In his book The God Delusion, the new atheist Richard Dawkins asserts that Yahweh is truly a moral monster: “What makes my jaw drop is that people today should base their lives on such an appalling role model as Yahweh and even worse, that they should bossily try to force the same evil monster (whether fact or fiction) on the rest of us.”
In this particular blog, I would like to address a glaring inconsistency, which I mentioned in passing in an earlier blog. How can Dawkins launch any moral accusation at all? This is utterly inconsistent with his total denial of evil and goodness elsewhere:
If the universe were just electrons and selfish genes, meaningless tragedies . . . are exactly what we should expect, along with equally meaningless good fortune. Such a universe would be neither evil nor good in intention . . . . The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference.
In The Devil’s Chaplain, he asserts: "Science has no methods for deciding what is ethical. That is a matter for individuals and for society." If science alone gives us knowledge, as Dawkins claims (actually, this is scientism), then how can he deem Yahweh’s actions to be immoral?
First, contrary to assertions by the new atheists, who view biblical theism as the enemy, the Jewish-Christian Scriptures and the faith that they inspired have historically served as a moral compass for Western civilization, despite a number of notable deviations from Jesus’ teaching across the centuries (e.g., the Crusades, Inquisition). In fact, a number of recent works have made a strong case that biblical theism has served as a foundation for the West’s moral development. These include Alvin J. Schmidt, How Christianity Changed the World; Jonathan Hill, What Has Christianity Ever Done For Us? How It Shaped the Modern World; Rodney Stark, The Victory of Reason; and Dinesh Souza, What’s So Great About Christianity?
Second, despite the new atheists’ appeals to science, they ignore the profound influence of the Jewish-Christian worldview on the West’s scientific enterprise. Despite naturalists’ highjacking the foundations of science as their own, physicist Paul Davies sets forth the simple truth: "Science began as an outgrowth of theology, and all scientists, whether atheists or theists . . . accept an essentially theological worldview".
Third, the new atheists somehow gloss over the destructive atheistic ideologies that have led to far greater loss of human life within one century than religion (let alone Christendom ) with its wars, Inquisitions, and witch trials. Dinesh D. Souza notes this "indisputable fact" : "all the religions of the world put together have in 2,000 years not managed to kill as many people as have been killed in the name of atheism in the past few decades. . . . . Atheism, not religion, is the real force behind the mass murders of history."
Fourth, we can certainly agree with the claim of the new atheists that we can know objective moral truths without the Bible or belief in God. (Amos 1-2 and Romans 2:14-15 make this clear: those without special revelation can recognize basic moral truths. The appendix to C.S. Lewis’s Abolition of Man further illustrates this point.) We are still left to how human value and dignity could emerge given naturalism’s valueless, mindless, materialistic origins. If, on the other hand, humans are made in the divine image and are morally constituted to reflect God in certain ways, then atheists as well as theists can recognize objective right and wrong and human dignity again, without the assistance of special revelation. But the atheist is still left without a proper metaphysical context for affirming such moral dignity and responsibility. As it turns out, despite all of Dawkins’ moral indignation toward theism, naturalism seems to be morally pretentious in claiming the moral high ground, though without any metaphysical basis for doing so. No, biblical theism, with its emphasis on God’s creating humans in his image, is our best hope for grounding objective moral values and human dignity and worth.
12 replies to "The Moral Indignation of Richard Dawkins"
Dear Dr. Copan,
I have a comment and then three closely related questions.
You quote Dawkins: “The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference.”
Surely Dawkins doesn’t mean that currently there is no design or purpose in the universe. He presumably means only that what we currently find arose from a universe without design or purpose. But now that there are people, there surely are the designs and purposes (e.g., my design and purposes in writing this sentence). Thus, we shouldn’t automatically take this quote to mean that there is currently neither evil nor good. Just as design and purpose might arise from people, so also might good and evil.
You write: “biblical theism, with its emphasis on God’s creating humans in his image, is our best hope for grounding objective moral values and human dignity and worth.”
What is it about God that makes God our best hope in these matters? If objective moral values and human worth cannot be grounded in our own nature, why would the introduction of a divine nature be of any help? Moreover, why think in the first place that objective moral values stand in need of an external grounding?
Thank you
Objective moral values cannot be rooted in human nature, precisely because if we have disagreement then there is no one to stand outside and judge who is right.
