In discussing the roots or morality and how goodness can
come about without religion, Dawkins begins by pointing out how awful religious
people can be. He quotes letters sent by
supposed Christians to atheists. As a
Christian, I apologize to Dawkins and his allies for this nastiness. Now mind you, Dawkins has said some plenty
nasty things himself….even in this book, he has referred to God as a “psychotic
delinquent,” That does not, however,
excuse foul and abusive language coming from those opposing his atheistic view.
Dawkins argues that religion is not necessary for humans to
have a sense of morality. I actually don’t
disagree with this. However, I believe
that our moral sense comes from God, the Creator, whether or not we are
particularly religious. When the Bible
says we are created in the image of God, I believe it means that we have a
number of things that make us different from the rest of God’s created
beings. We have free will, we have
creativity, and we have a conscience which give us moral insights.
Dawkins says that moral behavior can come about without God
through the Darwinian pillars of care for kin and reciprocal altruism, with
secondary factors such as reputation and the advantages gained by conspicuous
generosity also playing a role. He
suggests that the kindness of one person to another is a sort of “mis-firing”
or “mistake.” In ancestral times, when
men lived in “small and stable bands,” looking out for those around them would
have been advantageous, because these individuals were genetically related. Our urge to kindness/altruism now is a left
over remnant from that time. Hence, we
are kind to those around us even though their survival doesn’t promote the
survival of our own genes.
The results of a number of studies seem to point to the
notion that atheists are just as moral as are the religious. I suspect this is entirely possible. “The main conclusion of Hauser and Singer’s
study was that there is no statistically significant difference between
atheists and religious believers in making these judgements. (sic) This seems compatible with the view…that we
do not need God in order to be good …or evil.”
The problem with reaching this conclusion is that I expect they have not
accounted for the general influence of Christian values present in society or
the possibility of at least some of these atheists having had their values
influenced by Christian parents.
One of my main problems with this chapter is that Dawkins
seems to believe that the way in which Christians are influenced to be good by
religion is through fear. (i.e. The notion that God is watching and He is going
to punish us for bad deeds.) I guess
that idea is prevalent in some religious sects.
However, my personal belief is that most of us cannot achieve our own
standard of goodness…to say nothing about God’s standard. I reached that conclusion even as a
child. I knew that I didn’t obey my
mother, that I told lies, and that I was not always kind to my little brother. I disliked these thing about myself. I never thought about God raining down
punishment on me. I wanted His help to
be “good.” I tried to do it on my own,
and I just couldn’t manage it. Maybe I
was innately a worse person than most, although I seriously doubt that. (I
actually had a grandmother who thought I was perfect. Ha!)
When I in absolutely childish faith asked Jesus to “come into my heart,”
I was looking for help in living, not an escape from hell after death.
Dawkins does in the conclusion of this chapter comment, “…it
is pretty hard to defend absolutist morals on grounds other than religious
ones.” He, of course, doesn’t believe
morals have to be absolute. I believe
there are moral absolutes…however, let’s be clear that not every rule thought
up by a religious group rises to the standard of being a moral absolute!
No comments:
Post a Comment