What if god was one of us?/(a)theism on a bus
Okay, so that last post was a bit silly.
To make up for it, here's something moderately less silly. It's still a travel moment, however.
On Thursday morning, I rode the bus in from London to Toronto. I had forgotten how drab the bus is compared to the train. Anyway, so my reading material for this trip is Christopher Hitchens' compilation of essays The Portable Atheist (really good, by the way). During a pause in my reading I put the book on my lap, and then wondered what people would make of this book - would people care? Do some religious people hate athiests? I've never really paused to think if there is some stigma attached to athiesm in Canada.
And having paused to think about it, I didn't really have an answer. And, while I'm not ashamed of being a non-believer, I may have slightly hid the cover, just in case there was an angry right-winger religious fundamentalist nearby. So then I look over to the guy in the next set of seats over, and he's reading Discerning the Word: The Bible and Homosexuality in Anglican Debate by Paul Gibson. Not that these books have anything to do with each other, nor am I exactly sure what that Anglican text is even about, but I had to have a laugh at how that all played out in my noggin.
Just to add another word about The Portable Atheist. One of the essays I recently read in there was by Elizabeth Anderson, If God is dead, is everything permitted? In it she makes an argument that the Christian God of the Bible cannot form the basis of any moral authority, and boy is it a doozy of a read (full of examples of those stunning contradictions the Bible does so well). I quote the abstract below from her website:
Many people object to atheism because they believe that if there is no God, then morality lacks authority. The worry is that "if God is dead, then everything is permitted." We know that not everything is permitted--and in particular, that practices such as genocide, ethnic cleansing, slavery, torture, plunder, rape, punishing people for the sins of others, and punishing people for blameless error are not permitted. It follows that any doctrine that entails that such things are permitted is false. I accept the logic of this argument. But I deny that atheism entails that such things are permitted. This charge is better made against the evidence for theism. The main evidence for theism is scripture. If we take this evidence with the utmost seriousness, as inerrant, then the evidence entails that the evil practices listed above are permitted, since the God of the Old and New Testaments and the Koran either commits these deeds himself, is prophecied to commit them in the future, or commands humans to commit them. Since these practices are not permitted, the evidence for theism is systematically unreliable--so unreliable, that it cannot be trusted to advance the case for theism at all. I consider theistic replies to this argument, and go on to consider independent evidence for the incorrigible unreliability of all the types of extraordinary evidence offered for the existence of God: testimonies of miracles, revelations in dreams or what people take to be direct encounters with God, experiences of divine presence, and prophecies that have been subject to test. These types of evidence are equally available to all religions, including pagan religions. There is no independent natural evidence that supports the extraordinary evidence for one sort of God or gods more than another. Nor do we have other noncircular tests for determining the reliability of extraordinary evidence. It follows that these purported types of evidence make no proposition about the divine more probable than any other contradictory proposition about the divine. Such "evidence" is no evidence at all. In other words, there is no evidence for the existence of a theistic (personal) God.
*Sigh* Another atheist who thinks the bible needs to be taken literally.
There are so many things wrong with her argument that I'd need to write another article to point them out, but I'll go over the highlights.
1. Asserts, rather than proves. Rather than addresses the issue of how to sustain a moral/ethical system in a post-theological world, she states - rather blandly, that a theological system doesn't, and them makes some vague references to the mythology of the monotheistic religions. Seemingly completely unaware of William James, she seems to think that a religious experience can somehow be offered as "proof" of god, something no thinking person would assert.
2. Dodges the issue. She doesn't actually prove that a secular system provides a more secure basis for moral guidance, she just "proves" that a theological system isn't. This doesn't imply that a secular is, it may be that neither are sufficient.
3.Nihilism. The elephant in the room. A theological world view has been the basis for moral decision making for centuries. In the absence of any standard of value, why shouldn't everything be permitted?
Hm, well I'll just add that many atheist's problem with religion is that it asks that the bible does need to be taken literally. And then, if not literally, it becomes the good bits version, instead.
A self-contradictory text that paints a portrait of an unbalanced god seems to be an odd basis for a moral system, doesn't it?
Also, I'm not sure that this essay needs to address the issue of how to sustain a moral system in a post-theological world - that wasn't the point. A philosophical work doesn't need to solve every problem.