If a someone says that gassing Jews is right, and another says that gassing Jews is wrong, who is right? If someone says that killing babies in the womb is wrong and another says that it is right, which one is correct?
Objective moral values can be rooted in God, because He possesses the power to judge, the authority to declare what is right, and the constant nature that means He’s not going to change the rules from moment to moment.
William Provine has said “Let me summarize my views on what modern evolutionary biology tells us loud and clear … There are no gods, no purposes, no goal-directed forces of any kind. There is no life after death. When I die, I am absolutely certain that I am going to be dead. That’s the end for me. There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning to life, and no free will for humans, either.”
It appears that he agrees with Dawkins.
But Jason, I wasn’t asking whether objective moral values could be grounded in human agreement, but in human nature.
You say, “Objective moral values can be rooted in God, because He possesses the power to judge, the authority to declare what is right.” But this doesn’t appear to answer my question in any insightful way, since my question is essentially: “what gives God the ‘power to judge’ or the ‘authority to declare what is right’?” Let’s both agree that God created us and can send us to Hell if He wishes. But how would these features (or any others) give God the authority to define our moral duties? Or: why, morally speaking, must I obey God?
Finally, do you suppose that Provine really thinks that human beings don’t have purposes (such as my purpose in writing this sentence)? I’m suggesting that we should try to interpret the biologists more charitably.
Thank you, nonetheless, for your thoughts.
What is human nature? Since “human nature” doesn’t seem to be any meaningful concept except what human beings choose to do then agreement is as close as you’ll get. What makes gassing Jews objectively wrong without an outside judge? You can say you don’t like it, but then I don’t like avocado.
God has the power of any King to rule, and the right of any creator to decide how His creation should act.
Christian morality is deontological, that is derived from our obligation to God, so we seek to abide by His will. It has nothing to do with Hell.
Your purpose in writing that sentence is essentially pointless. In transcendent terms in 70 years time almost everyone who may have read it will be dead. A forgotten page on a forgotten site. Your purpose is entirely ephemeral. My purpose is to serve God, a duty that will still have meaning in ten thousand years time and going on to eternity.
Jason,
If “human nature” isn’t a meaningful concept, is “divine nature” more meaningful? How about simply “the ability to make choices based upon reasons”?
You ask, “What makes gassing Jews objectively wrong without an outside judge?” But I’m asking how it is that an outside judge makes the activity wrong. I can see how a king might coerce a person to act in a certain way, but how does a king have the authority to define one’s moral duty. It seems that a king can use his power to determine what is prudent for others, but not what is moral. It’s precisely the “deontological” aspect that I’m asking you to explain.
You write, “Your purpose in writing that sentence is essentially pointless.” Are you disagreeing just to disagree?! How does the fact that something will be without “meaning in ten thousand years time” show that it is without meaning or point now?
Peace
“all the religions of the world put together have in 2,000 years not managed to kill as many people as have been killed in the name of atheism in the past few decades. . . . . Atheism, not religion, is the real force behind the mass murders of history.”
Hitler may or may not have been a Christian, but he certainly was a mystic with a god complex. Do you throw him in with the atheists because you don’t like him? He did not kill “in the name of atheism.” Neither did Stalin.
On the other hand, Christianity and belief in God did not stop millions of Hitler’s willing accomplices from carrying out Hitler’s “final solution.” Nor did it stop Christians from persecuting Jews for 2000 years in Europe, when they took a break from slaughtering one another.
Meanwhile, what were the Chinese doing during Europe’s lengthy Dark Ages?
D’Sousa is thoroughly dishonest. It’s difficult to make the case that he just doesn’t know any better. He is a busy political and religious propagandist.
Steve, thanks for your post. For Hitler, yes, he was a god unto himself. Consider a Hitler Youth song:
We are the happy Hitler Youth;
We have no need for Christian virtue;
For Adolf Hitler is our intercessor
And our redeemer.
No priest, no evil one
Can keep us
From feeling like Hitler’s children.
No Christ do we follow, but Horst Wessel!
Away with incense and holy water pots.
Much has to do with how “in the name of atheism” should be understood, and it is this: consistently living out the tenets of an atheistic worldview—something Stalin, Ceaucescu, Pol Pot, Mao Tse-tung did quite consistently. Professing Christians complicit in atrocities are not consistently living out their worldview.
