I've been reading some of Kant's writing about morality and thought it was incredible that on the one hand he said the origin of morality is ultimately transcendent, yet on the other hand does not need to be derived from God.
It seems an honest atheist must come to the same conclusion and then wonder again at what is the Beyond.
I would love to hear Dawkin's response to your question!
So, your slam dunk refutation of Dawkins is Goddidit? Clever, I bet that will shut up all those uppity atheists. If this is the best you have after 2000 years of theology and apologetics , then I think you've got a problem.
The problem is this; theism has been relatively free of criticism for so long that it just doesn't have the intellectual toolkit to deal with the current onslaught of criticism. Religion can't silence it's critics any longer with capital punishment, although I think some would like to revive that tradition. Appeals to faith, biblical inerrancy or appeals to any of the numerous logical fallicies that are predictably trotted out ain't gonna cut it anymore.
Paul T,
Did you post this under the wrong entry? I'm not sure how one could take away "Goddidit" from a entry on the difference between God existing and the belief that he does. He laid it out fairly clearly.
The second part of your post, you state theism can't handle criticism and is working to silence people like you; however, you ignore the fact that you are posting this criticism on a theist's website.
The last part of your post seems almost random. This was a simply book review. There wasn't any "Appeals to faith, biblical inerrancy or appeals to any of the numerous logical fallicies." I'd hate to see what kind of anger comes out when someone calls the Harry Potter character shallow.
All this might simply be overlooked if you at least gave a criticism of the criticism. This is what scientists and theologians both do. They layout, rationally, why they diagree with something. Simply saying you're wrong then quickly moving on to some odd diatribe really adds nothing - it's almost like spam.
Jennifer,
Kant held that our primary faculty of morality is reason and not divine command.
One couldn’t do worse by morality than drawing it from examples. We can’t get our
concept of morality initially from examples, for we can’t judge whether something is fit to be an
example or model of morality unless it has already been judged according principles of morality.
·This applies even to Ÿthe model that is most frequently appealed to·. Even ŸJesus Christ must be
compared with our ideal of moral perfection before he is recognized as being perfect; indeed, he
says of himself ‘Why callest thou me (whom you see) good? There is none good (the archetype
·or model· of good) but one, i.e. God (whom you don’t see)’ [Matthew 19:17; the bits added in
parentheses are Kant’s]. But ·don’t think that with God the father we have at last found the example
or model from which we can derive our concept of morality·. Where do we get the concept of
God as the highest good from? Solely from the idea of moral perfection that reason lays out for us
a priori and which it ties, unbreakably, to the concept of a free will. ·Some have said that the
moral life consists in ‘imitating Christ’, but· imitation has no place in moral matters; and the only
use of examples there is Ÿfor encouragement - i.e. showing beyond question that what the law
commands can be done - and Ÿfor making visible ·in particular cases· what the practical rule
expresses more generally. But they can never entitle us to steer purely by examples, setting aside
their true model which lies in reason. (Groundwork for the Metaphysic of Morals, p. 15)
He rejected that our primary faculty of moral reason is derived from divine command, not that morality ultimately derives from God.
Crandaddy,
Thank you for the correction and for the link to the book! I've been relying on the local library so it's good to know there is a source with no due date.
First, I'm not necessarily buying that the majority of 'bumpkin believers' don't mean it exactly the way Dawkins 'strawman' portrays it. Regardless, your rephrasing of the question is still a little unclear to me.
What you seem to mean by, “If there is no God, then why should any of us {be} doing anything good?”, is, "Why is there 'good' at all?" or "why or how do we know what good is?", but please correct me if I'm wrong (there are a few ways to interpret your rephrasing). If I am correct, then sorry, I think you've missed the boat; 'Why does 'good' at exist at all?' is not nearly the same question as Dawkins's, 'If there is no God, Why be good?', and it's kinda lame to attempt to ridicule him for the fact that his response doesn't address a different question.