Also, my lack of theological world view obviously permits me to make moral decisions in the absence of belief in future punishment, and I am clearly no nihilist. Am I then just following society and culture's theological world view? (that was not rhetorical).
Well, not exactly. Certain sects within Christianity ask that it be taken literally. And I disagree with the good bits argument. After all, St.Augustine observed that if you take the bible literally, it contradicts well observed scientific fact, and he was writing in the fifth century.
There is actually a system for how these things should be interpreted.
Second of all, her reading of the bible is naive. You have to take to account cultural context, literary construction, language difference etc. The bible was not written by one person, it was written by many different people in radically different cultural and historical circumstances. The bible largely is way of looking at how people understood and experienced god, rather than any "potrayal" of him.
And of course you're capable of making moral decisions. The problem is though, in the absence of any deity, the concept of "morality" makes no sense. The basis of morality in the west was, until the nineteenth century, founded on the concept of god. He justified an entire system of ethics. Without that at the foundation, there is no reason to act "morally". You still can of course, but the entire category of what you and I would understand as morality would be completely arbitrary and literally senseless.
In effect, you would be trying to keep a system of morality that it would make no sense for you to keep.
"Absence of future punishment"? That's a whole other article for me.
Alright, so there is a 'system' for interpreting the bible. How many people, would you say, know what this system is? Furthermore, who says that this system is how it should be interpreted? I'm not sure that somebody creating the "oh you've got it all wrong, THIS is how you should read it" system is really a meaningful way of thinking about the content of the bible.
With regards to morality, I'm not sure I'm with you this one. I would argue that morality was developed independent of (and pre-) Christian (or any religious) thinking as a function of humans living and evolving in social groups. Without developing some kind of moral code, it would be nearly impossible to create lasting and mutually beneficial bonds. I guess I don't get how the absence of a deity makes my morality arbitrary or senseless. (Remind me to read that Moral Minds book beside my bed one of these days)
Funny how you made "angry right-winger" synonymous with "believer".
ps. I caught Janet reading your weblog while she was supposed to be TAing my ethology lab today!! For shame, Janet!!!
Well, different groups have different systems for interpreting the bible, but the one I'm most familiar with is the catholic method. It argues that the bible is to be interpreted on three levels, which are - I think - the literal, the moral or the analogical. The literal is self explanatory, and the moral and analogical mean respectively:this story is not literally true, but should be taken as a parable about human behaviour, and this story is meant to be understood as making a statement about humanity's relationship with god, using metaphorical language. It was developed the same way any other system is developed, through trial and error.
As to morality, the difficulty with the biological argument is that while it certainly explains the development of normative cultural standards(don't take my stuff, red is our tribe's favorite color)it doesn't really explain why any particular individual should follow them. Why should the group survive, or why shouldn't I violate the group's code if it benefits me personally? Furthermore, it is ultimately relativistic. On what ground could we condemn practices such as slavery, torture or say, suicide bombing? At best we could say they were distasteful or inconvenient or inefficient, but not wrong.I don't really think morality should be reduced to simply "What's good for the group, or majority", do you?
As to humans evolving a sense of morality, the same has been argued for our sense of the divine (I don't mean a christian deity specifically, but just some all encompassing otherness). I remember reading - either in the newyorker or the the new york times - about a study being done showing that the human mind is hardwired for "belief" just as we are hardwired for language. The specifics are set in by the particular cultural/historical situation we occupy.
I'm writing all of this at my theological library job. Way to be.
Oh, and historically religion and morality have always been - even if sometime tenuously - intertwined.
Can I jump in with the nerdy microbiologist point of view for a second because I can't really contribute to the theological debate due to my complete lack of knowledge on the area or personal experience? I have lived a life devoid of religion or any religious teachings really, but I have my rumen microbiology!
I would argue that our 'morals' or behaviours have come about through evolution and I will give you an example straight out of the rumen (cow stomach, for those none animal people) for why I think this. Protozoa, bacteria, and archaea (3 different domains of life) have developed a way to work together in the rumen to get what they want. Protozoa feed on bacteria as well as feedstuff that the cow eats, but protozoa do not consume too many bacteria since they will then be in trouble because the feedstuff won't be digested properly and this can have detrimental effects. Archaea need hydrogen to survive and protozoa need to get rid of hydrogen to survive so protozoa will allow archaea to live on and even in them to work together. I know these are all single-celled organisms that clearly are not thinking of their 'morals' but even at this stage of life we see that living and working together has benefits that dictate 'behaviour'. If we take an evolutionary approach and assume that we evolved from single-celled organisms, why can't we say that 'morals' are ingrained? The modification of these morals through time occurs through the evolution of ourselves and the knowledge that we acquire along the way. Although a number of society's 'rules' were likely a result of the people governing society who were often religious people. Although religion may have impacted on society through its prevalence, I think that the teachings that prompt these changes in society are a result of evolution and our advancement as animals, which would then result in these religious teachings being written down for future generations to interpret and use as a compass for the organization of society.
