<$BlogRSDUrl$>
The Inadequacies of Religion AND Science
Dawkins makes a very powerful case. The the effects of religious faith on political and social life (whether Muslim or Christian) are deeply troubling. Religious fanaticism exacerbates racial tensions and makes it easy for unscrupulous politicians to manipulate the citizenry. I would certainly agree with him that intolerant adherence to a religion, and the mixing of it with politics, is perilous for the human mind and for human society.
But is Dawkins right? Is atheism the only answer? I've spoken before in defense of faith (in the general sense), but Dawkins' argument is persuasive enough to merit a rebuttal. I would of course accept the Dawkins' position that reliance of religious dogma to explain natural phenomena, and too-great a reliance on external authority, can only lead to problems. Where I think Dawkins goes wrong is thinking that science in and of itself can fill the human needs that religion has historically addressed. Whereas religious fanatics claim too much for their faith, Dawkins claims too much for science. Dawkins is right to discard the material & metaphysical justifications for religious faith (that it requires a miracle to explain the world). Where he stumbles is where he challenges the psychological and social justifications for religion.
The social justification for religion is that revealed truth is necessary to ensure adherence to basic morality, that without the carrot & stick of an afterlife and universal law giver, people would be murdering and raping at will. Now Dawkins' critique of this position is correct - the Kantian argument that a morality based on fear of retribution and the offer of reward is no morality at all. But Dawkins' argument that we have an "altruistic gene" seems somewhat suspect. As an evolutionary biologist, he wants an explanation for morality from evolutionary biology. The problem is that to be good because of "hard-coding" is no more moral than being good from authority. It is also to commit the naturalist fallacy - that what we are is all that we can be. Human beings possess reason, and are therefore capable of transcending biological imperatives. Biology does a very poor job of explaining the human mind, for which I am profoundly grateful. If we could explain all human behavior and society as the product of chemicals, freedom as we know it would disappear. We would simply be cogs in the machine. I'm not saying here that religion IS necessary for morality, only that science isn't an appropriate foundation for it either, because it is ensnared just as quickly as religion in the difficulties of the "problem of evil" and free will.
Which brings me to the psychological justification for religion - that religion provides comfort in the face of an unjust world. If there is an afterlife, then all the unfairness of this life will eventually be settled - the good will prosper, the innocent given another chance. It also ameliorates the great fear of death - that we will simply end.
Dawkins simply wishes these fears away. He thinks that that the recognition that our existence ends with corporeal death should be liberating. Rather than filling us with fear, this realization should produce a commitment to make this life a good one. But what if this life is just a disaster, through no fault of our own. Many people never have a chance - their prospects are ruined by error or the accident or the ill-will of others. Are we to say that the too-brief life of a child raped and murdered by their parent has been "the best life possible."
I think many - if not most - people would call that a horrifying prospect. It requires a heroic ethic, a belief that we are in fact the masters of our own destiny. Perhaps Dawkins believes so, but then he is a very successful man. For the vast majority of humanity who feel that their lives are full of injustice, deprivation, and misery, it is an insult to call this the best of all possible worlds. Perhaps there are real dangers to faith, but the fact that they help people cope with the horrors of this world means that faith should at least get a hearing, rather than contemptuously waved away by a fat and comfortable englishmen.
6 Comments:
-
I should have known it would have been one of your posts that lured me in to comment...even though I've managed to resist some very strong temptation from other blogs. In any case, this is not meant to be the beginning of regular commenting. But I had to chime in on this particular subject.
By
I didn't follow any of the links or see the program in question. Still, on the whole, I am in agreement with the things you are saying - particularly your final conclusion. But I just wanted to point out a subtle, yet (to me)important, distinction. You seemed to be using the words "religion" and "faith" interchangeably. For many people, including me, it is very important to be clear that they are two completely separate things.
I have mentioned before that my faith is very strong, and it is the bedrock of my life. Yet it has been a couple of years since I have been part of any religion. In my case, my religion had actually gotten in the way of my faith. But that had not always been the case. And it's even possible that it will not always be the case. But one thing I have learned is that each can exist without the other.
There are many people who have a religion but do not live like they have any faith at all. Others have no religion, never go to church, and still try to maintain a close relatioship with whatever higher power it is that they worship...or, at least, believe in.
In my view, the problems between religions are not much different than the problems between countries. Governments and churches are both enormous bureaucratic entities. The pope sticking his foot in his mouth is very similar to Bush sticking his foot in his mouth. Extremists preaching violence seems to me remarkably like Cabinet advisors urging war in Iraq. The common denominator is human sacrifice.
Anyway, this is all just by way of answering your question: No, atheism is not the only answer. There is a huge area between that and religious fanaticism. For that matter, there is a huge area even between atheism and being part of any religion whatsoever. Lots and lots of people believe in something but don't ever go to church.
However, you did get it right in your conclusion. My religion was never of any comfort or help in dealing with the horrors of this world. But my faith both comforts me and gives me strength on a daily basis.
It may seem a small distinction but, as I said, it is extrememly important to some of us.