I don't find morality that big of a mystery I guess. Other animals exhibit altruism. Much of what we call moral and immoral can be connected directly to what best makes societies and civilizations, even small tribes, function. There's definitely a long way to go before it's a 'fact' that any of it's provided by God.
You're welcome, Jennifer. 
I found that link in the book's Wikipedia entry. In fact, several classic philosophical texts can be found online for free. Just look in Wikipedia, or do a search.
As you've probably figured out by now, Kant is dense and extraordinarily difficult to read, but if you have the patience, you might want to check out his Critique of Practical Reason in which he develops his Summum Bonum (highest good) argument for the existence of God.
Thanks again Crandaddy, I will be reading it. I obviously need to be better informed before saying any more for him, lest he turn in his grave.
DaveL,
Let put it this way. Dawkins should have answered the question "If there is no god why be good?" with an argument from evolution that morality evolved. That would have been a sensible reply. His "slam dunk" retort about a policeman god is, as are many of his arguments, childish. And in this case it doesn't even apply--it is a better (though still not good) response to the question "If you don't believe in god, why do you do good?"
Heddle, do you not murder, rape or torture people because God commands you not to? Is that your reason for leading a moral life? If for some reason you abandonded your faith would you try and kill those you do not like or agree with?
If there were no God would you, David Heddle, become immoral?
Heddle you also wrote "It has to do with something we are born with, a congenital morality of right and wrong provided by God,"
So does God inject this in atheists when they are born as well? And if God front-loads morality, as you suggests, why be religious if you already have morals in your DNA (or wherever you suggest God places it when you're born)?
Not trying to be argumentaive, just trying to figure out what you're saying.
Infidel,
No I would not do those things, because I have a moral compass given by God as do you. Yes it is given to all men, atheists inclded (common grace.) As to why be religious given I already have morality, I am not religious in order to have morals (as I already said.)
I am religious because I was regenerated by God. Not for being moral, not for acquiring morals, but because he chose to regenerate me as an act of grace.
"Let put it this way. Dawkins should have answered the question "If there is no god why be good?" with an argument from evolution that morality evolved."
How about we put the question the way that Dawkins clearly meant it? One sentence down from your direct quote concerning 'sucking up, apple-polishing', Dawkins quotes Einstein, 'If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed'. You instead twist the question (which originates from theists...Dawkins did not create a strawman unlike you to whack away at) into some vague statement about the original question having something to do with God instilling our morality. A couple pages on from the quote, Dawkins also specifically says he is addressing the question 'If there is no God, why bother to be good', which is a much more reasonable translation of 'Why be good' than what appears to be your interpretation (which for some reason the theist can't ask clearly), 'Where does 'good'/morality come from?'.
Furthermore, Dawkins does address something similar to the sense in which you interpret the question, when he talks about the theist who says 'If you don't believe in God, you don't believe there are any absolute standards of morality', and then talks about Kant and other philosophical opinions on the issue. You also conveniently omit in your response to me (you've really read this section twice now?) that in this same chapter he *does* talk about morality deriving from evolutionary processes; you know, in the section entitled, 'Does our moral sense have a Darwinian origin?'.
Sorry man, this whole post comes dangerously close to quote-mining, and I really have to question the honesty of it. You leave out that he does address multiple meanings of 'If there is no God, why be good', blame him for addressing the most obvious meaning of that sentence as referring to a 'policeman God' which he makes clear, don't mention that he discusses something closer to the what you want the question to mean, and does talk about morality from evolution. And of course, lump on all the usual poisoning-of-the-well statements (we get it, you don't like Dawkins). And to top it all off, you accuse of *him* of constructing the question and placing it in the mouths of make-believe believers. I've heard that question before myself, along with apparently Einstein and Michael Shermer who is also quoted, so no, that's a plain lie that he 'constructed the question'.
I will give you credit that you at least are posting about something specific Dawkins actually said rather than the usual handwaving that all his arguments are third-grade and not new, complaints that he didn't write a different book, and how unintellectual today's atheists are (without actually addressing any detailed arguments of course). I just wish you hadn't misrepresented him so badly.