RANDOM ASIDE: If you enjoyed ambidelicious... you might like to read this post: http://contactsolution.blogspot.com/search?q=deliciousity
Thanks MB, I left a comment with my thoughts on the subject of deliciousity. I also added you to my blogroll, you lucky duck.
And, Sarah? You had me at hello.
My answer to this is that there are plenty of explanations for why particular individuals should follow them. It boils down to group acceptance; if you want to violate the group's code, you should be aware that if you are caught you will be known as a thief/liar/cheat, etc., and this will affect how other people interact with you in the future. I don't really have the energy to look up these things now, but people have modelled these kinds of interactions as well (including the famous Tit-for-Tat model).
In this way morals aren't just 'good for the group', but good for the individual in the group.
The major problem with that argument is that it essentially reduces morality to herd conformity. If conforming for fear of being socially ostracized was all morality was, then how would you explain moral innovation, like the anti-slavery movement or the civil right movements or the gay liberation movement?
Furthermore, on what grounds could you disagree with the group if you felt its standards were wrong? How could you even say that the groups standards were wrong?
I'm not sure that herd conformity explains everything, I think it just explains a lot of it. Certainly, in the general sense of 'doing good to your neighbour if you want to have good done to you in return' is an ancient concept, probably practised long before our organized religions came onto the same.
However, humans are not beasts, and I think there is room to expand our moral thinking, and absolutely there are moral values that have been adopted in more modern times. Once, humans lived in bands and tribes, and co-operation within band or tribe was of key importance; aliens and outsiders would not be tolerated. Times have changed, and we do not live in bands, but a global society - it would make sense that our group moral values should change (albeit slowly).
I'm not sure what your citing of the various movements would prove in this argument. It may not fit exactly into a group norm model, but it absolutely does not fit into a religious moral model..
I'm not so sure I can agree. The anti-slavery movement was begun by religious activists, and some of the most influential civil rights leaders of the twentieth century - Martin Luther King, Malcolm X and Gahndi - were all religious leaders.
I'm not arguing that our moral standards have developed and become more complex - of course they have - my problem is on what grounds can you say that certain practises are wrong? Sure, we all believe now that slavery is wrong, but when the movement began against it, it had been accepted practise for thousands of years.
I suppose what I'm trying to say, is that based on your model of moral development, how can you actually justify saying whether or not something is "wrong"? In the absence of some kind of standard, wouldn't you have to say at best that it simply isn't to your liking?
I'll try another example. Every thinking person disagrees with the nazis, and considers their actions morally beyond the pale. But in the absence of any standard by which you can judge nazi behaviour against, in what sense can you say they were wrong?
Yes, I went there.
Your point is taken. I'm not sure at what point a moral norm goes from being an unsuccessful social strategy to becoming inappropriate and then 'wrong'. I will need to think on this. It may have something to do with social norms becoming entrenched over a period of time, such that they become hard-wired as a means of ensuring reproductive success. Since modern society has existed for such a short period of time, certain standards have yet to 'stick', and others are over-ridden with conscious thought. I'm just spit-balling here.
Obviously, I don't ascribe to the moral standard theory; in the absence of belief in god, morals exist, ergo god is not necessary for moral standards. From my recollections of various bible passages, acts such as slavery and genocide are not considered moral wrongs, yet we consider them wrongs today. If religious leaders and thinkers have progressed our thinking in this regard, particularly Christian ones, then surely they have done much thinking outside of the book, so to speak, and bully for them for doing so. (Or perhaps they successfully used the 'formula' to pick out the good bits).
Oh, and I'm sick. So if the above doesn't make much sense, that explains it. right?
thanks for the semi-review... i've had that collection on my bookshelf for a few months, but it seems i should raise it on my book-priorities. that's right, i have them.