Rebecca, at 9:41 PM
-
My sole contention with you argument is the use of any qualitative terms. "But what if this life is just a disaster, through no fault of our own. Many people never have a chance - their prospects are ruined by error or the accident or the ill-will of others. Are we to say that the too-brief life of a child raped and murdered by their parent has been 'the best life possible.'"
By
Why must we think in terms of "best" or "worst", or even "good" and "bad". Humans naturally seek to improve their condition just by trying to survive another day. However, in order to conceive of relative life conditions, one must know they exist.
There is a passage in Paul Johnson's book "Creators: From Chaucer and Durer to Picasso and Disney" about a street sweeper in London. When asked if he gets to be creative, he says that every day God gives him a street to clean. Take away the mention of God and you are left with a very simple proposition: as long as a person can feel that his life tomorrow is better than his life today, he will probably be pretty happy, without recourse to religion or any sense of hope. Indeed, the model of most religions is to have the mentality of a child: allowing simple things to make us happy instead of comparing our condition to everyone else around us.
One doesn't need to be a master of one's destiny, or even have hope for a better life characterized by retribution against evil-does. All you need is to learn how to appreciate your conditions as they are. You don't stop working for a better life for yourself and others, but liking the small things in life is something that most people in the industrialized world don't understand very well. Marriah, at 10:02 PM
-
I recall watching this show a few months ago. I found it very interesting.
By
The issue of morality is intriguing. I feel it is far more ambiguous than most people give it credit for. If your morality is based on religious teachings, or if it is hardcoded, or if it comes from somwhere else, it is still a moral code. Not everyone is going to agree with everyone elses moral code, but does this negate it?
It all seems squarley rooted in cause/effect. However someone chooses to define that is their own business. Be the effect heaven/hell; jail/freedom; life/death; etc. To discredit morals because the defined cause and effect does not meld with yours seems overly critical. All of this leads into intolerance. Granted when morals start to infringe on other peoples ability to survive then I think their is a problem.
Anyway, I think it is to complex on the individual scale to neatly define or say where or how morals should be defined or where the should come from.
This also reminded me of a song I listened to today, so I am going to end my comment with a quoting of said song. The song is "I read the bible" By Bruce McCulloch of Kids in the Hall fame:
"I like religion. It gives dumb people something to do. It isn't scratching lottery tickets. But it's sort of the same thing."
**Note the song is meant to be funny. Jesse, at 10:15 PM
-
Rebecca:
By
I'm flattered! And yes, I was blurring the distinction between religion and faith. I know there's a big difference, but I was trying to put together a fairly broad-based of defense of both, since Dawkins kind of lumps them together. I will concede that (most?) organized religions are pretty vulnerable to criticism, but I don't want to completely close the door on the possibility that they could be good.
Marriah:
I was just making a general point, rather than writing a book. And I was using fairly absolute language because Dawkins does so as well. And I think that to say that there is no afterlife - that this life is all that there is - is to imply that the only good or evil that we will ever experience is in this world. In addition, I think that it is more useful, philosophically, to address the "hard cases" of 3rd world deprivation/victims of disasters and crimes, rather than people who just wish they had a bigger car.
Given the amount of injustice that is done to the innocent, and the degree to which our lives are out of control, that can be a very scary thought.
Jesse:
I'm going to disagree with you a bit, if you don't mind. I'm basically going to go along with Kant on this stuff, since he seems to be the most persuasive thinker and most serious philosophers follow his lead.
A moral code says that someone should choose to behave in a certain way. For that code to be meaningful, there must be a real choice involved - we must have free will. Otherwise when I do something bad, I can just say "it wasn't my fault." The existence of free will requires that we are (to some extent at least) unconditioned by external events - in this case biology or the environment. Also, moral action requires that we perform an act because it is good, not because we want goodies for it - otherwise it's not a moral action, it's a self-interested, prudential one (which makes morality for the purpose of avoiding hell not really morality).
So I think it does matter where morality comes from. I think it has to come from reason, because it would be self-defeating to say that we should freely choose something whose basis was not freely chosen.
Does that make any sense? Arbitrista, at 7:50 AM
-
While I am not familiar with Kant, and can't comment on his stuff, I can say this... (OK so I just wanted to say kant, can't and can all in the same sentence)
By
Good response. I am thinking I should read some Kant.
I did not mean to imply a lack of choice. More of a difference on how those choices are made...
Also, you bring up the making a good choice sans a reward. For arguments sake, I think in nearly every instance where a moral choice is made there is some benefit to the chooser. Even if it is as simple as feeling good about the choice. There is a positive, or the avoidance of a negative. If there is neither inheriant in the choice then why would a choice be made? And if it was made would the person even feel it was a moral choice?
Though I suppose it is all dependant on how you define reward and/or goodies... Jesse, at 7:39 PM
-
He he, you sound a little like Monty Python!
By
As for your point, Kant thought that you could only KNOW an act was a truly moral one (done for its own sake) if there were no other rewards involved. Some people have argued that the ability to feel good about a moral act is the real motivator. I don't know how seriously I take this position - it seems to stretch the idea of self-interest to the point of meaninglessness. I guess you were a hard ass the only purely moral act would be one where you suffered for doing it, and that nobody would ever know about it. Sort of a "Job" situation. Arbitrista, at 9:38 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home
:: permalink