Are you simply critiquing Dawkins or, is there an answer in here somewhere for a defense of biblical morality that is superior to modern day agnosticism?
According to Catholicism 10 Million people have been murdered in the name of christianity. Other sources cite as many as 50 million. All of these were murdered using the same book you have today. The inquisitions were a time of unspeakable suffering in the name of Jesus. I believe, instead of critiquing Dawkins' analogy you might want to attempt a defense of the atrocious history of the church.
As Dave L mentioned, the question "Why are We Good?" and "If there is no God, why be good?" are two separate questions.
"Why 'be' Good?" is a question of intent and motive. It could be rephrased as "If God does not exist, why should one make an effort to be good?" Clearly, this is not a empty question, as Christians must attempt to resist temptation if they are to be "good."
This question can be asked of anyone, whether they believe God exists or not. In the case of theists, it is hypothetical.
The question you were attempting to impose on Dawkins was, "Why do we observe humans exhibiting moral behavior", which Dawkins does address later in the chapter.
With the Atheist Of Our Age we always expect more, but we always come away disappointed.
If you're disappointed by Dawkins' failure to ask questions you want him to ask, then it's likely you're remain disappointed in the future.
"It has everything to do with the fact that the source of my moral compass and the source of your moral compass is God."
Wow. A physicist stating something with such certainty!
There must be a powerful argument behind that certainty. Could you provide me with the details of the mechanism in which God imparts this morality on the human brain?
The evidence of the mechanism would certainly go a long way in the refuting of atheist arguments!
Scott,
No you have it bass-ackwards. I’m not disappointed (typically) in Dawkins’s questions, it is his answers that are amazingly bad. I thought that was fairly clear. His canned response “do you mean if God wasn’t spying on you 24/7” is, as is almost always the case with Dawkins and matters theological, the answer of a person woefully ignorant, one who argues against caricatures, one who argues as a child.
Now in this case he also, though he had free reign to choose the question, nevertheless chose the wrong question upon which to release the preconstructed trap that he imagined was so clever. But the disappointment always comes with his answers and his lack of knowledge (cue Courtier’s Reply.)
Tully,
No I cannot because it is supernatural. If I could explain it as a scientific proof I surely would. But I (like all other believers) have been regenerated by God, and the Holy Spirit is at work. I am reporting what the bible teaches about universal morality. But the gospel and the bible is foolishness to unbelievers—I cannot change that by reasoned argument. But I can tell you that if you believe that you are a sinner and that maybe, just maybe you need Christ to save you from that sin, then the news is good, very good.
John-Baptiste,
Yes the answer has been stated quite clearly. The answer is that God has installed in all people a general sense of right and wrong. The counter theory is that morality evolved. Dawkins did not refer to any of the actual theories, only to a simpleminded explanation that believers behave morally (when they do) out of fear. The fact that believers do bad things (or are convinced to do bad things by charlatans appealing to their faith and prejudices) is irrelevant. Supporting rather than refuting what I am saying is the believer’s observation that believers often behave worse than we would naively expect and atheists often behave better.
To me, David's argument seems to ignore, or belittle, the "changing zeitgeist", commonly mentioned in Dawkins' writings. If we have always had a "general sense of right and wrong" installed, why are we so uuttetly reluctant to revert back to, say, ancient values? While one could still argue that we have used a God-given compass to reach the current zeitgeist, and will continue to use it towards another, "better" one, it would seem to be a fairly weak argument. Exactly what do we have installed?
uuttetly = utterly, sry
esko,
I'd speculate that it is because the sense of morality instilled by God in all people is not a list of do's and don'ts, but more of an acknowledgment that "do unto others as..." is a productive way to live. That would certainly be adaptive to changes in culture.
heddle: "The answer is that God has installed in all people a general sense of right and wrong."
Augustine, Luther, Calvin, Edwards, would most likely disagree with this statement due their belief that the fall left man without the ability to obey God or his precepts.