I never said anything about the Chinese in the Middle Ages, and, for my purposes, this is neither here nor there. Whatever you think of D’Souza, the ad hominem is neither here nor there either.
In addition, an idea isn’t true simply because it appeals to you, or false simply because it does not.
Atheists are no less ethical in practice than Christians are, and are arguably more so.
Nor is an idea false because it appeals; in fact, it may be because we’re made in the image of God that humans are so religious! (See Clifford Williams’ *Existential Reasons for Belief in God* on this.)
I guess if you think that practices like abortion, producing/viewing pornography, prostitution, engaging in sex outside of marriage, and the like are morally permissible (which a lot of my atheist friends do), you may have a point! 🙂
Hi Paul, I have noticed the exact same contradiction throughout Dawkins’ philosophy, and I find it quite staggering how this man has gained such a following when his very argument is so blatantly logically inconsistent.
This inconsistency can be seen quite clearly in a speech Dawkins once gave. He argued that there was really no such thing as “human goodness”, that all our instincts are explainable by natural selection, even our instincts to do good and to help others. So, ultimately, goodness is an illusion and is really only based on selfish motivations of gene preservation.
Up to this point I could follow his argument perfectly. Good and bad don’t really exist, we just have these desires based on natural selection, based on furthering our genes. Each life form lives only for itself and the concept of “universal morals” is just a delusion. Gotcha.
But then his speech turned completely on its head and he started talking about how religion was “immoral”, and he began positively promoting humans “doing good” of their own accord in a world free of religion, with a strong emphasis on making this world a better place! Now, all of a sudden, his entire philosophy was based around the reality of “human goodness”!
Well hang on, either there is NO SUCH THING as absolute moral good, or there is. These two concepts are utterly irreconcilable and you can’t fuse the two together into one mish-mash philosophy.
I really feel sorry for Richard Dawkins. He has so much going for him and I really like him as a person, very much, but sadly his philosophy is deeply flawed. (Anyone who denies Jesus Christ, sadly, has a deeply flawed philosophy.)
Either you believe in a universal set of morals and values that apply to everyone, in which case you CAN preach good values and try to make the world a better place.
OR, you believe morals are only based on genetic instincts derived from natural selection, and therefore any desire you have to “do good” or to “be good” or to…
[continued]
OR, you believe morals are only based on genetic instincts derived from natural selection, and therefore any desire you have to “do good” or to “be good” or to help anyone is AN ILLUSION, and in fact there is nothing about you that is truly good or bad. In which case you must completely refrain from giving anyone advice or encouragement on how to live their life. You MAY NOT presuppose that your own morals have any relevance to anyone else. Indeed, the whole point of existence becomes an entirely selfish one, lest you fall into the delusion of thinking your notions of righteousness are anything more than selfishness at their core.
Satan is an expert at spinning lies and confusing people. Every day, his minions employ deceptive arguments (like those of Dawkins) to baffle and bewilder people into believing the lie that there is no God. (A lie that, deep down, they know is not true.)
Satan also attacks from various angles, introducing a range of confusing, immoral and invalid values into the mindset (and language) of society in order to create mass confusion and distraction away from the Lord. One such example is sexual equality. Satan has used the label of “sexual equality” to promote a wide range of wicked sins, making them seem acceptable. From disrespect, to sexism, to the destruction and deconstruction of gender, family roles, and marriage. Satan establishes laws of sin, that compel people to sin in the name of righteousness, and he ascribes pejorative words to those who defy these laws, thus strengthening his lies by infusing his arguments with powerful motivational buzzwords.
Satan is an expert at deceiving people and he is well pleased with Richard Dawkins and all those poor fools who unwittingly serve him, those who live apart from the Spirit of God who brings truth.
But the Lord, Yahweh, will not be beaten, and is already victorious! Satan’s destiny is already sealed and his fight is utterly futile. Anyone who knows Jesus should…
[contuinued]
But the Lord, Yahweh, will not be beaten, and is already victorious! Satan’s destiny is already sealed and his fight is utterly futile. Anyone who knows Jesus should rest in this knowledge that there is nothing to fear and the Lord is in control. Praise be to God the Father and the Lord Jesus 🙂
(Sorry to post 3 messages, when I wrote this it didn’t say I had gone over the character limit so I then had to split it into 3 chunks)