June, 16, 2014
[iv] - Ibid., - accessed June, 16, 2014
[v] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_of_Earth - accessed June, 16, 2014
No comments:
Post a Comment