But that raises another unpleasant reality; that is, the churches inability to agree on anything.
" The answer is that God has installed in all people a general sense of right and wrong. The counter theory is that morality evolved. Dawkins did not refer to any of the actual theories, only to a simpleminded explanation that believers behave morally (when they do) out of fear."
This is just plain false, as anyone who has this book can check for themselves.
In the very same chapter you quote, starting on p. 245, is the section, 'Does Our Moral Sense Have a Darwinian Origin?', he goes on for 9 pages discussing specifically theories for how morality evolved, mainly referring to altruism in different species. On p. 251,
"We now have four good Darwinian reasons for individuals to be altruistic, generous or 'moral' towards each other. First, there is the special case of genetic kinship. Second, there is reciprocation... third, the Darwinian benefit of acquiring a reputation for generosity and kindness..."
Specific to your post's charge that Dawkins takes on the most easily ridiculed interpretation of the theist's question, p.263 (only four pages after your post's quote):
"Most thoughtful people would agree that morality in the absence of policing is somehow more truly moral than the kind of false morality that vanishes as soon as the police go on strike... But it is perhaps unfair to interpret the question, 'If there is no God, why bother to be good' in such a cynical way. A religious thinker could offer a more genuinely moral interpretation, along the lines of the following statement from an imaginary apologist, 'If you don't believe in God, you don't believe there are any absolute standards of morality. With the best will in the world you may intend to be a good person, but how do you decide what is good and what is bad?..." (and continues on for a couple pages discussing Kant and utilitarianism).
Jeez Heddle, I'm no fan of Dawkins's writing, and there's plenty fodder for criticism. I really don't think you are dishonest, and I'm can only assume that you truly did 'zero-in' on the section 'If there is no God, why be good?' and then only read a couple pages. You are now stating though that Dawkins *only* refers to a simple-minded explanation that believers behave morally out of fear, but you are plainly mistaken and I can only hope you revise your statement for honesty's sake.
Jean-Baptiste,
Augustine, Luther, Calvin, Edwards would not disagree as they take great pains at different points to teach that total depravity is not "utter" depravity. Total depravity leaves us with the inability not to sin, which could be defined as having no desire whatsoever to please God. It does not mean that we are as wicked as we could possibly imagine. They would all agree that, perhaps for nothing more than our survival and to make life bearable, God has provided all men with a moral compass.
DaveL
Of course I zeroed in, in my post I even wrote:
"In particular, let's zero in on a section labeled 'If there is no God, Why be good?'"
I didn't pretend that this was Dawkins only argument about morality, and everyone and their mother knows that he believes morality evolved. I zeroed in at this spot to point out the lameness of his riposte-in-waiting about a God of Surveillance.
"...an acknowledgment that "do unto others as..." is a productive way to live. That would certainly be adaptive to changes in culture."
So your hypothesis is that we have a divine idea "do unto others" burned into our brain before birth ? Would you like to refine your hypothesis by replacing the word "others" with "peers" ? Wouldn't that be more consistent with history, because it would explain why men have only recently given women and children equal human rights, and why until recently we had a remarkably populous social class without human rights (slaves) ? The most "procuctive" way to behave has been, for most of our history, to be nice to those who you can't simply oppress... And I'm not talking about how we have *behaved*, I'm talking about how we have *thought*.
"I didn't pretend that this was Dawkins only argument about morality, and everyone and their mother knows that he believes morality evolved."
I'd say you did pretend that that is Dawkins' only argument that he put in his book; your post's title is, 'Is that all there is?' for Chrissakes. If you are referring to three specific pages of his book, and you ignore even the other pages in the very same section, then duh, yea, that's all there is, but it's very deceptive and again close to a quote-mine to do so.
You said, "The counter theory is that morality evolved. Dawkins did not refer to any of the actual theories...,". Are you trying to imply that your second sentence does not refer in any way to the former? It must not, since he specifically talks about morality evolving.
Again, you don't seem to dispute that there are many theists (and face it, there are many theists who are not even close to being as intellectual about their theism as you are) who mean this question in the 'policeman' sense, and Dawkins makes it clear that that is the version he is answering to in the section you zeroed in on. You're right, if you change the question, then his answers to a different question would seem shallow. But I was pretty disappointed to read this section in his book and find out that there is no confusion as to specifically what version of the question he is answering, contrary to your post's insinuations that he 'conveniently assumed' an interpretation of the question in the way that is easiest for him to dismantle. The 'policeman' version of the question has little to do with where morality comes from, and blame the bumpkin theists for asking such an inane question, if anyone. He then, as I just quoted, does discuss something closer to your version, which you seem to pretend is not there.
Attack his answers, and I don't disagree that there's lots to attack, but don't say he didn't even address the questions at all and *only* takes on simple caricatures of theist's arguments.
heddle: "They would all agree that, perhaps for nothing more than our survival and to make life bearable, God has provided all men with a moral compass. "
If God has provided all men with a moral compass, Pelagius was perhaps correct in his view that the fall did not affect Adam's descendants.
Augustines story of his youth ( I believe found in "The Confessions") where he steal the fruit, just for the sake of stealing it, is an example of perhaps where Ausgustine would disagree with your moral compass theory.
That "God has provided all men with a moral compass" might explain why we all have an understanding of a moral law. C.S. Lewis did. I do. Kant arguably did. Still, this would explain why we know the moral law. Questions of why do we or should we obey the moral law request answers in terms of imperatives of volition--either hypothetical or categorical, to use Kant's terms. Evolution would merely give a causal account which would be irrelevant.
Heddle: Dawkins is childish because he doesn't answer question x. And, no one asks question w.
Dave L: He did answer question x, and people do ask question w, so why not answer it?
Heddle (ignoring Dave L): He's childish I say, because he doesn't even try to use explanations y or z.
Dave L: He does go into explanations y and z.
Heddle (still ignoring Dave L): He's childish because he doesn't even talk about y or z and he doesn't answer question x and no one asks question w.
Dave L: Hello? I'm righ here!
Heddle: He doesn't answer question x on the page that I demand he answer it and I can't be bothered to acknowledge that he actually did talk about it on another page and that he did go into y and z, but it's OK because I specifically said that I was zeroing in on a specific page and it's Dawkins's fault for not answering the question I want him to answer on the page that I demand he answer it on and he's childish, he's childish, HE'S CHILDISH (devolves into crying fit on the floor, rolling around, and slamming fists into the ground).
I agree that Dave L has pretty much devastated the original article. It's funny. I, too, am a "Neville Chamberlain" type of atheist, a.k.a. "an atheist, but...". I find a lot to criticize in Dawkins (especially his lack of quantification concerning the net effect of religion). But after being amazed at how lame some of Dawkins rhetorics is, I have been even more amazed at how lame criticism of Dawkins tends to be. It does make it look like as if the decision to criticize, again and again, comes first, and the actual detailed criticism is hastily thought out on the fly while writing. Come on, Heddle. Weren't you, too, ashamed of the critic who interpreted The Selfish Gene to be *celebrating* our, well, selfish genes? (When the book does the very opposite.) If so, do your homework before typing.
No you have it bass-ackwards. I’m not disappointed (typically) in Dawkins’s questions, it is his answers that are amazingly bad. I thought that was fairly clear. His canned response “do you mean if God wasn’t spying on you 24/7” is, as is almost always the case with Dawkins and matters theological, the answer of a person woefully ignorant, one who argues against caricatures, one who argues as a child.
So, if I understand you correctly, when posed with a "childish" question by a "bumpkin believer", Dawkins should try to explain how morality evolved?
It's likely that the "bumpkin believer" in question is merely regurgitating some canned response and thinks a crockaduck meets the definition of an evolutionary a transitional form.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y...h?
v=yWN86TqbjvY
Given this parameters, do you think an attempt to explain the evolution of something as complex as morality would be a successful course of action?
Commenting by HaloScan
